Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Michelson-Morley Experiment
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Wormley
Jan 26, 2012, 6:18:52 PM1/26/12
to
The Michelson-Morley Experiment
http://Galileo.phys.Virginia.EDU/classes/109N/lectures/michelson.html
> There is another obvious possibility, which is called the emitter theory: the light travels at 186,300 miles per second relative to the source of the light. The analogy here is between light emitted by a source and bullets emitted by a machine gun. The bullets come out at a definite speed (called the muzzle velocity) relative to the barrel of the gun. If the gun is mounted on the front of a tank, which is moving forward, and the gun is pointing forward, then relative to the ground the bullets are moving faster than they would if shot from a tank at rest. The simplest way to test the emitter theory of light, then, is to measure the speed of light emitted in the forward direction by a flashlight moving in the forward direction, and see if it exceeds the known speed of light by an amount equal to the speed of the flashlight. Actually, this kind of direct test of the emitter theory only became experimentally feasible in the nineteen-sixties. It is now possible to produce
particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second. In the last century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964).
>
See: http://Galileo.phys.Virginia.EDU/classes/109N/lectures/michelson.html
http://Galileo.phys.Virginia.EDU/classes/109N/lectures/michelson.html
> There is another obvious possibility, which is called the emitter theory: the light travels at 186,300 miles per second relative to the source of the light. The analogy here is between light emitted by a source and bullets emitted by a machine gun. The bullets come out at a definite speed (called the muzzle velocity) relative to the barrel of the gun. If the gun is mounted on the front of a tank, which is moving forward, and the gun is pointing forward, then relative to the ground the bullets are moving faster than they would if shot from a tank at rest. The simplest way to test the emitter theory of light, then, is to measure the speed of light emitted in the forward direction by a flashlight moving in the forward direction, and see if it exceeds the known speed of light by an amount equal to the speed of the flashlight. Actually, this kind of direct test of the emitter theory only became experimentally feasible in the nineteen-sixties. It is now possible to produce
particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second. In the last century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964).
>
See: http://Galileo.phys.Virginia.EDU/classes/109N/lectures/michelson.html
Sam Wormley
Jan 26, 2012, 6:23:00 PM1/26/12
to
The results of the various experiments discussed above seem to leave us
really stuck. Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
relative to some underlying medium. However, it is also not like
bullets, with a definite speed relative to the source of the light. Yet
when we measure its speed we always get the same result. How can all
these facts be interpreted in a simple consistent way?
Special Relativity
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spec_rel.html
Surfer
Jan 27, 2012, 3:52:34 PM1/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:23:00 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>.... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
>relative to some underlying medium...
>
That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
a medium cannnot be ruled out.
Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
R.H. Sanders
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
"....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
theory of gravity...."
wrote:
>
>.... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
>relative to some underlying medium...
>
That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
a medium cannnot be ruled out.
Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
R.H. Sanders
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
"....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
theory of gravity...."
Sam Wormley
Jan 28, 2012, 12:39:29 AM1/28/12
to
Aetherist
Jan 28, 2012, 11:25:43 AM1/28/12
to
universal famework energy just appears & dissapears...
NoEinstein
Jan 30, 2012, 5:29:52 AM1/30/12
to
explain everything in the Universe. The ether is composed of polar
IOTAs having a deduced tangential velocity of 'c'. Normal, perceived
light consists of TRAINS of photons emitted radially from the light
source. The sheer number of photons will nudge through the IOTAs with
little change in the resultant velocity. But over very great
distances (millions of light years) light traveling slower than 'c'
will be speeded-up to velocity 'c', and light traveling faster than
'c' will be slowed down to 'c'.
Your pion is a different animal entirely! Though the emission is
"explosive" with the source traveling at close to velocity 'c', there
is only a spherical "flash" of one or two photons in all directions.
The tiny number of photons headed toward the photon detector are
easily overcome by the IOTAs that are everywhere in space (except the
Swiss Cheese voids between galaxies). All light when first emitted
will be slowed, similarly. But light TRAINS (many more than one or
two photons) will tunnel through the ether along preferred paths.
Effectively, that experiment you cite as being like a "flashlight" is
more like a "flashlight" that went on-the-blink (pun intended) the
instant you touched the switch. Keep trying, Sam. One day you will
realize that my New Science is beyond disproof, and beyond needing any
moot discussions. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Jan 30, 2012, 5:48:31 AM1/30/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: There are no known timing devices that can measure from
emission to target for a single photon. That's why all previous
experiments measuring light velocity have been out-and-back total
distance and total time measurements. It is THOSE measurements that
always show the velocity calculation to be 'c'. BUT! That is the
AVERAGE velocity of light that is both SLOWED when opposed to Earth's
motion, and SPEEDED UP when traveling in the same direction as Earth's
motion. Regardless of the orientation relative to Earth's velocity
vector, the AVERAGE velocity will never change! So, how can anything
be deduced about the velocity of light from an average that never
shows the varying back and forth velocities? Wake up, Sam. As much
as you read about science, you fail to be able to deduce even the
simplest of things. I recommend that those who are interested
replicate my simple algebraic invalidation of the M-M experiment.
After you do, you will understand more about the truthfulness of V =
'c' plus or minus the source velocity, v, than most of the airheads
who claim to be scientists. —NoEinstein —
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
NoEinstein
Jan 30, 2012, 5:54:57 AM1/30/12
to
On Jan 27, 3:52 pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:23:00 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
imparts a mass-proportional force to objects and which has the ether
pool be replenished by the hobo ether sent back into space, trapped
between the trains of photons being exchanged by the attracting
bodies.” Photons are the long sought "gravitons"! — NoEinstein —
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:23:00 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >.... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> >relative to some underlying medium...
>
> That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
> speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
> a medium cannnot be ruled out.
>
> Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
>
> Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
> R.H. Sandershttp://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
>
>
>
> >.... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> >relative to some underlying medium...
>
> That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
> speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
> a medium cannnot be ruled out.
>
> Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
>
> Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
>
> "....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
> is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
> theory of gravity...."
