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 4 of 7 [98 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Author Message
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:23 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:27:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

It is because SRians like you don't know how to add two similar sine waves that
are 180 out of phase.
Ask one of your 1st year students to show you, Paul.

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

Paul


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Paul B. Andersen
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 814

PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
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.

It is because SRians like you don't know how to add two similar sine waves that
are 180 out of phase.
Ask one of your 1st year students to show you, Paul.

So the predictions of the BaTh are wrong
because SRians can't add sine waves? :-)

Paul
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:53:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

It is because SRians like you don't know how to add two similar sine waves that
are 180 out of phase.
Ask one of your 1st year students to show you, Paul.

So the predictions of the BaTh are wrong
because SRians can't add sine waves? Smile

No Paul.

The arguments of Paul Andersen are very amusing because HE cannot add two sine
waves.

Accept it Paul. You have made yet another blunder..

Quote:

Paul


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Paul B. Andersen
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 814

PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:53:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
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.
It is because SRians like you don't know how to add two similar sine waves that
are 180 out of phase.
Ask one of your 1st year students to show you, Paul.
So the predictions of the BaTh are wrong
because SRians can't add sine waves? :-)

No Paul.

The arguments of Paul Andersen are very amusing because HE cannot add two sine
waves.

Accept it Paul. You have made yet another blunder..

So the BaTh doesn't predict that binaries should be variables
because two similar sine waves that are 180 out of phase
cancels each other?
Why do you then say that the BaTh predicts variable star
brightness curves?

Hard to make up your mind, Henri? :-)

Paul
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:41:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:53:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

No Paul.

The arguments of Paul Andersen are very amusing because HE cannot add two sine
waves.

Accept it Paul. You have made yet another blunder..

So the BaTh doesn't predict that binaries should be variables
because two similar sine waves that are 180 out of phase
cancels each other?

The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in roughly
circular orbits.
The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness in an
approximately sinusoidal manner. The two brigyhtness curves are 180 out of
phase.
I think even YOU could work out what the combined effect will be.


Quote:
Why do you then say that the BaTh predicts variable star
brightness curves?

Because it obviously DOES!!!!
.....and in case you aren't aware, all starlight in the universe is NOT
specifically designed to travel to little planet Earth at precisely c.

Quote:

Hard to make up your mind, Henri? Smile

Paul, I can understand that this is all a bit hard for you. However you could
at least make an effort instead of continually making a fool of yourself with
these stupid remaks.

Quote:

Paul


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Paul B. Andersen
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 814

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:41:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:53:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

No Paul.

The arguments of Paul Andersen are very amusing because HE cannot add two sine
waves.

Accept it Paul. You have made yet another blunder..
So the BaTh doesn't predict that binaries should be variables
because two similar sine waves that are 180 out of phase
cancels each other?

The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in roughly
circular orbits.
The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness in an
approximately sinusoidal manner. The two brigyhtness curves are 180 out of
phase.

The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in roughly
circular orbits.
The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness
like this:

| phase brightness
|
| 0.0 1.22
| 0.1 1.21
| 0.17 1.97
| 0.18 2.45
| 0.19 5.90
| 0.1913 60.00
| 0.191310 infinite
| 0.2 0.66
| 0.3 0.64
| 0.4 0.63
| 0.5 0.62
| 0.6 0.63
| 0.7 0.64
| 0.8 0.67
| 0.808719 infinite
| 0.8089 21.6
| 0.809 11.80
| 0.81 3.90
| 0.9 1.34
| 1.0 1.22

"Approximately sinusoidal manner", Henri? :-)

Quote:
I think even YOU could work out what the combined effect will be.

I have.
The combined effect is nothing like a straight line. :-)

Quote:
Why do you then say that the BaTh predicts variable star
brightness curves?

Because it obviously DOES!!!!

Exactly.
It obviously predicts that just about all binaries
should be variables.
About half of all the stars are binaries.
Few are variables.

Quote:
....and in case you aren't aware, all starlight in the universe is NOT
specifically designed to travel to little planet Earth at precisely c.

Because Henri Wilson designed his Wonderland differently? Smile
In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
where the speed of light in vacuum is invariant.

Quote:
Hard to make up your mind, Henri? :-)

Paul, I can understand that this is all a bit hard for you. However you could
at least make an effort instead of continually making a fool of yourself with
these stupid remaks.

