Prev: How is SR this probability problem explained?
Next: The Infinitely Large Arch (was Re: Three times happening together)
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 18 Mar 2010 18:18 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:46:37 -0700 (PDT), train <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 18, 4:58�am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:d12e94d2-7e85-4f4a-b415-b2e0dafaa60e(a)t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Why should filling the telescope with anything alter the angle of the >> > path? >> >> I already explained. . if you slow a moving object, its aberation angle >> changes. �See the diagram above. >> >> > Why should a tube filled with air or water change the behavior of >> > light traveling down the tube parallel to its walls? >> >> I already explained. . if you slow a moving object, its aberation angle >> changes. �See the diagram above. > >Of course. Provided the moving object ( I assume the photon) is >entering the tube with a sideways velocity and hits the lens at 90 >degrees or enters the telescope tube at an angle not equal to ninety >degrees. > >Androcles could you please see if I am correct and explain this to >Inertial? No point in asking Andro... Inertial is right...probably for the first time in her life... Now let inertial tell us what effect the Earth's atmosphere should have on aberration angles from differently moving souces. >T Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 18 Mar 2010 18:25 On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:13:24 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:05r3q5djcbo5atunmna1ra2bk6q0dmhki3(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:19:41 -0000, "Androcles" >> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> >> wrote: >>>>>> Light loses energy as it travels. >>>>> >>>>>Light SPREADS its energy as it travels! >>>> >>>> Well, as has already been explained to you, that spreading should only >>>> affect >>>> the intensity of the light according to the inverse square law, not its >>>> wavelength. >>>> >>>> However, I will not brand you a complete idiot for making your claim >>>> since >>>> it >>>> is indeed not entirely impossible that there could exist a small but yet >>>> unknown interactive effect. >>>> >>>>>Wake up, Awilson.. >>>> >>>> go to bed Andro... >>> >>> Well, as has already been explained to you, a beam of light doesn't >>>obey your inverse square law or you'd never be able to detect this puny >>>25 watt transmitter all the way from Saturn. >>> http://space.umd.edu/Projects/Cassini/cassini_config.jpg >>>Even a plane mirror would give you a 2/r^2 "law", and fortunately it has a >>>parabolic dish to knock your stupid inverse square "law" into a cocked >>>fuckin' hat! >>>Photons spray in all directions, that spread gives us the inverse square >>>law you know about, but once a photon is on its way it cannot obey >>>your "law". That's why it takes long exposure times to collect enough >>>photons for an image. >>>WAKE UP, AWILSON! >> >> Go to bed Andro. >> >> When photons separate from each other, why should they change? > >When you fry an egg, why should it turn from clear to white? >When you take a wooden boat out of water, why should it dry out and leak? >You are that naive, Awilson, I can make you cry by taking your lollipop. Don't resort to distraction. It wont help you. >When photons separate from each other, they change. "Why" is a matter >for scientific investigation. Maybe they 'unify'... >Beams of light do not obey your juvenile inverse square law bigotry, and >light from distant galaxies are photon streams that follow a beam, well, >as has already been explained to you. You seem to be learning from ME. I am the one who first put forward the theory that 'fields are quantized' and the inverse square law must eventually break down....(beginning at the WDT) Now if you want to add to my theory you are welcome to do so. If your contribution is significant, I will mention your name in the bibliography.. >Go to bed, Awilson, I'm wide awake. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Androcles on 18 Mar 2010 19:44 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:pn95q5h3b0uang37iobqlalh94krrpkcto(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:13:24 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:05r3q5djcbo5atunmna1ra2bk6q0dmhki3(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:19:41 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Light loses energy as it travels. >>>>>> >>>>>>Light SPREADS its energy as it travels! >>>>> >>>>> Well, as has already been explained to you, that spreading should only >>>>> affect >>>>> the intensity of the light according to the inverse square law, not >>>>> its >>>>> wavelength. >>>>> >>>>> However, I will not brand you a complete idiot for making your claim >>>>> since >>>>> it >>>>> is indeed not entirely impossible that there could exist a small but >>>>> yet >>>>> unknown interactive effect. >>>>> >>>>>>Wake up, Awilson.. >>>>> >>>>> go to bed Andro... >>>> >>>> Well, as has already been explained to you, a beam of light doesn't >>>>obey your inverse square law or you'd never be able to detect this puny >>>>25 watt transmitter all the way from Saturn. >>>> http://space.umd.edu/Projects/Cassini/cassini_config.jpg >>>>Even a plane mirror would give you a 2/r^2 "law", and fortunately it has >>>>a >>>>parabolic dish to knock your stupid inverse square "law" into a cocked >>>>fuckin' hat! >>>>Photons spray in all directions, that spread gives us the inverse square >>>>law you know about, but once a photon is on its way it cannot obey >>>>your "law". That's why it takes long exposure times to collect enough >>>>photons for an image. >>>>WAKE UP, AWILSON! >>> >>> Go to bed Andro. >>> >>> When photons separate from each other, why should they change? >> >>When you fry an egg, why should it turn from clear to white? >>When you take a wooden boat out of water, why should it dry out and leak? >>You are that naive, Awilson, I can make you cry by taking your lollipop. > > Don't resort to distraction. It wont help you. > >>When photons separate from each other, they change. "Why" is a matter >>for scientific investigation. > > Maybe they 'unify'... Yeah, separation is unifuckation and they do in 3.5 light years from nearby red-shifted stars instead of 14 Gly from red-shifted galaxies selected by Hubble and his sidekick Awilson. Isn't it time for you to invent the Ahubble constant and the Aeinstein cosmological constant after you've fucked with Doppler? How about some Awilson dork matter as well? >>Beams of light do not obey your juvenile inverse square law bigotry, and >>light from distant galaxies are photon streams that follow a beam, well, >>as has already been explained to you. > > You seem to be learning from ME. > I am the one who first put forward the theory that 'fields are quantized' > and > the inverse square law must eventually break down....