Prev: A square polynomial equality
Next: smooth "splice" fxn between two lines
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 14 May 2010 15:46


Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On May 13, 12:55 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
(snipped)
> >
> > The motion of the white headlight alters the wavelength in the prism
> > and fiberglass panel experiment.
>
> This claim is unsubstantiated. There is no known experimental
> evidence that a moving white light source "alters the wavelength in a
> prism" -- other than Doppler shift. (And Doppler shift is negligibly
> small for your test case.)
>
> Since you continue to make unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, and
> can't seem to be bothered to look up basic definitions of the terms
> you are trying to explain, there is no real reason to continue the
> discussion.
>
> CM

(a) that is a promise, I hope you can keep-- for it stops your dogma.
You are an uninvited guest to this internet book thread I am doing.
You seem
unable to learn anything new and dismissive of everything that runs
counter to your beliefs.

(b) as a Big Banger, you never explained how such a theory couples
Space with the material Matter of the Cosmos. How much of the Milky
Way and the local galaxies's speeds is attributable to their own
intrinsic
motion and to that of the Big Bang explosion. But that is not your
fault
alone but the fault of every Big Bang believer. In fact, Big Bang
believers
even contradict Special Relativity with their explosion near the speed
of
light. Never any coupling discussion by Big Bangers, because they are
scared to death about such a logical hole in their theory. The Atom
Totality
theory has no logical hole as far as Space Matter coupling because
that is
simply the Electricity as matter and Magnetism as Space. Everytime one
does electricity magnetism, they are coupling matter with space.

(c) Craig fails to even want to do the experiment, so why has he even
bothered to post at all? The experiment to show there is an
alternative
redshift explanation of galaxies. Using a greenhouse fiberglass panel
I can duplicate the redshift of white lights. And in defiance of the
Big Bang
theory because my redshifts are of objects coming towards me or away
from
me. Whereas Craig has a redshift of only "moving away".

(d) Craig does not know the difference between "definition" of science
and
science itself. Craig seems to think that "the definition" is science,
when
all it is and can be is a aid or helper to the actual laws and theory
of science. Craig
could just as well define redshift as anything that is colored red,
but such
a definition is worthless. And I certainly do not have the time nor
patience
to be teaching Craig what the difference is between a definition of
science and
the laws, principles and theories of science.

(e) Craig believes that the Big Bang redshift is a unique redshift,
not duplicated
by anything else in Nature. But Arp has found another explanation of
Cosmic
redshift, which in my opinion is far superior than a Big Bang
redshift. And
Arp's redshift falsifies Craig's uniquess claim. As well as my
refraction redshift
experiment with fiberglass falsifies Craig's redshift. The Atom
Totality theory says
the redshift is caused
by the geometry of the Atom Totality, not by some mythical silly and
unexplainable explosion.

(f) frankly, I have a book to complete, rather than a arguement with a
dogmatic
arguer who is an incurable, unwavering believer of the Big Bang. Silly
how
someone ends up defending their beliefs by saying their personal-
definition is the
whole of their theory.

(g) maybe because NASA is being cut in terms of funding and cut in
terms of
space mission projects, that Craig is such a sour poster, but I and
this book
should not be the recipient of that sourness.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: David R Tribble on 29 May 2010 12:13
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> You are an uninvited guest to this internet book thread I am doing.

Nonsense. Everyone is invited to post in Internet/Usenet
discussion groups (except for those select few who have been
banned for spamming). You're not implying that you own this
public forum thread, are you?

If you want to publish a book, then by all means write and
publish a real book.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: A square polynomial equality
Next: smooth "splice" fxn between two lines