Dear Surfer: Gravity, per my New Science, is "flowing ether that
> "....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
> is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
> theory of gravity...."
imparts a mass-proportional force to objects and which has the ether
pool be replenished by the hobo ether sent back into space, trapped
between the trains of photons being exchanged by the attracting
bodies.” Photons are the long sought "gravitons"! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Jan 30, 2012, 5:57:08 AM1/30/12
to
On Jan 28, 12:39 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/12 2:52 PM, Surfer wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:23:00 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
> On 1/27/12 2:52 PM, Surfer wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> .... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> >> relative to some underlying medium...
>
> > That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
> > speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
> > a medium cannnot be ruled out.
>
> > Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
>
> > Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
> > R.H. Sanders
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
>
> > "....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
> > is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
> > theory of gravity...."
>
> Good point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> .... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> >> relative to some underlying medium...
>
> > That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
> > speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
> > a medium cannnot be ruled out.
>
> > Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
>
> > Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
> > R.H. Sanders
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
>
> > "....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
> > is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
> > theory of gravity...."
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: My points are better, don't you think? Oh, that's right,
> - Show quoted text -
you can't think! Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
Poutnik
Jan 30, 2012, 6:04:23 AM1/30/12
to
In article <5a23484b-d5a8-4c1d-9066-885cb3755fa9
@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, noein...@bellsouth.net says...
> bodies.? Photons are the long sought "gravitons"! ? NoEinstein ?
Is there anything, what is not related to aether,
and what aether theory cannot explain ?
--
Poutnik
@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, noein...@bellsouth.net says...
Is there anything, what is not related to aether,
and what aether theory cannot explain ?
--
Poutnik
NoEinstein
Jan 30, 2012, 6:00:27 AM1/30/12
to
On Jan 28, 11:25 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The sum total in any
closed system must never change. — NoEinstein —
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:39:29 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 1/27/12 2:52 PM, Surfer wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:23:00 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
> >On 1/27/12 2:52 PM, Surfer wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> .... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> >>> relative to some underlying medium...
>
> >> That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
> >> speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
> >> a medium cannnot be ruled out.
>
> >> Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
>
> >> Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
> >> R.H. Sanders
> >>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
>
> >> "....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
> >> is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
> >> theory of gravity...."
>
> > Good point.
>
> Not to mention the basis for the conservation laws... Without the
> universal famework energy just appears & dissapears...- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> .... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> >>> relative to some underlying medium...
>
> >> That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
> >> speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
> >> a medium cannnot be ruled out.
>
> >> Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
>
> >> Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
> >> R.H. Sanders
> >>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
>
> >> "....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
> >> is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
> >> theory of gravity...."
>
> > Good point.
>
> Not to mention the basis for the conservation laws... Without the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear A...: The Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass states that
> - Show quoted text -
energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The sum total in any
closed system must never change. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Feb 1, 2012, 9:56:53 PM2/1/12
to
On Jan 30, 6:04 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5a23484b-d5a8-4c1d-9066-885cb3755fa9
> @q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, noeinst...@bellsouth.net says...
> In article <5a23484b-d5a8-4c1d-9066-885cb3755fa9
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Poutnik: No! Ether is the basic energy building block of all
> - Show quoted text -
materials, including you and me, and is the mechanism for all forces
in the Universe. Photons are likely just small 'pancake stacks' of
IOTAs that have polar ends. The polarity varies depending on which
side of the spinning (at velocity 'c') stack of pancakes one looks
at. Gravity is flowing IOTAs composed of single pancakes, also being
polar and revolving at velocity 'c'. If you can understand weather
systems on Earth (highs and lows) and flowing winds, you can figure
out how gravity is causing the orbit of the planet Mercury to
precess. The ether flow, coincidentally, has a value that is close to
Lorentz's 'beta' divisor in Einstein's SR. That is why Einstein's GRT
can produce results close to observations in moving systems. But of
course, Einstein knew the observations before he managed to write his
empirical GRT equations after over a decade of trying. — NoEinstein —
Poutnik
Feb 2, 2012, 2:20:26 AM2/2/12
to
In article <eb78df56-5ebf-48fb-a194-bacbadfe0540
@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, noein...@bellsouth.net says...
> empirical GRT equations after over a decade of trying. ? NoEinstein ?
The point is all these ideas are flowing in the air
without being grounded by observation and quantifying math.
--
Poutnik
People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, noein...@bellsouth.net says...
The point is all these ideas are flowing in the air
without being grounded by observation and quantifying math.
--
Poutnik
People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
NoEinstein
Feb 5, 2012, 8:23:43 AM2/5/12
to
On Feb 2, 2:20 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <eb78df56-5ebf-48fb-a194-bacbadfe0540
> @h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, noeinst...@bellsouth.net says...
> People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.- Hide quoted text -
no sense when expressed in words. The only "math" needing to be
understood for disproving Einstein's SRT is this: No energy equation
can be exponential, because such would then get OUT more energy that
has been put IN (or such would violate the Law of the Conservation of
Energy-Mass). So, no formulas are needed to refute 90% of the CRAP
that has been trying to pass for science for the last century, plus!
— NoEinstein —
> In article <eb78df56-5ebf-48fb-a194-bacbadfe0540
> @h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, noeinst...@bellsouth.net says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Poutnik: Math is the FAILED last resort of theories which make
> - Show quoted text -
no sense when expressed in words. The only "math" needing to be
understood for disproving Einstein's SRT is this: No energy equation
can be exponential, because such would then get OUT more energy that
has been put IN (or such would violate the Law of the Conservation of
Energy-Mass). So, no formulas are needed to refute 90% of the CRAP
that has been trying to pass for science for the last century, plus!