(beginning at the > WDT) > > Now if you want to add to my theory you are welcome to do so. If your > contribution is significant, I will mention your name in the > bibliography.. > Funny how you wait 5 years to plagiarise my ideas with one of your "maybes". >>Go to bed, Awilson, I'm wide awake. >
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 18 Mar 2010 21:47 On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:44:46 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:pn95q5h3b0uang37iobqlalh94krrpkcto(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:13:24 -0000, "Androcles" >> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> >> wrote: >>>> Go to bed Andro. >>>> >>>> When photons separate from each other, why should they change? >>> >>>When you fry an egg, why should it turn from clear to white? >>>When you take a wooden boat out of water, why should it dry out and leak? >>>You are that naive, Awilson, I can make you cry by taking your lollipop. >> >> Don't resort to distraction. It wont help you. >> >>>When photons separate from each other, they change. "Why" is a matter >>>for scientific investigation. >> >> Maybe they 'unify'... > >Yeah, separation is unifuckation and they do in 3.5 light years from nearby >red-shifted stars instead of 14 Gly from red-shifted galaxies selected by >Hubble and his sidekick Awilson. Isn't it time for you to invent the Ahubble >constant and the Aeinstein cosmological constant after you've fucked with >Doppler? How about some Awilson dork matter as well? > >>>Beams of light do not obey your juvenile inverse square law bigotry, and >>>light from distant galaxies are photon streams that follow a beam, well, >>>as has already been explained to you. >> >> You seem to be learning from ME. >> I am the one who first put forward the theory that 'fields are quantized' >> and >> the inverse square law must eventually break down....(beginning at the >> WDT) >> >> Now if you want to add to my theory you are welcome to do so. If your >> contribution is significant, I will mention your name in the >> bibliography.. >> >Funny how you wait 5 years to plagiarise my ideas with one of your "maybes". > >>>Go to bed, Awilson, I'm wide awake. Actually you will be pleased to know that I have temporarily dumped my unification theory in favour of ADoppler. It explains everything..fills all the gaps. When I get around to it I will be able to predict the velocity curves that astronomers are calculating using their asumption that spectral shifts are all due to VDoppler. That will be the icing on the cake..the final blow that brings Einstein down. Of course you might beat me to it now that I've given you so many clues...but I don't need the money or another Nobel.... Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Inertial on 18 Mar 2010 22:17
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:gjj5q5pokel3d6bbkfeckreuipdeu6300d(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:44:46 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:pn95q5h3b0uang37iobqlalh94krrpkcto(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:13:24 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> >>> wrote: > >>>>> Go to bed Andro. >>>>> >>>>> When photons separate from each other, why should they change? >>>> >>>>When you fry an egg, why should it turn from clear to white? >>>>When you take a wooden boat out of water, why should it dry out and >>>>leak? >>>>You are that naive, Awilson, I can make you cry by taking your lollipop. >>> >>> Don't resort to distraction. It wont help you. >>> >>>>When photons separate from each other, they change. "Why" is a matter >>>>for scientific investigation. >>> >>> Maybe they 'unify'... >> >>Yeah, separation is unifuckation and they do in 3.5 light years from >>nearby >>red-shifted stars instead of 14 Gly from red-shifted galaxies selected by >>Hubble and his sidekick Awilson. Isn't it time for you to invent the >>Ahubble >>constant and the Aeinstein cosmological constant after you've fucked with >>Doppler? How about some Awilson dork matter as well? >> >>>>Beams of light do not obey your juvenile inverse square law bigotry, and >>>>light from distant galaxies are photon streams that follow a beam, well, >>>>as has already been explained to you. >>> >>> You seem to be learning from ME. >>> I am the one who first put forward the theory that 'fields are >>> quantized' >>> and >>> the inverse square law must eventually break down....(beginning at the >>> WDT) >>> >>> Now if you want to add to my theory you are welcome to do so. If your >>> contribution is significant, I will mention your name in the >>> bibliography.. >>> >>Funny how you wait 5 years to plagiarise my ideas with one of your >>"maybes". >> >>>>Go to bed, Awilson, I'm wide awake. > > Actually you will be pleased to know that I have temporarily dumped my > unification theory in favour of ADoppler. It explains everything..fills > all the > gaps. > When I get around to it I will be able to predict the velocity curves that > astronomers are calculating using their asumption that spectral shifts are > all > due to VDoppler. > > That will be the icing on the cake..the final blow that brings Einstein > down. > > Of course you might beat me to it now that I've given you so many > clues...but I > don't need the money or another Nobel.... You're deluded or a liar .. I think both. But I'm sure you're comfortable in your psychosis. |