Re: The "GOODBYE ALBERT" Experiment.

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 10/20/04 

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:37:02 GMT

On 19 Oct 2004 00:19:54 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:

>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<3gn8n053v5eu5bje1hjj45jpcfmrlchm1a@4ax.com>...
>> On 18 Oct 2004 13:53:04 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>>
>> >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<jnu5n01nirjrqs1coaqqd4d54epf9uin1d@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 16 Oct 2004 17:05:25 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<obm0n011ot369kuqvj8nns5l0kluiot9lv@4ax.com>...
>> >> >> On 14 Oct 2004 16:42:20 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<2mqsm09u02r5p24n1n9rgrduhsdkf9g7oq@4ax.com>...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >[snip]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Why do you think I watch Uncle Al's progress with more than idle
>> >> >> >> >> >interest?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The only direction Al progresses is further up his arse.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >No, you goddamn fool.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Why do you think it is that I would think Uncle Al has something
>> >> >> >> >promising and you do not? There is no physicist cabal going on here,
>> >> >> >> >Al is an organic chemist, im training to be a physicist. My interest
>> >> >> >> >in experiments is always merit-based.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> My advice is to give up Geese. You don't have the attitude or aptitude.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Attitude : Yes.
>> >> >> >Aptitude : Most likely. Won't know till I get there.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've already been and done it so I know I have both. That is also quite evident
>> >> >> from my posts.. eh?
>> >> >
>> >> >Your posts indicate that you are stupid. I would be embarassed to have
>> >> >you as a professor. I have had professors that I don't think belong in
>> >> >the classroom, but I have never had a professor I was genuinely
>> >> >embarassed to have.
>> >> >
>> >> >Pick any one of my physics undergrad classmates, they are all smarter
>> >> >than you.
>> >>
>> >> Geese, there is nothing smart about learning what is written in a book, just to
>> >> pass an exam. Any fool can do that...and plenty do. Many 'extremist 'yes men'
>> >> often end up with PhDs even though they have no creative ability whatsoever.
>> >>
>> >> Being smart requires an ability to reason beyond what one has been taught.
>> >
>> >There is more to math and physics to memorizing equations. Since you
>> >never completed a degree in either, im not surprised to see such an
>> >opinion voiced.
>>
>> Geese, I have two separate science degrees, one of which included five years of
>> applied maths.
>
>Ok, sick of you again.
>
>Liar. You are too stupid to have a degree in any math-heavy major.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Im also not really amazed you have no single clue about what goes into
>> >a PhD. A cursory chat with any random professor shows that you are
>> >wrong.
>>
>> Geese, PhD student rarely fail because it reflects badly on their suprervisors
>> if they do.
>> PhD graduates are generally useless.
>
>Moron.
>
>Go to a local university and check your perceptions against reality.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >The stationary corner cube arrays return light on the order of a
>> >photon per second to a stationary ground target on Earth.
>>
>> Is that irrespective of source intensity, Geese? :) ) Hahahah!
>
>No, moron.

Hahahaa! You don't even understand the basics... Hahahahahah!

>
>>
>> >

>> >Light doesn't increase speed while falling. You agree that the
>> >universe isn't Newtonian, yet you think it is also NOT Lorentzian.
>> >What is it? The c+v viewpoint is a Newtonian perspective, yet
>> >Newtonian mechanics are empirically wrong.
>>
>> There is overwhelming evidence that in a complete vacuum, the speed of light
>> is source and observer dependent.
>
>Nope, sorry.
>
>Liar once again. Stop lying.

tell me about any experiment that refutes my claim.

>
>>
>> >
>> >Do you disagree with the equivlance principle, Henri? The frequency
>> >shifts are derived *directly* from the equivlance principle -
>> >acceleration and gravity are locally indistinguishable.
>>
>> Yes, geese. Go sit on the moon and watch the Earth expanding at g!
>
>No, moron.
>
>You don't understand any aspect of GR.

You should hop into bed with Seto, you two would make a lovely couple.

>> >
>> >> ....Far easier to stick with Euclidean geometry and the truth.
>> >
>> >Euclidian geometry is wrong. Ask a surveyor.
>>
>> Surveying uses TWLS.
>
>Euclidian geometry is still wrong. Euclid's 5th postulate does NOT
>HOLD.