— NoEinstein —
PD
Feb 5, 2012, 9:31:01 AM2/5/12
to
NoEinstein believes:
- that E=(1/2)mv^2 is an exponential relationship
- that conservation laws mean that the conserved quantity must be
linear in all variables
- that v is somehow "energy in" and E is "energy out", so that
doubling v and quadrupling E means you get more energy out than the
energy you put in
- that Einstein is somehow to blame for E=(1/2)mv^2
- that anyone who declares the above is obviously a genius of highest
magnitude
- that posting to an unmoderated newsgroup is a sign of scientific
accomplishment
John Armistead has obviously removed all mirrors in his house so that
looking at himself in one won't produce spontaneous fits of derisive
laughter.
NoEinstein
Feb 7, 2012, 12:27:36 AM2/7/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD, the Jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a response. (He is a
> - Show quoted text -
persona non grata who has never made a '+new post' on this news
group.) — NoEinstein — Whose New Science is well explained without
any interpretation being needed by anyone. — NE —
PD
Feb 7, 2012, 12:27:30 PM2/7/12
to
hear himself talk, and he discourages anyone to have any interpretive
comment whatsoever.
Notice that he's an incorrigible liar about my never having made a new
post on this group. That, or he is incapable of using his Google
newsreader's basic functions.
NoEinstein
Feb 8, 2012, 9:27:23 AM2/8/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD, the jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a response (He's a personal
> - Show quoted text -
non grata.) — NE —
NoEinstein
Feb 11, 2012, 11:22:05 AM2/11/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Readers: This thread, though posted by Sam Wormley, is on the
> - Show quoted text -
subject that I know more about than any other person dead or alive:
The M-M experiment. Sam used that title as a 'draw' of readers; and
he probably suspected I would chime-in. The following is an important
reply that I made that some of you may have missed reading. As
always, I invite others "than the usual suspects" to comment in
replies. Thanks! — NoEinstein —
Dear Sam: There are no known timing devices that can measure from
emission to target for a single photon. That's why all previous
experiments measuring light velocity have been out-and-back total
distance and total time measurements. It is THOSE measurements that
always show the velocity calculation to be 'c'. BUT! That is the
AVERAGE velocity of light that is both SLOWED when opposed to Earth's
motion, and SPEEDED UP when traveling in the same direction as Earth's
motion. Regardless of the orientation relative to Earth's velocity
vector, the AVERAGE velocity will never change! So, how can anything
be deduced about the velocity of light from an average that never
shows the varying back and forth velocities? Wake up, Sam. As much as
you read about science, you fail to be able to deduce even the
simplest of things. I recommend that those who are interested
replicate my simple algebraic invalidation of the M-M experiment.
After you do, you will understand more about the truthfulness of V =
'c' plus or minus the source velocity, v, than most of the airheads
who claim to be scientists. —NoEinstein —
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
Poutnik
Feb 11, 2012, 12:05:55 PM2/11/12
to
In article <87cea06d-e8ba-4efd-b963-58b7067cbd53
@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, noein...@bellsouth.net says...
The reason is clock sync conventions,
leading to implicit involving value "c", while measuring OWLS of c.
OTOH, measuring multiparticle signal, ,e.g. short pulse,
that differs in speed from c, IS possible,
as difference wrt c is detectable.
> It is THOSE measurements that
> always show the velocity calculation to be 'c'. BUT! That is the
> AVERAGE velocity of light that is both SLOWED when opposed to Earth's
> motion, and SPEEDED UP when traveling in the same direction as Earth's
> motion. Regardless of the orientation relative to Earth's velocity
> vector, the AVERAGE velocity will never change! So, how can anything
Did you consider the fact
velocities must be averaged by harmonic mean,
not by aritmetic one ?
The harmonic mean is changing with symmetrically changed values,
while aritmetic one stays constant.
The person who knows more about MMX
than any dead or alive
should know that.
@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, noein...@bellsouth.net says...
>
>
> Dear Readers: This thread, though posted by Sam Wormley, is on the
> subject that I know more about than any other person dead or alive:
Such a selfish claim disqualifies you as trustworthy source.
>
> Dear Readers: This thread, though posted by Sam Wormley, is on the
> subject that I know more about than any other person dead or alive:
>
> Dear Sam: There are no known timing devices that can measure from
> emission to target for a single photon. That's why all previous
> experiments measuring light velocity have been out-and-back total
> distance and total time measurements.
Yes, there is no such a device, yet it is not the reason.
> Dear Sam: There are no known timing devices that can measure from
> emission to target for a single photon. That's why all previous
> experiments measuring light velocity have been out-and-back total
> distance and total time measurements.
The reason is clock sync conventions,
leading to implicit involving value "c", while measuring OWLS of c.
OTOH, measuring multiparticle signal, ,e.g. short pulse,
that differs in speed from c, IS possible,
as difference wrt c is detectable.
> It is THOSE measurements that
> always show the velocity calculation to be 'c'. BUT! That is the
> AVERAGE velocity of light that is both SLOWED when opposed to Earth's
> motion, and SPEEDED UP when traveling in the same direction as Earth's
> motion. Regardless of the orientation relative to Earth's velocity
> vector, the AVERAGE velocity will never change! So, how can anything
velocities must be averaged by harmonic mean,
not by aritmetic one ?
The harmonic mean is changing with symmetrically changed values,
while aritmetic one stays constant.
The person who knows more about MMX
than any dead or alive
should know that.
Dirk Van de moortel
Feb 11, 2012, 12:06:14 PM2/11/12
to
NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
87cea06d-e8ba-4efd...@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
Autism? Yes... we know.
Now go back to your room.
Dirk Vdm
87cea06d-e8ba-4efd...@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
Now go back to your room.
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
Feb 11, 2012, 5:31:01 PM2/11/12
to
NoEinstein
Feb 18, 2012, 6:25:14 PM2/18/12
to
On Feb 11, 12:05 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <87cea06d-e8ba-4efd-b963-58b7067cbd53
> @k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, noeinst...@bellsouth.net says...
> In article <87cea06d-e8ba-4efd-b963-58b7067cbd53
>
>
>
> > Dear Readers: This thread, though posted by Sam Wormley, is on the
> > subject that I know more about than any other person dead or alive:
>
> Such a selfish claim disqualifies you as trustworthy source.
