On 10/06/2025 09:05, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Please stop xposting this crackpot's broken physics to aue.
Or better still KF to avoid the temptation to reply.
Oh, the irony! (It is not the first time you have been tempted to make
this request, John.)
fu to aue ONLY.
Please stop xposting this crackpot's broken physics to aue.
Or better still KF to avoid the temptation to reply.
fu to aue ONLY.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:24:56 +0200
occam <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 09:05, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Please stop xposting this crackpot's broken physics to aue.
Or better still KF to avoid the temptation to reply.
Oh, the irony! (It is not the first time you have been tempted to make
this request, John.)
Only after it's being going on for a while.
fu to aue ONLY.
Hmm. I see you didn't respect my fu either. Have I upset you recently?
Jim Pennino <[email protected]> wrote:
In sci.physics bertietaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 0:23:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 22:01:52 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse, >>>>>>>
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight >>>>>>> from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of >>>>>>> General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation >>>>>> close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity. >>>>> When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions >>>>> like GR getting validated.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
The solar corona's refractive index is less than 1 because it's a
plasma, and electromagnetic waves travel faster through plasma than
through a vacuum due to their interaction with free electrons.
This means any lensing due to the refractive index of the Sun's
atmosphere would be going in the opposite direction than the gravity
effects.
So wrong again crackpot.
Not so, fool.
From net search:
Light travelling through a plasma can move at speeds both slower and
faster than the speed of light. Researchers from Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in California and the University of Rochester in New >>> York managed to fine-tune the speed of light waves within plasma to
anywhere from around one-tenth of light's usual vacuum speed to more
than 30 percent faster.
Yes, however the index of refraction of light through the Sun's plasma
in particular has been calculated and measured with the measurements
matching the calculations crackpot.
Indeed. In particular, it can be done with VLBI.
The long baseline interference is sensitive enough
to see gravitational deflection farther away from the sun,
and the radio waves, unlike visible light,
are sensitive to diffraction by solar plasma.
All routine, nowadays,
Jan
In sci.physics Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
So I will rephrase: Do you know what Arindam's job is at
Hypertension Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia ?
Is he a medical doctor, or is he sweeping floors?
From https://au.indeed.com/cmp/Htn-Research-Pty-Ltd:
This company has the patent to use hydrogen technology for overcoming
the world's energy problems for all time, by proposing a lossless piping system that will take energy from multiple remote sources and piping
them to all destinations. The storage and transport issues of hydrogen
are solved in one stroke by this innovation. Further, this company has
got the theoretical basis to design a new class of motors for space
travel, and very fast air travel. They depend upon a new design of a
kind of linear motor, upon which original research has been done. Mathematical modelling involving queueing theory, and computer simulation
for complex non linear situations such as call centre network teletraffic management, are also offered by this company. It is the only company in
the world which offers solutions involving the highest level of genius.
One guess who wrote that bilge.
Also note that there is a real medical company with a similar name but
there is no other information about HTN Research Pty Ltd. since 2018.
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 11:51 schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 01:05 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus
show it
falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke were able to jump
around four feet. While they could theoretically jump much higher,
they jumped shorter distances due to the extra weight of their
spacesuits and the need to avoid falling off balance or damaging
their equipment.
"Apollo 16 Full Mission (Day 6) - Moon Walk 1"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPEvizJS5VQ
There are a few anomalies in this video:
1) the tv-camera, which recorded this video, was actually taking
pictures in color.
It's not easy to see color. But e.g. there was a red ring around the
legs of the astronauts and that was actually red after transmission.
Also the ribbon towards that 'tech device' was red and was transmitted
in red.
Also the golden foil around the lander shines reddish.
This can be seen at 3:27, for instance.
This is rather strange, because if a color camera was actually used,
than it would be rather logic, to turn the others color channels (green
and blue) up, too.
But the pictures look like composed from a luminosity channel and a red channel, while green and blue were missing.
Btw:
a little earlier (at 3:09) there is a drawing of the 'Moon rover'.
This diagram shows, that the rover had no hinges in its frame, what
would make the vehicle difficult to stow into the lander.
But if they used a color camera, than why were other items not in color?
Usually you would be proud about nice pictures from such remote places
like the Moon and would not cripple them intentionally.
2) at the top of these 'back-backs' there is something blinking (occasionally). What was that?
3) the tv-camera pans, tilts and zooms and was placed on a tripod.
But how did they do this?
Tilt, pan and zoom require little motors and those a remote control.
Since the astronauts could not do that themselves (e.g. because they
were actually filmed, had other things to do and wore clumsy
spacesuits), the question remains, who else controlled the camera
movements and how.
TH
On 12/07/2025 07:26, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:23:07 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>> falling slowly.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Facebook shows an Indian photo of the Apollo 11 and 12 Landers on the
Moon. Pretty clear, especially the shadows.
Eh? Doesn't the fact that it was an Indian photo tell you that you were looking at a photoshopped image, you ridiculous eejit? Where were the
Indians when the photo was taken? The local tandoori take-away?
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 11:51 schrieb Thomas Heger:
It's not easy to see color. But e.g. there was a red ring around the
legs of the astronauts and that was actually red after transmission.
Also the ribbon towards that 'tech device' was red and was transmitted
in red.
Also the golden foil around the lander shines reddish.
This can be seen at 3:27, for instance.
This is rather strange, because if a color camera was actually used,
than it would be rather logic, to turn the others color channels (green
and blue) up, too.
But the pictures look like composed from a luminosity channel and a red channel, while green and blue were missing.
Hubble and Webb can find so called black holes and planets light years
away but cannot show a footprint on the Moon!
Joke.
Turn, Morris turn the Hubble...
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:37:41 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 20/07/2025 à 14:36, [email protected] (Bertitaylor) a écrit : >>> Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.
Simple arithmetic will show that.
Show it.
You try. We have given enough hints.
Mathematically
MV + mv is momentum before collision for armature M and system m.
Vel(m + M) is momentum after collision.
And Vel = (MV + mv)/(M+m)
So this is what busts the inertia.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 162:20:04 |
| Calls: | 12,094 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,780 |