On Nov 23, 9:58 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November. 2011> wrote: > "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > On Nov 23, 12:55 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November. > > > > > > > > > > 2011> wrote: > > "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:email@example.com... > > On Nov 22, 9:41 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November. > > > 2011> wrote: > > > "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > > On Nov 22, 7:48 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November. > > > > 2011> wrote: > > > > "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:email@example.com... > > > > On Nov 22, 9:26 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November. > > > > > 2011> wrote: > > > > > "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > > > > | 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.