>
Dear Poutnik: Oh? Who do you suppose knows more about the M-M
>
>
> > Dear Readers: This thread, though posted by Sam Wormley, is on the
> > subject that I know more about than any other person dead or alive:
>
> Such a selfish claim disqualifies you as trustworthy source.
>
experiment, which I myself invalidated for having no control light
course? Or who performed simple algebra to confirm that the ultimate
light velocity is V = 'c' plus or minus v, or the velocity of the
source? And who, beside yours truly has designed, constructed and
successfully tested an under $1,000.00 X, Y, and Z interferometer
which easily detects Earth's motion in the Cosmos—as evidenced by the
thousands of observed fringe shifts? It's likely that you, like PD,
are just a jealous Einsteiniac bent on defending the stupidity of that
Jewish MORON, Einstein. Give up science as a hobby, fellow. You
would be of more use as a bookend in some unneeded library in
academia! — NoEinstein —
Poutnik
Feb 18, 2012, 6:40:31 PM2/18/12
to
In article <2fad5ca4-dd7b-44d8-9ffd-342165509f95
@w9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, noein...@bellsouth.net says...
Until you learn yourself counting,
your claims will be for fun of others only.
> >
> > > It is THOSE measurements that
> > > always show the velocity calculation to be 'c'. BUT! That is the
> > > AVERAGE velocity of light that is both SLOWED when opposed to Earth's
> > > motion, and SPEEDED UP when traveling in the same direction as Earth's
> > > motion. Regardless of the orientation relative to Earth's velocity
> > > vector, the AVERAGE velocity will never change! So, how can anything
> >
> > Did you consider the fact
> > velocities must be averaged by harmonic mean,
> > not by aritmetic one ?
> >
> > The harmonic mean is changing with symmetrically changed values,
> > while aritmetic one stays constant.
> >
> > The person who knows more about MMX
> > than any dead or alive
> > should know that.
--
Poutnik
People's selfconfidence is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
@w9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, noein...@bellsouth.net says...
> >
> > > Dear Readers: This thread, though posted by Sam Wormley, is on the
> > > subject that I know more about than any other person dead or alive:
> >
> > Such a selfish claim disqualifies you as trustworthy source.
> >
> Dear Poutnik: Oh? ....... ? NoEinstein ?
> > > Dear Readers: This thread, though posted by Sam Wormley, is on the
> > > subject that I know more about than any other person dead or alive:
> >
> > Such a selfish claim disqualifies you as trustworthy source.
> >
Until you learn yourself counting,
your claims will be for fun of others only.
> >
> > > It is THOSE measurements that
> > > always show the velocity calculation to be 'c'. BUT! That is the
> > > AVERAGE velocity of light that is both SLOWED when opposed to Earth's
> > > motion, and SPEEDED UP when traveling in the same direction as Earth's
> > > motion. Regardless of the orientation relative to Earth's velocity
> > > vector, the AVERAGE velocity will never change! So, how can anything
> >
> > Did you consider the fact
> > velocities must be averaged by harmonic mean,
> > not by aritmetic one ?
> >
> > The harmonic mean is changing with symmetrically changed values,
> > while aritmetic one stays constant.
> >
> > The person who knows more about MMX
> > than any dead or alive
> > should know that.
--
Poutnik
NoEinstein
Feb 18, 2012, 6:26:54 PM2/18/12
to
On Feb 11, 12:06 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> 87cea06d-e8ba-4efd-b963-58b7067cb...@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> 87cea06d-e8ba-4efd-b963-58b7067cb...@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Dirk: And your areas of expertise are? — NoEinstein —
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
Feb 18, 2012, 6:45:10 PM2/18/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: Glad to see you are "touching base" on one of your dozens
> - Show quoted text -
of "link-to" posts per month. I've already replied and explained that
single photons can't penetrate the ether that is everywhere near
massive objects like the Earth. If you would read and LEARN, rather
than just read and link-to, you might could make a contribution to
science beyond showing that global warming is a potentially humanity-
destroying process all too well under way. Hang around, Sam. The
Einstein Dark Ages of the last century got started because everyone
looked at M-M from the perspective that the maximum velocity of light
is 'c', and they assumed that was so before there was anything other
than the musings of drunkards like Lorentz who extrapolated that the
velocity limit (in ether) of electrons is also the velocity limit of
light (sic!). In support of that errant assumption, supposed
scientists looked at the timed out-and-back light speed experiments as
always yielding velocity 'c'. BUT that was the AVERAGE velocity! The
OUT velocity would be greater than 'c' in the additive direction, and
less than 'c' in the subtractive direction. Understand? Ha, ha, HA!
— NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Feb 18, 2012, 6:50:48 PM2/18/12
to
On Feb 11, 12:06 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> 87cea06d-e8ba-4efd-b963-58b7067cb...@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> 87cea06d-e8ba-4efd-b963-58b7067cb...@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: Since you cut and pasted your 'c' velocity "proof", I will
> - Show quoted text -
cut and paste my important disproof of your linked-to original post.
— NoEinstein —
Sam Wormley
Feb 18, 2012, 7:19:15 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/12 5:25 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> Who do you suppose knows more about the M-M
> experiment, which I myself invalidated for having no control light
> course? Or who performed simple algebra to confirm that the ultimate
> light velocity is V = 'c' plus or minus v, or the velocity of the
> source? And who, beside yours truly has designed, constructed and
> successfully tested an under $1,000.00 X, Y, and Z interferometer
> which easily detects Earth's motion...
> Who do you suppose knows more about the M-M
> experiment, which I myself invalidated for having no control light
> course? Or who performed simple algebra to confirm that the ultimate
> light velocity is V = 'c' plus or minus v, or the velocity of the
> source? And who, beside yours truly has designed, constructed and
> successfully tested an under $1,000.00 X, Y, and Z interferometer
John Armistead, who admits he is NoEinstein, sticks his foot in his
mouth yet again, especially when the speed of light is measures as
c for all observers! :-o
Furthermore, John doesn't understand the significance of the M-M
experiment null result. :-o
Sam Wormley
Feb 18, 2012, 7:25:53 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/12 5:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> BUT that was the AVERAGE velocity! The
> OUT velocity would be greater than 'c' in the additive direction, and
> less than 'c' in the subtractive direction.
> BUT that was the AVERAGE velocity! The
> OUT velocity would be greater than 'c' in the additive direction, and
> less than 'c' in the subtractive direction.
John Armistead, who admits he is NoEinstein, sticks his foot in his
mouth yet again, especially when the speed of light always measures
c for all observers! :-o
Can you hear John's plane spinning out of control and crashing?
Sam Wormley
Feb 18, 2012, 7:33:08 PM2/18/12
to
PD
Feb 19, 2012, 5:47:34 PM2/19/12
to
On Feb 18, 5:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Your pion is a different animal entirely! Though the emission is
> "explosive" with the source traveling at close to velocity 'c', there
> is only a spherical "flash" of one or two photons in all directions.
Spherical flash of one or two photons in all directions.
> Your pion is a different animal entirely! Though the emission is
> "explosive" with the source traveling at close to velocity 'c', there
> is only a spherical "flash" of one or two photons in all directions.
LOL! John, you are a goofball of highest order.
Dirk Van de moortel
Feb 20, 2012, 10:57:16 AM2/20/12
to
NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
95cb4ac3-e69b-4075...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
> On Feb 11, 12:06 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> > NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > 87cea06d-e8ba-4efd-b963-58b7067cb...@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
[snot]
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> > NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > 87cea06d-e8ba-4efd-b963-58b7067cb...@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
> > > Dear Readers: This thread, though posted by Sam Wormley, is on
> > > the subject that I know more about than any other person dead
> > > or alive:
> >
> > Autism? Yes... we know.
> > Now go back to your room.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dear Dirk: And your areas of expertise are? — NoEinstein —
Google is your friend.
Dirk Vdm
NoEinstein
Feb 21, 2012, 4:59:49 AM2/21/12
to
his ears and you will see the light at the end of his brainless
tunnel!!! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Feb 21, 2012, 5:03:34 AM2/21/12
to
anyone but the person replying. If you have comments about science,
please state those in your own words! — NE —
NoEinstein
Feb 21, 2012, 5:07:38 AM2/21/12
to
On Feb 20, 10:57 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> 95cb4ac3-e69b-4075-ad54-2fe75e32a...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
Dear Dirk: At last! One of my repliers is showing some honesty!
Keep it up! — NE —
> 95cb4ac3-e69b-4075-ad54-2fe75e32a...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
Keep it up! — NE —
NoEinstein
Feb 21, 2012, 5:05:17 AM2/21/12
to
non grata.) — NE —
NoEinstein
Feb 21, 2012, 5:01:11 AM2/21/12
to
PD
Feb 21, 2012, 8:43:57 AM2/21/12
to
On Feb 21, 4:07 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:57 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
> On Feb 20, 10:57 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
> > > Dear Dirk: And your areas of expertise are? — NoEinstein —
>
> > Applied Village Idiot Psychology - AVIP.
> > Google is your friend.
>
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Dear Dirk: At last! One of my repliers is showing some honesty!
> Keep it up! — NE —
*chuckle*
>
> > Applied Village Idiot Psychology - AVIP.
> > Google is your friend.
>
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Dear Dirk: At last! One of my repliers is showing some honesty!
> Keep it up! — NE —
It's remarkable when someone posts here has no idea when they are
being mocked.
Sam Wormley
Feb 21, 2012, 10:27:52 AM2/21/12
to
NoEinstein
Feb 23, 2012, 6:40:58 PM2/23/12
to
attack the messenger. Instead of those hundreds of "isn't this
interesting" links you post, why not name and link-to the '+new posts'
which you, yourself, have composed? Name just ONE, Sam, and I promise
I will read your words and probably laugh (except about global
warming). Ironically, it is late February and there have only been
four days in which it got cold enough for my bird bath to stay frozen
an hour past sunrise. Global warming is a disaster... in progress. —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Feb 25, 2012, 12:13:20 PM2/25/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear late-coming Readers: The M-M experiment first attracted my ire
> - Show quoted text -
when I was taking physics at Clemson. Decades later, I finally, got
the time to figure out why that experiment had so screwed-up science:
It was because no experiment, with mirrors or otherwise, can "compare
the velocities of light in two orthogonal directions"! As soon as
light hits a mirror, that light course is no longer traveling in a
single direction! Since interferometers require that light combine at
the target, and since there is only one target, then the rationale for
the experiment was SHOT before it was even constructed!!! Thank J.
Clerk Maxwell for starting A. A. Michelson on the wild-goose-chase of
the last two centuries. — NoEinstein —
Sam Wormley
Feb 25, 2012, 12:21:59 PM2/25/12
to
On 2/25/12 11:13 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> The M-M experiment first attracted my ire
> when I was taking physics at Clemson.
One wonders if you earned a grad in that physics class.
> The M-M experiment first attracted my ire
> when I was taking physics at Clemson.
PD
Feb 25, 2012, 12:38:48 PM2/25/12
to
On Feb 25, 11:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Dear late-coming Readers: The M-M experiment first attracted my ire
> when I was taking physics at Clemson. Decades later, I finally, got
> the time to figure out why that experiment had so screwed-up science:
> It was because no experiment, with mirrors or otherwise, can "compare
> the velocities of light in two orthogonal directions"! As soon as
> light hits a mirror, that light course is no longer traveling in a
> single direction! Since interferometers require that light combine at
> the target, and since there is only one target, then the rationale for
> the experiment was SHOT before it was even constructed!!! Thank J.
> Clerk Maxwell for starting A. A. Michelson on the wild-goose-chase of
> the last two centuries. — NoEinstein —
Well, at least John "I'm a Glorious Bastard, Aren't I?" Armistead is
>
> Dear late-coming Readers: The M-M experiment first attracted my ire
> when I was taking physics at Clemson. Decades later, I finally, got
> the time to figure out why that experiment had so screwed-up science:
> It was because no experiment, with mirrors or otherwise, can "compare
> the velocities of light in two orthogonal directions"! As soon as
> light hits a mirror, that light course is no longer traveling in a
> single direction! Since interferometers require that light combine at
> the target, and since there is only one target, then the rationale for
> the experiment was SHOT before it was even constructed!!! Thank J.
> Clerk Maxwell for starting A. A. Michelson on the wild-goose-chase of
> the last two centuries. — NoEinstein —
thinking of targeting Maxwell, rather than Einstein, for the ills of
the world.
John also seems to have trouble believing that you can put runners on
a closed-circuit course to see whose fastest, because they aren't
running in a straight line. This I guess puts a number of track and
field events at the Olympics in doubt!
John is one of our finer clowns on the group. His shoes are the
biggest, his nose the reddest, and his tiny hat the funniest!
Sam Wormley
Feb 25, 2012, 1:03:41 PM2/25/12
to
On 2/25/12 11:13 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
> Dear late-coming Readers: The M-M experiment first attracted my ire
> when I was taking physics at Clemson.
The Michelson-Morley Experiment
> when I was taking physics at Clemson.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4553968418923601369
Sam Wormley
Feb 26, 2012, 8:52:19 PM2/26/12
to
an escape velocity of c and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s)?
Peter Webb
Feb 26, 2012, 9:11:31 PM2/26/12
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wJ-dnZJnMdhJfNfS...@mchsi.com...
be impossible to use them to calculate mass.
Sam Wormley
Feb 26, 2012, 11:43:28 PM2/26/12
to
>> If you are so smart, John, what is the mass of an object with
>> an escape velocity of c and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s)?
>>
>
> ROFL. I can't actually see a mass term in these equations, so its going
> to be impossible to use them to calculate mass.
>
>
Webb struck out, John. Perhaps you can do better!
>> an escape velocity of c and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s)?
>>
>
> ROFL. I can't actually see a mass term in these equations, so its going
> to be impossible to use them to calculate mass.
>
>
NoEinstein
Feb 27, 2012, 5:12:03 PM2/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 6:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Einstein’s Answer
>
> The results of the various experiments discussed above seem to leave us
> really stuck. Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> relative to some underlying medium. However, it is also not like
> bullets, with a definite speed relative to the source of the light. Yet
> when we measure its speed we always get the same result. How can all
> these facts be interpreted in a simple consistent way?
>
> Special Relativityhttp://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spec_rel.html- Hide quoted text -
velocity of light! The primary "constant", 'c', is the light velocity
of EMISSION. That velocity is probably universal. However, the
ACTUAL velocity of light MUST take into account the motion of the
source. Your "bullet analogy" is the correct one! However, because
light travels so fast, there are at present no timers accurate enough
to measure ONE WAY velocity. Supposed scientists (airheads!) err big
time when they measure light velocity on an out and back light course,
and pompously conclude that the AVERAGE velocity just measured allows
generalizing that both the OUT velocity and the BACK velocity were
both only 'c'. Understand reasonable thinking, Sam, then global
warming won't be the only issue on which we agree! — NoEinstein —
>
> The results of the various experiments discussed above seem to leave us
> really stuck. Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> relative to some underlying medium. However, it is also not like
> bullets, with a definite speed relative to the source of the light. Yet
> when we measure its speed we always get the same result. How can all
> these facts be interpreted in a simple consistent way?
>
> Special Relativityhttp://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spec_rel.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: Very simple! There is no upper or lower limit for the
> - Show quoted text -
velocity of light! The primary "constant", 'c', is the light velocity
of EMISSION. That velocity is probably universal. However, the
ACTUAL velocity of light MUST take into account the motion of the
source. Your "bullet analogy" is the correct one! However, because
light travels so fast, there are at present no timers accurate enough
to measure ONE WAY velocity. Supposed scientists (airheads!) err big
time when they measure light velocity on an out and back light course,
and pompously conclude that the AVERAGE velocity just measured allows
generalizing that both the OUT velocity and the BACK velocity were
both only 'c'. Understand reasonable thinking, Sam, then global
warming won't be the only issue on which we agree! — NoEinstein —
Sam Wormley
Feb 27, 2012, 5:16:45 PM2/27/12
to
On 2/27/12 4:12 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> Dear Sam: Very simple! There is no upper or lower limit for the
> velocity of light! The primary "constant", 'c', is the light velocity
> of EMISSION. That velocity is probably universal. However, the
> ACTUAL velocity of light MUST take into account the motion of the
> source. Your "bullet analogy" is the correct one! However, because
> light travels so fast, there are at present no timers accurate enough
> to measure ONE WAY velocity. Supposed scientists (airheads!) err big
> time when they measure light velocity on an out and back light course,
> and pompously conclude that the AVERAGE velocity just measured allows
> generalizing that both the OUT velocity and the BACK velocity were
> both only 'c'. Understand reasonable thinking, Sam, then global
> warming won't be the only issue on which we agree! — NoEinstein —
>
> Dear Sam: Very simple! There is no upper or lower limit for the
> velocity of light! The primary "constant", 'c', is the light velocity
> of EMISSION. That velocity is probably universal. However, the
> ACTUAL velocity of light MUST take into account the motion of the
> source. Your "bullet analogy" is the correct one! However, because
> light travels so fast, there are at present no timers accurate enough
> to measure ONE WAY velocity. Supposed scientists (airheads!) err big
> time when they measure light velocity on an out and back light course,
> and pompously conclude that the AVERAGE velocity just measured allows
> generalizing that both the OUT velocity and the BACK velocity were
> both only 'c'. Understand reasonable thinking, Sam, then global
> warming won't be the only issue on which we agree! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Feb 27, 2012, 5:19:04 PM2/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 3:52 pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:23:00 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >.... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> >relative to some underlying medium...
>
> That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
> speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
> a medium cannnot be ruled out.
>
> Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
>
> Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
> R.H. Sandershttp://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
>
> "....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
> is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
> theory of gravity...."
Dear Surfer: You err when you insist on measuring light velocity
relative to some medium. Light velocity is determined by where the
light source WAS at some known earlier time and knowing the distance
from there to the new, referenced location. Forget all of the
pointless past arguments about trains and embankments. Simply know
the velocity vector (speed and direction) of the train, and add or
subtract the velocity of the light, and NO POINTS OF REFERENCE are
required! — NoEinstein —
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:23:00 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >.... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> >relative to some underlying medium...
>
> That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
> speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
> a medium cannnot be ruled out.
>
> Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
>
> Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
> R.H. Sandershttp://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
>
> "....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
> is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
> theory of gravity...."
Dear Surfer: You err when you insist on measuring light velocity
relative to some medium. Light velocity is determined by where the
light source WAS at some known earlier time and knowing the distance
from there to the new, referenced location. Forget all of the
pointless past arguments about trains and embankments. Simply know
the velocity vector (speed and direction) of the train, and add or
subtract the velocity of the light, and NO POINTS OF REFERENCE are
required! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Feb 27, 2012, 5:25:55 PM2/27/12
to
On Jan 28, 12:39 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
of gravity, because I have determined the CORRECT cause of gravity!
*** The mechanism of gravity is flowing ether which imparts a mass-
proportional FORCE to all masses and has the ether pool replenished by
the Hobo ether transmitted back into space by the trains of photons
being exchanged between the attracting objects. Photons are the long-
sought gravitons! Understand? Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
> On 1/27/12 2:52 PM, Surfer wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:23:00 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> .... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> >> relative to some underlying medium...
>
> > That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
> > speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
> > a medium cannnot be ruled out.
>
> > Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
>
> > Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
> > R.H. Sanders
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
>
> > "....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
> > is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
> > theory of gravity...."
>
> Good point.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:23:00 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> .... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> >> relative to some underlying medium...
>
> > That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
> > speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
> > a medium cannnot be ruled out.
>
> > Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
>
> > Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
> > R.H. Sanders
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
>
> > "....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
> > is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
> > theory of gravity...."
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam and Surfer: There is zero need to construct any type theory
> - Show quoted text -
of gravity, because I have determined the CORRECT cause of gravity!
*** The mechanism of gravity is flowing ether which imparts a mass-
proportional FORCE to all masses and has the ether pool replenished by
the Hobo ether transmitted back into space by the trains of photons
being exchanged between the attracting objects. Photons are the long-
sought gravitons! Understand? Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Feb 27, 2012, 5:31:06 PM2/27/12
to
On Jan 28, 11:25 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
> universal famework energy just appears & dissapears...- Hide quoted text -
Conservation of Energy-Mass says that energy can not be created nor
destroyed. And only under very specific conditions, such as at the
center of stars, can energy be converted to mass. — NoEinstein —
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:39:29 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 1/27/12 2:52 PM, Surfer wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:23:00 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> .... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> >>> relative to some underlying medium...
>
> >> That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
> >> speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
> >> a medium cannnot be ruled out.
>
> >> Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
>
> >> Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
> >> R.H. Sanders
> >>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
>
> >> "....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
> >> is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
> >> theory of gravity...."
>
> > Good point.
>
> Not to mention the basis for the conservation laws... Without the
> >On 1/27/12 2:52 PM, Surfer wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:23:00 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> .... Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed
> >>> relative to some underlying medium...
>
> >> That statement is a bit misleading because light would have a definite
> >> speed c relative to any underlying medium, so the possibility of such
> >> a medium cannnot be ruled out.
>
> >> Consideration of such a medium can also be theoretically useful. Eg.
>
> >> Hiding Lorentz Invariance Violation with MOND
> >> R.H. Sanders
> >>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3910
>
> >> "....A recent theoretical motivation for a universal preferred frame
> >> is provided by a modern attempt to construct a renormalizable quantum
> >> theory of gravity...."
>
> > Good point.
>
> universal famework energy just appears & dissapears...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Only in your DREAMS Aetherist, only in your dreams! The Law of the
> - Show quoted text -
Conservation of Energy-Mass says that energy can not be created nor
destroyed. And only under very specific conditions, such as at the
center of stars, can energy be converted to mass. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Feb 27, 2012, 5:40:56 PM2/27/12
to
On Feb 18, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/18/12 5:25 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Who do you suppose knows more about the M-M
> > experiment, which I myself invalidated for having no control light
> > course? Or who performed simple algebra to confirm that the ultimate
> > light velocity is V = 'c' plus or minus v, or the velocity of the
> > source? And who, beside yours truly has designed, constructed and
> > successfully tested an under $1,000.00 X, Y, and Z interferometer
> > which easily detects Earth's motion...
>
> John Armistead, who admits he is NoEinstein, sticks his foot in his
> mouth yet again, especially when the speed of light is measures as
> c for all observers! :-o
>
Only by the dumb-asses who don't take into account the the BULLETS are
> On 2/18/12 5:25 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Who do you suppose knows more about the M-M
> > experiment, which I myself invalidated for having no control light
> > course? Or who performed simple algebra to confirm that the ultimate
> > light velocity is V = 'c' plus or minus v, or the velocity of the
> > source? And who, beside yours truly has designed, constructed and
> > successfully tested an under $1,000.00 X, Y, and Z interferometer
> > which easily detects Earth's motion...
>
> John Armistead, who admits he is NoEinstein, sticks his foot in his
> mouth yet again, especially when the speed of light is measures as
> c for all observers! :-o
>
being fired from a gun that is MOVING!
