🚀 go-pugleaf

HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:

[...]

>>This is not a "crucial problem" at all, because it has been answered.
>>Definitively. As only EXPERIMENTS can do. There are numerous measurements
>>of the speed of light emitted by moving sources, and they all obtain c
>>within their resolutions. Modeling the speed of light emitted by a source
>>moving with speed v as c+kv, experimental measurements require k<2*10^-9,
>>SOLIDLY refuting emission theories such as Newton's:
>>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-
source_tests
> 
> Such lab experiments have alternative explanations.

Well, let's hear the alternative explanations. You have had a DECADE to 
figure them out.

But first, a simple question. Have you ever - even once - gone to the 
library to look up one of those papers referenced?

> 
> The only real test of the emission theory is the way in which it can
> simulate variable star brightness curves based on c+v values from orbiting
> stars.

That, binary star observations, and every speed of light test ever done.

> 
> Matches like these:
> 
> http://www.scisite.info/USge.jpg

No Horizontal/vertical scale, no direct comparison against published light 
curves, no direct comparison against published epheremis data, no 
publication of source code which is ab-so-fucking-lutely essential after the 
last few times you were caught faking things...

Remind me Ralph, were you serious or joking when you floated the idea of the 
hundred solar mass invisible companion theory?


> http://www.scisite.info/UCep.jpg

Same as before.

> http://www.scisite.info/group1.jpg

A total clusterfuck. Previous considerations apply, given you don't source 
anything there.

> http://www.scisite.info/R_Cru.jpg

Same as before. No sourcing, no error bars, no references.

> http://www.scisite.info/falseeclipse.jpg

Less than nothing.

> 
> .....and many others, are pretty convincing evidence that light behaves
> ballistically as it travels across the vacuum of space.

Pretty convincing to you, which doesn't mean much considering you knew the 
answer going in.

> 
> I can only feel very sorry for all those deluded astronomers who are
> plainly wasting their time because of Einstein.

How many times have you put in a request for telescope time?

How many publications have you had rejected?

When was the last time you went to the library and read MNRAS or ApJ/ApJ 
letters?

An armchair physicist who thinks the entire field is wrong has managed to 
not do any of the requisite legwork. Imagine that.

> 
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
> 
>        Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless
>        it's called god.