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


"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128883495.936642.172980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Will Kramer" <willkramer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:43494da8.1186893921@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | On 9 Oct 2005 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > | >Androcles wrote:
|
| > | >> ROFLMAO!
| > | >
| > | >How does that comment contribute to the discussion?
| > |
| > | I think it's a sign of cognitive disonance. On some
| > | level of his "mind" (at least when he is sober) he
| > | surely realizes that all the spectral information
| > | conclusively disproves his juvenile ideas, but at
| > | this point in his life it is simply not possible
| > | for his conscious "mind" to accept that he has
| > | squandered so many years in the service of a foolish
| > | delusion. Hence he bursts out into laughter whenever
| > | he is confronted with the truth. It's the only way
| > | his "mind" can respond. He is a very sad case.
| >
| > You are quickly disposed of.
| > Observation:
| > http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
| > Explanation:
| > http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
| >
| > Squander that, you stooopid ***.
| > *plonk*
| > Androcles
|
| As I said before, it is necessary for BaT to explain
| -all- the data, and not merely be shown capable of
| fitting gross features of averaged light curves. Sekerin
| fails to address spectral data, interferometric data,
| Cepheid evolution, high precision photometric studies
| demonstrating period noise, etc.
|
| Jerry
|
See Wilson, it's his BaT. I have nothing whatsoever to do
with planets called "Wilson Cool Heavies", h-aether,
BaTs in his belfry or any of his crackpot theories.
I introduced Wilson to the idea of modelling a star
in elliptical orbit according to Kepler's second law and
his equation E = M-e.sin(E). Wilson said he didn't understand
it and refused to model it, so he uses 1/2 a spiral and calls
it ellipse. I've offered to help, but he insists his program is
1,000,000 times better than mine and I'm jealous of it.
Make sure your sound is on, listen carefully to my reply to
Wilson as you open this page:
http://www.trollshop.net/trolls/tusselader/
If he wants to climb into my tree, well, I invited him,
but he doesn't get to take it over. Let him find his own
tree. As I told you, you are barking up the right tree at
the wrong squirrel. Henri will invent the Wilson cool
diffraction grating any day now.
If you are interested in emission theories I can help, but
the theory of Ritz is not mine, nor is the vector addition
of velocities. I have no theories.
Vladimir Sekerin was on the other side of the iron curtain when
I was sketching his fig 2 in the back of an envelope. I went
on to program it.
Nor did Sekerin analyze Einstein's 1905 paper and locate
the flaw in that.

In 1999 I told Jan Beilawski the problem in Einstein's paper
He's still trying to convince me there is nothing wrong with it,
but now I'm very experienced with trolls.
=======================
Message-ID: <qpoN2.862$Rn5.379@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>#1/1

1: Galilean relativity - called the "principle of relativity"
2: Constancy of light in empty space.
3: Definition of time: t'A-tA = 2AB/c.
4: Gravitational acceleration.
1) I think we can all accept.
2) is postulated, but since it is verifiable, it is surely an
hypothesis. It
has never been verified to this day, but it surely will be sometime in
the
future.
3) is not well defined. If A is moving relative to B, and c is finite,
AB
does not equal BA.
=========================

What I do is put the shoe on the other foot these days.
YOU dont get to demand of me what *I* have to show.
*I* challenge YOU to prove YOUR theories, and *I* do the
laughing.
Androcles.




.

Quantcast