H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]


[snip]

The stationary corner cube arrays return light on the order of a
photon per second to a stationary ground target on Earth.

Is that irrespective of source intensity, Geese? ) Hahahah!

No, moron.

Hahahaa! You don't even understand the basics... Hahahahahah!

Oh. So the corner cube only puts forth a specific number of photons,
irrespective of intensity. Right.






Light doesn't increase speed while falling. You agree that the
universe isn't Newtonian, yet you think it is also NOT Lorentzian.
What is it? The c+v viewpoint is a Newtonian perspective, yet
Newtonian mechanics are empirically wrong.

There is overwhelming evidence that in a complete vacuum, the speed of light
is source and observer dependent.

Nope, sorry.

Liar once again. Stop lying.

tell me about any experiment that refutes my claim.

Sigh..orbits of binary stars. Just because you do not understand the
argument doesn't render it less valid. Others are capable of
understanding it, even if you are not.





Do you disagree with the equivlance principle, Henri? The frequency
shifts are derived *directly* from the equivlance principle -
acceleration and gravity are locally indistinguishable.

Yes, geese. Go sit on the moon and watch the Earth expanding at g!

No, moron.

You don't understand any aspect of GR.

You should hop into bed with Seto, you two would make a lovely couple.

**** you.

That is the only proper response.




....Far easier to stick with Euclidean geometry and the truth.

Euclidian geometry is wrong. Ask a surveyor.

Surveying uses TWLS.

Euclidian geometry is still wrong. Euclid's 5th postulate does NOT
HOLD.

Postulates have a habit of not holding... particularly Albert's

Equivlance principle? Yet to be invalidated.

Constancy of light speed? Yet to be invalidated.






I once proposed a geometry that would make the density of matter constant
throughout the universe. It is quite possible.... and it leads to astonishing
results. Why don't you devote your life to worshipping 'Wilson's constant
density theory' rather that Einsteiniana?

For the simple reason that your theory is wrong. Furthermore, what I
devote my life to is not going to be influenced by a crackpot aussie.

It's as good a theory as GR.

Is the matter density of the universe the same at the surface of the
earth as at a lagrange point? Or any other point?

You don't get it Geese. Density of matter is constant everywhere, space changes
to make it so. There are lots of discontinuities.

A-****ing-mazing. You scoff at GR's concept of curved space then you
whip out THAT?

*snicker*

Yea, lets see you put that in a form in which predictions can be made
from it.


It is probably a lot easier to construct this theory than to fabricate one that
makes light speed always constant.



Disproven.

It could explain refractive index.

Oh, I have to hear this.




Geometry has uses outside of GR. Too bad you are too shortsighted to
understand why. I would point you to a few books, but since you don't
read, I won't bother.

'Curved space', my arse!

Nowhere were the words 'curved space' used. Since you don't read,
there is no point in explaining.




.....All big words from a little boy who obviously ain't goin' nowhere fast.

Explain them using the c+v theory of light instead of whining about my
supposed non-progress.

Everything matches the ballistic theory.

Liar.

This has been covered in depth in other threads. Just because you do
not understand the arguments does not mean they are not valid.

I realise the truth hurts you, Geese.

Your "truth" is not accepted by anyone but yourself. Why might that
be?




The theory is not used anywhere. It is completely unimportant. It is an
exercise in self-delusion, like any religion.

Liar.

Bad language will not get you anywhere Geese.

Oh noes!

Im going nowhere EVEN FASTER THAN BEFORE. I guess ill change my major
to business administration.

good idea.




The work that is done at UAF includes auroral research. The motion
electrons exhibit is relativistic. Would you like to argue the point
with any of the researchers here? I would be greatly amused to be
privy to the exchange.

No Geese, I know that 'gamma' comes into charged particle movement.
That ws known before SR.

No, idiot.

You probably wont learn about those thing till second year.


1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) was a relation that was obtained by Lorentz right
before the turn of the century. Nothing to do with charged particle
interactions. Cyclotrons did NOT work with Newtonian kinematics, nor
will they ever.

Your picking-and-choosing of experimental evidence is the hallmark of
intellectual dishonesty. None of SR's predictions, including the gamma
factor, can be derived through Newtonian mechanics.

ever heard of Heaveside?

What about Heaviside?

Newton didn't know electricity existed.

So? Newton didn't many things existed, yet his theory is approximately
useful for many things.





Mossbauer effect, Compton effect. Go ahead, explain them using your
"c+v" theory of light.

The doppler shift is almost the same in ballistic theory, NM and SR, for small
velocites. The Mossbaeur effect works exactly as it should. The Pound-Rebka
experiment agrees perfectly well with the ballistic theory.

*snicker*

...and the Compton effect? You are yet to address the Compton effect.
You don't know what it is, and will never know since you don't read.

I know what the Compton effect is Geese. Enery anbd momentum balance after a
particle/particle collision.
I cannot see how it violates the BT.

You can not see because you will not open a book. RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME
is the derivation for the wavelength of the incoming and outgoing
photon, along with the angle they make.

That's one of the first things we learn in atomic physics.


Since the ballistic theory is essentially Newtonian by your own
goddamn admission, there is no way to recoincile the need for the
relatvistic assumptions involved.

try applying relativity to neutral particles instead of charged ones.

Do NOT direct the argument elsewhere, address the point. I will not
let you employ your typical misdirection tactic.

WHY does the compton effect only work with relativistic assumptions?
WHY?




Geese, why should light from differently moving stars ever end up traveling at
the same speed across space?

When you discover the answer, please inform Andersen.

Hey, idiot with reading comprehension issues:

I have said it at least 3 times now. SR does not answer that question,
SO STOP ASKING ME.

SR degenerates back to its 'aether version', you mean.

No, if I meant that I would have said it.

SR does not answer that question, so don't expect an answer from it.

There is no aether, so an aether-based theory of SR would be an
oxymoron.







Since relativity breaks down completely when it tries to describe how light
travels through space, I don't see why I have to consider it at all.

That is what E&M is for, **** for brains. You know the difference
between modern E&M and SR, right?

Give up Geese.

In other words: "no".

You have no education in modern physics, and you have no wish to
recieve one. So sad...

Not all modern physics is infected with Einsteiniana, Geese.

Yea, whatever. Just keep telling yourself that.



[snip]


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On 20 Oct 2004 02:36:27 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]


[snip]

The stationary corner cube arrays return light on the order of a
photon per second to a stationary ground target on Earth.

Is that irrespective of source intensity, Geese? ) Hahahah!

No, moron.

Hahahaa! You don't even understand the basics... Hahahahahah!

Oh. So the corner cube only puts forth a specific number of photons,
irrespective of intensity. Right.

That's what you seem to think.







Light doesn't increase speed while falling. You agree that the
universe isn't Newtonian, yet you think it is also NOT Lorentzian.
What is it? The c+v viewpoint is a Newtonian perspective, yet
Newtonian mechanics are empirically wrong.

There is overwhelming evidence that in a complete vacuum, the speed of light
is source and observer dependent.

Nope, sorry.

Liar once again. Stop lying.

tell me about any experiment that refutes my claim.

Sigh..orbits of binary stars. Just because you do not understand the
argument doesn't render it less valid. Others are capable of
understanding it, even if you are not.

try reading what this gentleman has to say.

http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/par-chal.htm






Do you disagree with the equivlance principle, Henri? The frequency
shifts are derived *directly* from the equivlance principle -
acceleration and gravity are locally indistinguishable.

Yes, geese. Go sit on the moon and watch the Earth expanding at g!

No, moron.

You don't understand any aspect of GR.

You should hop into bed with Seto, you two would make a lovely couple.

**** you.

That is the only proper response.




....Far easier to stick with Euclidean geometry and the truth.

Euclidian geometry is wrong. Ask a surveyor.

Surveying uses TWLS.

Euclidian geometry is still wrong. Euclid's 5th postulate does NOT
HOLD.

Postulates have a habit of not holding... particularly Albert's

Equivlance principle? Yet to be invalidated.

Constancy of light speed? Yet to be invalidated.






