 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2010Paul Andersen Lies, Contradicts Himself and Rufutes SR in One Post.
Yes folks! For his great achievment, Paul has just been awarded the prestigious Norwegian WHALE BLUBBER MEDAL for being the first of his countrymen to prove Einstein wrong. At the presentation ceremony, Paul admitted that he had not known what he was doing at the time, "In all honesty, I didn't realise I had jumped frames, said Paul, "Here are my actual written words, (quote): In all cases the calculations will be made in the non rotating inertial frame where the centre of the ring is stationary (end of quote). Then I unwittingly went on to say that in ballistic theory, the path lengths of both rays were always 2piR. "I didn't realise that this applied equally to SR's ring gyro analysis, too. SR requires different path lengths just as BaTh does". "I'm terribly sorry for Einstein...but also very proud and somewhat relieved", said Paul, " I never really believed the nonsense anyway". Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons > Yes folks! > For his great achievment, Paul has just been awarded the prestigious [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > never > really believed the nonsense anyway". "Bullshit. I haven't used rotating frames at all." -- Awilson news:7qe8o59a5eei3iq6jteuiel2hteb69kf1v@4ax.com [snip] Ralph, you have been lying as well as mischaracterizing SR for the last decade. Why do you suddenly care about honesty? > [snip] > > Ralph, you have been lying as well as mischaracterizing SR for the last > decade. Why do you suddenly care about honesty? He doesn't. And it appears Paul *is* being honest. But he has certainly not refuted SR. .. no one has. Ballistic theory, on the other hand is soundly refuted >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And it appears Paul *is* being honest. But he has certainly not refuted > SR. .. no one has. Ballistic theory, on the other hand is soundly refuted Ah .. so this whole post is another Henry lie .. There was no mistake made by Paul, and so no admission of the non-existent error. Like many others, Paul has simply refuted Henry's ridiculous position and Henry is too stupid to see it and/or dishonest to admit it. It hard to know which as Henry has shown himself to be both a liar and a moron. I just find it hard to belief that ANYONE could be a stupid as Henry .. so it must just be one of his many many lies. >[snip] When are you going to say something intelligent? Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons >>[snip] > > When are you going to say something intelligent? When are you going to get a blog and stop getting upset when people respond to you on a public forum? > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons >>>[snip] >> >> When are you going to say something intelligent? > >When are you going to get a blog and stop getting upset when people respond >to you on a public forum? Why don't you tell Paul where he is wrong... if you are so bloody smart. Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons > Yes folks! > For his great achievment, Paul has just been awarded the prestigious [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > never > really believed the nonsense anyway". Where did paul say all this that you quoted? it sounds like yet another Henry lie. All I see is Paul correctly saying how many wavelength are in the ring at any time in each direction. He is perfectly correct .. the same number of wavelength are in each direction at any time. >> Yes folks! >> For his great achievment, Paul has just been awarded the prestigious [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >any time in each direction. He is perfectly correct .. the same number of >wavelength are in each direction at any time. He jumped into the rotating frame, dopey...You know..The one he said he was not using. Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons >>> Yes folks! >>> For his great achievment, Paul has just been awarded the prestigious [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > was not > using. Nope. Unlike you he (and I) are not confused when things move. You'd probably be fine at physics, if it didn't involve things moving. You just can't get your head around each pulse having its own unique path .. talking about how many wavelengths are on the path at a given time is nonsense .. there is just one pulse on each unique path at a time. And there are as many pulses in each direction (ie paths) as fit around the ring .. no more. >> Yes folks! >> For his great achievment, Paul has just been awarded the prestigious [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >any time in each direction. He is perfectly correct .. the same number of >wavelength are in each direction at any time. When are you going to say something intelligent? Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons >>> Yes folks! >>> For his great achievment, Paul has just been awarded the prestigious [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > When are you going to say something intelligent? Every time I post. Unlike you who only lies and shows your stupidity. >>>> Yes folks! >>>> For his great achievment, Paul has just been awarded the prestigious [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >Every time I post. Unlike you who only lies and shows your stupidity. Paul insisted he was using the inertial frame...then, on his website, he claimed that the path lengths according to BaTh were 2piR. They clearly are not. They are 2piR +/-vt in the nonR frame..which is the one that matters. If that is true, then the same path lengths are 2piR according to SR because it uses the same procedure as BaTh to calculate them. Andersen has been caught out well and truly. He has been consistently wrong before. I hope he has the decency to admit defeat and apologise to me for his being so clueless. Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons >>>>> Yes folks! >>>>> For his great achievment, Paul has just been awarded the prestigious [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Paul insisted he was using the inertial frame...then, on his website, he > claimed that the path lengths according to BaTh were 2piR. Where did he claim this .. just looking thru http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf On the page for emission theory: Path length of (2pi + theta)r and (2pi - theta)r .. so not there Where are you seeing this 2piR ? Is it where he talks about the number of wavelengths around the ring at a given time .. which is most definitely 2piR in ANY reference frame (remember .. as you said, in ballistic theory all distances are absolute and not frame dependent). > They clearly are > not. They are 2piR +/-vt in the nonR frame..which is the one that matters. The only place there are path lengths used there, it is 2piR +/- vt (or equivalent thereof) > If that is true, then the same path lengths are 2piR according to SR > because it > uses the same procedure as BaTh to calculate them. He uses the same formula for path lengths in both cases (in transit times for page 2 and page 4). Thou in SR the times are different in the two directions. He uses the same circumference of ring for the wavelength method (as he should, we are talking about wavelength at a given time) > Andersen has been caught out well and truly. No .. his analysis is just fine. YOU'VE been caught out > He has been consistently wrong > before. No .. but YOU have been shown to be wrong time and time again. > I hope he has the decency to admit defeat You never have .. despite being shown to be wrong time and time again. > and apologise to me for his > being so clueless. No need .. he's far from clueless .. and you do not deserve even a shred of decency as you are a filthy lying scum. >>>> When are you going to say something intelligent? >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >in ANY reference frame (remember .. as you said, in ballistic theory all >distances are absolute and not frame dependent). Not in the nonR frame shitbrain. You are as stupid as he is. The path lengths are 2piR +/- vt. where ct-vt = 2piR or t = 2piR/(c-v) for one path and ct+vt = 2piR or t = 2piR/(c+v) for the other So the path lengths are 2piR(1+v/(c-v)) and 2piRc/(c+v) Paul must have known this becasue he derived the diferent path lengths in his previous section....Either that or he merely copied the whole thing from another article without understanding a word of it. >> They clearly are >> not. They are 2piR +/-vt in the nonR frame..which is the one that matters. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >He uses the same circumference of ring for the wavelength method (as he >should, we are talking about wavelength at a given time) Those are the path lengths in the ROTATING FRAME dopey. >> Andersen has been caught out well and truly. > >No .. his analysis is just fine. YOU'VE been caught out You are just as stupid as Paul. You wouldn't know which frame you are in. >> He has been consistently wrong >> before. > >No .. but YOU have been shown to be wrong time and time again. Paul has been caught out deliberately cheating. >> I hope he has the decency to admit defeat > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >No need .. he's far from clueless .. and you do not deserve even a shred of >decency as you are a filthy lying scum. Squirm as much as you can little girl...I must hurt a lot to know that Paul's 'refutation' of BaTh also refutes SR. Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons >>>>> When are you going to say something intelligent? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > Paul's > 'refutation' of BaTh also refutes SR. Ahenry Awilson Lies, Contradicts Himself and Refutes his BaTh in One Sentence. "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 >>>>>> When are you going to say something intelligent? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] >"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson > http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 I always suspected you were an Einsteinian mole. Now the truth has emerged. Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:00:57 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_u> [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > I always suspected you were an Einsteinian mole. Now the truth has > emerged. hahahahhahahahaha! When are you going to say something intelligent? "A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'... hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jgdnss0ddualtsrnm7n@4ax.com When are you going to say something intelligent? Ahenry Awilson Lies, Contradicts Himself and Refutes his BaTh in One Sentence. "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 When are you going to say something intelligent? Fuckin' idiot. >>>>> Yes folks! >>>>> For his great achievment, Paul has just been awarded the prestigious [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Paul insisted he was using the inertial frame...then, on his website, he > claimed that the path lengths according to BaTh were 2piR. http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf When you can't find an error in the above, invent one, eh? :-) http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/images/Sagnac_Ritz.jpg Read the text on the right side. Are the path lengths equal? I find it amazing that you voluntarily are making such a giant fool of yourself by lying so obviously for anybody who can read. Doctor Ralph Rabbidge isn't very bright, is he? :-)  SignaturePaul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ >>>>>> Yes folks! >>>>>> For his great achievment, Paul has just been awarded the prestigious [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > When you can't find an error in the above, invent one, eh? :-) When you know there is an error in the above, hide it, eh? :-) The blue and red rays enter the ring in parallel with the same energy. The blue and red rays leave the ring in parallel with different energies. E1 = hf1, E2 = hf2. hence f1 <> f2. >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:55:26 +1100, "Inertial"<relatively@rest.com> stupidity. >>> Paul insisted he was using the inertial frame...then, on his website, he >>> claimed that the path lengths according to BaTh were 2piR. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >E1 = hf1, E2 = hf2. >hence f1 <> f2. Forget all that. The path lengths are different as shown in the diagram at http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm They are effectively the same for both SR and BaTh for v<<c. Tusselad has deliberately lied about his using the nonR frame. His little game has been well and truly exposed. Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:56:36 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_u> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Forget all that. f.ck you, this is physics. Your little game has been well and truly exposed. "Bullshit. I haven't used rotating frames at all." -- Awilson news:7qe8o59a5eei3iq6jteuiel2hteb69kf1v@4ax.com "Don't try to analyse the four mirror interfrometer."-- Wilson. news:g34n95htcbsmddo6ipnuqlp9egj8ffna17@4ax.com "DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it). news:aqqqm35ka2ef6qheidr8b1qh2bi0tv1bgo@4ax.com "A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'... hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jgdnss0ddualtsrnm7n@4ax.com "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 You are a pathetic bigot, same as Andersen. >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:56:36 -0000, "Androcles" >>>> When you can't find an error in the above, invent one, eh? :-) >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >f.ck you, this is physics. ...and physics is what isn't taught to pommie engineers.... Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:51:47 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_u> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >>f.ck you, this is physics. f.ck off, you ignorant drunken cretin. "Bullshit. I haven't used rotating frames at all." -- Awilson news:7qe8o59a5eei3iq6jteuiel2hteb69kf1v@4ax.com "Between different photons, V= Vo.e^-Um.t, where Um is the mass unification rate. The intraphoton equation is V = Vo.e^-Ui.t." news:jok0d59rrlskuu714qd9ji1n806n2i9442@4ax.com "The Pound and Rebka AUDIO experiment showed why gravity was relevant." - Wilson the Einstein Dingleberry. news:4r2kg5df673rgadipcp9fhir9cha10vp84@4ax.com "In future, when and only when you decide to say something intelligent will I reply." -- Wilson news:qp5mc5phvv2s02rtot41h3jpi25qbpo6pb@4ax.com... "It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't know of any instances where it is done. Any sane person would stop the bloody thing then measure it." -- Wilson news:20090921091548.06ca6c32.jethomas5@gmail.com Stupid ozzie Arsehole's phuckwittery." - SoAp http://tinyurl.com/m9fukv "ROTATING FRAMES FEATURE IMAGINARY EFFECTS. DON'T TRY TO USE THEM."-- Wilson news:drh9e553jdb7u87m75v26nerpghee6bk1p@4ax.com "Don't try to analyse the four mirror interfrometer."-- Wilson. news:g34n95htcbsmddo6ipnuqlp9egj8ffna17@4ax.com "A pure oscillator, such as a spinning wheel, has no natural wavelength in any frame. " - Wilson. news:r09d459u0mreghgk5udcchd7i60qt0sjud@4ax.com Wavelength doesn't change. Wave arrival frequency does.-- Wilson news:ra6845dpd3qdspn9b1up4bq8dj8vra2rjt@4ax.com... "When Einstein deviously rendered the aether redundant (although still a reality)" -- Wilson the crank aetherialist. news:pvetm3l83u901a5uljn7490fisjm2tjtfb@4ax.com. "DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it). news:aqqqm35ka2ef6qheidr8b1qh2bi0tv1bgo@4ax.com "A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'... hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jgdnss0ddualtsrnm7n@4ax.com "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 "In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tukbb68dtiaeu7oamm1@4ax.com "There is NO WAVELENGTH SHIFT at the observer." news:ctb7l3lhh3vmq9b0sip2vt546ggrqrctab@4ax.com "Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson. news:1193906355.448067.162590@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com "SPINNING OBJECTS HAVE A FREQUENCY, NOT A BLOODY WAVELENGTH." -- Wilson news:pllli3puamdqd70qnenjoonfsbjtv1ibmj@4ax.com "Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense. Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the source" -- Wilson. news:3ghfh3h30n795o2vs1sulouge37ve0n17i@4ax.com "THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN GENERAL, THE 'WAVELENGTH' OF AN OSCILLATION IS THE SAME IN ALL FRAMES." -- Wilson news:920ni31ul6rb833qrltro49t3pnv2g5qk5@4ax.com "Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation frequency' idea. Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson, October 26, 2007 1:03 PM news:iml3i3dh0vmisp6ln34ron41uoljmonvni@4ax.com "That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson. "For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t = 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v)" -- Wilson. news:q21vi3lmjhp5s9pkc554egjp1taus1drbt@4ax.com... "That's for the nonrotating frame, dopey." -- Wilson. news:cp7vi35bvqvta6o1vcvi4m1v6q8t4ro1la@4ax.com. "There is NOT the same number of wavelengths between the STARTPOINT and the detector" -- Wilson news:8no1j39qhu9tk2nqglqkgt00u07se4i63q@4ax.com "<plonk>" -- Wilson (faced with his own words) news:gci9j3lf66t9d1j9ia3fdpqe7pfova2kln@4ax.com You don't use emission theory and don't know what it is, your crackpot theory is BaTh; you've been whining that for 8 years, you invented it when I was in hospital in Florida with a shattered ankle and I've been in Britain 7 years while you've gotten gradually more senile. In all that time you've only learned to write "Dr" in front of your name which nobody believes. You blew it with denying Doppler and your tick fairies, senile old fart. w.nker Woolly Wilson's War Wuperior Wucked-Up Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits with WCH's; probably a simple mathematical reason for it but couldn't be bothered looking. Recorded for posterity in message news:d7sur497k44f44kcuu9og0llgse5uacvnn@4ax.com No wonder you can't program in V1493 Aql, you are too incompetent. Your worthless shitty program crashes. I bet you my three cases of Macallan that you still owe me that I can crash stupid Wilson's www.scisite.info/variables.exe (revision Feb 9, 2010), you ozzie drunkard. >> Here's an upgraded version...including diagrams for the ellipse (with >> foci) and [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] >> ************* >> 'Compare' and 'orbit' are separate forms. >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:56:36 -0000, "Androcles" > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > ...and physics is what isn't taught to pommie engineers.... ...and where were you taught physics? > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:51:47 -0000, "Androcles" >>>>>> When you can't find an error in the above, invent one, eh? :-) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >...and where were you taught physics? When are you going to say sometyhing intelligent? Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:51:47 -0000, "Androcles" > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > When are you going to say sometyhing intelligent? Its' a simple question, Henry. Where were you taught physics? > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons >>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:51:47 -0000, "Androcles" >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Its' a simple question, Henry. Where were you taught physics? At a university ranked no 17 in the world and another ranked 47. From which episode of startrek did you learn yours? Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons >>>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:51:47 -0000, "Androcles" >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > At a university ranked no 17 in the world and another ranked 47. ...and which universities would those be? What years did you graduate and what were the obtained certifications? > From which episode of startrek did you learn yours? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons >>>>>> Yes folks! >>>>>> For his great achievment, Paul has just been awarded the prestigious [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >When you can't find an error in the above, invent one, eh? :-) Everyone can see the error. You have published it and it is obvious. You have derived the correct path lengths for SR and your 'transit time refutation' of BaTh but then used the IMAGINARY rotating frame path lengths >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/images/Sagnac_Ritz.jpg >Read the text on the right side. Are the path lengths equal? The paths APPEAR to be equal when the rotating frame is (mis)used but that is an imaginary effect. The path lengths are NOT equal in any frame. In your diagram, the wave that is currently reaching the detector was emitted from an imaginary point that lies a distance vt to the right of the 45 mirror. You made the claim that you use only the nonR frame. You have deliberately lied about this. >I find it amazing that you voluntarily are making such a giant >fool of yourself by lying so obviously for anybody who can read. > >Doctor Henry Wilson isn't very bright, is he? :-) Doctor Henry Wilson is obviously a lot brighter than Mr paul Andersen, who doesn't know his frame from his fundamental orifice. Henry Wilson... .......provider of free physics lessons |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.