🚀 go-pugleaf

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

> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:35:45 -0600, Tom Roberts
> <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:52:46 -0600, Tom Roberts
>>> <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>>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.

Saying dumb shit like 'hurr willusions are responsible! no, TICK FAIRIES. 
wait, EXTINCTION!!!!' is not an explanation.

You have not even managed to come to terms with stuff like Ives-Stillwell, 
deSitter, or Sagnac. Despite a decade of trying.

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