I once proposed a geometry that would make the density of matter constant
throughout the universe. It is quite possible.... and it leads to astonishing
results. Why don't you devote your life to worshipping 'Wilson's constant
density theory' rather that Einsteiniana?

For the simple reason that your theory is wrong. Furthermore, what I
devote my life to is not going to be influenced by a crackpot aussie.

It's as good a theory as GR.

Is the matter density of the universe the same at the surface of the
earth as at a lagrange point? Or any other point?

You don't get it Geese. Density of matter is constant everywhere, space changes
to make it so. There are lots of discontinuities.

A-****ing-mazing. You scoff at GR's concept of curved space then you
whip out THAT?

*snicker*

Yea, lets see you put that in a form in which predictions can be made
from it.


It is probably a lot easier to construct this theory than to fabricate one that
makes light speed always constant.



Disproven.

It could explain refractive index.

Oh, I have to hear this.




Geometry has uses outside of GR. Too bad you are too shortsighted to
understand why. I would point you to a few books, but since you don't
read, I won't bother.

'Curved space', my arse!

Nowhere were the words 'curved space' used. Since you don't read,
there is no point in explaining.




.....All big words from a little boy who obviously ain't goin' nowhere fast.

Explain them using the c+v theory of light instead of whining about my
supposed non-progress.

Everything matches the ballistic theory.

Liar.

This has been covered in depth in other threads. Just because you do
not understand the arguments does not mean they are not valid.

I realise the truth hurts you, Geese.

Your "truth" is not accepted by anyone but yourself. Why might that
be?




The theory is not used anywhere. It is completely unimportant. It is an
exercise in self-delusion, like any religion.

Liar.

Bad language will not get you anywhere Geese.

Oh noes!

Im going nowhere EVEN FASTER THAN BEFORE. I guess ill change my major
to business administration.

good idea.




The work that is done at UAF includes auroral research. The motion
electrons exhibit is relativistic. Would you like to argue the point
with any of the researchers here? I would be greatly amused to be
privy to the exchange.

No Geese, I know that 'gamma' comes into charged particle movement.
That ws known before SR.

No, idiot.

You probably wont learn about those thing till second year.


1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) was a relation that was obtained by Lorentz right
before the turn of the century. Nothing to do with charged particle
interactions. Cyclotrons did NOT work with Newtonian kinematics, nor
will they ever.

Your picking-and-choosing of experimental evidence is the hallmark of
intellectual dishonesty. None of SR's predictions, including the gamma
factor, can be derived through Newtonian mechanics.

ever heard of Heaveside?

What about Heaviside?

Newton didn't know electricity existed.

So? Newton didn't many things existed, yet his theory is approximately
useful for many things.





Mossbauer effect, Compton effect. Go ahead, explain them using your
"c+v" theory of light.

The doppler shift is almost the same in ballistic theory, NM and SR, for small
velocites. The Mossbaeur effect works exactly as it should. The Pound-Rebka
experiment agrees perfectly well with the ballistic theory.

*snicker*

...and the Compton effect? You are yet to address the Compton effect.
You don't know what it is, and will never know since you don't read.

I know what the Compton effect is Geese. Enery anbd momentum balance after a
particle/particle collision.
I cannot see how it violates the BT.

You can not see because you will not open a book. RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME
is the derivation for the wavelength of the incoming and outgoing
photon, along with the angle they make.

That's one of the first things we learn in atomic physics.


Since the ballistic theory is essentially Newtonian by your own
goddamn admission, there is no way to recoincile the need for the
relatvistic assumptions involved.

try applying relativity to neutral particles instead of charged ones.

Do NOT direct the argument elsewhere, address the point. I will not
let you employ your typical misdirection tactic.

WHY does the compton effect only work with relativistic assumptions?
WHY?




Geese, why should light from differently moving stars ever end up traveling at
the same speed across space?

When you discover the answer, please inform Andersen.

Hey, idiot with reading comprehension issues:

I have said it at least 3 times now. SR does not answer that question,
SO STOP ASKING ME.

SR degenerates back to its 'aether version', you mean.

No, if I meant that I would have said it.

SR does not answer that question, so don't expect an answer from it.

There is no aether, so an aether-based theory of SR would be an
oxymoron.