Hard for me? Smile
I understand perfectly well why the BaTh predicts that
binaries which are not variables, should be.
Its wrong!
Couldn't be simpler.

Paul
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:05 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:21:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:41:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:



Accept it Paul. You have made yet another blunder..
So the BaTh doesn't predict that binaries should be variables
because two similar sine waves that are 180 out of phase
cancels each other?

The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in roughly
circular orbits.
The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness in an
approximately sinusoidal manner. The two brigyhtness curves are 180 out of
phase.

The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in roughly
circular orbits.
The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness
like this:

| phase brightness
|
| 0.0 1.22
| 0.1 1.21
| 0.17 1.97
| 0.18 2.45
| 0.19 5.90
| 0.1913 60.00
| 0.191310 infinite
| 0.2 0.66
| 0.3 0.64
| 0.4 0.63
| 0.5 0.62
| 0.6 0.63
| 0.7 0.64
| 0.8 0.67
| 0.808719 infinite
| 0.8089 21.6
| 0.809 11.80
| 0.81 3.90
| 0.9 1.34
| 1.0 1.22

"Approximately sinusoidal manner", Henri? Smile

You have failed to include the all important unification factor.


Quote:
I think even YOU could work out what the combined effect will be.

I have.
The combined effect is nothing like a straight line. Smile

Sorry Paul, it is.....just a small ripple.

Quote:
Why do you then say that the BaTh predicts variable star
brightness curves?

Because it obviously DOES!!!!

Exactly.
It obviously predicts that just about all binaries
should be variables.
About half of all the stars are binaries.
Few are variables.

That is what one would expect. They are well away from the critical distance.
You must also include the all important unification factor.


Quote:
....and in case you aren't aware, all starlight in the universe is NOT
specifically designed to travel to little planet Earth at precisely c.

Because Henri Wilson designed his Wonderland differently? Smile
In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
where the speed of light in vacuum is invariant.

You live in a dreamworld where the speeds of all the photons in the universe
are adjusted by the fairies so that they are moving at c towards all the good
christians on little planet Earth, the centre of the universe..

Quote:

Hard to make up your mind, Henri? :-)

Paul, I can understand that this is all a bit hard for you. However you could
at least make an effort instead of continually making a fool of yourself with
these stupid remaks.

Hard for me? Smile
I understand perfectly well why the BaTh predicts that
binaries which are not variables, should be.
Its wrong!
Couldn't be simpler.

You don't ahave the faintest idea how the BaTh operates.

Quote:

Paul


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 Jul 06, 2006 3:31 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]

Quote:

You live in a dreamworld where the speeds of all the photons in the universe
are adjusted by the fairies so that they are moving at c towards all the good
christians on little planet Earth, the centre of the universe..

Naturally this is what you think physicists believe because you have no
idea what you are talking about.

Quote:


Hard to make up your mind, Henri? :-)

Paul, I can understand that this is all a bit hard for you. However you could
at least make an effort instead of continually making a fool of yourself with
these stupid remaks.

Hard for me? Smile
I understand perfectly well why the BaTh predicts that
binaries which are not variables, should be.
Its wrong!
Couldn't be simpler.

You don't ahave the faintest idea how the BaTh operates.

Neither do you.

Quote:


Paul


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:49 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:e8hah6$7t7$1@dolly.uninett.no...
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:41:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| > <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
| >
| >> Henri Wilson wrote:
| >>> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:53:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| >>> <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
| >
| >>> No Paul.
| >>>
| >>> The arguments of Paul Andersen are very amusing because HE cannot add
two sine
| >>> waves.
| >>>
| >>> Accept it Paul. You have made yet another blunder..
| >> So the BaTh doesn't predict that binaries should be variables
| >> because two similar sine waves that are 180 out of phase
| >> cancels each other?
| >
| > The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in
roughly
| > circular orbits.
| > The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness in
an
| > approximately sinusoidal manner. The two brigyhtness curves are 180 out
of
| > phase.
|
| The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in roughly
| circular orbits.
| The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness
| like this:
|
|| phase brightness
||
|| 0.0 1.22
|| 0.1 1.21
|| 0.17 1.97
|| 0.18 2.45
|| 0.19 5.90
|| 0.1913 60.00
|| 0.191310 infinite
|| 0.2 0.66
|| 0.3 0.64
|| 0.4 0.63
|| 0.5 0.62
|| 0.6 0.63
|| 0.7 0.64
|| 0.8 0.67
|| 0.808719 infinite
|| 0.8089 21.6
|| 0.809 11.80
|| 0.81 3.90
|| 0.9 1.34
|| 1.0 1.22
|
| "Approximately sinusoidal manner", Henri? Smile
|
| > I think even YOU could work out what the combined effect will be.
|
| I have.
| The combined effect is nothing like a straight line. Smile
|
| >> Why do you then say that the BaTh predicts variable star
| >> brightness curves?
| >
| > Because it obviously DOES!!!!
|
| Exactly.
| It obviously predicts that just about all binaries
| should be variables.
| About half of all the stars are binaries.
| Few are variables.
|
| > ....and in case you aren't aware, all starlight in the universe is NOT
| > specifically designed to travel to little planet Earth at precisely c.
|
| Because Henri Wilson designed his Wonderland differently? Smile
| In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
| where the speed of light in vacuum is invariant.
|
| >> Hard to make up your mind, Henri? Smile
| >
| > Paul, I can understand that this is all a bit hard for you. However you
could
| > at least make an effort instead of continually making a fool of yourself
with
| > these stupid remaks.
|
| Hard for me? Smile
| I understand perfectly well why the BaTh predicts that
| binaries which are not variables, should be.
| Its wrong!
| Couldn't be simpler.
|
| Paul

In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
where the speed of light in vacuum is variant.
Doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong,
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
Needless to say, Roberts is a shithead like you.
Androcles
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:11 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:49:56 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:e8hah6$7t7$1@dolly.uninett.no...
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:41:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| > <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
|
| >> Henri Wilson wrote:
| >>> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:53:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| >>> <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
|
| >>> No Paul.
|
| >>> The arguments of Paul Andersen are very amusing because HE cannot add
two sine
| >>> waves.
|
| >>> Accept it Paul. You have made yet another blunder..
| >> So the BaTh doesn't predict that binaries should be variables
| >> because two similar sine waves that are 180 out of phase
| >> cancels each other?
|
| > The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in
roughly
| > circular orbits.
| > The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness in
an
| > approximately sinusoidal manner. The two brigyhtness curves are 180 out
of
| > phase.
|
| The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in roughly
| circular orbits.
| The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness
| like this:
|
|| phase brightness
||
|| 0.0 1.22
|| 0.1 1.21
|| 0.17 1.97
|| 0.18 2.45
|| 0.19 5.90
|| 0.1913 60.00
|| 0.191310 infinite
|| 0.2 0.66
|| 0.3 0.64
|| 0.4 0.63
|| 0.5 0.62
|| 0.6 0.63
|| 0.7 0.64
|| 0.8 0.67
|| 0.808719 infinite
|| 0.8089 21.6
|| 0.809 11.80
|| 0.81 3.90
|| 0.9 1.34
|| 1.0 1.22
|
| "Approximately sinusoidal manner", Henri? Smile
|
| > I think even YOU could work out what the combined effect will be.
|
| I have.
| The combined effect is nothing like a straight line. Smile
|
| >> Why do you then say that the BaTh predicts variable star
| >> brightness curves?
|
| > Because it obviously DOES!!!!
|
| Exactly.
| It obviously predicts that just about all binaries
| should be variables.
| About half of all the stars are binaries.
| Few are variables.
|
| > ....and in case you aren't aware, all starlight in the universe is NOT
| > specifically designed to travel to little planet Earth at precisely c.
|
| Because Henri Wilson designed his Wonderland differently? Smile
| In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
| where the speed of light in vacuum is invariant.
|
| >> Hard to make up your mind, Henri? Smile
|
| > Paul, I can understand that this is all a bit hard for you. However you
could
| > at least make an effort instead of continually making a fool of yourself
with
| > these stupid remaks.
|
| Hard for me? Smile
| I understand perfectly well why the BaTh predicts that
| binaries which are not variables, should be.
| Its wrong!
| Couldn't be simpler.
|
| Paul

In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
where the speed of light in vacuum is variant.
Doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong,
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
Needless to say, Roberts is a shithead like you.

....but at least Roberts doesn't need fairies as well as blind faith......

