🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 18, 12:30 am, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 1:05 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >>> On Jul 16, 12:02 am, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 15, 12:25 am, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jul 15, 11:17 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 14, 3:36�pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi this is Conrad
> >>>>>>>> To the three that did respond to my post, all I did is put the
> >>>>>>>> evidence out there that the structure of the Universe is parallel to
> >>>>>>>> and resembles the structure of the mind. I am confident enough to let
> >>>>>>>> the evidence speak for itself and don't have to resort to childish
> >>>>>>>> insults. Why some want to turn the Google dialogs into the goo goo
> >>>>>>>> gaga childish dialogs I don't know but it is probably because of
> >>>>>>>> frustration.
> >>>>>>>> The evidence speaks for itself and anyone comparing objectively what
> >>>>>>>> it says to what you say will see which is more correct.
> >>>>>>>> I don't have to argue this point
> >>>>>>>> Conrad
> >>>>>>> Conrad,
> >>>>>>>         Are you any good at math?  I am trying to figure out if the
> >>>>>>> Lorentz equations predict a Doppler effect.  The result I keep getting
> >>>>>>> is that the frequency and wavelength in the moving frame of reference
> >>>>>>> are the same as the frequency and wavelegth in the frame of reference
> >>>>>>> at rest.
> >>>>>>> The reason I ask is because you said you had frequency figured into
> >>>>>>> your equations.
> >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>> No, he has the same level as you...high school standard and never
> >>>>>> think straight, have lots of day dreaming, and always wishful
> >>>>>> thinking.
> >>>>>> But at least i cannot conclude if he is of the same mental problem as
> >>>>>> you...- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> High school graduates are the most open minded people with regard to
> >>>>> relativity of time.
> >>>> Possibly because they have among the most limited grasps of the subject
> >>>> matter.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Well, scientists will promote equations they know cannot be right
> >>> because they make a lot of money doing it.  The only thing that would
> >>> change the situation would be other scientists with equations that
> >>> agree more closely with experiment, which is not likely to happen as
> >>> long as the government is appropriating billions of dollars every year
> >>> for accellerators, colliders, and other projects relating to the
> >>> Lorentz equations.
> >> Yeah, a ton of money in scientific enquiry! All the scientists are
> >> getting rich off our backs. If you have serious science to do, do it
> >> seriously. Publish your results in the primary literature, and await
> >> your Nobel prize. If you're a kook, just keep complaining on usenet. :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I am doing it seriously.  What matters are the equations, not the
> > money.
>
> Well okay, when you're published, let us know!- Hide quoted text -
>

When you have proven the equations wrong, let me know.
Robert B. Winn