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: The Ghost In The Machine on 13 Nov 2005 20:00 In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:28:41 GMT <31jfn1546p3ru42u224idk8pkur7l4ktf1(a)4ax.com>: > On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:06:36 GMT, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >>In article <Xns970D1E95F2849WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> writes: >>>"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in >>>news:1131855605.794683.277520(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >>> >>>> >>>> bz wrote: >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If I understand the implications, it should be easy to tell the >>>>> difference. >>>> >>>> You should have seen by now that Henri has zero interest in testing his >>>> theory. >>>> >>> >>>Negative. >>> >>Imaginary. > > Idiot. Learn the facts. And these are....? Point us at a website. One possibility, for instance, is http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm which apparently contemplates a c'=c+v hypothesis when it comes to binary stars. It's far from proof and doesn't even begin to contemplate various easily observed artifacts such as spectrographic data; nor does it have any actual data to speak of. But it's a start. [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Black Knight on 13 Nov 2005 20:26 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:s3jfn1dm1aq5g1m7nq8s7mqsejbj0v0vuj(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:58:05 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:raocn1dhrvibti1pho71old2ghsl06mjbp(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:48:34 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> >>> wrote: > >>>>> HW. >>>>Message rating several casks. >>>>Androcles. >>> >>> All right A, the joke is over. It is next morning and you should have >>> sobered >>> up by now. >>> >>> >>> HW. >>You started it, you are now keeping it up. Sober up and tell me what >>was so wrong with my Sagnac analysis, drunken abo. > > OK I'll call a truce about rating messages in terms of bottles and casks. > It > was very impolite of me. Sorry. No more. I'd like a drink, but my Glenlivet I won in a bet hasn't arrived yet. You did not reproduce the curve with your WCH. I understand Steven Hawking paid off the set of encyclopedia he lost, he may be have been wrong but he admitted it as a pommie gentleman would. Can't trust abos though. > > I cannot recall you sagnac explanation in detail. I didn't plagiarize it, > I > swear. Googlegroups is not hard to find. From: HW@..(Henri Wilson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Anyone ever read this Einstein physics book? Reply-To: HW@.. Expires: 28 days Message-ID: <goe7n11l4s35g1s9tc2sj56k0gk0os96qg(a)4ax.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:26:52 GMT > Incidentally, the idiots are now in complete turmoil because some time ago > one > of them (I think Andersen) assured me that fringes only shift during > angular > acceleration whereas Dishman and lackeys say they shift during CONSTANT > rotation. Andersen is a complete phuckwit who can do nothing but make assertions. I am seriously considering writing to the dean at his college, informing the college of his pathetic attitude toward science. At least the troll is only dealing with you and I, he's not corrupting students. Dishman and co. I leave to you. If you want them to bait you, that's your business. I've killfiled them. >>Androcles. > > Currently, only two people on Earth accept the existence of the planet > "Androcles". Let's hope it stays that way. I don't want to keep it that way. The whole world should know about the discovery of TWO new planets and the method of finding them. Androcles.
From: Jerry on 13 Nov 2005 20:47 Henri Wilson wrote: > Incidentally, the idiots are now in complete turmoil because some time ago one > of them (I think Andersen) assured me that fringes only shift during angular > acceleration whereas Dishman and lackeys say they shift during CONSTANT > rotation. No turmoil whatsoever. You can't read, can't understand, can't remember, and are trying to reinvent the usenet record. Don't put words into Andersen's fingers that you are incapable of documenting because he didn't type it. The usenet records document that YOU fantasized it. You have misread the fact that the points on the perimeter of a Sagnac interferometer are not inertial but are in an accelerated reference frame, into a belief that fringes shift only during accelerated rotation. Not the same thing. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3d26da562d00945a YOU thunk it up, and YOU are stunningly misinformed. Fringes have been observed to shift during constant rotation. The theory of how fringes would shift during accelerated rotation is, to the best of my knowledge, not well-developed, and would in any case be irrelevant to any practical application of the technique, http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/packard/Competition/Gyros/LaserRingGyro/Steadman/StedmanReview1997.pdf or any use of the technique to distinguish between ballistic theory and relativity. Jerry
From: Black Knight on 13 Nov 2005 21:54 "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:id1l43-6bg.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net... > In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) > <HW@> > wrote > on Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:28:41 GMT > <31jfn1546p3ru42u224idk8pkur7l4ktf1(a)4ax.com>: >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:06:36 GMT, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>>In article <Xns970D1E95F2849WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>, bz >>><bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> writes: >>>>"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in >>>>news:1131855605.794683.277520(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> bz wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If I understand the implications, it should be easy to tell the >>>>>> difference. >>>>> >>>>> You should have seen by now that Henri has zero interest in testing >>>>> his >>>>> theory. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Negative. >>>> >>>Imaginary. >> >> Idiot. Learn the facts. > > And these are....? > > Point us at a website. One possibility, for instance, is > > http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm > > which apparently contemplates a c'=c+v hypothesis when > it comes to binary stars. It's far from proof and > doesn't even begin to contemplate various easily > observed artifacts such as spectrographic data; > nor does it have any actual data to speak of. > > But it's a start. $1,000,000,000,000 in your pocket is no money to speak of, but it's a penny for every photon in the light from V 1493 Aql... merely a start. Some of us know when we are wealthy. Androcles.
From: bz on 13 Nov 2005 23:34
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:h0jfn198l1su1locnb854gdnmv124215dk(a)4ax.com: > On 12 Nov 2005 20:20:05 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>bz wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>> >>> If I understand the implications, it should be easy to tell the >>> difference. >> >>You should have seen by now that Henri has zero interest in testing his >>theory. >> >>[snip] > > Idiot. Learn the facts. Present facts. Present equations, unless you are afraid of them. What, according to BaT, should the sagnac do at a constant angular velocity? How should it act during angular acceleration. How about 'according to SR'? -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu |