🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:40:38 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:35:45 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>> To date, nobody has presented a coherent and self-consistent theory that 
>>> explains ALL of the experiments within the domain of SR, other than SR itself 
>>> and theories equivalent to it [#]. Certainly YOU have not done so.
>>> 	[#] In the sense that they are experimentally indistinguishable
>>> 	from SR.
>>>> The only real test of the emission theory is [...]
>>> ... not NEARLY sufficient. For emission theory to be accepted, there are 
>>> HUNDREDS of experiments which must be addressed, not just one.
>> 
>> Well, over the last couple of years I have addressed most of them....and found
>> they are perfectly compatible with BaTh.
>
>As I said, you have not presented a coherent and self-consistent theory that is 
>in agreement with ALL of the experiments within the domain of SR. All you have 
>done is made a set of rather silly and self-serving posts that display little or 
>no evidence of an underlying theory, but do display considerable evidence that 
>you, personally, do not understand very much about logic, science in general, or 
>physics in particular. Most notably, what you call "BaTh" seems to change with 
>YOUR whim, varying with whichever aspect is being discussed, and thus is not a 
>scientific theory.

BaTh is a very consistent theory. It's not my fault if your indoctrination wont
let you even consider it.
It's rapidly developing into a very sound theory. Even comments from those here
who are pretty ignorant to physics are of assistance occasionally.


>If you think otherwise, I suggest that you prepare and then post a complete and 
>definitive description of "BaTh", along with a SYSTEMATIC discussion of a 
>representative set of those experiments. Your presentation should contain 
>sufficient detail so OTHER PEOPLE can apply it unambiguously to any experiment 
>within its domain.

What could be more simple than my sagnac explanation?

>	 IOW: your bits and pieces are not a THEORY.

Well, there is enough variable star evidence for me to ignore comments from
people like you.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that light behaves 100% ballistically
in empty space. There is absolutely no evidence that it is not. 

If you have some, please reveal it to us.

>Tom Roberts


Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

       Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.