Re: All answers to C S Lewis

On 2006-01-13, al <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:slrndse35a.2bjt.wettering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On 2006-01-13, al <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:slrndsdpj5.2bjt.wettering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> On 2006-01-12, al <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> > news:dq51r4$5df$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> "al" <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:dq3v1h$7b0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:42l4d3F1jelp8U5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> > > al wrote:
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Mercury's orbit explained without relativity
>> >> >> > > > A most satisfying element of support for Einstein's General
>> > Theory
>> >> > of
>> >> >> > > > Relativity (GR) has been its accounting for the residual
>> > precession
>> >> > of
>> >> >> > > > Mercury's orbit. In recent years, however, a rival explanation
>> > has
>> >> >> been
>> >> >> > > > found in the non-symmetric gravitational field of the sun.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Does the same explanation ALSO account for the gravitational red
>> > shift
>> >> >> > > and the bend of light?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Bob Kolker
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The gravitational red shift that you refer to is, I assume, about
>> >> > quasars?
>> >> >> > This apparently is quantized although the main stream will not
> accept
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > shift in paradigm.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There were some early claims (in the 1970s and 80s) by Tifft that
>> >> > redshifts
>> >> >> (of galaxies) were quantised, but the evidence was underwhelming and
>> > more
>> >> >> recent studies with larger bodies of data showed this was not the
> case.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > It is not even known if some quasars are galactic or extragalactic
>> > and
>> >> > so
>> >> >> > that one is out also.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Quasars are extragalactic. To say that "it is not even known"
> throws
>> > out
>> >> > a
>> >> >> huge body of careful systematic science and accepts a couple of
>> >> > coincidences
>> >> >> as strong evidence.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You seem to be pinning all your theories on one or two mavericks and
>> >> >> ignoring the great body of data that hundreds of other astronomers
> have
>> >> >> gathered and analysed. Since the days of Arp's discussions, a lot
> of
>> >> >> additional information has been discovered about quasars that
>> > demonstrates
>> >> >> his "results" to be coincidences or even observational problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > This is the reason that Halton Arp was sacked as he noticed that
> some
>> >> > high
>> >> >> > redshift quasars are associated with low redshift galaxies. Next
> to
>> >> >> nothing
>> >> >> > is known about quasars.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Was Arp sacked? What does he say about it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I have already pointed to the fact that light and radio waves bend
>> >> > around
>> >> >> > our moon with no refutation even from the professional astronomer
> as
>> > of
>> >> >> > writing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is classical physics: diffraction, not anything to do with
> gravity
>> > or
>> >> >> General Relativity. Bending (in diffraction) is simply due to the
> wave
>> >> >> nature of light. At least, that is what I am assuming you are on
>> > about.
>> >> >> And I did reply to that claim asking for references that you said
> you
>> > had,
>> >> >> but haven't seen a reply from you giving full cites to back up your
>> > claims
>> >> >> that this had anything to do with Einstein's light bending.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I suppose you are now going to say that you never meant to imply
> that
>> > the
>> >> >> diffraction effects and the GR curvature of light beams were the
> same.
>> >> > But
>> >> >> that's how your claims looked to the neutral observer.
>> >> >
>> >> > Diffraction needs a medium (or change of medium) and I don't think
> that
>> > the
>> >> > moon has one; but still they move out of position.
>> >>
>> >> Refraction requires a change in media, diffraction does not.
>> >>
>> >> From the wikipedia:
>> >>
>> >> Diffraction is the bending and spreading of waves when they
> meet
>> >> an obstruction. It can occur with any type of wave, including
>> >> sound waves, water waves, and electromagnetic waves such as
>> >> light and radio waves. Diffraction also occurs when any group
>> >> of waves of a finite size is propagating; for example, a narrow
>> >> beam of light waves from a laser must, because of diffraction
> of
>> >> the beam, eventually diverge into a wider beam at a sufficient
>> >> distance from the laser. As a simple example of diffraction,
>> >> if you speak into one end of a cardboard tube, the sound waves
>> >> emerging from the other end spread out in all directions,
> rather
>> >> than propagating in a straight line like a stream of water from
>> >> a garden hose.
>> >>
>> >> I second the plea for proper references. Since you don't know what you
>> >> are talking about, it's awfully hard to comment in an informed way
> without
>> >> them.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >
>> > Well done Mark, you seem to have scored a home run at last.
>>
>> Did you miss the part where I asked for proper references? It would be
>> nice if we could remove the source of your confusion, or at least reveal
>> the source of it for others who might actually be giving you the benefit
>> of some doubt.
>>
>> I'm curious though: if you don't understand the difference between
>> refraction and diffraction, why are you so cocksure that people who do
>> know the difference are wrong?
>>
>> Mark
> You get a score and then you run around the field waving your hands.
> It's a bit pathetic?
> Be ignominious, I aint done yet.

Apparently not, since you still haven't provided anyone any references
to help us figure out what you are really talking about.

C'mon, just tell us what date you Art Bell broadcast the science that you
are talking about, we can all chuckle at you, and then get on with our
lives.

Mark

> al

.