Re: The "GOODBYE ALBERT" Experiment.

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 10/21/04 

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:54:21 GMT

On 21 Oct 2004 01:29:52 -0700, jowr.pi@gmail.com (Eric Gisse) wrote:

>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<020en0p3l850vlfg5ed5qugca96c9bgbir@4ax.com>...
>> On 20 Oct 2004 02:36:27 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>>

>> >> Hahahaa! You don't even understand the basics... Hahahahahah!
>> >
>> >Oh. So the corner cube only puts forth a specific number of photons,
>> >irrespective of intensity. Right.
>>
>> That's what you seem to think.
>
>Sigh. No. Go look up how the distance from the Earth to the Moon is
>calculated using the corner cubes. Specifically, research how hard it
>is to get a return signal.

Geese, you get 9/10 for enthusiasm but a much lower figure for performance.

IS THE NUMBER OF PHOTONS RETURNED TO EARTH DEPENDENT ON THE INTERNSITY OF THE
INITIAL BEAM OR ISN'T IT?

>
>>

>> >> >
>> >> >Liar once again. Stop lying.
>> >>
>> >> tell me about any experiment that refutes my claim.
>> >
>> >Sigh..orbits of binary stars. Just because you do not understand the
>> >argument doesn't render it less valid. Others are capable of
>> >understanding it, even if you are not.
>>
>> try reading what this gentleman has to say.
>>
>> http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/par-chal.htm
>
>Henri, I thought you didn't read...? What changed your policy?
>
>I don't see the relevance of this page, though I am pleased to see
>algebra and limits used correctly for once. This man is making the
>same mistake that you partake in, which is to say he is using computer
>generated graphics in place of experimental evidence.

He is matching graphics with experimental evidence, Geese.

....are you really sure you want to be a physicist?
Why don't you go in for something more suitable. say.. a boiler room attendant
. .or a abatoir worker.

>
>I also find the following passage amusing:
>
>"In 1987 Vladimir Sekerin(6), showed that, when we consider the
>source-to-observer distances required for de Sitter's binary star
>aberrations to manifest themselves, the angular resolution, the
>"seeing" of our best Earthbound telescopes (as of 1987) were
>insufficient for us to resolve the individual binary components."
>
>I was not aware that we were unable to resolve binary components in
>any way. But then again, im not an astronomer.

You Geese, are clearly not aware of many things that we are both able and
unable to do.

>
>[snip]
>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >...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.
>> >
>> >Do NOT direct the argument elsewhere, address the point. I will not
>> >let you employ your typical misdirection tactic.
>> >
>> >WHY does the compton effect only work with relativistic assumptions?
>> >WHY?
>
>Address the point Henri.

I cannot see that ballistic considerations would make any measurable difference
to the Compton effect.

>
>[snip]

HW.

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