Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Surfer on 18 Apr 2008 19:52 On Apr 18, 7:11 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Cahill's selection of the run that Joos specifically rejected > was motivated by his belief that this run supported his > theory. > He noted that this run supported his theory and that the others did not. That means he did not reject any data. In order to make that observation he used ALL the data.
From: Surfer on 18 Apr 2008 20:11 On Apr 19, 12:41 am, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Apr 17, 8:25 pm, wbb...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > However, Cahill's latest flyby paper shows that it can be > > INDIRECTLY measured via doppler effects. > > You mean by using Cahill's Newtonian explanation for the Doppler > effect mixed with a ballistic interpretation of the relativity , Bozo? > If you can see an error in his paper, you have a public duty to point it out.
From: Jerry on 18 Apr 2008 22:52 On Apr 18, 6:52 pm, Surfer <wbb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 7:11 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Cahill's selection of the run that Joos specifically rejected > > was motivated by his belief that this run supported his > > theory. > > He noted that this run supported his theory and that the others did > not. > That means he did not reject any data. In order to make that > observation he used ALL the data. No, that means that he shut his eyes against any data that ran contrary to his prejudices. In other words, Cahill conducted a fraudulent analysis, and your blind support of Cahill doesn't speak at all well of your scientific objectivity. Jerry
From: Dono on 18 Apr 2008 23:39 On Apr 18, 7:52 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Apr 18, 6:52 pm, Surfer <wbb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 18, 7:11 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Cahill's selection of the run that Joos specifically rejected > > > was motivated by his belief that this run supported his > > > theory. > > > He noted that this run supported his theory and that the others did > > not. > > That means he did not reject any data. In order to make that > > observation he used ALL the data. > > No, that means that he shut his eyes against any data that ran > contrary to his prejudices. > > In other words, Cahill conducted a fraudulent analysis, and > your blind support of Cahill doesn't speak at all well of > your scientific objectivity. > > Jerry "Rag" chose the only data that supports his INCORRECT theoretical part. So much for science :-)
From: Surfer on 19 Apr 2008 01:52
On Apr 19, 11:52 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Apr 18, 6:52 pm, Surfer <wbb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 18, 7:11 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Cahill's selection of the run that Joos specifically rejected > > > was motivated by his belief that this run supported his > > > theory. > > > He noted that this run supported his theory and that the others did > > not. > > That means he did not reject any data. In order to make that > > observation he used ALL the data. > > No, that means that he shut his eyes against any data that ran > contrary to his prejudices. > You are not making sense. I wrote "He noted that this run supported his theory and that the others did not." |