Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Nov 2005 17:45 On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 22:52:15 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:9j7qm11q757607098e6q9gro77t73pt4vn(a)4ax.com: > >> I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too >> stupid to understand them that is not my problem. > >I understand your evasive answers. > >It doesn't matter to me if you answer the questions or not. > >I have been trying to help you Henri. It is important to YOU to answer the >questions. I don't need help. That should be obvious. > >Unless and until you answer them and others, your theory is DOA. > >No, that is wrong, a store window display dummy is not DOA, it never was >alive. 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".
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Nov 2005 17:47 On 5 Nov 2005 13:22:43 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 1 Nov 2005 03:53:38 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:18:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> H. Wilson, 2005. >> >> > >> >> >Not peer reviewed. >> >> >> >> Reviewed on sci.physics.relativity >> > >> >Repeatedly and scathingly rejected. >> >> Only by indoctrinated fools who have not presented ONE argument >> that refutes it. > >Correct. Not ONE argument, but HUNDREDS, none of which you >have satisfactorily answered. Nonsense. The BaTh has easily withstood all criticism. >Jerry 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".
From: Eric Gisse on 6 Nov 2005 18:52 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 5 Nov 2005 14:55:10 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 3 Nov 2005 16:01:58 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> Geese, you are totally confused with regard to my theories. > > > >That is what happens when you refuse to talk about the details of your > >theory. > > > >I am flexible, it doesn't have to be c+v - even though that is the only > >assumption you have given me. You can derive it any way you want, as > >long as you derive it using your theory. > > > >If I say "there is no such thing as a reverse field bubble in the > >'BaTh' theory", you have no way of proving me wrong. > > geese, the WRFB is not related to the BaTh. So you have no way of deriving the "reverse field bubble", you just assume it to be true so you don't have to use SR in the explanation of relativistic particles. Some theory. > > > > >If you say "there is no length contraction in special relativity", I > >can easily show you to be incorrect because I have a theory that is > >mathematical in nature and as such makes concrete predictions that are > >unable to be influenced by anyone's sophistry. > > > >> > >> >> >If you have something to say that hasn't been said before, have at it. I > >> >> >think you are just plowing soil that has already been over plowed, over > >> >> >planted and over grazed. Watch out for the gnomes. > >> >> > >> >> Stop trolling . > >> >> > >> >> Learn something. > >> > > >> >When are you going to learn SR so you stop making so many basic > >> >mistakes? > >> > >> Ther is nothing much to learn about complete bullshit. > > > >You spend an amazing amount of time talking about the details of a > >"bullshit" theory. > > > >Just because you think it is bullshit does not mean either that it is > >or that you can say whatever you want about it and have it be true. > > > >> > >> > >> >> >http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.211.html > >> >> >[quote] These jets appear to be traveling at greater- than-light speeds. > >> >> >This is actually an optical illusion owing to the alignment of the object > >> >> >relative to us,.... [unquote] > >> >> >http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw71.html > >> >> > >> >> They ARE traveling at >c wrt Earth. > >> >> Don't believe the nonsense relativists dish out. > >> > > >> >This problem is an exercise in both MTW and "Spacetime and Geometry". > >> > > >> >Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is nonsense. > >> > >> It's bullshit propaganda. > >> ...part of the brainwashing process. > > > >An utterly irrational and emotional response to something you do not > >understand. > > > >> > >> If you don't give the 'right' answer according to Einsteiniana, you fail your > >> course. > > > >It is mathematics, not sophistry. > > > >Just because you are incapable of learning a mathematical theory and > >applying it correctly does not mean either that it is bullshit or that > >the people who have learned it are "brainwashed". > > They are. > They end up incapable of using their own brains. > > >> >> >Explain it to me, I don't know it well at all. > >> >> > >> >> study the physiology and psychology of the sensory system. > >> > > >> >Why are you incapable of answering a direct question? > >> > >> It would take me a few days. > > > >Then don't give examples you are incapable of explaining. > > Poor boy.... Don't condescend down to me, Henri. > > > > 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".
From: Henri Wilson on 7 Nov 2005 03:52 On 6 Nov 2005 15:52:25 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 5 Nov 2005 14:55:10 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >I am flexible, it doesn't have to be c+v - even though that is the only >> >assumption you have given me. You can derive it any way you want, as >> >long as you derive it using your theory. >> > >> >If I say "there is no such thing as a reverse field bubble in the >> >'BaTh' theory", you have no way of proving me wrong. >> >> geese, the WRFB is not related to the BaTh. > >So you have no way of deriving the "reverse field bubble", you just >assume it to be true so you don't have to use SR in the explanation of >relativistic particles. > >Some theory. Yes. pretty obvious really. >> >> It would take me a few days. >> > >> >Then don't give examples you are incapable of explaining. >> >> Poor boy.... > >Don't condescend down to me, Henri. One cannot condescend upwards. 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".
From: Eric Gisse on 7 Nov 2005 04:06
Henri Wilson wrote: [snip contentless response] How about responding to my post here? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b2c67482fbea6402?dmode=source&hl=en Or are you incapable of complying with my simple request? |