Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: paparios on 5 Jan 2010 10:04 On 5 ene, 10:45, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 8:47 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > We can't go back to any math or anything else until we agree, or agree > to disagree, with the above. > > Forget the frames of reference for a second and just think about this > logically from the perspective of an Observer on the boat and what it > means to the Observer at M on the dock if the Observer on the boat > concludes the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously as I have > described above. > > The Observer on the boat must determine the simultaneity of the cement > blocks entering the water with respect to the water because the waves > propagate through the water. > > You really need to step back and understand the gedanken conceptually > before jumping into the math. You first have to understand if the > Observer on the boat determines the cement blocks entered the water > simultaneously, and the cement blocks were equi-distant from the > Observer at M on the dock when they entered the water, then the waves > reach the Observer at M simultaneously. > > You have to understand the waves do not have to reach the boat > simultaneously for the Observer on the boat to determine the cements > blocks entered the water simultaneously based on the available > information. After hundreds of posts you still do not get the basic facts of simultaneity. When, in the train gedanken initial conditions, it is said "...Just when the flashes of lightning occur (at points A and B on the embankment frame), this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train...", you seem to believe that it means that, as points A and A' also coincide (as well as points B and B'), the lightning strikes were also simultaneous for points A' and B'. Actually this is wrong, as it was clearly pointed out to you by Paul Draper. In Special Relativity, time and length of moving objects are frame dependent quantities. In the numerical example I provided to you, this is clearly derived: Point A has x=-100000km and lightning strike was at t=0 sec Point A' has x'=-125000km and lightning strike was at t'=+0.25sec Point B has x=+100000km and lightning strike was at t=0 sec Point B' has x=+125000km and ligthning strike was at t'=-0.25sec With these initial values, observers saw the following: Observer M saw two simultaneous light signals at t=0.333sec Observer M' saw the light signal from point B at t'=0.167sec and the light signal from point A at t'=0.667sec Simultaneity on frame K means non-simultaneity on the moving (relative to K) frame K'. Miguel Rios
From: PD on 5 Jan 2010 10:27 On Jan 4, 5:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 5:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 2:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 3:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 1:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 4, 2:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Just like there is no available documentation about evidence against > > > > > the Sun's entrained aether ending past the orbit of Uranus. > > > > > Of course there is. Have you tried looking for it? Or were you > > > > expecting it to be served to you in your high chair? > > > > > Have you tried a search on scholar.google.com? > > > > > > But you > > > > > choose to believe the Sun does not entrain the aether just like you > > > > > choose to believe in flying wombats, even though there is no evidence > > > > > of either. > > > > > I didn't say I believed in flying wombats. You did. > > > > > You get easily confused, don't you? Is it the medications? > > > > You are the one who is confused. I'm explaining to you what you state > > > of denial is like. Your state of denial is similar to your belief in > > > flying wombats and when asked for evidence of such wombats, you refuse > > > to offer any evidence to their existence. > > > I never said there were flying wombats. You did. You have a distorted > > sense of reality, mpc. There is medication available for that. > > It's an analogy. Your refusal to offer any evidence against the Sun's > entrained aether ending around the orbit of Uranus being the reason > for the Pioneer Effect is analogous to your insistence in flying > wombats without providing evidence of any. It's a poor analogy. My refusal to hand-deliver to your high-chair the existing evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending around the orbit of Uranus AT ALL is analogous to my insistence of the existence of wombats in Australia. You see, there is documented evidence for both of those. There isn't documented evidence of flying wombats. Your ignorance of the documented evidence is not my problem. I am happy to just point out that it's there and to suggest a fruitful tool by which you can discover it for yourself, so that I do not abet your lazy ignorance. > > Do you know what an analogy is? I am saying your behavior in terms of > not supporting your claims is the same thing AS IF you believed in > flying wombats but refused to provide any evidence of their existence. > > > > > > Your lack of ability to back up the claim of the existence of flying > > > wombats is the same as your lack of ability to back up your claim that > > > the Pioneer Effect is not caused by the satellites exiting the Sun's > > > entrained aether. > > > There is evidence available, and which you can easily find, that rules > > out aether entrainment as an explanation for the Pioneer effect. > > > No amount of whining on your part about it not being decanted for you > > on the tray of your high chair will alter that fact. > > > Have you tried scholar.google.com? > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. Have you tried using scholar.google.com? Have you even entered the URL in your browser? What excuse do you have for not doing that?
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 10:28 On Jan 5, 10:04 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 ene, 10:45, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 8:47 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > We can't go back to any math or anything else until we agree, or agree > > to disagree, with the above. > > > Forget the frames of reference for a second and just think about this > > logically from the perspective of an Observer on the boat and what it > > means to the Observer at M on the dock if the Observer on the boat > > concludes the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously as I have > > described above. > > > The Observer on the boat must determine the simultaneity of the cement > > blocks entering the water with respect to the water because the waves > > propagate through the water. > > > You really need to step back and understand the gedanken conceptually > > before jumping into the math. You first have to understand if the > > Observer on the boat determines the cement blocks entered the water > > simultaneously, and the cement blocks were equi-distant from the > > Observer at M on the dock when they entered the water, then the waves > > reach the Observer at M simultaneously. > > > You have to understand the waves do not have to reach the boat > > simultaneously for the Observer on the boat to determine the cements > > blocks entered the water simultaneously based on the available > > information. > > After hundreds of posts you still do not get the basic facts of > simultaneity. > When, in the train gedanken initial conditions, it is said "...Just > when the flashes of lightning occur (at points A and B on the > embankment frame), this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, > but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of > the train...", you seem to believe that it means that, as points A and > A' also coincide (as well as points B and B'), the lightning strikes > were also simultaneous for points A' and B'. Actually this is wrong, > as it was clearly pointed out to you by Paul Draper. > In Special Relativity, time and length of moving objects are frame > dependent quantities. > In the numerical example I provided to you, this is clearly derived: > > Point A has x=-100000km and lightning strike was at t=0 sec > Point A' has x'=-125000km and lightning strike was at t'=+0.25sec > > Point B has x=+100000km and lightning strike was at t=0 sec > Point B' has x=+125000km and ligthning strike was at t'=-0.25sec > > With these initial values, observers saw the following: > > Observer M saw two simultaneous light signals at t=0.333sec > > Observer M' saw the light signal from point B at t'=0.167sec and the > light signal from point A at t'=0.667sec > > Simultaneity on frame K means non-simultaneity on the moving (relative > to K) frame K'. > > Miguel Rios Just go back to the Observer on the boat and the cement blocks being dropped in front of the boat and off the back of the boat. The Observer on the boat knows the speed of the boat relative to the water, the speed the waves propagate through the water, the difference in time the wave hits the front of the boat and the wave hits the back of the boat, and how far from the boat the cement blocks were when the cement blocks entered the water. Is this enough information for the Observer on the boat to conclude the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously even if the waves the cement blocks make in the water do not reach the boat simultaneously? Of course it is.
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 10:32 On Jan 5, 10:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 5:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 5:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 2:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 3:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 4, 1:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 2:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > Just like there is no available documentation about evidence against > > > > > > the Sun's entrained aether ending past the orbit of Uranus. > > > > > > Of course there is. Have you tried looking for it? Or were you > > > > > expecting it to be served to you in your high chair? > > > > > > Have you tried a search on scholar.google.com? > > > > > > > But you > > > > > > choose to believe the Sun does not entrain the aether just like you > > > > > > choose to believe in flying wombats, even though there is no evidence > > > > > > of either. > > > > > > I didn't say I believed in flying wombats. You did. > > > > > > You get easily confused, don't you? Is it the medications? > > > > > You are the one who is confused. I'm explaining to you what you state > > > > of denial is like. Your state of denial is similar to your belief in > > > > flying wombats and when asked for evidence of such wombats, you refuse > > > > to offer any evidence to their existence. > > > > I never said there were flying wombats. You did. You have a distorted > > > sense of reality, mpc. There is medication available for that. > > > It's an analogy. Your refusal to offer any evidence against the Sun's > > entrained aether ending around the orbit of Uranus being the reason > > for the Pioneer Effect is analogous to your insistence in flying > > wombats without providing evidence of any. > > It's a poor analogy. My refusal to hand-deliver to your high-chair the > existing evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending around the > orbit of Uranus AT ALL is analogous to my insistence of the existence > of wombats in Australia. You see, there is documented evidence for > both of those. There isn't documented evidence of flying wombats. Your > ignorance of the documented evidence is not my problem. I am happy to > just point out that it's there and to suggest a fruitful tool by which > you can discover it for yourself, so that I do not abet your lazy > ignorance. > > > > > > > Do you know what an analogy is? I am saying your behavior in terms of > > not supporting your claims is the same thing AS IF you believed in > > flying wombats but refused to provide any evidence of their existence. > > > > > Your lack of ability to back up the claim of the existence of flying > > > > wombats is the same as your lack of ability to back up your claim that > > > > the Pioneer Effect is not caused by the satellites exiting the Sun's > > > > entrained aether. > > > > There is evidence available, and which you can easily find, that rules > > > out aether entrainment as an explanation for the Pioneer effect. > > > > No amount of whining on your part about it not being decanted for you > > > on the tray of your high chair will alter that fact. > > > > Have you tried scholar.google.com? > > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. > > Have you tried using scholar.google.com? Have you even entered the URL > in your browser? What excuse do you have for not doing that? What excuse to you have for not posting one link to support your argument the Sun's entrained aether does not end close to the orbit of Uranus? Is that because there is no evidence, like there is no evidence to support your belief wombats can fly? If your going to just make stuff up like there is evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending close to the orbit of Uranus, then that is similar to you making stuff up about flying wombats.
From: PD on 5 Jan 2010 10:39
On Jan 5, 9:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 10:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 5:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 5:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 2:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 4, 3:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 1:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 2:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Just like there is no available documentation about evidence against > > > > > > > the Sun's entrained aether ending past the orbit of Uranus. > > > > > > > Of course there is. Have you tried looking for it? Or were you > > > > > > expecting it to be served to you in your high chair? > > > > > > > Have you tried a search on scholar.google.com? > > > > > > > > But you > > > > > > > choose to believe the Sun does not entrain the aether just like you > > > > > > > choose to believe in flying wombats, even though there is no evidence > > > > > > > of either. > > > > > > > I didn't say I believed in flying wombats. You did. > > > > > > > You get easily confused, don't you? Is it the medications? > > > > > > You are the one who is confused. I'm explaining to you what you state > > > > > of denial is like. Your state of denial is similar to your belief in > > > > > flying wombats and when asked for evidence of such wombats, you refuse > > > > > to offer any evidence to their existence. > > > > > I never said there were flying wombats. You did. You have a distorted > > > > sense of reality, mpc. There is medication available for that. > > > > It's an analogy. Your refusal to offer any evidence against the Sun's > > > entrained aether ending around the orbit of Uranus being the reason > > > for the Pioneer Effect is analogous to your insistence in flying > > > wombats without providing evidence of any. > > > It's a poor analogy. My refusal to hand-deliver to your high-chair the > > existing evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending around the > > orbit of Uranus AT ALL is analogous to my insistence of the existence > > of wombats in Australia. You see, there is documented evidence for > > both of those. There isn't documented evidence of flying wombats. Your > > ignorance of the documented evidence is not my problem. I am happy to > > just point out that it's there and to suggest a fruitful tool by which > > you can discover it for yourself, so that I do not abet your lazy > > ignorance. > > > > Do you know what an analogy is? I am saying your behavior in terms of > > > not supporting your claims is the same thing AS IF you believed in > > > flying wombats but refused to provide any evidence of their existence.. > > > > > > Your lack of ability to back up the claim of the existence of flying > > > > > wombats is the same as your lack of ability to back up your claim that > > > > > the Pioneer Effect is not caused by the satellites exiting the Sun's > > > > > entrained aether. > > > > > There is evidence available, and which you can easily find, that rules > > > > out aether entrainment as an explanation for the Pioneer effect. > > > > > No amount of whining on your part about it not being decanted for you > > > > on the tray of your high chair will alter that fact. > > > > > Have you tried scholar.google.com? > > > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. > > > Have you tried using scholar.google.com? Have you even entered the URL > > in your browser? What excuse do you have for not doing that? > > What excuse to you have for not posting one link to support your > argument the Sun's entrained aether does not end close to the orbit of > Uranus? The REASON I have is that it is the obligation of the proposer of a new theory to do this work. It is an essential skill that is expected of, and practiced by, every scientific researcher on the planet. You don't want to do it, because you are afraid, lazy, and childish. And so you find it easier to try to taunt and wheedle people to do that work for you. I don't have to indulge you in your foibles. > Is that because there is no evidence, like there is no > evidence to support your belief wombats can fly? If your going to just > make stuff up like there is evidence against the Sun's entrained > aether ending close to the orbit of Uranus, then that is similar to > you making stuff up about flying wombats. The evidence is there. I have suggested a tool by which you can find it. |