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: bz on 7 Nov 2005 21:38 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:nlhvm11gdhmpjgvo1qv8f81rg6t6nch7i6(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:13:01 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:us1tm1l0lnqd0s24fvbvbit6gc696nk8rj(a)4ax.com: >> >>> 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. >> >>Splorf. As I said, it is important to YOU that you be able to answer. >> >>>>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. >> >>The store window dummy doesn't need CPR, either. >> >>Looks like I have been beating a plastic horse. > > You refuse to answer MY questions so why should I bother with yours. What questions of your have I refused to answer? Were they answerable questions or 'why' questions of the type that science can not answer? Is my ability to answer them critical to my being able to do develope my theory? The answer must be no, because I do not have a theory that I am trying to develop and sell to the world. Your ability to answer our questions is critical to the development of your theory. Without answers to those questions, you have no theory, only a conjecture. If your conjecture explained many unexplained pheonomina and were backed by sound math, it would stand a chance. Unfortunately, you must keep adding new ad hoc 'fixes' to your conjecture to explain data that is easily explained by other theories. Unfortunately, you do NOT have sound math behind your conjecture. Unfortunately, you grow angry, defensive and abusive when presented with questions that your theory MUST be able to answer if it is ever to stand on its own. You have written some 'interesting' computer programs that draw pretty pictures. Computer program writing is very well adapted to adding ad hoc fixes to 'make things work'. Unfortunately physics doesn't work the same way. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 8 Nov 2005 16:35 On 7 Nov 2005 18:04:03 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com wrote: >> Now, now. Kiss and make up. > >Why? > >He is blatantly lying again. Silly boy, go and play with your blow-up girl dolls. 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 8 Nov 2005 16:38 On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 02:38:24 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:nlhvm11gdhmpjgvo1qv8f81rg6t6nch7i6(a)4ax.com: > > >What questions of your have I refused to answer? > >Were they answerable questions or 'why' questions of the type that science >can not answer? > >Is my ability to answer them critical to my being able to do develope my >theory? The answer must be no, because I do not have a theory that I am >trying to develop and sell to the world. > >Your ability to answer our questions is critical to the development of your >theory. > >Without answers to those questions, you have no theory, only a conjecture. > >If your conjecture explained many unexplained pheonomina and were backed by >sound math, it would stand a chance. > >Unfortunately, you must keep adding new ad hoc 'fixes' to your conjecture >to explain data that is easily explained by other theories. > >Unfortunately, you do NOT have sound math behind your conjecture. > >Unfortunately, you grow angry, defensive and abusive when presented with >questions that your theory MUST be able to answer if it is ever to stand on >its own. > >You have written some 'interesting' computer programs that draw pretty >pictures. Computer program writing is very well adapted to adding ad hoc >fixes to 'make things work'. > >Unfortunately physics doesn't work the same way. But aeroplanes still fly even though they are designed with computer simulations. 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 8 Nov 2005 16:40 On 7 Nov 2005 18:05:46 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 7 Nov 2005 15:13:36 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >You can't even give me a simple literature citation for a classical >> >derivation of E = mc^2! >> >> I like giving you a chance to use your own brain. > >Wrong answer. > >It is NOT our job to do your work for you. If you assert something as >fact you better have a way of showing that it is. > >You don't even have the first clue if E=mc^2 was around 'before >Einstein' or not, and no amount of telling me "to use my brain" will >change the fact you don't know. E= Mc^2 if a natural fact. Einstein didn't invent it. He simply publicised it. .....just like I'm publicising the natural principle that light is ballistic and travels at c wrt its source. 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 8 Nov 2005 16:46
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:14:37 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: 330 lines that Andersen was too lazy to snip have been removed. >> >>>The BaT gets it wrong either way. >> >> >> How could it. Light leaving a remote star has only one reference. It MUST move >> at c wrt its source. >> > >I suppose this response wasn't meant to be taken seriously. >So I won't. OK sorry. I was joking. I should have said, "light moves at an infinite number of different speeds wrt its source but at c wrt every observer in the universe." Now you can take me seriously. > >Paul 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". |