Re: OWLS Anisotropy Proven Beyond Doubt.

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 08/26/04 

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:14:40 GMT

"Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-guardian@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ce5e7813.0408252327.506a4b1d@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<v74Xc.635$GO1.7152844@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-guardian@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > news:ce5e7813.0408250918.3e71cd5a@posting.google.com...
| > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:<1g_Wc.391$VA6.4700163@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > |
| > | > The scum that are preventing this from happening are the same scum
| > | > that want to appropriate funds for experiments that are unproductive
| > | > nonsense,
| > | > based on a stupid guess by Einstein and never once tested.
| > |
| > | Wrong. Source dependency has already been disproven many times over in
| > | the laser ranging data.
| >
| > Wrong. Source dependency has NEVER been disproven in ANY test you care
to
| > name, which is why I suggested using the ISS and the moon.
| >
| > Laser ranging is regularly performed not only
| > | to the retroreflectors placed on the moon, but to dozens of satellite
| > | retroreflectors.
| >
| > The Earth isn't moving toward the moon, dumbo. How in the hell do you
| > disprove c+v if v is always zero? You clearly have no clue what a proof
is.
| > c+ 0 = c... that proves source independency! Duh!
|
| You are ALWAYS in motion relative to the Moon. The Earth rotates and
| the Moon orbits the Earth, so depending on your exact position on the
| Earth and the exact relative orientation of the Earth and Moon, you
| may at any moment be approaching or receding the Moon by as much as
| 1600 km per hour (if you happen to be on the Equator and the Moon
| happens to be at the horizon).

A totally irrelevant argument.
As you yourself pointed out the difficulties of obtaining the data, it is
quite obvious that ranging is not going to be carried out with the moon on
the horizon. Didn't you say only a few photons were detected? There'll be
even less when there is more atmosphere to penetrate, BOTH WAYS. Even a
source as bright as the sun is SERIOUSLY attenuated at dawn and sunset, the
ball appears red.

|
| But even if you live quite far north or south of the Equator, and the
| Moon happens to be high up in the sky, there will amost always be a
| measureable degree of motion with respect to the Moon.

Really? And how are you going to do that? Doppler? Where are you going to do
it? At apogee or perigee? Or perhaps divide the difference by two weeks to
get the mean velocity?

|
| Remember, laser ranging is capable of measuring distances to the Moon
| to within centimeters.

When the moon is at apogee or perigee, yes. Otherwise there is a tolerance
to apply.

Look, you and Roberts continually protest against my suggestion that the
correct way to test Einstein's second 'postulate', "light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of
the state of motion of the emitting body" is to use a laser from the ISS and
shoot the moon. Now, what is your motive for all the protests? Why wouldn't
you be eager for such a test if you were so fucking certain Einstein was
right? After all, it would settle the matter, wouldn't it?
So obviously, you are not in the least bit certain, are you? And certainly
not ready to put a lousy $50 on the outcome. That's the kind of scum you are
for EVERYODY to see.

|
| > | http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/mlrs_targets.html
| > |
| > | These satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND
| > | relative to the observatory site.
| >
| > Pure nonsense. If they did they'd soon crash into the observatory. From
an
| > altitude of 500 miles and a velocity of 5 m/sec, it would take 500/5 = 1
| > minute and 40 seconds. I haven't heard any news reports of satellites
| > hitting observatories, but obviously you have.
| > Remainder snipped, you haven't a fucking clue.
|
| Are you are claiming that orbiting satellites always maintain exactly
| the same distance from an Earth-bound observer?
|
| Amazingly stupid argument, even for you.
Not at all, so that attempt to put words in my mouth was a particularly
stupid ploy, but typical for a dumb relativist.

I've refuted your claim above: "These satellites move at velocities of
SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND relative to the observatory site.",
which is a typically stupid argument any dumb relativist would make in
defence of his religion, and trying to defend it yet again makes you even
dumber.
|
| Immortal Fumble?
You certainly made one, didn't you?
Androcles

|
| Myxococcus xanthus

Quantcast