Quote:
Androcles









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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:48 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:gikpa2d36liik22vcvp32gbf9skka889nl@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:49:56 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
| >news:e8hah6$7t7$1@dolly.uninett.no...
| >| Henri Wilson wrote:
| >| > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:41:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| >| > <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
| >| >
| >| >> Henri Wilson wrote:
| >| >>> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:53:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| >| >>> <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
| >| >
| >| >>> No Paul.
| >| >>>
| >| >>> The arguments of Paul Andersen are very amusing because HE cannot
add
| >two sine
| >| >>> waves.
| >| >>>
| >| >>> Accept it Paul. You have made yet another blunder..
| >| >> So the BaTh doesn't predict that binaries should be variables
| >| >> because two similar sine waves that are 180 out of phase
| >| >> cancels each other?
| >| >
| >| > The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in
| >roughly
| >| > circular orbits.
| >| > The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness
in
| >an
| >| > approximately sinusoidal manner. The two brigyhtness curves are 180
out
| >of
| >| > phase.
| >|
| >| The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in
roughly
| >| circular orbits.
| >| The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness
| >| like this:
| >|
| >|| phase brightness
| >||
| >|| 0.0 1.22
| >|| 0.1 1.21
| >|| 0.17 1.97
| >|| 0.18 2.45
| >|| 0.19 5.90
| >|| 0.1913 60.00
| >|| 0.191310 infinite
| >|| 0.2 0.66
| >|| 0.3 0.64
| >|| 0.4 0.63
| >|| 0.5 0.62
| >|| 0.6 0.63
| >|| 0.7 0.64
| >|| 0.8 0.67
| >|| 0.808719 infinite
| >|| 0.8089 21.6
| >|| 0.809 11.80
| >|| 0.81 3.90
| >|| 0.9 1.34
| >|| 1.0 1.22
| >|
| >| "Approximately sinusoidal manner", Henri? Smile
| >|
| >| > I think even YOU could work out what the combined effect will be.
| >|
| >| I have.
| >| The combined effect is nothing like a straight line. Smile
| >|
| >| >> Why do you then say that the BaTh predicts variable star
| >| >> brightness curves?
| >| >
| >| > Because it obviously DOES!!!!
| >|
| >| Exactly.
| >| It obviously predicts that just about all binaries
| >| should be variables.
| >| About half of all the stars are binaries.
| >| Few are variables.
| >|
| >| > ....and in case you aren't aware, all starlight in the universe is
NOT
| >| > specifically designed to travel to little planet Earth at precisely
c.
| >|
| >| Because Henri Wilson designed his Wonderland differently? Smile
| >| In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
| >| where the speed of light in vacuum is invariant.
| >|
| >| >> Hard to make up your mind, Henri? Smile
| >| >
| >| > Paul, I can understand that this is all a bit hard for you. However
you
| >could
| >| > at least make an effort instead of continually making a fool of
yourself
| >with
| >| > these stupid remaks.
| >|
| >| Hard for me? Smile
| >| I understand perfectly well why the BaTh predicts that
| >| binaries which are not variables, should be.
| >| Its wrong!
| >| Couldn't be simpler.
| >|
| >| Paul
| >
| >In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
| >where the speed of light in vacuum is variant.
| >Doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong,
| >"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
| >irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
| >Needless to say, Roberts is a shithead like you.
|
| ...but at least Roberts doesn't need fairies as well as blind faith......
|

Roberts says it, thus it is so, and he's part author of the Relativity
FAQs, sanctioned by Baez. If ever a statement gave total lack of
credibility to "modern" relativity, Roberts' statement above seals
down the coffin lid.
Spookfeed seems to be catching on, seems he took heed of my
page because now he's saying the time at the back end of a spacecraft
is different to the time at the front, as shown:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Of course he wants it to look like he thought of it first, kinda like you
really...
trouble is Wombat's Wedge-on Worbits have no credibility either.
As Douglas Rudd says:
"Androcles,
I've been looking at the controversies.
I've seen all of the stuff on your web pages. One thing that caught
my eye was learning that Einstein defined c as the two way speed of
light."

He's right, of course, and two-way isn't the speed of anything, so
Einstein's s**t falls at c = 2AB/(t'A-tA) = 0/0. You don't know
what negative numbers are, you think you have two noses 24 inches
apart between them because you looked in a mirror one foot away,
dont know how to count down, so you can't see the math blunder.
This is Henri's BaTh, not math or logic, and proof is completely irrelevant.
You did say you were a physicist for 45 years, right?

