Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Surfer on 19 Apr 2008 02:01 On Apr 19, 12:37 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Apr 18, 5:11 pm, Surfer <wbb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > No , Lackey. > How sad. You either can't see an error or have no sense of public duty.
From: Surfer on 19 Apr 2008 02:05 On Apr 19, 12:39 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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 :-) He reported all the data. So your assertion is false.
From: Dono on 19 Apr 2008 02:22 On Apr 18, 11:01 pm, Surfer <wbb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > No , Lackey. > > How sad. You either can't see an error or have no sense of public > duty. Lackey (for you are his lackey) Anyone who knows a little physics sees the errors in the theoretical part of Rag's "paper". I already pointed out to you (and to him, since you most likely showed the thread to the old goat) that he uses the incorrect equations for the Doppler effect. He "rectifies" this wrong with another one, using the equations of ballistic theory of light. Now, what else do you need, lackey? I am starting to believe that you have a very deep vested interest, you are in a total state of denial. You are taking merciless beatings from Tom and Jerry , yet you persist....
From: Dono on 19 Apr 2008 02:23 On Apr 18, 11:05 pm, Surfer <wbb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 12:39 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 :-) > > He reported all the data. So your assertion is false.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No, lackey He rejected 21 out of the 21 runs. He only chose the one that is supported by his braindead "theory". You are either stupid or a compulsive liar or both :-)
From: Eric Gisse on 19 Apr 2008 02:55
On Apr 18, 9:52 pm, Surfer <wbb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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." Exactly. Cherry picking data is bad science. |