Re: Sal the crackpot


"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128601352.927579.220440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1128428292.239525.138910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:1128350231.236279.309010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > |
| > | > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | >
news:1128331980.991434.158850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Androcles skrev:
| > | > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
| > in
| > | > | > message
| > | > | > | > news:dhhiic$nsq$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | > |> | Androcles wrote:
| > | > | > | > | > | > Go on believing a giant star at the Roche limit
of a
| > | > smaller
| > | > | > one
| > | > | > | > | > | > can exist, I don't care what you believe. Now
***
| > off.
| > | > | > | > | > | > Androcles.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | And if the Moon were a fluid it would break
| > | > | > | > | apart like droplets of mercury.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | Isn't that so, Androcles? :-)
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Yes, that is so, tusselad.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
| > | > | > | > From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxx>
| > | > | > | > Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:00:34 +0200
| > | > | > | > Local: Wed, Sep 14 2005 1:00 pm
| > | > | > | > Subject: Re: Spectrum!
| > | > | > | > "But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius
and
| > | > | > | > density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit
| > | > | > | > of the K2, while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of
the
| > B8.
| > | > | > | > That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and
mass
| > | > | > | > is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and
there
| > | > | > | > is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of
| > Saturn.
| > | > | > | > (This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a
| > transient
| > | > | > | > disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the
| > surface
| > | > | > | > of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.) "
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Being a B8, the surface the accretion disk bounces off
looks
| > | > like
| > | > | > this:
| > | > | > | >
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/c2w.gif
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > That's smooth bouncy surface, isn't it, hotshot
tusselad?
| > | > | > | > ROFLMAO! Ooops...I farted.
| > | > | > | > Androcles.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Do you now think you by repeating another
| > | > | > | of your stupidities successfully have
| > | > | > | diverted the attention from the issue?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > See thread title for issue.
| > | > |
| > | > | Exactly.
| > | > | The issue is that you called Sal a crackpot because
| > | > | he pointed out:
| > | > |
| > | > | > | Which is that the emission theory predicts:
| > | > | > | lambda' = lambda
| > | > | > | No Doppler shift of wavelength.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | But wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I thought we did that one. Oh well, do it again.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world." -
| > Andersen.
| > | > | > Prove it.
| > | > | > Androcles.
| > | > |
| > | > | Why should I bother to prove a well known fact like this?
| > | >
| > | > It's your claim, you prove it.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | But by all means, Androcles.
| > | > | Claim that wavelengths are not Doppler shifted.
| > | > | That way, you will make me look like a fool.
| > | >
| > | > I didn't claim that at all.
| > | > You stated "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real
world".
| > | > I've asked you to prove it.
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | I see.
| > | While you are at it, why don't you ask me to prove
| > | that 2 + 2 = 4, or other well known facts you haven't
| > | refuted?
| >
| > Why are you trying to divert attention from the issue?
| > You stated "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world".
| > I've asked you to prove it.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > | > | Since this prediction of the emission theory
| > | > | > | is proven wrong, the emission theory is falsified.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Since you cannot refute this, you will again have
| > | > | > | to roll farting on the floor to make a fool of me.
| > | > |
| > | > | But you preferred "the other method" this time.
| > | > | That is, making a fool of me by repeating a stupidity.
| > | > |
| > | > | Paul
| > |
| > | So we can sum it thus:
| >
| > Tusselad can't prove his claim "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in
the
| > real world".
| >
| >
| > | Androcles does not say that wavelengths are not
| > | Doppler shifted in the real world.
| >
| > Doesn't matter what I say. You made the claim, you prove it.
| >
| >
| >
| > | So he does not say that the fact that the emission
| > | theory predicts no Doppler shift of wavelengths
| > | does not falsify the emission theory.
| > |
| > | So it all depend on whether or not wavelength
| > | are Doppler shifted in the real world.
| > |
| > | And you don't know the answer to that, Androcles.
| > | Or do you? :-)
| >
| > Of course I know the answer, which is: You cannot prove your claim.
|
| Of course you know the answer to the question:
| "Are wavelengths Doppler shifted in the real world?"
|
| Diffraction grating spectrometers measure wavelengths,
| so any shift of any spectral line in any observed
| spectrum proves that wavelengths are Doppler shifted.

Yes, of course, tusselad. Newspapers come out a different size
as you change the speed of the printing press, right?
More newspapers per minute can't happen, can it, tusselad?


| There is no way anybody can claim ignorance of the fact
| that observations of shifts of spectral lines are
| very frequent indeed.

I'm sure you are right, tusselad, my newspaper was printed
at 1 per minute as the press started up and is 1500 feet long.

| So you know.

Yes, I do, tusselad.


| > I can do this one:
| > http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/doppler/doppler.html
| > "Source moving with vsource < vsound ( Mach 0.7 )"
| > But not this one:
| > http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/doppler/doppler.html
| > "Stationary Sound Source"
| > no matter how fast I run toward the source. All I get is frequency
| > shift,
| > the wavelength remains constant. That's what happens with light in
| > a vacuum, tusselad.
|
| Right.
| That's what the emission theory predicts.
| But wavelengths are Doppler shifted in the real world.
| So that's one of the many falsifications of
| emission theory.

Sure they are, you can measure length at one point only,
right, tusselad?
So you know, you are definitely a fuckwit.

Androcles.

.

Quantcast