On Jul 5, 11:31 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Hafele-Keating.

It does not prove the symmetry of time dilation. You have to find
experiments that prove all the properties of the Lorentz transform.
Tell me if that is too much to ask for a hypothesis to explain the
null results of the MMX?

On Jul 5, 11:30 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Actually it is blatant lying. He knows what he says is not true, but
says it anyway despite people correcting him dozens of times with
explicit references to the design documents.

No, I have not been lying. By stating those statements above, you are
the biggest liar. shrug

"Rich" wrote in message
. ..
Jeckyl wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 5, 10:04 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Does this also go with the crap that is supposed to be credited as
Einstein's work --- namely the special and the general theories of
relativity?
Those relativity theories of Einstein's are pretty good theories as
there has NEVER been a prediction of either that was contradicted by
an observation. Hard to beat that, eh Wublee!
On the contrary, it is easy to show how the observations have been
fudged to predict the predictions.

** The time dilation part as predicted by the Lorentz transform which
forms the mathematical basis of the interpretation known as the
special theory of relativity has never proven its symmetry. Remember
the twin's paradox is the manifestation of the time dilation and the
principle of relativity in which both are properties of the Lorentz
transform.

So? Twin paradox is observed,

Really? When? Where?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...Twin%20paradox

On Jul 5, 11:26 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:28 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On the contrary, it is easy to show how the observations have been
fudged to predict the predictions.

Then do it.

I just did.

All you do is talk, talk, talk. But when it comes time to put your
money where your mouth is, you run like the little bitch you are.

No, I just did.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/299174f66a8...

You couldn't support your arguments in that thread, or answer my
simple questions. Why should anyone believe you can support yet
another load of bull****?

You are incapable of carrying out any scientific debate. As a liar
and an irrational rant, it is also impossible to achieve any
conclusion in such an unmoderated group. We will leave your silly
arguments in the archive for some future generations of scholars to
decide.

On Jul 5, 10:48 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 5, 11:31 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Hafele-Keating.

It does not prove the symmetry of time dilation.

[...]

Of course not. It isn't a symmetric situation, which is the whole crux
of the Twins paradox.

On Jul 5, 10:49 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 5, 11:30 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Actually it is blatant lying. He knows what he says is not true, but
says it anyway despite people correcting him dozens of times with
explicit references to the design documents.

No, I have not been lying. By stating those statements above, you are
the biggest liar. shrug

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf

On Jul 5, 10:56 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 5, 11:26 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jul 5, 9:28 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On the contrary, it is easy to show how the observations have been
fudged to predict the predictions.

Then do it.

I just did.

As usual, Koobee Wublee can't tell the difference between "assertion"
and "proof".

[snip stupidity]

On Jul 6, 12:44 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:35 pm, BradGuth wrote:





On Jul 4, 5:38 pm, wrote:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html

Those who were deceived by theApolloHoax will be remembered, for
eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
this planet.

Fools of such bigotry in denial of their denial, to say the least.

Hot and cold wars have been caused and/or extended by this little
fiasco, our valuable resources and some of our best talents diverted,
and decades of true advancements lost forever. Par for the American
and Zionist Third Reich way of doing such things.
-
Brad Guth

BTW, Venus is not a wussy point source of a star, but even though, it
would have been unavoidably recorded as somewhat brighter than Earth,
whereas apparently instead it became entirely invisible on each and
every Apollo mission, as did a good half dozen other pesky items that
should have easily been within the DR(dynamic range) of those
unfiltered Kodak moments.

I long ago showed that on the three Apollo missions that YOU
specifically picked, Venus would NOT have been visible.

Game, set, match. You lose.



Any 3D interactive orbital simulator proves that we've been snookered,
and then some.
-
Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 6, 5:57 am, The_Man wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:44 am, BradGuth wrote:



On Jul 5, 9:35 pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 4, 5:38 pm, wrote:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html

Those who were deceived by theApolloHoax will be remembered, for
eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
this planet.

Fools of such bigotry in denial of their denial, to say the least.

Hot and cold wars have been caused and/or extended by this little
fiasco, our valuable resources and some of our best talents diverted,
and decades of true advancements lost forever. Par for the American
and Zionist Third Reich way of doing such things.
-
Brad Guth

BTW, Venus is not a wussy point source of a star, but even though, it
would have been unavoidably recorded as somewhat brighter than Earth,
whereas apparently instead it became entirely invisible on each and
every Apollo mission, as did a good half dozen other pesky items that
should have easily been within the DR(dynamic range) of those
unfiltered Kodak moments.

I long ago showed that on the three Apollo missions that YOU
specifically picked, Venus would NOT have been visible.

Nor any other stars, apparently.
Hey, a starscape from the moon's surface- how trite AND
unimportant. Don't bother.

Plus, only a handfull of pics of the astronauts- hey,
you can't see their faces anyway, who needs pictures.

Don't worry about it. We lost all the
pictures just recently, anyway.

John

John

BradGuth wrote:

BTW, Venus is not a wussy point source of a star, but even though, it
would have been unavoidably recorded as somewhat brighter than Earth,
whereas apparently instead it became entirely invisible on each and
every Apollo mission, as did a good half dozen other pesky items that
should have easily been within the DR(dynamic range) of those
unfiltered Kodak moments.

The DR was just much to great. Besides, the stars look very small
without an atmosphere to shoot through. I've never seen stars in
photographs of the Earth from space. Suppose we never orbited the Earth,
either?