> CORRECTION!  A. A. Michelson did his "mile-long", failed
> interferometer experiment in Clearing, IL. Case Western Reserve
> University is in Cleveland, OH.  Sorry for the mix-up.  — NE —

> this was a small, annual anomaly,
> smaller than what they were looking for.

> anyway,
> your "vertical, Z-axis" beam would
> be affected by gravitation, at least
> according to the mainstream.

> remember;
> you are on this forum to give & recieve criticism;
> don't be an ass about it.

> On May 17, 5:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On May 16, 5:06 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 16, 1:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > [...]

> > > > Dear Jerry:  You are obviously mentally ill.  You wish to "harp" like
> > > > an expert, but your mind is closed to the "perfection" of anything.
> > > > Bubble levels are quite accurate enough for my "yes or no"
> > > > experiment.  Make your own interferometer and see if you can get it
> > > > into the Smithsonian for contributing anything to science.  —
> > > > NoEinstein —

> > > What would you say the accuracy of a bubble level is, in terms of
> > > degrees?

> > Eric: I used a Stanley carpenters level.  Most door frames must be
> > plumb to within 1/16" in 6'-8" of height.  You calculate the angle, if
> > you can.  Ha, ha, HA!  — NE —

> ...and why is your iteration of a Michelson interferometer more
> accurate than actual published versions? Or even the versions I've
> personally used in physics labs?

>> What would you say the accuracy of a bubble level is, in terms of
>> degrees?
>Eric: I used a Stanley carpenters level.  Most door frames must be
>plumb to within 1/16" in 6'-8" of height.  You calculate the angle, if
>you can.  Ha, ha, HA!  

> > On May 17, 8:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > CORRECTION!  A. A. Michelson did his "mile-long", failed
> > interferometer experiment in Clearing, IL. Case Western Reserve
> > University is in Cleveland, OH.  Sorry for the mix-up.  — NE —

> [...]

> No Michelson interferometer has ever detected anything.

> Wrong. They are EXCELLENT strain meters!  :-)

> > On May 17, 8:26 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > On May 17, 8:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > CORRECTION!  A. A. Michelson did his "mile-long", failed
> > > interferometer experiment in Clearing, IL. Case Western Reserve
> > > University is in Cleveland, OH.  Sorry for the mix-up.  — NE —

> > [...]

> > No Michelson interferometer has ever detected anything.

> Wrong. They are EXCELLENT strain meters!  :-)

> Jerry

> > On May 16, 1:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > [...]

> > > Dear Jerry:  You are obviously mentally ill.  You wish to "harp" like
> > > an expert, but your mind is closed to the "perfection" of anything.
> > > Bubble levels are quite accurate enough for my "yes or no"
> > > experiment.  Make your own interferometer and see if you can get it
> > > into the Smithsonian for contributing anything to science.  —
> > > NoEinstein —

> > What would you say the accuracy of a bubble level is, in terms of
> > degrees?

> Eric: I used a Stanley carpenters level.  Most door frames must be
> plumb to within 1/16" in 6'-8" of height.  You calculate the angle, if
> you can.  Ha, ha, HA!  — NE —

> > On May 17, 8:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > CORRECTION!  A. A. Michelson did his "mile-long", failed
> > interferometer experiment in Clearing, IL. Case Western Reserve
> > University is in Cleveland, OH.  Sorry for the mix-up.  — NE —

> [...]

> No Michelson interferometer has ever detected anything.

> >> What would you say the accuracy of a bubble level is, in terms of
> >> degrees?
> >Eric: I used a Stanley carpenters level.  Most door frames must be
> >plumb to within 1/16" in 6'-8" of height.  You calculate the angle, if
> >you can.  Ha, ha, HA!  

> Stanley carpenters level?  Only 1/16" in 6'8" accuracy?  Oh good grief,
> what a joke.

> > On May 17, 8:26 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > On May 17, 8:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > CORRECTION!  A. A. Michelson did his "mile-long", failed
> > > interferometer experiment in Clearing, IL. Case Western Reserve
> > > University is in Cleveland, OH.  Sorry for the mix-up.  — NE —

> > [...]

