🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:15:39 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_q>
wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:115ti5l7q2s7aaufmksnq2mi7irsob9svg@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:52:46 -0600, Tom Roberts
>> <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>> On Dec 18, 3:27 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>>> sci.physics.relativity:
>>>>> In our best model of light, QED, the photon is NOT a particle. Neither
>>>>> is it a
>>>>> wave.
>>>>>         There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
>>>>>         Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Shakespeare
>>>>> There is no expectation that words and concepts from your everyday life
>>>>> capture
>>>>> the essence of phenomena far removed from you everyday experience.
>>>>> Photons and
>>>>> quantum phenomena are indeed far removed (you experience light, not
>>>>> photons or
>>>>> their quantum implications).
>>>>
>>>> Honest Roberts stop introducing red herrings!
>>>
>>>Dishonest Valev stop ignoring the context! I was responding to marcofuics,
>>>and
>>>this is not at all a red herring.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You know that the
>>>> problem crucial for contemporary physics is: Does the speed of light
>>>> depend on the speed of the light source, as Newton's emission theory
>>>> of light assumes, or is it independent of the speed of the light
>>>> source, as Einstein's special relativity assumes.
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Matches like these:
>>
>> http://www.scisite.info/USge.jpg
>> http://www.scisite.info/UCep.jpg
>> http://www.scisite.info/group1.jpg
>> http://www.scisite.info/R_Cru.jpg
>> http://www.scisite.info/falseeclipse.jpg
>>
>> .....and many others, are pretty convincing evidence that light behaves
>> ballistically as it travels across the vacuum of space.
>>
>> I can only feel very sorry for all those deluded astronomers who are
>> plainly
>> wasting their time because of Einstein.
>>
>
>You'll never get past Humpty Roberts' bigotry. He's the worst fuckwit
>of the lot.
>
>Here's a two magnitude dilly for ya
>  http://cosmicdiary.org/blogs/john_hearnshaw/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/ogle-2006-blg-109.png

There is nothing wrong with the concept of gravitational lensing...but we know
of far a better way to discover planets that are orbiting stars. Androcles and
Wilsonia are just two.


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

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