Since relativity breaks down completely when it tries to describe how light
travels through space, I don't see why I have to consider it at all.

That is what E&M is for, **** for brains. You know the difference
between modern E&M and SR, right?

Give up Geese.

In other words: "no".

You have no education in modern physics, and you have no wish to
recieve one. So sad...

Not all modern physics is infected with Einsteiniana, Geese.

Yea, whatever. Just keep telling yourself that.



[snip]


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 20 Oct 2004 02:36:27 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]


[snip]

The stationary corner cube arrays return light on the order of a
photon per second to a stationary ground target on Earth.

Is that irrespective of source intensity, Geese? ) Hahahah!

No, moron.

Hahahaa! You don't even understand the basics... Hahahahahah!

Oh. So the corner cube only puts forth a specific number of photons,
irrespective of intensity. Right.

That's what you seem to think.

Sigh. No. Go look up how the distance from the Earth to the Moon is
calculated using the corner cubes. Specifically, research how hard it
is to get a return signal.








Light doesn't increase speed while falling. You agree that the
universe isn't Newtonian, yet you think it is also NOT Lorentzian.
What is it? The c+v viewpoint is a Newtonian perspective, yet
Newtonian mechanics are empirically wrong.

There is overwhelming evidence that in a complete vacuum, the speed of light
is source and observer dependent.

Nope, sorry.

Liar once again. Stop lying.

tell me about any experiment that refutes my claim.

Sigh..orbits of binary stars. Just because you do not understand the
argument doesn't render it less valid. Others are capable of
understanding it, even if you are not.

try reading what this gentleman has to say.

http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/par-chal.htm

Henri, I thought you didn't read...? What changed your policy?

I don't see the relevance of this page, though I am pleased to see
algebra and limits used correctly for once. This man is making the
same mistake that you partake in, which is to say he is using computer
generated graphics in place of experimental evidence.

I also find the following passage amusing:

"In 1987 Vladimir Sekerin(6), showed that, when we consider the
source-to-observer distances required for de Sitter's binary star
aberrations to manifest themselves, the angular resolution, the
"seeing" of our best Earthbound telescopes (as of 1987) were
insufficient for us to resolve the individual binary components."

I was not aware that we were unable to resolve binary components in
any way. But then again, im not an astronomer.

[snip]


...and the Compton effect? You are yet to address the Compton effect.
You don't know what it is, and will never know since you don't read.

I know what the Compton effect is Geese. Enery anbd momentum balance after a
particle/particle collision.
I cannot see how it violates the BT.

You can not see because you will not open a book. RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME
is the derivation for the wavelength of the incoming and outgoing
photon, along with the angle they make.

That's one of the first things we learn in atomic physics.


Since the ballistic theory is essentially Newtonian by your own
goddamn admission, there is no way to recoincile the need for the
relatvistic assumptions involved.

try applying relativity to neutral particles instead of charged ones.

Do NOT direct the argument elsewhere, address the point. I will not
let you employ your typical misdirection tactic.

WHY does the compton effect only work with relativistic assumptions?
WHY?

Address the point Henri.

[snip]

On 21 Oct 2004 01:29:52 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 20 Oct 2004 02:36:27 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:


Hahahaa! You don't even understand the basics... Hahahahahah!

Oh. So the corner cube only puts forth a specific number of photons,
irrespective of intensity. Right.

That's what you seem to think.

Sigh. No. Go look up how the distance from the Earth to the Moon is
calculated using the corner cubes. Specifically, research how hard it
is to get a return signal.

Geese, you get 9/10 for enthusiasm but a much lower figure for performance.

IS THE NUMBER OF PHOTONS RETURNED TO EARTH DEPENDENT ON THE INTERNSITY OF THE
INITIAL BEAM OR ISN'T IT?





Liar once again. Stop lying.

tell me about any experiment that refutes my claim.

Sigh..orbits of binary stars. Just because you do not understand the
argument doesn't render it less valid. Others are capable of
understanding it, even if you are not.

try reading what this gentleman has to say.

http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/par-chal.htm

Henri, I thought you didn't read...? What changed your policy?

