Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jerry on 6 Aug 2010 19:40 On Aug 6, 6:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >> A large amount of energy is required to maintain the bubble since it is being > >> continuously dissipated. > > >AHAH! You AGREE!!!!!! > > You don;t even understand my theory...so you are only making a fool of > yourself. Actually, I understand your theory far, far better than you do, which is why I so easily can poke holes in it. It is your total lack of understanding of even the most basic physics that allows you to cling to such a worthless piece of self-contradictory garbage as BaTh, which has failed EVERY single experimental observation. You haven't even fit a -single- variable light curve at multiple wavelengths, and THAT is what you consider your theory's crown and glory. Jerry
From: Dono. on 7 Aug 2010 00:45 On Aug 6, 4:16 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. You mean the space between your ears? Yes.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 7 Aug 2010 18:02 On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 15:52:29 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 6, 5:47�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 05:57:22 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Aug 5, 5:49�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >No, it doesn't. >> >You could google "angular dependence synchrotron radiation" BEFORE >> >just making something up in your head. You're prone to too many >> >mistakes relying on your own head. >> >> My use of the word 'dependent' did not imply that the dependence was a simple >> one. > >And perhaps "solely" doesn't imply that it is the sole dependent >variable. > >You goofball. > >Henri, you amuse yourself by playing semantic rope-a-dope. You know >and everyone else knows that you're a pig, not a physicist. But you >figure as long as you're a pig, you might as well be a slippery pig, >and you rather enjoy seeing how many physicists will take the time to >try to pin down a slippery pig. I for one do it only long enough to >affirm that you are in fact a greased pig. Hahahahha! Poor old diaper...doesn't like it when another of Einstein's sacred cows is slaughtered. The raidiation is emitted by the field, NOT THE ELECTRON. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 7 Aug 2010 18:05 On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 16:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 6, 6:14�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: > >> >> A large amount of energy is required to maintain the bubble since it is being >> >> continuously dissipated. >> >> >AHAH! You AGREE!!!!!! >> >> You don;t even understand my theory...so you are only making a fool of >> yourself. > >Actually, I understand your theory far, far better than you do, >which is why I so easily can poke holes in it. It is your total >lack of understanding of even the most basic physics that allows >you to cling to such a worthless piece of self-contradictory >garbage as BaTh, which has failed EVERY single experimental >observation. Don't rave, Crank. Not one known experiment has refuted the BaTh of light. >You haven't even fit a -single- variable light curve at multiple >wavelengths, and THAT is what you consider your theory's crown >and glory. I have explained before why some light curves differ slightly at different wavelengths. They originate from slightly different levels. >Jerry > > > > > Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 7 Aug 2010 18:28
On Aug 7, 5:05 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 16:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Aug 6, 6:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >> A large amount of energy is required to maintain the bubble since it is being > >> >> continuously dissipated. > > >> >AHAH! You AGREE!!!!!! > > >> You don;t even understand my theory...so you are only making a fool of > >> yourself. > > >Actually, I understand your theory far, far better than you do, > >which is why I so easily can poke holes in it. It is your total > >lack of understanding of even the most basic physics that allows > >you to cling to such a worthless piece of self-contradictory > >garbage as BaTh, which has failed EVERY single experimental > >observation. > > Don't rave, Crank. Not one known experiment has refuted the BaTh of light.. > > >You haven't even fit a -single- variable light curve at multiple > >wavelengths, and THAT is what you consider your theory's crown > >and glory. > > I have explained before why some light curves differ slightly at different > wavelengths. They originate from slightly different levels. The emanations cannot be from "slightly" different levels. The phase differences between light curves measured in differing wave lengths may be on the order of days, for a long-period Cepheid. What stars do you know that are that large? No, Ralph, your explanations continue to fail, and fail, and fail... Jerry |