Bigbang, a fantasy?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 9 Jan 2010 21:05 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hibafd$hd6$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > [...] > [...] Gisse thinks a newsgroup is a chat room.
From: Dono. on 9 Jan 2010 23:39 On Jan 5, 4:32 pm, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > Seehttp://www.spacetelescope.org/new/htmeheic1007.html > > Marcel Luttgens Correction: http://shop.abc.net.au/multimediaitems/images/product_images/5/500188.jpg
From: Androcles on 10 Jan 2010 06:53 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:8e8jk5lqk0mm5etmhhormveu524571t4th(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:49:02 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:qqfik5d3tnpf4pmpd7qnekin4snua1c9jk(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:03:27 -0000, "Androcles" > >>>> >>>>So if you assume light accelerates by gravity then it accelerates >>>>by gravity, is that what you are saying? >>> >>> I and lots of other people say it accelerates with gravity like anything >>> else. >>> Only Einsteinians and Andro the Anti say it doesn't. >> >>So if you assume light accelerates by gravity then it accelerates >>by gravity, is that what you are saying? > > I'm saying light accelerates by gravity because that's what I'm have said > because that's what happens in spite of the fact that Einstein said it > didn't > even though you seem to think I said what Einstein claimed and you don't > usually agree with him unless you want to pin something on me that is not > what > I said at all. I must have have misunderstood, I could swear you said "Assume a photon accelerates as it falls to earth from height h. Let it initially move at c relative to earth....Assume the acceleration due to gravity is constant". Assume Wilson has a bicycle that he pedals at 99% c with no parachute to slow him down. Assume Wilson is an idiot that falls to Earth from height 3000 feet. Therefore Wilson has a dead bicycle with a buckled wheel. As it is he's just a brain-dead idiot. So if you assume light accelerates by gravity then it accelerates by gravity, is that what you are saying? >>>>Oh I see. In BaThwater you have negative mass to cancel out >>>>positive mass, is that what you are saying? >>>>Have you tried cyan wine to cancel the cheap plonk you are guzzling? >>>> >>>> >>>>> It makes no difference whether or not light possesses mass. >>>> >>>>Why do I need to consider a willusional wobject (mass m)*, then? >>> >>> ...is the cold keeping you awake? >> >>Nah, its bloody hot in my living room. Glad I have a new boiler, >>I'll turn the heat down. > > Bloody hot here too. ....and all the windows are open.. No A/C? I kept the windows closed when I lived in Florida to stop the heat coming in.
From: Inertial on 10 Jan 2010 18:13 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:j4gkk5hrj3j51tpmffpn74s9qbjej20nr5(a)4ax.com... > I'll repeat. An accelerating source emits a photon in the forward > directio. The > photon...or wave or whatever....takes a finite time to be emitted. > ....so the back end is moving faster than te front end...very slightly but > enough to give it the same kind of 'bunching' that produces our > brigthness. > curves. So the back end of the photon will catch up with the front end and overtake it. BAHAHAHAHAHA.
From: eric gisse on 10 Jan 2010 18:52
Inertial wrote: > "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message > news:j4gkk5hrj3j51tpmffpn74s9qbjej20nr5(a)4ax.com... >> I'll repeat. An accelerating source emits a photon in the forward >> directio. The >> photon...or wave or whatever....takes a finite time to be emitted. >> ....so the back end is moving faster than te front end...very slightly >> but enough to give it the same kind of 'bunching' that produces our >> brigthness. >> curves. > > So the back end of the photon will catch up with the front end and > overtake it. BAHAHAHAHAHA. Which IS NOT SEEN. This stupidity drives me batshit sometimes. |