That prick of an assistant schoolmarm reckons about half of all stars
are binaries. He fucked up with the first ever "binary", Algol.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm#Tusselad

Androcles.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:48:06 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:gikpa2d36liik22vcvp32gbf9skka889nl@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:49:56 GMT, "Sorcerer"
Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a
| wrote:


Quote:
| >|
| >| Paul
|
| >In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
| >where the speed of light in vacuum is variant.
| >Doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong,
| >"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
| >irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
| >Needless to say, Roberts is a shithead like you.
|
| ...but at least Roberts doesn't need fairies as well as blind faith......
|

Roberts says it, thus it is so, and he's part author of the Relativity
FAQs, sanctioned by Baez. If ever a statement gave total lack of
credibility to "modern" relativity, Roberts' statement above seals
down the coffin lid.
Spookfeed seems to be catching on, seems he took heed of my
page because now he's saying the time at the back end of a spacecraft
is different to the time at the front, as shown:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm

What makes you think TIME is connected to the way we see things, using light?
Both 'Time instant', and 'time flow' are universal.

Quote:
Of course he wants it to look like he thought of it first, kinda like you
really...
trouble is Wombat's Wedge-on Worbits have no credibility either.
As Douglas Rudd says:
"Androcles,
I've been looking at the controversies.
I've seen all of the stuff on your web pages. One thing that caught
my eye was learning that Einstein defined c as the two way speed of
light."

He's right, of course, and two-way isn't the speed of anything, so
Einstein's s**t falls at c = 2AB/(t'A-tA) = 0/0. You don't know
what negative numbers are, you think you have two noses 24 inches
apart between them because you looked in a mirror one foot away,
dont know how to count down, so you can't see the math blunder.
This is Henri's BaTh, not math or logic, and proof is completely irrelevant.
You did say you were a physicist for 45 years, right?

Give it up, A.

He actualy fluked a correct equation.

Maybe he wanted to agree with Ritz but in a way that kept his hoax going.

Quote:

That prick of an assistant schoolmarm reckons about half of all stars
are binaries. He fucked up with the first ever "binary", Algol.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm#Tusselad

....a lost cause....totally beyond help.

Quote:
Androcles.




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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:54 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:hd5ra29tdr0lkrbjcqse4rdc254amu84pa@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:48:06 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:gikpa2d36liik22vcvp32gbf9skka889nl@4ax.com...
| >| On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:49:56 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| ><Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| >| wrote:
|
|
| >| >|
| >| >| Paul
| >| >
| >| >In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
| >| >where the speed of light in vacuum is variant.
| >| >Doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong,
| >| >"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
| >| >irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
| >| >Needless to say, Roberts is a shithead like you.
| >|
| >| ...but at least Roberts doesn't need fairies as well as blind
faith......
| >|
| >
| >Roberts says it, thus it is so, and he's part author of the Relativity
| >FAQs, sanctioned by Baez. If ever a statement gave total lack of
| > credibility to "modern" relativity, Roberts' statement above seals
| >down the coffin lid.
| >Spookfeed seems to be catching on, seems he took heed of my
| >page because now he's saying the time at the back end of a spacecraft
| >is different to the time at the front, as shown:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
|
| What makes you think TIME is connected to the way we see things, using
light?

What makes you think you can tell anyone what is wrong with SR if you don't
understand it yourself? You don't even know what negative numbers are.



| Both 'Time instant', and 'time flow' are universal.


Einstein defined time HIS way. It's a math game and the moron
said 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c. You, being innumerate, agree with him. <shrug>
What makes you think time is connected to the way we see things, using
light?

|
| >Of course he wants it to look like he thought of it first, kinda like
you
| >really...
| > trouble is Wombat's Wedge-on Worbits have no credibility either.
| >As Douglas Rudd says:
| > "Androcles,
| > I've been looking at the controversies.
| >I've seen all of the stuff on your web pages. One thing that caught
| >my eye was learning that Einstein defined c as the two way speed of
| >light."
| >
| >He's right, of course, and two-way isn't the speed of anything, so
| >Einstein's s**t falls at c = 2AB/(t'A-tA) = 0/0. You don't know
| >what negative numbers are, you think you have two noses 24 inches
| >apart between them because you looked in a mirror one foot away,
| > dont know how to count down, so you can't see the math blunder.
| >This is Henri's BaTh, not math or logic, and proof is completely
irrelevant.
| >You did say you were a physicist for 45 years, right?
|
| Give it up, A.