Postulates have a habit of not holding... particularly Albert's

>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I once proposed a geometry that would make the density of matter constant
>> >> throughout the universe. It is quite possible.... and it leads to astonishing
>> >> results. Why don't you devote your life to worshipping 'Wilson's constant
>> >> density theory' rather that Einsteiniana?
>> >
>> >For the simple reason that your theory is wrong. Furthermore, what I
>> >devote my life to is not going to be influenced by a crackpot aussie.
>>
>> It's as good a theory as GR.
>
>Is the matter density of the universe the same at the surface of the
>earth as at a lagrange point? Or any other point?

You don't get it Geese. Density of matter is constant everywhere, space changes
to make it so. There are lots of discontinuities.

It is probably a lot easier to construct this theory than to fabricate one that
makes light speed always constant.

>
>Disproven.

It could explain refractive index.

>> >
>> >Geometry has uses outside of GR. Too bad you are too shortsighted to
>> >understand why. I would point you to a few books, but since you don't
>> >read, I won't bother.
>>
>> 'Curved space', my arse!
>
>Nowhere were the words 'curved space' used. Since you don't read,
>there is no point in explaining.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> .....All big words from a little boy who obviously ain't goin' nowhere fast.
>> >
>> >Explain them using the c+v theory of light instead of whining about my
>> >supposed non-progress.
>>
>> Everything matches the ballistic theory.
>
>Liar.
>
>This has been covered in depth in other threads. Just because you do
>not understand the arguments does not mean they are not valid.

I realise the truth hurts you, Geese.

>> >>
>> >> The theory is not used anywhere. It is completely unimportant. It is an
>> >> exercise in self-delusion, like any religion.
>> >
>> >Liar.
>>
>> Bad language will not get you anywhere Geese.
>
>Oh noes!
>
>Im going nowhere EVEN FASTER THAN BEFORE. I guess ill change my major
>to business administration.

good idea.

>
>>
>> >
>> >The work that is done at UAF includes auroral research. The motion
>> >electrons exhibit is relativistic. Would you like to argue the point
>> >with any of the researchers here? I would be greatly amused to be
>> >privy to the exchange.
>>
>> No Geese, I know that 'gamma' comes into charged particle movement.
>> That ws known before SR.
>
>No, idiot.

You probably wont learn about those thing till second year.

>
>1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) was a relation that was obtained by Lorentz right
>before the turn of the century. Nothing to do with charged particle
>interactions. Cyclotrons did NOT work with Newtonian kinematics, nor
>will they ever.
>
>Your picking-and-choosing of experimental evidence is the hallmark of
>intellectual dishonesty. None of SR's predictions, including the gamma
>factor, can be derived through Newtonian mechanics.

ever heard of Heaveside?
Newton didn't know electricity existed.

>
>>
>>
>> >> >Mossbauer effect, Compton effect. Go ahead, explain them using your
>> >> >"c+v" theory of light.
>> >>
>> >> The doppler shift is almost the same in ballistic theory, NM and SR, for small
>> >> velocites. The Mossbaeur effect works exactly as it should. The Pound-Rebka
>> >> experiment agrees perfectly well with the ballistic theory.
>> >
>> >*snicker*
>> >
>> >...and the Compton effect? You are yet to address the Compton effect.
>> >You don't know what it is, and will never know since you don't read.
>>
>> I know what the Compton effect is Geese. Enery anbd momentum balance after a
>> particle/particle collision.
>> I cannot see how it violates the BT.
>
>You can not see because you will not open a book. RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME
>is the derivation for the wavelength of the incoming and outgoing
>photon, along with the angle they make.

That's one of the first things we learn in atomic physics.

>
>Since the ballistic theory is essentially Newtonian by your own
>goddamn admission, there is no way to recoincile the need for the
>relatvistic assumptions involved.

try applying relativity to neutral particles instead of charged ones.

>
>>
>> Geese, why should light from differently moving stars ever end up traveling at
>> the same speed across space?
>>
>> When you discover the answer, please inform Andersen.
>
>Hey, idiot with reading comprehension issues:
>
>I have said it at least 3 times now. SR does not answer that question,
>SO STOP ASKING ME.

SR degenerates back to its 'aether version', you mean.

>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Since relativity breaks down completely when it tries to describe how light
>> >> travels through space, I don't see why I have to consider it at all.
>> >
>> >That is what E&M is for, *** for brains. You know the difference
>> >between modern E&M and SR, right?
>>
>> Give up Geese.
>
>In other words: "no".
>
>You have no education in modern physics, and you have no wish to
>recieve one. So sad...

Not all modern physics is infected with Einsteiniana, Geese.

>
>[snip]

HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm