Re: The true crackpots


| "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| message news:rko213-o4f.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|| [1] Muons in a storage ring live for an anomalously
|| long time. This is consistent with GR (I can't say
|| it's consistent with SR without more work, and there
|| are issues regarding the Coriolis forces/centripetal
|| forces here).

It is consistent with bright green flying elephants' purple piss.


|| Muons are also easily observed with
|| little more than a jug of water;

What's bad about being drunk is that you ask for a glass of water.



|| this suggests either
|| superluminosity or a time distortion.

I just don't see this insistence that muons live for 2.2 usec
and drop dead, the whole thing is statistical. Get 'em in a storage
ring and they live longer, big deal. Meat stays fresh when frozen.


|| I'm inclined to
|| revisit the muons and see if there's any information as
|| to their average incoming energy, taking into account
|| their creation high in the upper atmosphere from some
|| other particle; one can also ask the obvious question
|| as to how such particles, including the OhMyGod
|| particle which were we to have enough of them would
|| either solve our energy problem or fry humanity to
|| a burnt cinder, are created somewhere in deep space.

Not knowing is the reason for research.

|| One can readily get information as to the timing of
|| two light-flashes, however. The first is assumed to
|| be the entry of the muon into the water-filled space
|| (Cerenkov radiation); the second is assumed to be
|| caused by the decay of the muon.

Which you've already robbed of most of its energy
in the first flash. The speed of cars is 30 mph as they
leave the toll booth, so that's the speed of cars.


|| [2] The frequency of the LHC is consistent with proton
|| lightspeed (plus or minus a smidge), not proton travel
|| at many times lightspeed.

Sigh... Increase or decrease the speed of Earth in its orbit
and it doesn't stay in its orbit, it takes up a different orbit.
That's not too useful in a storage ring, the protons hit the
side walls.



|| There is the possibility
|| of resonance, however, at the 122nd or so harmonic.
|| Why this is not mentioned in the specifications
|| is unclear, unless one assumes that the engineers
|| designing the LHC thought it not worth mentioning as
|| they are pursuing a slightly different theory.
||
|| [3] Light and spectra curves for various stars, which show strong
|| evidence of -- light and spectra shifts for various stars.

Right on.

|| Delta Cephei is the one we've studied extensively, and we
|| assume based on Delta Cephei that other stars exist of that
|| form, and furthermore that their light curves are similar
|| enough to draw various conclusions. This may be unwarranted,
|| but the data is there.
||
|| [4] Moon broadcasts. I throw this in here because there is no way
|| in hell anyone can prove that we've been up there, short of
|| actually dropping off the skeptic *up* there and having him
|| look at Buzz Aldrin's footprint -- and even then, he could
|| claim that it's someone else's footprint (which it might be
|| since 12 men have made it up there, but that's a detail).
|| They were shown live, as I recall -- though I was very young
|| back then.

Somehow a corner reflector was put there.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html
It could have been
a machine that did that but a man would have been cheaper, not
to say more spectacular. I saw that Hollywood stunt on TV
and the build up to it, from Germany's V2, Russia's sputnik in 1957
detected by Kettering Grammar School in England (a high school)
Laika the dog,
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/space_level2/laika.html
Yuri Gagarin, Alan Shepherd, three astronauts burned
to death in an oxygen rich atmosphere at the top of a Saturn V,
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-350/ch-4-4.html
docking with Soyuz,
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz3.htm
and I've SEEN a shuttle launch by naked eye and the race against
the USSR to be first.
I know these things because I remember them.
*** the footprint, what about the corner reflector? Skeptic that.


||
|| [5] Perturbations of Mercury match GR predictions, if one takes
|| into account the major bodies of the Solar System. It is
|| far from clear whether this is sufficient evidence since
|| Mercury does have a magnetic field which may be interacting
|| with the Sun's. This is a "classical prediciton" but that
|| doesn't make it quite so, without quite a bit of study.

Then study. GR is crap, Einstein wasa huckster.

||
|| [6] Various computations indicate, at least to me, that
|| supernovae should last far longer, if they're far
|| enough away, than they do, were c' = c+v. The issues
|| are mostly because of the explosion of gas from
|| the central star -- corroborating evidence of that
|| explosion is the Crab Nebula, among many others, since
|| its creation in 1054. Regrettably, no telescopes were
|| around to view that sky area prior to the supernova.
|| Fortunately, SN1987A doesn't have that problem.

Your computations have a problem.

||
|| [7] There are also issues regarding "announcer neutrinos",
|| an artifact detected by Superkamiokande some three
|| hours before SN1987A was detected by light-capable
|| equipment. SR provides a very simple explanation;
|| something in the core collapses and explodes
|| (probably iron turning into neutrons), throwing off
|| oodles of neutrinos; eventually some hours later the
|| star generates enough heat to shine with a vastly
|| brighter light than before. A Newtonian theory would
|| be hard-pressed to explain the neutrinos without quite
|| a bit of work, especially since there are so many of them.
|| SR also provides a rather simple explanation of gamma-ray
|| bursts, which are currently also assumed to be from
|| supernova activity.

It's rather clever how you can assume anything you like to support
a theory, gladly accept any data you are given without checking on it
such as the advance of perihelion of Mercury, yet will question
the corner reflector on the moon as a Hollywood Hoax.
I'm not sure which is the more plausible cover up, NASA or Einstein.
Certainly NASA has more money, wastes it launching shuttles
to convince us they once put a man on the moon, and a poor
cuckoo clock patent clerk is a saint whose place in heaven is assured.



||
|| [8] MMX detected a discrepancy in its interferometer;
|| this discrepancy, however, was far less than expected.
|| (The discrepancy, contrary to wide reporting, cannot
|| be zero, since a similar experiment performed by
|| Sagnac returns detectable results, and the Earth *is*
|| rotating, as well as revolving, and moving around
|| the Galactic Core along with the rest of the Sun's
|| retinue. I'd have to find it but the actual results
|| are available somewhere on the Web, and they do show
|| a very small variance.)

Yeah, I've got 9.8735223 toes left, I clipped my nails last night.


|| [9] I do not have details on the bouncing of radar waves off Venus
but
|| it's an obvious experiment if one can sufficiently compensate for
|| the "lens" of Earth's atmosphere, which among other things causes
|| sunrise to occur 8 minutes earlier and sunset 8 minutes later than
|| one might observe on an otherwise identical but airless Earth.


Yeah, radar won't work properly without SR/GR, the mountains
on Venus are really 9,999.8463633 feet high, not 10,000 feet.


|| [10] A similar experiment has data available (from a French
| observatory)
|| for laser-ranging experiments involving one of four moon-based
|| tricorner reflector units (the fifth one is unavailable,
|| apparently).

The same reflectors that were put in place by a Hollywood stunt.
I reckon the French are in the conspiracy too.

||
|| http://www.obs-azur.fr/cerga/laser/laslune/llr.htm
||
|| Since I'm not up on the details of the Moon's orbit I'm
|| not quite sure how to properly interpret these results.
|| (The Moon has an unusual orbit; it is quite tilted with
|| respect to the Ecliptic and to Earth's rotation. No doubt
|| I could cross-corroborate this data with, among other things,
|| eclipse observations.)
||
|| [11] GPS satellites have a problem similar to the LHC; the design
|| parameters assume SR/GTR for some reason. The discrepancy is
|| about 450 parts per trillion.

Dang... Now I won't know where I am. I might step in some dog***
without the GPS being exact.


||
|| [12] One very old calculation of c was done by simply
|| observing Jupiter's moons. (It was off because the
|| distance to Jupiter was underestimated.) Presumably
|| the moons are rotating, which leads to various effects
|| were c'=c+v. Io in particular has a computable
|| orbital velocity of approximately 17.338 km/s, and
|| a rotation of approximately 41 microradians/second,
|| if one assumes that one face of Io always faces
|| Jupiter in a manner similar to our Moon. Since the
|| estimated diameter of Io is about 3636 km, this
|| translates into an edgewise velocity of 74.69 m at
|| Io's equator. Light reflected off that equator
|| gets either sped up or slowed down, presumably.
|| Since Jupiter's orbit's semimajor axis (average
|| distance from the Sun) is about 7.784 * 10^11 m,
|| light takes 2100 seconds or so to get back to us
|| (at opposition); the delta-velocity will result in
|| a transit-time change of about 521 microseconds.
|| Not all that noticeable at planetary distances.

Oh yeah...Roemer's guess was pretty wild.

||
|| However, consider now Algol. The standard hypothesis
|| is that it is 93 light-years in distance, and
|| presumably with sophisticated telescope equipment
|| one can verify the B8/K2 star classifications of its
|| primary two components (there may be two others,
|| one of which is between the two, one of which is
|| some distance away). If one assumes a velocity
|| similar to our Earth's, which is highly unlikely
|| (the period is far smaller and the masses greater),
|| one gets a light-delta-time of about 3.37 days,
|| and presumably heavy observed orbit distortion,
|| especially since one of the stars is spinning as well.
|| If one assumes a higher velocity, the light-delta-time
|| increases as well.

That's amazing. The K2 broke up into an accretion disk
because it was at the Roche limit, but never mind that,
do the computation as if it was there and prove c+v
is wrong.



||
|| [13] A strange GR-consistent result has already been
|| measured twice, once by analyzing existing satellites,
|| and once by Gravity Probe B. There are also various
|| anomalies in the observed periods of various
|| closely-orbiting neutron star pairs. A layman's
|| explanation of this result is that spacetime is twisting,
|| throwing off the aiming of the gyroscopes to a
|| nearby guide-star whose characteristics and motion
|| are well-known from other observations.
|
| [14] Keep looking for the bright green flying elephant.
||
|| Are all these explainable by Newtonian theories?
|
| Not the bright green flying elephant. Only GR can explain that.
|
| They must be,
|| as SR is corrupt, rotten to the core, funded by public money
|| by Administrations that were themselves corrupted by scientific
|| greed and hucksterism, not recognizing the pure beauty that
|| is the Newtonian view of the Universe but instead going off on
|| a very wild and dangerous path a century ago, spouting such
|| heresies as constant light-speed, mass variance because of
|| velocity, non-superluminal travel, shrinking and growing rods
|| (depending on measurement technique), and worst of all clock
|| malfunctions of the worst sort caused by accelerations into orbit.
||
|| If there is an error to the math, it's far more subtle than
|| the math you've shown thus far, and the clocks malfunction
|| very consistently, regardless of clock or rocket-type.

I'm sure the math you calculated for a star that isn't there
is correct and the star really is there.

||
|| > Arguing about them can come later.
|| > No results, no news.
||
|| As far as I can tell from your past statements, there are no
|| acceptable results. Please stipulate the criteria for acceptance
|| of the results.
||
|| > I thought maybe someone would report something here, but nope.
|| > I checked with the astronomy group and only Tom Roberts has
observed
| the
|| > accretion disk near a black hole, a scientific result showing
| evidence
|| > for SR/GTR.
|| > I thought I might get right ascension and declination coordinates
| from
|| > him so that I could see it too, it would be an ideal perch for
| bright
|| > green flying elephant.
|| > He won't talk to me, though.
|| > I'd say TV was more reliable than Tom Roberts.
|| >
|| > |
|| > | > I saw that Roberts had observed an accretion disk near a black
| hole,
|| > | > that's a pretty amazing scientific result showing evidence for
|| > SR/GTR,
|| > | > (or scientific evidence of his reliability as a phuckwit), but
|| > anything
|| > | > else?
|| > |
|| > | An accretion disk is not evidence for SR/GTR, absent more
| information.
|| >
|| > Tom Roberts would disagree:
|| > Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
|| > From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@xxxxxxxxxx> - Find messages by
| this
|| > author
|| > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
|| > Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
|| > Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
|| >
|| > "Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
|| > some:
|| > the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
|| > holes"
|| >
|| > See the thread title? It's 'Curvature of Spacetime' , which is GTR,
|| > right?
||
|| The thread title at this point is "the true crackpots". I cannot
|| edit and view back-posts at the same time -- a minor failing
|| of SLRN.
||
|| > This thead is 'The true crackpots' so it's ok to discuss Roberts'
|| > delusions,
|| > right on topic.
|| > Then there is "Ghost in the Machine" who can see molecules in stars
|| > made of triple ionized carbon, another crackpot.
||
|| These are not molecules of triple ionized carbon. These
|| are light patterns. At this point one more sophisticated
|| than I might be able to ascertain their composition using
|| spectroscopy, but I for one have no idea what constitutes
|| them beyond what is stated on the Webpage.

Try http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/, it may be a slightly better
webpage.


||
|| I'm assuming that these are processed from the incoming
|| data to find emission lines or some such. But that's all
|| it is -- an assumption.
||
||
|| > http://solar.bnsc.rl.ac.uk/index.shtml
|| > Rainbows over the Sun
|| >
|| > The emission line images of Oxygen (O V), Magnesium (Mg IX)
| and
|| > Iron (Fe XVI), corresponding to 3 different temperatures: 250,000 K
|| > (blue), 1 million K (green) and 2.5 million K (red), were selected
| from
|| > the original image (below) to produce this multicolour composite.
|| >
|| > 2,500,000 Kelvin... What's that in Fahrenheit, I wonder. Can
| you
|| > work it out for me? 30 sig. fig. will do, my computer only goes to
| 15.
||
|| 44999540.312 F, give or take. I don't have sufficient significant
|| figures for the Celsius zero-point.


Thanks. I wonder where that ohmygod particle comes from?
Any clues?

|| >
|| >
|| > | And that's assuming one has actually observed such.
|| >
|| > Ghost has observed the molecules and mentioned them several times.
|| > Give him enough rope and he'll hang himself.
||
|| Molecular motion isn't that hard to observe; blow on your fingers.
|| Admittedly, that's a rather gross measurement; finer measurements,
|| however, are possible.
||
|| >
|| >
|| > | The best one
|| > | can do is interpret the strong X-ray portion of the spectrum at a
|| > | certain point of the sky, and if one's lucky note how it shifts
|| > | with the position of a visual point in that sky as the Earth
| orbits,
|| > | if it's near enough.
|| >
|| > Oh... x-rays are scientific evidence of black holes.
||
|| Indirect evidence only, and x-rays can also occur around
|| magnatars, neutron stars, and even white dwarfs which
|| are near a shedding companion star.
||
|| > You'd better call the hospital,
|| > there is a black hole running loose in the x-ray dept, swallowing
|| > patients.
||
|| Actually, the X-rays in a hospital are because someone's
|| shooting electrons at a metal target, if I'm not mistaken.
|| I wouldn't worry overly much about being swallowed by a
|| black hole while visiting a specialist. (There *are*, of
|| course, legitimate worries about visiting an MRI machine;
|| presumably among other preparations one has to remove
|| everything that's metal on one's person, as the magnetic
|| field is strong enough to cause forks to stick in a wall --
|| in an adjoining room.)
||
|| Of course Cygnus X-1 is probably not equipped with a suction
|| device, ultrasonic water cleaner unit, tooth grinder/polisher,
|| picking/scraping tools, a lead apron, or a photographic lab.
||
|| >
|| > | If not...then not.
|| > |
|| > | The main problem here is the lack of data.
|| > |
|| > Maybe I'm just a sceptic, but it seems to me that if SR/GTR is
| bull***
|| > there won't be any physical evidence and you'd have to invent it.
||
|| I already have. The main problem, of course, is that it was
|| presented to me as honest attempts to conduct science, and I
|| lack the equipment to check it.

It must be honest science, then.

||
|| >
|| > "Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein
|| > "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert
| Einstein
||
|| And the facts are...?

Whatever Einstein wants them to be, he was a saint. Why he
wasn't made Pope I'll never know. Anti-semitism, perhaps.
Androcles.


.

Quantcast