FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Physics is dead!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 7 [98 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Author Message
The Sorcerer
science forum Guru


Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 363

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:24 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:r0qa72hnjoqhl5t4kf58g5jlhrj1j294ge@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 24 May 2006 08:32:08 GMT, "The Sorcerer" <vanquish@broom.Mickey_f>
| wrote:
|

| >You haven't heard about Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Wedge-shaped
| >Willusionary Worbits, I can tell.
|
| ....Professional jealousy reappearing..

Your emotions have nothing to do with celestial mechanics.
You should try to get over that and rewrite your wrongram until it's a
program.
Real orbits have pitch. You can't take it out to mask h-aether, that's very
non-professional. Oh wait... yes, of course you can. You are a physicist,
not an engineer. We engineers spit on shitheads like you.
Androcles.
Back to top
The Sorcerer
science forum Guru


Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 363

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:24 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:r0qa72hnjoqhl5t4kf58g5jlhrj1j294ge@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 24 May 2006 08:32:08 GMT, "The Sorcerer" <vanquish@broom.Mickey_f>
| wrote:
|

| >You haven't heard about Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Wedge-shaped
| >Willusionary Worbits, I can tell.
|
| ....Professional jealousy reappearing..

Your emotions have nothing to do with celestial mechanics.
You should try to get over that and rewrite your wrongram until it's a
program.
Real orbits have pitch. You can't take it out to mask h-aether, that's very
non-professional. Oh wait... yes, of course you can. You are a physicist,
not an engineer. We engineers spit on shitheads like you.
Physics is dead, Engineering is thriving.
Androcles.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Thu, 25 May 2006 09:24:14 GMT, "The Sorcerer" <vanquish@broom.Mickey_f>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:r0qa72hnjoqhl5t4kf58g5jlhrj1j294ge@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 24 May 2006 08:32:08 GMT, "The Sorcerer" <vanquish@broom.Mickey_f
| wrote:
|

| >You haven't heard about Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Wedge-shaped
| >Willusionary Worbits, I can tell.
|
| ....Professional jealousy reappearing..

Your emotions have nothing to do with celestial mechanics.
You should try to get over that and rewrite your wrongram until it's a
program.
Real orbits have pitch. You can't take it out to mask h-aether, that's very
non-professional. Oh wait... yes, of course you can. You are a physicist,
not an engineer. We engineers spit on shitheads like you.

Wot's the pitch of a point source?

Quote:
Androcles.




HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Thu, 25 May 2006 09:24:42 GMT, "The Sorcerer" <vanquish@broom.Mickey_f>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:r0qa72hnjoqhl5t4kf58g5jlhrj1j294ge@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 24 May 2006 08:32:08 GMT, "The Sorcerer" <vanquish@broom.Mickey_f
| wrote:
|

| >You haven't heard about Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Wedge-shaped
| >Willusionary Worbits, I can tell.
|
| ....Professional jealousy reappearing..

Your emotions have nothing to do with celestial mechanics.
You should try to get over that and rewrite your wrongram until it's a
program.
Real orbits have pitch. You can't take it out to mask h-aether, that's very
non-professional. Oh wait... yes, of course you can. You are a physicist,
not an engineer. We engineers spit on shitheads like you.
Physics is dead, Engineering is thriving.

Repeating yourself now ,eh?....that's dementia setting in..

Quote:
Androcles.





HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 6:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 11:52:46 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:


"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:447401c2$0$11170$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> skrev i en meddelelse
news:o587721jj7ookkmuc7o07ee7jo070bqsrf@4ax.com...
On 23 May 2006 14:47:34 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 20 May 2006 11:51:30 -0700, "neo" <0voyager0@gmail.com> wrote:


But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be
exinct like dinasauras.

It is true that a large part of physics has been in the doldrums for
100
years
after being sidetracked by the obvious myth that vertical light beams
become
diagonal ones in moving frames.
The claim that 'light speed is always 'c' irrespective of the source
speed' is
totally meaningless and a most unscientific statement

"unscientific statement"
This from a fella that says that training in the scientific method is a
waste of time, that true scientists are not trained but proceed to
singular contributions with only the gift of their "scientific mind",
that experiments are to be done only after an act of "scientific
creation" and at the hands of trained idiots, and that experimental
confirmation is not required in science if a logical argument is
available.

Whether you like it or not P(h)D, vertical light beams remain vertical
in
all frames.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe

Nice dynamic demos, indeed much clearer than words. But I haven't discovered
what you claim to be a paradox.
It would be worthwhile if you calculate and demonstrate what happens
according to SRT. If you do it well, you should see that it works fine, and
it will end up as a nice SRT demo. If it doesn't work out, post a message
and ask what the error is. In any case it will be useful!

SR claims the beams move diagonally at c...and this causes them to take longer
to reach the top in the moving observer frame.

They don't. Whilst infinitesimal elements of a beam follow their own separate
diagonal paths in the moving frame, the beam as a whole remains vertical.
The 'ininitesimal elements' do not constitute a light beam moving at c. They
are nothing but points on a graph. They 'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2)
The beam takes the same time to reach the top no matter what moving observer
measures that time.

Wonderful. This out-Setoes Seto.

Quote:

Absolutely nonsense. Vertical has only meaning on a planet or similar
object, and on planet Earth a vertical light beam from the North Pole
would
be parallel to a horizontal beam from the Equator.

JC

Funny Babylonian speech confusion: the two of you mean entirely different
things. Which makes that conversation nonsense, but not the statements.
Not physics is dead, but communication is! ;-)

He looks like a newcomer....so give him a chance...

He isn't aware that the 'other frames' under discussion are all moving
horizontally.


Harald



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On 26 May 2006 11:03:34 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 11:52:46 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:


"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:447401c2$0$11170$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> skrev i en meddelelse
news:o587721jj7ookkmuc7o07ee7jo070bqsrf@4ax.com...
On 23 May 2006 14:47:34 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 20 May 2006 11:51:30 -0700, "neo" <0voyager0@gmail.com> wrote:


But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be
exinct like dinasauras.

It is true that a large part of physics has been in the doldrums for
100
years
after being sidetracked by the obvious myth that vertical light beams
become
diagonal ones in moving frames.
The claim that 'light speed is always 'c' irrespective of the source
speed' is
totally meaningless and a most unscientific statement

"unscientific statement"
This from a fella that says that training in the scientific method is a
waste of time, that true scientists are not trained but proceed to
singular contributions with only the gift of their "scientific mind",
that experiments are to be done only after an act of "scientific
creation" and at the hands of trained idiots, and that experimental
confirmation is not required in science if a logical argument is
available.

Whether you like it or not P(h)D, vertical light beams remain vertical
in
all frames.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe

Nice dynamic demos, indeed much clearer than words. But I haven't discovered
what you claim to be a paradox.
It would be worthwhile if you calculate and demonstrate what happens
according to SRT. If you do it well, you should see that it works fine, and
it will end up as a nice SRT demo. If it doesn't work out, post a message
and ask what the error is. In any case it will be useful!

SR claims the beams move diagonally at c...and this causes them to take longer
to reach the top in the moving observer frame.

They don't. Whilst infinitesimal elements of a beam follow their own separate
diagonal paths in the moving frame, the beam as a whole remains vertical.
The 'ininitesimal elements' do not constitute a light beam moving at c. They
are nothing but points on a graph. They 'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2)
The beam takes the same time to reach the top no matter what moving observer
measures that time.

Wonderful. This out-Setoes Seto.

This is far too hard for you P(h)D....


Quote:
Absolutely nonsense. Vertical has only meaning on a planet or similar
object, and on planet Earth a vertical light beam from the North Pole
would
be parallel to a horizontal beam from the Equator.

JC

Funny Babylonian speech confusion: the two of you mean entirely different
things. Which makes that conversation nonsense, but not the statements.
Not physics is dead, but communication is! ;-)

He looks like a newcomer....so give him a chance...

He isn't aware that the 'other frames' under discussion are all moving
horizontally.


Harald



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Harry
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1010

PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2006 9:11 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:umq972d2q0o565a6j2a2bak66ktnv57mqu@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 11:52:46 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch
wrote:


"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:447401c2$0$11170$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> skrev i en meddelelse
news:o587721jj7ookkmuc7o07ee7jo070bqsrf@4ax.com...
On 23 May 2006 14:47:34 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 20 May 2006 11:51:30 -0700, "neo" <0voyager0@gmail.com> wrote:


But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will
be
exinct like dinasauras.

It is true that a large part of physics has been in the doldrums
for
100
years
after being sidetracked by the obvious myth that vertical light
beams
become
diagonal ones in moving frames.
The claim that 'light speed is always 'c' irrespective of the
source
speed' is
totally meaningless and a most unscientific statement

"unscientific statement"
This from a fella that says that training in the scientific method is
a
waste of time, that true scientists are not trained but proceed to
singular contributions with only the gift of their "scientific mind",
that experiments are to be done only after an act of "scientific
creation" and at the hands of trained idiots, and that experimental
confirmation is not required in science if a logical argument is
available.

Whether you like it or not P(h)D, vertical light beams remain
vertical
in
all frames.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe

Nice dynamic demos, indeed much clearer than words. But I haven't
discovered
what you claim to be a paradox.
It would be worthwhile if you calculate and demonstrate what happens
according to SRT. If you do it well, you should see that it works fine,
and
it will end up as a nice SRT demo. If it doesn't work out, post a message
and ask what the error is. In any case it will be useful!

SR claims the beams move diagonally at c...and this causes them to take
longer
to reach the top in the moving observer frame.

They don't. Whilst infinitesimal elements of a beam follow their own
separate
diagonal paths in the moving frame, the beam as a whole remains vertical.

"the beams move diagonally" is about the motion, and not about the
alignment. Thus that disagreement is about semantics!

Quote:
The 'ininitesimal elements' do not constitute a light beam moving at c.
They
are nothing but points on a graph. They 'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2)

It's your claim that they 'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2). If you want to make it a
paradox in SRT, you have to make it plausible that according to SRT "they
'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2)." I don't think that you did that.

Harald

Quote:
The beam takes the same time to reach the top no matter what moving
observer
measures that time.

Absolutely nonsense. Vertical has only meaning on a planet or similar
object, and on planet Earth a vertical light beam from the North Pole
would
be parallel to a horizontal beam from the Equator.

JC

Funny Babylonian speech confusion: the two of you mean entirely different
things. Which makes that conversation nonsense, but not the statements.
Not physics is dead, but communication is! ;-)

He looks like a newcomer....so give him a chance...

He isn't aware that the 'other frames' under discussion are all moving
horizontally.


Harald



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2006 1:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 26 May 2006 11:03:34 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 11:52:46 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:


"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:447401c2$0$11170$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> skrev i en meddelelse
news:o587721jj7ookkmuc7o07ee7jo070bqsrf@4ax.com...
On 23 May 2006 14:47:34 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 20 May 2006 11:51:30 -0700, "neo" <0voyager0@gmail.com> wrote:


But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be
exinct like dinasauras.

It is true that a large part of physics has been in the doldrums for
100
years
after being sidetracked by the obvious myth that vertical light beams
become
diagonal ones in moving frames.
The claim that 'light speed is always 'c' irrespective of the source
speed' is
totally meaningless and a most unscientific statement

"unscientific statement"
This from a fella that says that training in the scientific method is a
waste of time, that true scientists are not trained but proceed to
singular contributions with only the gift of their "scientific mind",
that experiments are to be done only after an act of "scientific
creation" and at the hands of trained idiots, and that experimental
confirmation is not required in science if a logical argument is
available.

Whether you like it or not P(h)D, vertical light beams remain vertical
in
all frames.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe

Nice dynamic demos, indeed much clearer than words. But I haven't discovered
what you claim to be a paradox.
It would be worthwhile if you calculate and demonstrate what happens
according to SRT. If you do it well, you should see that it works fine, and
it will end up as a nice SRT demo. If it doesn't work out, post a message
and ask what the error is. In any case it will be useful!

SR claims the beams move diagonally at c...and this causes them to take longer
to reach the top in the moving observer frame.

They don't. Whilst infinitesimal elements of a beam follow their own separate
diagonal paths in the moving frame, the beam as a whole remains vertical.
The 'ininitesimal elements' do not constitute a light beam moving at c. They
are nothing but points on a graph. They 'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2)
The beam takes the same time to reach the top no matter what moving observer
measures that time.

Wonderful. This out-Setoes Seto.

This is far too hard for you P(h)D....

'Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimbal in the wabe....

Probably too hard for Wilson....

PD

Quote:


Absolutely nonsense. Vertical has only meaning on a planet or similar
object, and on planet Earth a vertical light beam from the North Pole
would
be parallel to a horizontal beam from the Equator.

JC

Funny Babylonian speech confusion: the two of you mean entirely different
things. Which makes that conversation nonsense, but not the statements.
Not physics is dead, but communication is! ;-)

He looks like a newcomer....so give him a chance...

He isn't aware that the 'other frames' under discussion are all moving
horizontally.