> > No Michelson interferometer has ever detected anything.

> Wrong. They are EXCELLENT strain meters!  :-)

> Jerry

> > Wrong. They are EXCELLENT strain meters!  :-)

> And thermometers (e.g. Miller). But calibration for either is a problem....

> Tom Roberts

> > On May 16, 5:06 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 16, 1:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > [...]

> > > > Dear Jerry:  You are obviously mentally ill.  You wish to "harp" like
> > > > an expert, but your mind is closed to the "perfection" of anything.
> > > > Bubble levels are quite accurate enough for my "yes or no"
> > > > experiment.  Make your own interferometer and see if you can get it
> > > > into the Smithsonian for contributing anything to science.  —
> > > > NoEinstein —

> > > What would you say the accuracy of a bubble level is, in terms of
> > > degrees?

> > Eric: I used a Stanley carpenters level.  Most door frames must be
> > plumb to within 1/16" in 6'-8" of height.  You calculate the angle, if
> > you can.  Ha, ha, HA!  — NE —

> Oh dear.
> The best carpenter's levels attain a precision of 0.5 mm per meter,
> according to manufacturers, about 1 part in 2000. But that is not to
> an offset grid marking -- that precision is about a factor of 4-8
> worse -- it is what a sharp eye can possible detect. Given that John
> Armistead's vision is shot (ask him about the difficulty he has
> reading the screen), it's not likely he'd be able to accomplish this.
> Secondly, the Stanley levels are not of this class.
> Third, the precision one would obtain would depend on the length of
> the level as well as the length and straightness of the surface
> against which the level would be applied. Given that the lever arm of
> the apparatus he touts is nowhere near a meter, let alone 6'-8", he
> can't quote the precision of 1 part in 1200 that he has here.

> > On May 17, 10:30 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 17, 8:26 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > > On May 17, 8:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > > CORRECTION!  A. A. Michelson did his "mile-long", failed
> > > > interferometer experiment in Clearing, IL. Case Western Reserve
> > > > University is in Cleveland, OH.  Sorry for the mix-up.  — NE —

> > > [...]

> > > No Michelson interferometer has ever detected anything.

> > Wrong. They are EXCELLENT strain meters!  :-)

> > Jerry

> I've used them and I know what they can do, I'm just getting annoyed
> at his overwhelming level of stupidity. A fucking carpenters level?
> Are you kidding me?

> He might be pro at building houses but scientific instrumentation is
> out of his depth.

> > On May 17, 7:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > On May 16, 5:06 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On May 16, 1:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > [...]

> > > > > Dear Jerry:  You are obviously mentally ill.  You wish to "harp" like
> > > > > an expert, but your mind is closed to the "perfection" of anything.
> > > > > Bubble levels are quite accurate enough for my "yes or no"
> > > > > experiment.  Make your own interferometer and see if you can get it
> > > > > into the Smithsonian for contributing anything to science.  —
> > > > > NoEinstein —

> > > > What would you say the accuracy of a bubble level is, in terms of
> > > > degrees?

> > > Eric: I used a Stanley carpenters level.  Most door frames must be
> > > plumb to within 1/16" in 6'-8" of height.  You calculate the angle, if
> > > you can.  Ha, ha, HA!  — NE —

> > Oh dear.
> > The best carpenter's levels attain a precision of 0.5 mm per meter,
> > according to manufacturers, about 1 part in 2000. But that is not to
> > an offset grid marking -- that precision is about a factor of 4-8
> > worse -- it is what a sharp eye can possible detect. Given that John
> > Armistead's vision is shot (ask him about the difficulty he has
> > reading the screen), it's not likely he'd be able to accomplish this.
> > Secondly, the Stanley levels are not of this class.
> > Third, the precision one would obtain would depend on the length of
> > the level as well as the length and straightness of the surface
> > against which the level would be applied. Given that the lever arm of
> > the apparatus he touts is nowhere near a meter, let alone 6'-8", he
> > can't quote the precision of 1 part in 1200 that he has here.

> PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply.  — NE —

> > NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> > >On May 16, 5:06 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> What would you say the accuracy of a bubble level is, in terms of
> > >> degrees?
> > >Eric: I used a Stanley carpenters level.  Most door frames must be
> > >plumb to within 1/16" in 6'-8" of height.  You calculate the angle, if
> > >you can.  Ha, ha, HA!  

> > Stanley carpenters level?  Only 1/16" in 6'8" accuracy?  Oh good grief,
> > what a joke.

> Dear Michael:  Are you another "Jerry" who believes everything is
> invalid unless to .99999 percent accuracy?  Michelson's handmade
> Berlin interferometer was more than accurate enough to indicate that
> there are zero observed fringe shifts in 360 degrees of instrument
> rotation.  My more precise X, Y & Z interferometer, squared with a
> carpenters level, was more than accurate enough to detect over a
> thousand fringe shifts due solely to Earth's velocity vector variance
> in the Cosmos.  Do the identical experiment with a more accurate level
> and see which experiment, mine or yours, gets into the Smithsonian.
> —  NoEinstein —

> > On May 18, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 17, 7:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > > On May 16, 5:06 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On May 16, 1:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > [...]

> > > > > > Dear Jerry:  You are obviously mentally ill.  You wish to "harp" like
> > > > > > an expert, but your mind is closed to the "perfection" of anything.
> > > > > > Bubble levels are quite accurate enough for my "yes or no"
> > > > > > experiment.  Make your own interferometer and see if you can get it
> > > > > > into the Smithsonian for contributing anything to science.  —
> > > > > > NoEinstein —

> > > > > What would you say the accuracy of a bubble level is, in terms of
> > > > > degrees?

> > > > Eric: I used a Stanley carpenters level.  Most door frames must be
> > > > plumb to within 1/16" in 6'-8" of height.  You calculate the angle, if
> > > > you can.  Ha, ha, HA!  — NE —

> > > Oh dear.
> > > The best carpenter's levels attain a precision of 0.5 mm per meter,
> > > according to manufacturers, about 1 part in 2000. But that is not to
> > > an offset grid marking -- that precision is about a factor of 4-8
> > > worse -- it is what a sharp eye can possible detect. Given that John
> > > Armistead's vision is shot (ask him about the difficulty he has
> > > reading the screen), it's not likely he'd be able to accomplish this.
> > > Secondly, the Stanley levels are not of this class.
> > > Third, the precision one would obtain would depend on the length of
> > > the level as well as the length and straightness of the surface
> > > against which the level would be applied. Given that the lever arm of
> > > the apparatus he touts is nowhere near a meter, let alone 6'-8", he
> > > can't quote the precision of 1 part in 1200 that he has here.

> > PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply.  — NE —

> I wasn't talking to you. I was talking ABOUT you to others.

> > On May 18, 1:07 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > wrote:

> > > NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> > > >On May 16, 5:06 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > >> What would you say the accuracy of a bubble level is, in terms of
> > > >> degrees?
> > > >Eric: I used a Stanley carpenters level.  Most door frames must be
> > > >plumb to within 1/16" in 6'-8" of height.  You calculate the angle, if
> > > >you can.  Ha, ha, HA!  

> > > Stanley carpenters level?  Only 1/16" in 6'8" accuracy?  Oh good grief,
> > > what a joke.

> > Dear Michael:  Are you another "Jerry" who believes everything is
> > invalid unless to .99999 percent accuracy?  Michelson's handmade
> > Berlin interferometer was more than accurate enough to indicate that
> > there are zero observed fringe shifts in 360 degrees of instrument
> > rotation.  My more precise X, Y & Z interferometer, squared with a
> > carpenters level, was more than accurate enough to detect over a
> > thousand fringe shifts due solely to Earth's velocity vector variance
> > in the Cosmos.  Do the identical experiment with a more accurate level
> > and see which experiment, mine or yours, gets into the Smithsonian.
> > —  NoEinstein —

> Correction:  Make that 99.9999% accuracy!

> > On May 1, 6:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 1, 8:36 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > > On Apr 30, 6:52 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > > > Dear Jerry:  I'm replying "with a thought" to your reply, because you
> > > > are the most recent to mention GPS.  Most of my New Science has been
> > > > figured out by reason, not by reading the ideas of others.  If a
> > > > satellite is in geo-syncronous orbit,

> > > Which the GPS satellites are not. Rest of your post is of course
> > > pointless.

> > > > both the satellite and the
> > > > "gravity ether" would be in a fixed horizontal relationship.  So,
> > > > there would be no 'slowing' of a clock compared to Earth time.
> > > > Instead, there would be a slight speeding up of the clock compared to
> > > > Earth time.  The latter effect would be due to the ether density and
> > > > flow velocity being less "out there" than near the Earth.  It's not
> > > > because of space-time variance (HA!).  And, oh, isn't it amazing how
> > > > long and hard Einsteiniacs will work to have that MORON, Einstein,
> > > > have his theories be proven?  — NoEinstein —

> > > > > On Apr 29, 9:58 pm, tensegriboy <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Jerry's essay was good, maybe not perfect, and
> > > > > > you just throw your hands up & say "it's a software issue,"
> > > > > > which of course is generally, so.

> > > > > > > to be synchronized is not the clock but what the clock accumulates (a
> > > > > > > number, a counter).  It becomes a software issue.

> > > > > > thus quoth:
> > > > > > [exercise with commercial Mars UTC watch,
> > > > > > used to synchronize your office clocks ... viz, also,
> > > > > > teh relatavistic intrasolar commuter .-]

> > > > > It should be noted that if you are carrying around adequate
> > > > > computing power, this task of synchronizing the office clocks
> > > > > with your Mars watch is not impossible. At present, Galileo is
> > > > > not yet an operational system, but the designers of the Galileo
> > > > > system have decided to offload the relativistic corrections that
> > > > > I cited in an earlier posthttp://tinyurl.com/3zfrv57tothe
> > > > > RECEIVER. Galileo satellites will be orbiting completely out of
> > > > > sync with Earth time, but will be transmitting to Earth the
> > > > > necessary correction factors which will allow a receiver to
> > > > > compute the correct time from the satellites' incorrect time.

> > > > > To those of us who are accustomed to the GPS and GLONASS way of
> > > > > doing things, this at first seems absurd, but the designers of
> > > > > the Galileo system present an interesting rationale for
> > > > > offloading the relativistic corrections to the receiver. The
> > > > > fixed relativistic corrections applied to GPS and GLONASS
> > > > > satellite clocks assume that the satellites have been placed in
> > > > > nominal orbits, but the actual orbits may differ from nominal by
> > > > > significant amounts: They may be orbiting a few hundred meters
> > > > > too low or two high, or the orbits may be slightly elliptical
> > > > > rather than circular. Even if a satellite had been initially
> > > > > injected into an ideal orbit, the orbit will degrade over time
> > > > > due to the solar wind, and uneven mass distributions over the
> > > > > Earth also cause drift. All of these minor deviations from
> > > > > perfection need to be taken into account if one desires a system
> > > > > of highest accuracy.

> > > > > To the designers of the Galileo system, given the computing
> > > > > power that is CURRENTLY available in mobile receivers, it is
> > > > > hardly any more difficult to compensate for the major
> > > > > discrepancies caused by sending into orbit clocks that are
> > > > > totally uncorrected for relativistic effects, as it is to correct
> > > > > for the minor discrepancies caused by the fact that satellite
> > > > > orbits always deviate slightly from nominal.

> > > > > This, of course, had not not been an option when GPS and GLONASS
> > > > > were designed.

> > > > > Now watch the Koobee Wooblies of the world misinterpret what I
> > > > > have just written...

> > > > > Jerry

> > Folks:  A geosynchronous satellite COULD be part of a GPS system.

> But they're not. Your suppositions about your hypothetical fantasy
> world are for your own sake, not for reality.

> > Those that are orbiting closer to the Earth, but not having a
> > perfectly circular orbit, must have a predictable location in the
> > sky.  The empirical GR equations can do that,

> The GR equations are not empirical fits. That's an error.

> > though the cause of the
> > precession is the spiraling-down ether, which varies in density and
> > velocity according to the inverse square law for both.  Einstein
> > INVENTED space-time and world lines, because he couldn't figure out
> > what causes gravity.

> That's a fabrication.

> >  Note: GR does not explain the forces on any
> > object not in fly-by.

> That's an error.

> >  He never could explain why people standing on
> > the Earth, in all time zones, have their feet pointed toward the
> > center of the Earth at the exact same instant in time. —  NoEinstein —

> That's also an error.

> > On May 18, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 17, 7:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > > On May 16, 5:06 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On May 16, 1:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > [...]

> > > > > > Dear Jerry:  You are obviously mentally ill.  You wish to "harp" like
> > > > > > an expert, but your mind is closed to the "perfection" of anything.
> > > > > > Bubble levels are quite accurate enough for my "yes or no"
> > > > > > experiment.  Make your own interferometer and see if you can get it
> > > > > > into the Smithsonian for contributing anything to science.  —
> > > > > > NoEinstein —

> > > > > What would you say the accuracy of a bubble level is, in terms of
> > > > > degrees?

> > > > Eric: I used a Stanley carpenters level.  Most door frames must be
> > > > plumb to within 1/16" in 6'-8" of height.  You calculate the angle, if
> > > > you can.  Ha, ha, HA!  — NE —

> > > Oh dear.
> > > The best carpenter's levels attain a precision of 0.5 mm per meter,
> > > according to manufacturers, about 1 part in 2000. But that is not to
> > > an offset grid marking -- that precision is about a factor of 4-8
> > > worse -- it is what a sharp eye can possible detect. Given that John
> > > Armistead's vision is shot (ask him about the difficulty he has
> > > reading the screen), it's not likely he'd be able to accomplish this.
> > > Secondly, the Stanley levels are not of this class.
> > > Third, the precision one would obtain would depend on the length of
> > > the level as well as the length and straightness of the surface
> > > against which the level would be applied. Given that the lever arm of
> > > the apparatus he touts is nowhere near a meter, let alone 6'-8", he
> > > can't quote the precision of 1 part in 1200 that he has here.

> > PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply.  — NE —

> I wasn't talking to you. I was talking ABOUT you to others.

> > On May 18, 7:34 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > On May 18, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On May 17, 7:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > > > On May 16, 5:06 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On May 16, 1:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > [...]

> > > > > > > Dear Jerry:  You are obviously mentally ill.  You wish to "harp" like
> > > > > > > an expert, but your mind is closed to the "perfection" of anything.
> > > > > > > Bubble levels are quite accurate enough for my "yes or no"
> > > > > > > experiment.  Make your own interferometer and see if you can get it
> > > > > > > into the Smithsonian for contributing anything to science.  —
> > > > > > > NoEinstein —

> > > > > > What would you say the accuracy of a bubble level is, in terms of
> > > > > > degrees?

> > > > > Eric: I used a Stanley carpenters level.  Most door frames must be
> > > > > plumb to within 1/16" in 6'-8" of height.  You calculate the angle, if
> > > > > you can.  Ha, ha, HA!  — NE —

> > > > Oh dear.
> > > > The best carpenter's levels attain a precision of 0.5 mm per meter,
> > > > according to manufacturers, about 1 part in 2000. But that is not to
> > > > an offset grid marking -- that precision is about a factor of 4-8
> > > > worse -- it is what a sharp eye can possible detect. Given that John
> > > > Armistead's vision is shot (ask him about the difficulty he has
> > > > reading the screen), it's not likely he'd be able to accomplish this.
> > > > Secondly, the Stanley levels are not of this class.
> > > > Third, the precision one would obtain would depend on the length of
> > > > the level as well as the length and straightness of the surface
> > > > against which the level would be applied. Given that the lever arm of
> > > > the apparatus he touts is nowhere near a meter, let alone 6'-8", he
> > > > can't quote the precision of 1 part in 1200 that he has here.

> > > PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply.  — NE —

> > I wasn't talking to you. I was talking ABOUT you to others.

> -----------------
> Parrot gangster

> NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS -
> NO REAL   PHYSICS !!  ......

> you cant cheat every body forever !!

> even if your income depends on it !!.....