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


"Rod Ryker" <rryker@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:248c4$434839e6$d84426ef$24516@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
| "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
| message
| news:3XP1f.94810$RW.90039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
| in message
| >
| news:1128774624.816332.163280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | 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.
| >
| >
| > Hey, don't leave me out! I'll abuse any phuckwit
| regardless
| > of gender.
| >
| > |
| > | 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.
| >
| > Not hungry enough to eat them?
| > I'm very competent at arrogance, and I know when
| I'm right.
| > I've posted why a diffraction grating doesn't
| measure wavelength
| > to Ghost, if you are competent to read and
| understand then
| > you'll swallow your words and your hat for
| afters.
| > No, I'm not polite. This is about physics, not
| genuflecting, and I'm
| > competent at physics also, phuckwit.
| > |
| > | > 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.
| >
| > Good. You don't bother me either. If you want to
| learn, use
| > logic.
| >
| > |
| > | > 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.
| >
| > Anyone that thinks different-sized newspapers
| come off a
| > printing press when the speed of the press
| changes has to be
| > has to be a complete lunatic.
| > The frequency at which newspapers are printed
| ranges from
| > one a day at start up to over a 1000 a minute,
| but they are all the
| > same length. Likewise when you run a paint
| roller over your
| > wall, the wavelength is pi * diameter of the
| roller. Both processes
| > are essentially the same.
| > Nor is that MY theory, oh arrogant incompetent
| one that will
| > not retract your statement.
| >
| >
| >
| > 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.
| >
| > Looks to me (at a glance) that the author has
| some inkling
| > of what he's saying. Thanks for the reference, I
| shall read it.
| >
| > Henri (or Henry, he doesn't know how to spell
| his own name)
| > Wilson is listed at crank.net for his H-aether
| "theory",
| > which is where it belongs.
| > http://www.crank.net/relativity.html
| > refers to
| > http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/H-aether.htm
| >
| > Androcles
| >
| Rod: I like you and Henri and disagree sometimes,
| but that crank comment was very "THE DIRK!" of
| you.

Perhaps, but I spent a great deal of time talking to Henri Wilson
who insists planets are to be called Wilson Cool Heavies,
no reasoned argument will persuade him otherwise.
I will not associate myself with such an egotistical "My Theory"
crank.


| Conquer and divide saith "THE DIRK!"

I have no interest in anything the phuckwit moortel says.
If Henri Wilson wants to go it alone, I can't stop him.


| How many strings does "THE DIRK!" have on you
| and Henri now?

I have no interest in the stooopid ***.

| I however, am not bound by the strings of a JERK
| that JERK'S via "THE DIRK!"

Ok... you are a free man, why are you interested in the arsehole?

| --
| Rod Ryker...
| The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.

That's a rather silly statement.
Androcles

.

Quantcast