I don't see the relevance of this page, though I am pleased to see
algebra and limits used correctly for once. This man is making the
same mistake that you partake in, which is to say he is using computer
generated graphics in place of experimental evidence.

He is matching graphics with experimental evidence, Geese.

.....are you really sure you want to be a physicist?
Why don't you go in for something more suitable. say.. a boiler room attendant
.. .or a abatoir worker.


I also find the following passage amusing:

"In 1987 Vladimir Sekerin(6), showed that, when we consider the
source-to-observer distances required for de Sitter's binary star
aberrations to manifest themselves, the angular resolution, the
"seeing" of our best Earthbound telescopes (as of 1987) were
insufficient for us to resolve the individual binary components."

I was not aware that we were unable to resolve binary components in
any way. But then again, im not an astronomer.

You Geese, are clearly not aware of many things that we are both able and
unable to do.


[snip]


...and the Compton effect? You are yet to address the Compton effect.
You don't know what it is, and will never know since you don't read.

I know what the Compton effect is Geese. Enery anbd momentum balance after a
particle/particle collision.
I cannot see how it violates the BT.

You can not see because you will not open a book. RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME
is the derivation for the wavelength of the incoming and outgoing
photon, along with the angle they make.

That's one of the first things we learn in atomic physics.


Since the ballistic theory is essentially Newtonian by your own
goddamn admission, there is no way to recoincile the need for the
relatvistic assumptions involved.

try applying relativity to neutral particles instead of charged ones.

Do NOT direct the argument elsewhere, address the point. I will not
let you employ your typical misdirection tactic.

WHY does the compton effect only work with relativistic assumptions?
WHY?

Address the point Henri.

I cannot see that ballistic considerations would make any measurable difference
to the Compton effect.


[snip]


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 21 Oct 2004 01:29:52 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 20 Oct 2004 02:36:27 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:


Hahahaa! You don't even understand the basics... Hahahahahah!

Oh. So the corner cube only puts forth a specific number of photons,
irrespective of intensity. Right.

That's what you seem to think.

Sigh. No. Go look up how the distance from the Earth to the Moon is
calculated using the corner cubes. Specifically, research how hard it
is to get a return signal.

Geese, you get 9/10 for enthusiasm but a much lower figure for performance.

IS THE NUMBER OF PHOTONS RETURNED TO EARTH DEPENDENT ON THE INTERNSITY OF THE
INITIAL BEAM OR ISN'T IT?

Yes, moron.






Liar once again. Stop lying.

tell me about any experiment that refutes my claim.

Sigh..orbits of binary stars. Just because you do not understand the
argument doesn't render it less valid. Others are capable of
understanding it, even if you are not.

try reading what this gentleman has to say.

http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/par-chal.htm

Henri, I thought you didn't read...? What changed your policy?

I don't see the relevance of this page, though I am pleased to see
algebra and limits used correctly for once. This man is making the
same mistake that you partake in, which is to say he is using computer
generated graphics in place of experimental evidence.

He is matching graphics with experimental evidence, Geese.

LIAR.

The only attempt of mathing graphics with experimental evidence is
with the crab pulsar. The only way he can salvage the assumption that
his graph accurately represents the crab nebula is if he assumes the
system is a binary, which he offers no evidence for.



....are you really sure you want to be a physicist?
Why don't you go in for something more suitable. say.. a boiler room attendant
. .or a abatoir worker.


I also find the following passage amusing:

"In 1987 Vladimir Sekerin(6), showed that, when we consider the
source-to-observer distances required for de Sitter's binary star
aberrations to manifest themselves, the angular resolution, the
"seeing" of our best Earthbound telescopes (as of 1987) were
insufficient for us to resolve the individual binary components."

I was not aware that we were unable to resolve binary components in
any way. But then again, im not an astronomer.

You Geese, are clearly not aware of many things that we are both able and
unable to do.


[snip]


...and the Compton effect? You are yet to address the Compton effect.
You don't know what it is, and will never know since you don't read.

I know what the Compton effect is Geese. Enery anbd momentum balance after a
particle/particle collision.
I cannot see how it violates the BT.

