|
|
Re: SUPERLUMINAL NEUTRINOS AND TIRED LIGHT
Posted:
Nov 23, 2011 2:03 PM
|
|
On Nov 23, 9:58 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November.
2011> wrote:
> "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a209805d-f475-4c59-b185-7fc1c82a3272@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 23, 12:55 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2011> wrote:
> > "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:3cefdd31-f092-4777-9c50-77f60f30d221@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 22, 9:41 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November.
>
> > 2011> wrote:
> > > "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:edd09c8c-3bd0-4e01-9748-b51f52a84272@m19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Nov 22, 7:48 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November.
>
> > > 2011> wrote:
> > > > "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:6ea1abb8-fb40-44b5-94a7-499a2a23e93c@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Nov 22, 9:26 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November.
>
> > > > 2011> wrote:
> > > > > "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:f677cc69-4a8d-4e96-bac5-595905052383@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > | Let us assume that, as the photon travels through "empty" space
> > > > > (in
> > > > > a
> > > > > | STATIC universe), it loses speed in much the same way that a golf
> > > > > ball
> > > > > | loses speed due to the resistance of the air:
>
> > > > > Rubbish! Photons are energy, they spread out over an ever-increasing
> > > > > area.
> > > > > You need a big mirror to catch an old one.
>
> > > > Depends on your definitions of 'big mirror' and 'old one'.
>
> > > > I've seen the a and b components of Einstein's Cross, which is
> > > > somewhere between 8 and 10 billion light years away in my 25" dob,
> > > > under Just ask yourself how you would like to
>
> > share the same bed with Andro by denying the Aether. Not a very
> > pleasant thought, is it? <shrug>
>
> > .
>
> > > > ========================================
> > > > Your eyes aren't 25" across. You are catching 10 billion year old 25"
> > > > wide photons with a big mirror and reducing them to pin points.
> > > > Only you know what you mean by "excellent skies", it must be a
> > > > local concept. How many skies does west Texas have, anyway?
>
> > > =======================
>
> > > 25" wide photons? Really?
> > > =======================
> > > Only old, tired ones.
>
> > > > I'll speculate that if everyone who believed
> > > > that were to be in the same room, you would be very lonely in there...
>
> > > ======================
> > > Of course. I rarely meet anyone that can think for themselves.
> > > I prefer empirical evidence to speculation. There is no way to
> > > catch a photon from Einstein's Cross without a big mirror or
> > > lens to scoop it all up, it has grown too big for raw eyeballs.
> > > I'm sure your dobby has lenses to shrink the big photons down
> > > to a point so that you can see them. This dob has big eyes too:
> > >http://images.wikia.com/harrypotter/images/d/dd/Dobby1.jpg
>
> > > Agreed, only I know what I mean by "excellent skies"... but all my
> > > astro-buddies would probably say that if you are going to see a couple
> > > of components of Einstein's Cross, you had better have excellent
> > > skies...
> > > ======================
> > > Doubtless your fellow astro-sheep will all bleat the same "baa",
> > > but you didn't answer my question. How many skies does west
> > > Texas have? 2? 5? 10? a hundred? There is only one sky here,
> > > often cloudy, sometimes clear, and it stretches from horizon to
> > > horizon. Where would we put another one, I wonder...
>
> > ==========================
>
> > So, just what empirical evidence do you have to offer regarding the
> > growth of photons with increasing distance?
>
> > ======================================
> > You cannot see distant objects without capturing large photons,
> > of course. That's what empirical evidence is.
>
> > I searched the internet
> > for a while seeking such evidence, but failed in that effort.
> > ===================================
> > You provided you with the empirical evidence when pointed your
> > puny 25" dob skyward (or skiesward) and placed your eyeball to
> > the eyepiece. You shouldn't look for empirical evidence on the internet,
> > it has no mirror.
>
> > Undoubtedly you could supply that which I can't seem to find on my
> > own...
> > ========================================
> > Sorry, no, you are looking in the wrong place. You could experiment,
> > though. Cover half your mirror and look if you can only see half an
> > Einstein's Cross.
>
> > West Texas also has but one sky, but the reverse of yours... often
> > clear, sometimes cloudy...
> > =========================================
> > So "the excellent skies" (plural) was a thoughtless lie. What else have
> > you lied about?
>
> ***************
>
> Once again you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill,
> talking nonsense about 'large photons' and complaining that colloquial
> language is just a lie... isn't right about now the time that you
> start hurling vile names my way?
> ==========================================
> I might as well since you cannot deny your language is poetic and false
> rather than scientifically factual. In what way does one or more of your
> skies excel itself?
> And now that you are unable to refute the image of the Sun is reduced
> to a circular area 1/8" in diameter by a lens measuring 2" in diameter,
> to concentrate the energy enough to initiate the scout's fire (only with
> excellent skies, of course) you wish to change the subject and call it
> nonsense to initiate a flame war.
> http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads/2008/04/magnifying-glass.jpg
> Being a trained ape you are inhibited from thinking and offer only
> clichés such as 'mountain out of a molehill'. That accurately describes
> you as a vile cunt, 'vile' being an anagram of 'evil' and 'cunt' being a
> reference to an off-topic sexual molehill which causes you a mountain
> of embarrassment.
You probably don't understand why you are considered to be but a
smarmy pariah in these various forums... but nevertheless, that's all
you are.
This 'so-called conversation' is concluded.
|
|