f*** off, innumerate idiot.
Androcles.

|
| He actualy fluked a correct equation.
|
| Maybe he wanted to agree with Ritz but in a way that kept his hoax going.
|
| >
| >That prick of an assistant schoolmarm reckons about half of all stars
| >are binaries. He fucked up with the first ever "binary", Algol.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm#Tusselad
|
| ...a lost cause....totally beyond help.
|
| >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: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 06:54:32 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:hd5ra29tdr0lkrbjcqse4rdc254amu84pa@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:48:06 GMT, "Sorcerer"
Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a
| wrote:

| >Roberts says it, thus it is so, and he's part author of the Relativity
| >FAQs, sanctioned by Baez. If ever a statement gave total lack of
| > credibility to "modern" relativity, Roberts' statement above seals
| >down the coffin lid.
| >Spookfeed seems to be catching on, seems he took heed of my
| >page because now he's saying the time at the back end of a spacecraft
| >is different to the time at the front, as shown:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
|
| What makes you think TIME is connected to the way we see things, using
light?

What makes you think you can tell anyone what is wrong with SR if you don't
understand it yourself? You don't even know what negative numbers are.

You don't even know what a virtual image is....

Quote:



| Both 'Time instant', and 'time flow' are universal.


Einstein defined time HIS way. It's a math game and the moron
said 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c. You, being innumerate, agree with him. <shrug
What makes you think time is connected to the way we see things, using
light?

He was correct .....but for entirely the wrong reasons.

Quote:
| >Of course he wants it to look like he thought of it first, kinda like
you
| >really...
| > trouble is Wombat's Wedge-on Worbits have no credibility either.
| >As Douglas Rudd says:
| > "Androcles,
| > I've been looking at the controversies.
| >I've seen all of the stuff on your web pages. One thing that caught
| >my eye was learning that Einstein defined c as the two way speed of
| >light."
|
| >He's right, of course, and two-way isn't the speed of anything, so


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:01 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:v3rta2p16mn65lflosbgt6l0m8o07q0jiu@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 06:54:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:hd5ra29tdr0lkrbjcqse4rdc254amu84pa@4ax.com...
| >| On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:48:06 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| ><Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| >| wrote:
|
| >| >Roberts says it, thus it is so, and he's part author of the Relativity
| >| >FAQs, sanctioned by Baez. If ever a statement gave total lack of
| >| > credibility to "modern" relativity, Roberts' statement above seals
| >| >down the coffin lid.
| >| >Spookfeed seems to be catching on, seems he took heed of my
| >| >page because now he's saying the time at the back end of a spacecraft
| >| >is different to the time at the front, as shown:
| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
| >|
| >| What makes you think TIME is connected to the way we see things, using
| >light?
| >
| > What makes you think you can tell anyone what is wrong with SR if you
don't
| >understand it yourself? You don't even know what negative numbers are.
|
| You don't even know what a virtual image is....

Whether I do or don't has f*** all to do with relativity, this isn't
sci.physics.virtualimage.
I asked you a question.

What makes you think you can tell anyone what is wrong with SR if you don't
understand it yourself?



|
| >
| >
| >
| >| Both 'Time instant', and 'time flow' are universal.
| >
| >
| >Einstein defined time HIS way. It's a math game and the moron
| >said 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c. You, being innumerate, agree with him. <shrug>
| >What makes you think time is connected to the way we see things, using
| >light?
|
| He was correct .....but for entirely the wrong reasons.

You don't even know what a virtual face is, that's why you count two noses
and four eyes, you think they are real.

Did you know you are complete and total fucking lunatic?



|
| >| >Of course he wants it to look like he thought of it first, kinda like
| >you
| >| >really...
| >| > trouble is Wombat's Wedge-on Worbits have no credibility either.
| >| >As Douglas Rudd says:
| >| > "Androcles,
| >| > I've been looking at the controversies.
| >| >I've seen all of the stuff on your web pages. One thing that caught
| >| >my eye was learning that Einstein defined c as the two way speed of
| >| >light."
| >| >
| >| >He's right, of course, and two-way isn't the speed of anything, so
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
|
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 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 Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:29 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: 0.0565s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0047s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]