You can not see because you will not open a book. RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME
is the derivation for the wavelength of the incoming and outgoing
photon, along with the angle they make.

That's one of the first things we learn in atomic physics.


Since the ballistic theory is essentially Newtonian by your own
goddamn admission, there is no way to recoincile the need for the
relatvistic assumptions involved.

try applying relativity to neutral particles instead of charged ones.

Do NOT direct the argument elsewhere, address the point. I will not
let you employ your typical misdirection tactic.

WHY does the compton effect only work with relativistic assumptions?
WHY?

Address the point Henri.

I cannot see that ballistic considerations would make any measurable difference
to the Compton effect.

LIAR.

You cannot dervice E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 through the ballistic
theory, it is a construct of special relativity and nothing else.

You are a LIAR! You view everything with a skewed lens so that
everything conforms to your bass-ackwards theory that was discounted
almost a century ago. Greater minds than yourself have fought and lost
the battle of science in the name of the ballistic theory of light.
The only reason you are still fighting this is to save face.





[snip]


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 21 Oct 2004 01:29:52 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 20 Oct 2004 02:36:27 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:


Hahahaa! You don't even understand the basics... Hahahahahah!

Oh. So the corner cube only puts forth a specific number of photons,
irrespective of intensity. Right.

That's what you seem to think.

Sigh. No. Go look up how the distance from the Earth to the Moon is
calculated using the corner cubes. Specifically, research how hard it
is to get a return signal.

Geese, you get 9/10 for enthusiasm but a much lower figure for performance.

IS THE NUMBER OF PHOTONS RETURNED TO EARTH DEPENDENT ON THE INTERNSITY OF THE
INITIAL BEAM OR ISN'T IT?

Yes, moron.






Liar once again. Stop lying.

tell me about any experiment that refutes my claim.

Sigh..orbits of binary stars. Just because you do not understand the
argument doesn't render it less valid. Others are capable of
understanding it, even if you are not.

try reading what this gentleman has to say.

http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/par-chal.htm

Henri, I thought you didn't read...? What changed your policy?

I don't see the relevance of this page, though I am pleased to see
algebra and limits used correctly for once. This man is making the
same mistake that you partake in, which is to say he is using computer
generated graphics in place of experimental evidence.

He is matching graphics with experimental evidence, Geese.

LIAR.

The only attempt of mathing graphics with experimental evidence is
with the crab pulsar. The only way he can salvage the assumption that
his graph accurately represents the crab nebula is if he assumes the
system is a binary, which he offers no evidence for.



....are you really sure you want to be a physicist?
Why don't you go in for something more suitable. say.. a boiler room attendant
. .or a abatoir worker.


I also find the following passage amusing:

"In 1987 Vladimir Sekerin(6), showed that, when we consider the
source-to-observer distances required for de Sitter's binary star
aberrations to manifest themselves, the angular resolution, the
"seeing" of our best Earthbound telescopes (as of 1987) were
insufficient for us to resolve the individual binary components."

I was not aware that we were unable to resolve binary components in
any way. But then again, im not an astronomer.

You Geese, are clearly not aware of many things that we are both able and
unable to do.


[snip]


...and the Compton effect? You are yet to address the Compton effect.
You don't know what it is, and will never know since you don't read.

I know what the Compton effect is Geese. Enery anbd momentum balance after a
particle/particle collision.
I cannot see how it violates the BT.

You can not see because you will not open a book. RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME
is the derivation for the wavelength of the incoming and outgoing
photon, along with the angle they make.

That's one of the first things we learn in atomic physics.


Since the ballistic theory is essentially Newtonian by your own
goddamn admission, there is no way to recoincile the need for the
relatvistic assumptions involved.

try applying relativity to neutral particles instead of charged ones.

Do NOT direct the argument elsewhere, address the point. I will not
let you employ your typical misdirection tactic.

WHY does the compton effect only work with relativistic assumptions?
WHY?

Address the point Henri.

I cannot see that ballistic considerations would make any measurable difference
to the Compton effect.

LIAR.

You cannot dervice E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 through the ballistic
theory, it is a construct of special relativity and nothing else.

You are a LIAR! You view everything with a skewed lens so that
everything conforms to your bass-ackwards theory that was discounted
almost a century ago. Greater minds than yourself have fought and lost
the battle of science in the name of the ballistic theory of light.
The only reason you are still fighting this is to save face.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...arch%26meta%3D

What is the matter? Upset that I might have a clue?





[snip]


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On 22 Oct 2004 03:52:51 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 21 Oct 2004 01:29:52 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:




try reading what this gentleman has to say.

http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/par-chal.htm

Henri, I thought you didn't read...? What changed your policy?

I don't see the relevance of this page, though I am pleased to see
algebra and limits used correctly for once. This man is making the
same mistake that you partake in, which is to say he is using computer
generated graphics in place of experimental evidence.

He is matching graphics with experimental evidence, Geese.

LIAR.

The only attempt of mathing graphics with experimental evidence is
with the crab pulsar. The only way he can salvage the assumption that
his graph accurately represents the crab nebula is if he assumes the
system is a binary, which he offers no evidence for.

It matches the evidence.


Do NOT direct the argument elsewhere, address the point. I will not
let you employ your typical misdirection tactic.

WHY does the compton effect only work with relativistic assumptions?
WHY?

Address the point Henri.

I cannot see that ballistic considerations would make any measurable difference
to the Compton effect.

LIAR.

You cannot dervice E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 through the ballistic
theory, it is a construct of special relativity and nothing else.

That equation holds only in the source frame.


You are a LIAR! You view everything with a skewed lens so that
everything conforms to your bass-ackwards theory that was discounted
almost a century ago. Greater minds than yourself have fought and lost
the battle of science in the name of the ballistic theory of light.
The only reason you are still fighting this is to save face.

Geese there is overwhelminf evince in support of the ballistic theory.
It is so obviously correct that I cannot understand why anyone would want to
doubt it.





HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]

Do NOT direct the argument elsewhere, address the point. I will not
let you employ your typical misdirection tactic.

WHY does the compton effect only work with relativistic assumptions?
WHY?

Address the point Henri.

I cannot see that ballistic considerations would make any measurable difference
to the Compton effect.

LIAR.

You cannot dervice E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 through the ballistic
theory, it is a construct of special relativity and nothing else.

That equation holds only in the source frame.

[snip]

MORON.

The compton effect derivation uses that relation. Look it up. I am
sick of your malicious stupidity.

On 23 Oct 2004 17:21:18 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]

Do NOT direct the argument elsewhere, address the point. I will not
let you employ your typical misdirection tactic.

WHY does the compton effect only work with relativistic assumptions?
WHY?

Address the point Henri.

I cannot see that ballistic considerations would make any measurable difference
to the Compton effect.

LIAR.

You cannot dervice E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 through the ballistic
theory, it is a construct of special relativity and nothing else.

That equation holds only in the source frame.

[snip]

MORON.

The compton effect derivation uses that relation. Look it up. I am
sick of your malicious stupidity.

Why does the standard analysis of the Compton effect assume that the speed of
photons is c?

You CDEFs don't realise how circularly brainwashed you actually are.

HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 23 Oct 2004 17:21:18 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]

Do NOT direct the argument elsewhere, address the point. I will not
let you employ your typical misdirection tactic.

WHY does the compton effect only work with relativistic assumptions?
WHY?

Address the point Henri.

I cannot see that ballistic considerations would make any measurable difference
to the Compton effect.

LIAR.

You cannot dervice E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 through the ballistic
theory, it is a construct of special relativity and nothing else.

That equation holds only in the source frame.

[snip]

MORON.

The compton effect derivation uses that relation. Look it up. I am
sick of your malicious stupidity.

Why does the standard analysis of the Compton effect assume that the speed of
photons is c?

You CDEFs don't realise how circularly brainwashed you actually are.

HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

I win.

When you start complaining about how the experiment assumes the speed
of light is constant, it is obvious that you have no other
explanation. I guess the previous 'explanation' where you complain
about how the compton effect doesn't hold for neutral particles [duh]
wasn't good enough.

Took me awhile, but you finally got cornered on something you can't
explain.

Cranks are fun.