Re: Wrong experiments with incorrect foundations

Androcles:

Sorcerer wrote:
"dlzc" <dlzc1@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1158675088.724256.156930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Androcles:
|
| You have previously requested that I not show you the honor that you
| still deserve...

Thank you. Your consideration is appreciated.



| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| > message news:qWGPg.3340$nL2.1459@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > | You are violating the newsgroup charter by flaming,
| >
| > DELIBERATELY LYING is FLAMING!
|
| The word has already been defined, and your lying and shouting do not
| change its definition:
|
http://www.computeruser.com/resources/dictionary/definition.html?lookup=6608
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war

Accusing me of lying, are you?
That is my accusation against you.

Unsupported at that. However, your lies are recorded by Google.

Tut..tut.. and I though we were going to be polite
enemies.

I have been polite. When I can no longer be polite, I add them to my
killfile. No one learns by shouting or swearing.

Did you have any physics to discuss?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/gDefinition/0,294236,sid26_gci212129,00.html
|
| > Stick your charter up your arse, you are a FUCKING
| > HYPOCRITE, you LYING piece of ***.
|
| A repeat of this behavior will have you reported to your ISP.

Then do it. They take my money, not yours.
Did you have any physics to discuss, pompous welcome
editor?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

| I have
| not knowingly lied to you or anyone.

Ok, so you didn't know you are a liar. You do now, I've told
you so.

Citation?

| To the best of my knowledge,

Knowledge? What knowledge? You don't have any knowledge.

As empty a statement as you have ever made, another unsubstantiated
lie, and an abusive flame.

| a
| have never answered questions where I stated things that I did not
| believe in, without prefacing with "GR says" or whatever appropriate
| disclaimer.
|
| I am not a piece of ***, and until I met you, I did not think anyone
| believed that *** could post to the internet.

Have a go at your fellow moron then, welcome editor.
You could at least be impartial.

I thought your beef was with me? You posted in response to me, and
directed your "verbal" abuse at me. Your problem with Dirk is just
that. I haven't noticed Dirk being abusive, and Dirk isn't inciting a
flame war.

| There is a fellow
| posting on sci.chem who thinks atoms are animate,
| perhaps you and he should get together?

That's for you, go and be the welcome editor there. You
are certainly a hypocrite, you haven't castigated Dork
Van de merde for calling Einstein's *** "***". Why pick
on me?

You are attacking me. Dirk has nothing to do with this.

| The question is, who removes the thorn from Androcles' paw?

That's not a thorn, that's a claw.

It is obviously ingrown.

| You know
| you don't like the flavor of soup served here, yet you keep
| coming back for more. Why is that?

To deride and castigate ignorant lying hypocritical morons
such as yourself, I enjoy it. I even pay my ISP to let me do
it.

OK. So you will continue flaming. Noted.

When you've chewed out the dorks (impartially), welcome editor,
perhaps we'll have less ***. Until then I'll continue to regard
you as a hypocrite and a liar.

What you "consider" is unimportant. When you call me a hypocrite or
liar without supporting proof, you are flaming. This is an unmoderated
newsgroup, I don't *have* to do anything.

Now let's get back to physics. I've answered your questions,
answer mine.
The thread title is:
Wrong experiments with incorrect foundations

Is the velocity of light the same in all inertial frames reference?

Caveats:
- in a vacuum
- only two way speed measurements are allowed for verification
Answer:
The question you ask has the answer of "yes". In high speed particle
experiments, where photons are Compton scattered from a high gamma
charged particle beam, the photons are boosted up to e_0 * gamma^2
(depending on angle of exit), and round trip times from emission to
collision to detection are unsurprising at c. Occultations of high-z
objects by the Moon yields a null result... all objects are occulted
apparently simultaneously, even though the sources have non-null and
detectable path-"velocities".

But we have been through this, and your ingrown claw forbids you from
considering that light cannot be ballistic, and agree with experiment.

Your words can be the last. Welcome back to my killfile.
Goodbye.
<plonk>

David A. Smith

.