Harald



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2006 11:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Tue, 30 May 2006 11:11:52 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:umq972d2q0o565a6j2a2bak66ktnv57mqu@4ax.com...
On Wed, 24 May 2006 11:52:46 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch


Quote:
it will end up as a nice SRT demo. If it doesn't work out, post a message
and ask what the error is. In any case it will be useful!

SR claims the beams move diagonally at c...and this causes them to take
longer
to reach the top in the moving observer frame.

They don't. Whilst infinitesimal elements of a beam follow their own
separate
diagonal paths in the moving frame, the beam as a whole remains vertical.

"the beams move diagonally" is about the motion, and not about the
alignment. Thus that disagreement is about semantics!

It is not semantics, It is plain geometrical physics.

Plot the bloody thing. You will find that no 'continuous light beam' moves
diagonally.

Each infinitesimal element of the vertical light beam follows a different
diagonal path in the moving frame.
It does not constitute light. ..it is nothing but a point on a graph. There is
absolutely no reason why anyone but a complete idiot would assume it moves
diagonally at c.


Quote:
The 'ininitesimal elements' do not constitute a light beam moving at c.
They
are nothing but points on a graph. They 'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2)

It's your claim that they 'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2).

Photon are not ball bearings.

Quote:
If you want to make it a
paradox in SRT, you have to make it plausible that according to SRT "they
'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2)." I don't think that you did that.

SRT says nothing about 'infinitesimal elements' of a light beam.


Quote:

Harald

The beam takes the same time to reach the top no matter what moving
observer
measures that time.

Absolutely nonsense. Vertical has only meaning on a planet or similar
object, and on planet Earth a vertical light beam from the North Pole
would
be parallel to a horizontal beam from the Equator.

JC

Funny Babylonian speech confusion: the two of you mean entirely different
things. Which makes that conversation nonsense, but not the statements.
Not physics is dead, but communication is! ;-)

He looks like a newcomer....so give him a chance...

He isn't aware that the 'other frames' under discussion are all moving
horizontally.


Harald



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Dobri Karagorgov
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:17 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On 1 Jun 2006 04:17:46 -0700, "dedanoe" <dedanoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)

It isn't my fault if SRians lack the ability to plot the movement of a vertical
light beam in a moving frame.

If they HAD any ability they wouldn't be backing a dead theory.


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 1 Jun 2006 04:17:46 -0700, "dedanoe" <dedanoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)

It isn't my fault if SRians lack the ability to plot the movement of a vertical
light beam in a moving frame.

If they HAD any ability they wouldn't be backing a dead theory.

Unlike your theory, SR actually makes predictions.

Quote:


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On 1 Jun 2006 16:00:32 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 1 Jun 2006 04:17:46 -0700, "dedanoe" <dedanoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)

It isn't my fault if SRians lack the ability to plot the movement of a vertical
light beam in a moving frame.

If they HAD any ability they wouldn't be backing a dead theory.

Unlike your theory, SR actually makes predictions.

Idiot!
How come the BaTh predicts variable star brightness curves?



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 1 Jun 2006 16:00:32 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 1 Jun 2006 04:17:46 -0700, "dedanoe" <dedanoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)

It isn't my fault if SRians lack the ability to plot the movement of a vertical
light beam in a moving frame.

If they HAD any ability they wouldn't be backing a dead theory.

Unlike your theory, SR actually makes predictions.

Idiot!
How come the BaTh predicts variable star brightness curves?

Idiot!
How come BaTh does not predict something that is not predicted by
another theory?

PD
Back to top
Paul B. Andersen
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 814

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 1 Jun 2006 16:00:32 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 1 Jun 2006 04:17:46 -0700, "dedanoe" <dedanoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)
It isn't my fault if SRians lack the ability to plot the movement of a vertical
light beam in a moving frame.

If they HAD any ability they wouldn't be backing a dead theory.
Unlike your theory, SR actually makes predictions.

Idiot!
How come the BaTh predicts variable star brightness curves?

You mean how come the BaTh predicts that binaries
which are not variables should be variables?
Simple.
It is because the BaTh is wrong.

So you are right.
The BaTh does indeed make predictions.
That's why it's falsified.

Paul
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 7 [98 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:12 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Compare and contrast physics and chemistry parent Chem 0 Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:26 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 235) John Baez Research 0 Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:32 pm
No new posts Writing physics for the public and other matters - parano... Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:29 pm
No new posts (OT) Moderator Vacancy Announcement: sci.physics.plasma Martin X. Moleski, SJ Relativity 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:05 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1297s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0809s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]