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


Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2005 18:07:55 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >HW@.. wrote:
> >> On 22 Oct 2005 15:42:23 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> C+v is where you start.
> >> the rest follows naturally.
> >
> >Yes, I agree. But since you think I have no scientific ability, I am
> >incapable of doing the derivation myself.
> >
> >Show me.
>
> It's easy, try it.

*** you, it isn't my job to do your work for you. If you don't want to
copy the derivation you should have already done, it isn't worth
considering.

>
>
> >> >If both of those are true, you should be able to show how the "BaTh"
> >> >predicts Einstein's version of velocity addition!
> >>
> >> Einstein's equation was just a round about way of phrasing the second
> >> postulate.
> >
> >Sorry Henri, that is wrong. The relativistic equation for addition of
> >velocities is derived from the postulates of special relativity and
> >also is merely a special case for when the two frames are moving along
> >a straight line.
>
> The velocity addition equation is another way of stating the first postulate.
> Let u=c.

Doubly wrong. A coordinate velocity of c is not an inertial reference
frame, and AGAIN the velocity addition equation is derived - not
postulated.

>
>
> >>
> >> Have you tried to accelerate an uncharged particle in an field?
> >
> >I asked the question for a reason.
> >
> >Why are neutrinos and neutrons subluminal? They are uncharged so this
> >"back-emf" idea doesn't explain them.
>
> Poor confused boy....reads to many sci-fi comics obviously.

When you resort to "poor boy", it means you are incapable of answering
a reasonable question.

Neutrons have been observed since the 1930s, and neutrinos have been
observed since the mid 1950s. It is only sci-fi in your closed little
universe.

>
> >> >Honestly Henri, group1.jpg is unreadable to me.
> >> >
> >> >None of the plots have any explanation, and only one has error bars.
> >> >
> >> >They appear to be light curves, but I am unsure due to the lack of
> >> >details.
> >>
> >> The yellow ones are the BaTh predictions.
> >
> >So the right two are observed light curves? None of the predicted
> >curves match!
>
> bull***.

Are your generated curves put over the observed curves? The picture is
of such poor quality I cannot tell.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >> >> >[6] A consistent explanation of the X-ray energy source at
> >> >> >> > Cygnus X-1.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That could be real.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The reality of the source at Cygnus X-1 is not in doubt, nor the nature
> >> >> >of it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Remember a certain bet between Kip Thorne and Stephen Hawking? Or was
> >> >> >that all a show?
> >> >>
> >> >> what would those two indoctrinated fools know?
> >> >
> >> >Right behind me on a shelf is "Gravitation", the seminal book on
> >> >general relativity. One of the authors is Kip Thorne. It has been
> >> >highly regarded since its' first publishing in 1970. It also weighs a
> >> >fucking TON and is thicker than my goddamned CRC. The CRC is hardcover,
> >> >Gravitation isn't.
> >> >
> >> >I would suspect he knows...something. It would be like asking "what
> >> >does J.D. Jackson know about electromagnetic theory?".
> >>
> >> All this stuff will have to be rewritten when physics frees itself from
> >> Einsteiniana.
> >
> >True. But neither you nor your theory will be the ones to make that
> >happen.
>
> don't bet on it.

Why not? You refuse to discuss the fine details of your theory - you
tell people to derive it themselves. Your theory is unpublishable until
you map out some specific consequences that are testable from start to
finish.

>
> >
> >You lack the patience to explain your theory to someone who wants to
> >see it tested. You are unwilling to do any experiments to test your
> >theory. You are also yet to even finish, much less publish your theory.
> >
> >I have much more faith in Uncle Al's Eotvos experiment to break
> >relativity especially now that the man who performed it refuses to
> >release the results.
>
> there you go. They will probably assassinate him and burn the result.

Yea right.

Your paranoia is a sign of a mental disorder.

>
>
> >> >As I said, you admit the error exists. GR gets the error correct.
> >> >Connect the dots, Henri.
> >>
> >> GR only got the error correct in the minds of a few indoctrinated fools.
> >
> >Oh, so it doesn't get the error correct? Fine, it should be easy to
> >test that!
> >
> >Calculate the error using your theory, and compare it with the observed
> >error.
> >
> >If you can't do that, calculate the error using GR and compare it with
> >the observed error.
> >
> >If you can't do that either, I fail to see where you have grounds to
> >complain.
>
> The 'observed error' has never been accurately measured. Nobody cares much
> about it because the clocks are adjusted empirically after launch anyway.

Do NOT lie to my face, Henri. The finer details of GPS were explained
to you by Minor Crank a long time ago - including the magnitude of the
adjustment, and when it is adjusted.

You say the observed error has not been measured, yet why is it GPS
works? Oh that is right - CONSPIRACY. NTS-1, one of the first test
sattelites for GPS found that Newton was wrong and Relativity was
correct. Oh wait, CONSPIRACY, right?

>
> >> >You think all of known physics is wrong, you better come up with some
> >> >math otherwise you will continue to be ignored.
> >>
> >> Newton provided the maths.
> >
> >Newton is WRONG. A good approximation, but still wrong.
> >
> >This has been known for over a century. Long before the development of
> >special and general relativity, plus quantum mechanics.
> >
> >Precession of Mercury's orbit can't be explained by Newtonian gravity.
> >Its off by 50 or so arc seconds per century. It is correctly explained
> >by GR.

"50 or so" is actually 43" per century. I was being cavalier.

>
> There are dozens of other plausible reasons.

Name them. Then show how you arrive at the answer.

It is directly derived by the Schwarzschild metric. I might even be
able to work you to it if you were patient enough, now that I
understand how the metric is derived.

The precession of Mercury's orbit is calculated by:

/_\phi = 6piGM / c^2(1-e^2)a

G = Newton's gravitational constant.
M = Sun's mass.
c = speed of light.
e = eccentricity of Mercury's orbit.
a = semi-major axis.

I repeat, because it bears repeating, this is DIRECTLY DERIVED from the
Schwarzchild metric.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm

Put that applied mathematics degree to work so you can understand
instead of whine.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v89/i5/p1046_1

Just in case you have enough intelletual curiosity to go to the
library.

BTW. At the end of Einstein's paper...

"Calculation gives for the planet Mercury a rotation of the orbit of
43" per century, corresponding exactly to the astronomical observation
(Leverrier); for the astronomers have discovered in the motion of the
perihelion of this planet, after allowing for disturbances by the other
planets, an inexplicable remainder of this magnitude."

>
> >
> >Deflection of starlight by the sun isn't correctly predicted by
> >Newtonian gravity. Period.
>
> stop preaching einsteinian propaganda. We've heard it all a thousand times
> before.

It is FACT.

Newton gets Mercury's precession WRONG.

Newton gets the asteroid Icarus' precession WRONG.

Newton gets lensing WRONG.

>
> >
> >Time delay of radio signals passing by the sun isn't correctly
> >predicted by Newtonian theory either.
> >
> >Then pretty much everything involving high speed charged particles. Eg,
> >backscattering, Compton effect, cyclotrons...
> >
> >By the way, you never derived a non-relativistic Compton effect for me.
> >You just kept asserting your theory took care of it and left it at
> >that.
> >
> >> His theory has been neglected since the Einstein hoax took over.
> >
> >Einstein's theories handle the examples above, Newton's doesn't. Simple
> >as that.
>
> Only becasue it was never allowed to develop.

*** your conspiracy theory, it has had over two centuries to develop.
It is wrong. No amount of patchwork can fix a dead theory.

By the way, your theory is absolutely incompatable with Newton via
finite c. Have fun resolving that one.

>
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>
> "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

.

Quantcast