Re: Androcles' and Henri's Theory of Diffraction Grating Behavior

Henri Wilson wrote:

> Jerry, we don't get many messages here from genuine females.

I've noticed. The fake females in this newsgroup are
for the most part SO obvious, expecially when they try
to adopt "feminine" mannerisms.

> Most of them are
> males in disguise...that being a good way to avoid
> excessive abuse....

Uncle Al certainly has never hesitated with the abuse.
Nor have Mike, NunYaBidness, Quantum Mirror etc.
I've never spouted back, though. Well, almost never.

Traveler, though, has always been polite to me, even
though he realizes that I disagree with almost everything
he says. I would hope that his politeness has nothing to
do with my gender, but rather because I've always been
respectful in my disagreements.

My characterization of Androcles as having given a "reasonably
satisfactory demonstration of incompetent arrogance" -was-
crossing the line, and I shouldn't have given in to the
temptation of being able to insult under the safety of
anonymity. I won't take my words back, but I -will- try not
to give in to temptation in the future.

> However I notice that Androcles doesn't adjust his language
> for the two genders.

I hate hate hate HATE being patronized. So Androcles'
language doesn't bother me.

> He suffers from professional jealousy you know...because
> MY variable star program is about 1 billion time more
> powerful than his.
>
> Jerry, you ask a very legitimate question and one that I was
> comtemplating just this very day. There is every reason to
> believe that, according to the BaT, the distance between
> 'wavepeaks' should remain constant, irrespective of relative
> observer speed. However, observed doppler shift SHOULD BE
> dependent on relative observer speed.
> So, on the surface, it would appear that gratings would not
> detect doppler shift if the BaT was correct. One explanation
> is that diffraction is frequency sensitive...whatever
> 'frequency' implies. The fact that they DO and the BaT MUST
> BE correct, promises to tell us something about the properties
> and structure of 'photons' (if they exist).
>
> I am presently considering how extinction accounts for
> anomalies in many variable star light curves. You see, if
> light speed is unified by low density gases as it travels
> through space, then radial velocities would also be unified
> and negate the argument that extinction refutes DeSitter's
> disproof of the Ritzian theory.
>
> I am now working on a model that accommodates all these
> factors... but you will have to wait for it.

A good starting point for you would be to see how Brecher
analyzes the presumed effects of extinction on his data.
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net
You naturally would disagree with his conclusions.

> Lots of strange things are happening out there.....

True.

Jerry

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Androcles and Henris Theory of Diffraction Grating Behavior
    ... |> Jerry, we don't get many messages here from genuine females. ... | My characterization of Androcles as having given a "reasonably ... | I hate hate hate HATE being patronized. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ritz ballistic emission theory material
    ... |> Jerry wrote: ... |>> This is, of course, the same John Fox who measured the relative ... |>> pions, taking full account of extinction effects, and found results ... |>> in complete and total disagreement with emission theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast