Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Michelson and Morley experiment
0 views
Skip to first unread message
NoEinstein
Oct 5, 2008, 6:37:35 PM10/5/08
to
On Oct 4, 6:01 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 20:33:48 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 3, 9:01 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 2, 7:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 30, 8:08 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > You have not answered my questions:
> >> > > - What is your objective, to find new truth or to make scientists look
> >> > > dumb?
> >> > > - Why is it so important to you to focus on Einstein and show that he
> >> > > in particular was wrong?
> >> > > - Why is it so important to you to discredit a whole field?
> >> > > - What is to be gained from the wholescale elimination of higher education?
>
> >> > Dear PD: My answer is simple: “Truth is beauty, and beauty is
> >> > truth!” —— NoEinstein ——
>
> >> Well, that's a lovely T-shirt slogan, but it doesn't answer the
> >> questions above.
> >> Do you think you could be a little more direct and honest?
>
> >> PD
>
> >Dear PD: Since I'm an architect, I have a great interest in
> >mechanical things. I've been challenged to design walls for embassies
> >that are bullet resistant. I've always been a builder and a fixer.
> >Like you, I enjoy causing an effect at a distance. I am an expert
> >with a slingshot, or with a gun. If something must be assembled, I
> >look at the pieces and start work. I don't need to read instructions
> >to fix or build things. In school, I didn't need to study to solve
> >the problems.
>
> >I DO have-it-in-for Einstein! Because the world was saying he was
> >smart, when I was a kid, I watched one of his few live interviews on
> >TV. He sat on his hands and took ten or fifteen seconds to start to
> >reply to questions he must have been asked many times before. He
> >spoke at a speed that is maybe 60 percent of the speed of an average
> >adult. And his face was expressionless. Needless to say, Einstein
> >didn't empress me. In College when M-M was being explained, matter-of-
> >factly, as the experiment responsible for relativity, I immediately
> >realized that such experiment wasn't a comparison of "two orthogonal
> >light courses". It was a comparison of two light courses, which each
> >have components in BOTH orthogonal directions. But because I was just
> >a lowly student, I kept quiet. Years later when shows like NOVA
> >started saying: “All of the matter in the Universe was compressed to
> >the size of an atom.”, I smelled the same rat I smelled in college.
> >Since most of the nonsense in science began after M-M, I decided to
> >use my exceptional (psychologist tested) space visualization skills to
> >figure how and why M-M goofed. I found the answer in just one hour of
> >thought at my local library, where I located a simple diagram of the
> >experiment. M-M simply didn't have a CONTROL. Changes which happened
> >to one light course happened, identically, to the other.
>
> >Within two weeks I had completed an algebraic calculation of the TIMES
> >of travel for both light courses at various angles relative to Earth's
> >velocity vector. I used the simple "sound" analogy that causes the
> >pitch to rise and fall when a train approaches, then passes. Not
> >surprising to me, my analysis had the same TIMES of travel for each
> >light course, correct to nine decimal places. I immediately began
> >contacting science publications, most of which were aligned with...
> >universities. But few would reply. MIT sent me a long form on how to
> >present scientific data. It placed major emphasis on... footnotes and
> >bibliographies. As you know, I don't like status quo anything. So, I
> >decided to make an X, Y, & Z interferometer that would confirm my
> >math. After I had done so, still, no publication was willing to print
> >one paragraph about what I had done.
>
> >So, PD, do you see why I have-it-in-for Einstein? My attacks on
> >Coriolis are just a backdoor way to disprove Einstein without having
> >to mention the name of that... God of Stupidity! If truths mean
> >anything, then: "Truth is Beauty, and Beauty is truth!" — NoEinstein
> >—
>
> Why don't you give up that silly aether nonsense and take up emission theory?
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
>
> Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 20:33:48 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 3, 9:01 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 2, 7:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 30, 8:08 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > You have not answered my questions:
> >> > > - What is your objective, to find new truth or to make scientists look
> >> > > dumb?
> >> > > - Why is it so important to you to focus on Einstein and show that he
> >> > > in particular was wrong?
> >> > > - Why is it so important to you to discredit a whole field?
> >> > > - What is to be gained from the wholescale elimination of higher education?
>
> >> > Dear PD: My answer is simple: “Truth is beauty, and beauty is
> >> > truth!” —— NoEinstein ——
>
> >> Well, that's a lovely T-shirt slogan, but it doesn't answer the
> >> questions above.
> >> Do you think you could be a little more direct and honest?
>
> >> PD
>
> >Dear PD: Since I'm an architect, I have a great interest in
> >mechanical things. I've been challenged to design walls for embassies
> >that are bullet resistant. I've always been a builder and a fixer.
> >Like you, I enjoy causing an effect at a distance. I am an expert
> >with a slingshot, or with a gun. If something must be assembled, I
> >look at the pieces and start work. I don't need to read instructions
> >to fix or build things. In school, I didn't need to study to solve
> >the problems.
>
> >I DO have-it-in-for Einstein! Because the world was saying he was
> >smart, when I was a kid, I watched one of his few live interviews on
> >TV. He sat on his hands and took ten or fifteen seconds to start to
> >reply to questions he must have been asked many times before. He
> >spoke at a speed that is maybe 60 percent of the speed of an average
> >adult. And his face was expressionless. Needless to say, Einstein
> >didn't empress me. In College when M-M was being explained, matter-of-
> >factly, as the experiment responsible for relativity, I immediately
> >realized that such experiment wasn't a comparison of "two orthogonal
> >light courses". It was a comparison of two light courses, which each
> >have components in BOTH orthogonal directions. But because I was just
> >a lowly student, I kept quiet. Years later when shows like NOVA
> >started saying: “All of the matter in the Universe was compressed to
> >the size of an atom.”, I smelled the same rat I smelled in college.
> >Since most of the nonsense in science began after M-M, I decided to
> >use my exceptional (psychologist tested) space visualization skills to
> >figure how and why M-M goofed. I found the answer in just one hour of
> >thought at my local library, where I located a simple diagram of the
> >experiment. M-M simply didn't have a CONTROL. Changes which happened
> >to one light course happened, identically, to the other.
>
> >Within two weeks I had completed an algebraic calculation of the TIMES
> >of travel for both light courses at various angles relative to Earth's
> >velocity vector. I used the simple "sound" analogy that causes the
> >pitch to rise and fall when a train approaches, then passes. Not
> >surprising to me, my analysis had the same TIMES of travel for each
> >light course, correct to nine decimal places. I immediately began
> >contacting science publications, most of which were aligned with...
> >universities. But few would reply. MIT sent me a long form on how to
> >present scientific data. It placed major emphasis on... footnotes and
> >bibliographies. As you know, I don't like status quo anything. So, I
> >decided to make an X, Y, & Z interferometer that would confirm my
> >math. After I had done so, still, no publication was willing to print
> >one paragraph about what I had done.
>
> >So, PD, do you see why I have-it-in-for Einstein? My attacks on
> >Coriolis are just a backdoor way to disprove Einstein without having
> >to mention the name of that... God of Stupidity! If truths mean
> >anything, then: "Truth is Beauty, and Beauty is truth!" — NoEinstein
> >—
>
> Why don't you give up that silly aether nonsense and take up emission theory?
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
>
> Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Henri: Answer: If ether fits all of the observations, I'll
stick with it. Why won't YOU accept ether? —— NoEinstein ——
Dr. Henri Wilson
Oct 5, 2008, 7:04:56 PM10/5/08
to
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
wrote:
>
>Dear Henri: Answer: If ether fits all of the observations, I'll
>stick with it. Why won't YOU accept ether? —— NoEinstein ——
But the 'one absolute aether' concept doesn't fit ANY observations.
kenseto
Oct 6, 2008, 9:01:42 AM10/6/08
to
On Oct 5, 7:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 4, 6:01 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 20:33:48 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> Why don't you give up that silly aether nonsense and take up emission theory?
>
> >Dear Henri: Answer: If ether fits all of the observations, I'll
> >stick with it. Why won't YOU accept ether? —— NoEinstein ——
>
> But the 'one absolute aether' concept doesn't fit ANY observations.
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 4, 6:01 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 20:33:48 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> Why don't you give up that silly aether nonsense and take up emission theory?
>
> >Dear Henri: Answer: If ether fits all of the observations, I'll
> >stick with it. Why won't YOU accept ether? —— NoEinstein ——
>
> But the 'one absolute aether' concept doesn't fit ANY observations.
Sure it does. Your assertion doesn't fit ANY observations. The correct
ether theory is described in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Ken seto
Dr. Henri Wilson
Oct 6, 2008, 5:41:57 PM10/6/08
to
Where does it end?
>Ken seto
RustyJames
Oct 7, 2008, 4:16:01 PM10/7/08
to
On Oct 6, 2:41 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
well one of my problems with with emission theory is that one you
have to belive light can not be slowed down to less than C ,light
slows down by gravitational forces like lensing and magnetical forces
as well. do you agree or is your belife that the path of light can be
alterd by these forces without slowing the speed of C
Dr. Henri Wilson
Oct 7, 2008, 5:05:30 PM10/7/08
to
Speed is relative. 'c' wrt what?
0 new messages