Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 11:16 On Jan 4, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 10:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 2, 9:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I do expect you to learn how to research the literature yourself, yes. > > > > > ANYBODY who does physics learns this as a basic skill. > > > > > Not cowtowing to your laziness and apprehensions about doing actual > > > > > work is not denial. It is simply refusing to cowtow to childish > > > > > behavior. > > > > > Sulk if you like. > > > > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. > > > > Really? What dictionary are you using? Or is this another case where > > > you are just defining words the way you want to? > > > I'm still waiting for those links to evidence refuting the Sun's > > aether entrainment ends just past the orbit of Uranus. > > Have you tried scholar.google.com? > > Why do you think that unless you are SPOONFED information at YOUR > CONVENIENCE just because you WHINE that you want it that way, that > anything else is denial? > The Pioneer Effect is evidence the Sun's entrained aether ends just past the orbit of Uranus. If you are going to make statements that there is experimental evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending just past the orbit of Uranus and then not back those statements up with the actual evidence, that is the definition of denial.
From: PD on 4 Jan 2010 11:56 On Jan 4, 10:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 10:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 2, 9:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I do expect you to learn how to research the literature yourself, yes. > > > > > > ANYBODY who does physics learns this as a basic skill. > > > > > > Not cowtowing to your laziness and apprehensions about doing actual > > > > > > work is not denial. It is simply refusing to cowtow to childish > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > Sulk if you like. > > > > > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. > > > > > Really? What dictionary are you using? Or is this another case where > > > > you are just defining words the way you want to? > > > > I'm still waiting for those links to evidence refuting the Sun's > > > aether entrainment ends just past the orbit of Uranus. > > > Have you tried scholar.google.com? > > > Why do you think that unless you are SPOONFED information at YOUR > > CONVENIENCE just because you WHINE that you want it that way, that > > anything else is denial? > > The Pioneer Effect is evidence the Sun's entrained aether ends just > past the orbit of Uranus. > > If you are going to make statements that there is experimental > evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending just past the orbit > of Uranus and then not back those statements up with the actual > evidence, I've already told you where you can find the counter-evidence. If I tell you that there are wombats in Australia, and you insist that you need to have a wombat delivered to you in the chair where you are sitting before you'll believe there are wombats in Australia, then if that delivery doesn't happen does it mean there are no wombats in Australia? No, it means that you a lazy ignoramus who can't be bothered to find out facts for himself. > that is the definition of denial.
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 12:13 On Jan 4, 11:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 10:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 10:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 2, 9:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I do expect you to learn how to research the literature yourself, yes. > > > > > > > ANYBODY who does physics learns this as a basic skill. > > > > > > > Not cowtowing to your laziness and apprehensions about doing actual > > > > > > > work is not denial. It is simply refusing to cowtow to childish > > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > Sulk if you like. > > > > > > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. > > > > > > Really? What dictionary are you using? Or is this another case where > > > > > you are just defining words the way you want to? > > > > > I'm still waiting for those links to evidence refuting the Sun's > > > > aether entrainment ends just past the orbit of Uranus. > > > > Have you tried scholar.google.com? > > > > Why do you think that unless you are SPOONFED information at YOUR > > > CONVENIENCE just because you WHINE that you want it that way, that > > > anything else is denial? > > > The Pioneer Effect is evidence the Sun's entrained aether ends just > > past the orbit of Uranus. > > > If you are going to make statements that there is experimental > > evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending just past the orbit > > of Uranus and then not back those statements up with the actual > > evidence, > > I've already told you where you can find the counter-evidence. If I > tell you that there are wombats in Australia, and you insist that you > need to have a wombat delivered to you in the chair where you are > sitting before you'll believe there are wombats in Australia, then if > that delivery doesn't happen does it mean there are no wombats in > Australia? > No, it means that you a lazy ignoramus who can't be bothered to find > out facts for himself. > If you insist wombats can fly and I ask you to provide evidence of flying wombats and you refuse to, then you are in a state of denial to the fact wombats can't fly.
From: Michael Moroney on 4 Jan 2010 14:27 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 30 2009, 4:09=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael >Moroney) wrote: >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >With your numbers above, plus factoring in the distance A' is from M' >> >and the distance B' is from M' and factoring in the trains speed >> >relative to the embankment, giving the Observer at M' the speed of the >> >train relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment, >> >the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strikes were simultaneous. >> >> Show the math. >The Observer knows the water is at rest with respect to the >embankment. The Observer knows the light is traveling at 0.75c >relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment. The >Observer knows the train is moving at 0.25c relative to the water at >rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer at M' notes the time >on the clock at M' when the light from the lightning strike at B/B' >arrives at M'. Based on the light propagating at 0.8421c relative to >the train from B' towards M' and the mark made by the lightning strike >at B' one year from M', the Observer at M' concludes the lightning >strike at B/B' occurred 0.75c from where M' is relative to the water >when the light from the lightning strike at B/B' arrived at M'. Since >light propagates at 0.75c in stationary water, the Observer at M' >concludes the lightning strike at B/B' occurred one year prior to the >light arriving at M'. The light from the lightning strike at A/A' >arrives at M'. Based on the light propagating at 0.6154c relative to >the train from A' towards M' and the mark made by the lightning strike >at A' one year from M', the observer knows both lightning strikes were 1 light year away (by definition), but arrived at his location 1.1875 years later and 1.6250 years later (1/0.8421 and 1/0.6154 respectively), which are different times, therefore the observer concludes the events were not simultaneous.
From: PD on 4 Jan 2010 14:50
On Jan 4, 11:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 11:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 9:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I do expect you to learn how to research the literature yourself, yes. > > > > > > > > ANYBODY who does physics learns this as a basic skill. > > > > > > > > Not cowtowing to your laziness and apprehensions about doing actual > > > > > > > > work is not denial. It is simply refusing to cowtow to childish > > > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > Sulk if you like. > > > > > > > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. > > > > > > > Really? What dictionary are you using? Or is this another case where > > > > > > you are just defining words the way you want to? > > > > > > I'm still waiting for those links to evidence refuting the Sun's > > > > > aether entrainment ends just past the orbit of Uranus. > > > > > Have you tried scholar.google.com? > > > > > Why do you think that unless you are SPOONFED information at YOUR > > > > CONVENIENCE just because you WHINE that you want it that way, that > > > > anything else is denial? > > > > The Pioneer Effect is evidence the Sun's entrained aether ends just > > > past the orbit of Uranus. > > > > If you are going to make statements that there is experimental > > > evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending just past the orbit > > > of Uranus and then not back those statements up with the actual > > > evidence, > > > I've already told you where you can find the counter-evidence. If I > > tell you that there are wombats in Australia, and you insist that you > > need to have a wombat delivered to you in the chair where you are > > sitting before you'll believe there are wombats in Australia, then if > > that delivery doesn't happen does it mean there are no wombats in > > Australia? > > No, it means that you a lazy ignoramus who can't be bothered to find > > out facts for himself. > > If you insist wombats can fly and I ask you to provide evidence of > flying wombats and you refuse to, then you are in a state of denial to > the fact wombats can't fly. But the difference is that there is no available documentation about flying wombats. There is plenty of documentation about wombats in Australia, even if you don't believe it's there, and your disbelief doesn't make wombats nonexistent. Likewise, there is plenty of documentation of evidence against aether entrainment in the solar system, even if you don't believe it's there, and your disbelief doesn't make the evidence nonexistent. It only makes you a lazy ignoramus who can't look anything up for himself. |