>
> Furthermore, John doesn't understand the significance of the M-M
> experiment null result. :-o
Hell, Sam, I am the first and only person to learn (in just one hour
> Furthermore, John doesn't understand the significance of the M-M
> experiment null result. :-o
after seeing a M-M diagram at my local library) that the nil result is
because M-M mounts all of the optical components on a single plane
surface—meaning that both light courses were influenced by Earth's
velocity identically! Said another way: The M-M experiment had no
CONTROL or unchanging light course! Successful interferometer designs
must have one CONTROL light course and one TEST light course. M-M had
two TEST light courses. If the same thing had happened in evaluating
drugs, the results would be nil, too! Successful tests must have some
reference that is unchanging!! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Feb 27, 2012, 5:43:25 PM2/27/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: "Escape velocity" isn't required to know the mass of an
> - Show quoted text -
object! You need to better state your problem. — NE —
Sam Wormley
Feb 27, 2012, 5:43:33 PM2/27/12
to
On 2/27/12 4:31 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> Only in your DREAMS Aetherist, only in your dreams! The Law of the
> Conservation of Energy-Mass says that energy can not be created nor
> destroyed. And only under very specific conditions, such as at the
> center of stars, can energy be converted to mass. — NoEinstein —
Pretty easy to do in the x-ray lab, John :-o
> Only in your DREAMS Aetherist, only in your dreams! The Law of the
> Conservation of Energy-Mass says that energy can not be created nor
> destroyed. And only under very specific conditions, such as at the
> center of stars, can energy be converted to mass. — NoEinstein —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
NoEinstein
Feb 27, 2012, 5:44:19 PM2/27/12
to
On Feb 26, 9:11 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> be impossible to use them to calculate mass.- Hide quoted text -
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Smart, Peter! — NE —
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
Feb 27, 2012, 5:45:30 PM2/27/12
to
On Feb 26, 11:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/12 8:11 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On 2/26/12 8:11 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >> If you are so smart, John, what is the mass of an object with
> >> an escape velocity of c and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s)?
>
> > ROFL. I can't actually see a mass term in these equations, so its going
> > to be impossible to use them to calculate mass.
>
> Webb struck out, John. Perhaps you can do better!
Dear Sam: Restate your problem, correctly, and I will give you my
> >> If you are so smart, John, what is the mass of an object with
> >> an escape velocity of c and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s)?
>
> > ROFL. I can't actually see a mass term in these equations, so its going
> > to be impossible to use them to calculate mass.
>
> Webb struck out, John. Perhaps you can do better!
answer. — NE —
NoEinstein
Feb 27, 2012, 5:49:44 PM2/27/12
to
yours truly is the first to know that the ETHER inside of the cathode-
ray tube was putting the brakes on those electrons. Ether will limit
all masses to below velocity 'c' except those passing through the
etherless Swiss cheese voids between galaxies. Understand? —
NoEinstein —
PD
Feb 27, 2012, 6:10:28 PM2/27/12
to
On Feb 27, 4:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > If you are so smart, John, what is the mass of an object with
> > an escape velocity of c and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s)?
>
>
> > If you are so smart, John, what is the mass of an object with
> > an escape velocity of c and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s)?
>
> Dear Sam: "Escape velocity" isn't required to know the mass of an
> object! You need to better state your problem. — NE —
No, but if you have the information provided, you should be able to
> object! You need to better state your problem. — NE —
find it, John.
Can you find your address without looking at the number outside your
house?
Sam Wormley
Feb 27, 2012, 11:03:30 PM2/27/12
to
you are smarter than Webb.
Sam Wormley
Feb 27, 2012, 11:05:38 PM2/27/12
to
On 2/27/12 4:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
What is the mass of an object with an escape velocity of c and
a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s^2)?
Sam Wormley
Feb 27, 2012, 11:08:35 PM2/27/12
to
an object with an escape velocity of c and a surface gravity
of g (9.8 m/s^2)?
Sam Wormley
Feb 27, 2012, 11:11:55 PM2/27/12
to
On 2/27/12 4:25 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> Dear Sam and Surfer: There is zero need to construct any type theory
> of gravity, because I have determined the CORRECT cause of gravity!
> *** The mechanism of gravity is flowing ether which imparts a mass-
> proportional FORCE to all masses and has the ether pool replenished by
> the Hobo ether transmitted back into space by the trains of photons
> being exchanged between the attracting objects. Photons are the long-
> sought gravitons! Understand? Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
>
> Dear Sam and Surfer: There is zero need to construct any type theory
> of gravity, because I have determined the CORRECT cause of gravity!
> *** The mechanism of gravity is flowing ether which imparts a mass-
> proportional FORCE to all masses and has the ether pool replenished by
> the Hobo ether transmitted back into space by the trains of photons
> being exchanged between the attracting objects. Photons are the long-
> sought gravitons! Understand? Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
If you are so smart, John, what is the mass of an object with
an escape velocity of c and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s^2)?
NoEinstein
Mar 2, 2012, 6:25:11 AM3/2/12
to
personna non grata who is not welcomed of this, or any, post.) — NE —
NoEinstein
Mar 2, 2012, 6:56:57 AM3/2/12
to
experiment proved this or that about the Universe, does not EVER
refute this single science truth: The M-M experiment was an
exquisitely CONSTRUCTED, but ignorantly DESIGNED experiment for
detecting light velocity changes! Such experiment was attached to a
plane surface stone base floating on an annular wooden raft in a pool
of mercury within a precisely laid brick base. The airheads in
academia, who didn't have the foggiest notion how to analyze two
rapidly moving trains of light, wrongly equated quality of
CONSTRUCTION with the quality of the results—which were nil. All of
the Dark Ages of Einstein resulted from airheads like Lorentz
attempting to rationalize the reason for the nil results. What we got
was thousands of low IQ Einsteiniacs who willingly believe that all of
the matter in the Universe can be compressed by gravity into sub
atomic particle size. And those Einsteiniacs accepted such a
ridiculous notion because of Einstein the MORON's varying space-time
ideas that were the direct result of allowing a drunken German
mathematician, Lorentz, to postulate that all matter in the Universe
will contract; contract identically; and STAY contracted under the
influence of an increasing velocity. Rational thinkers GAVE UP on
physics the moment Einstein came on the scene. What we now have, that
tries to pass for science, is a CYA group of BASTARDS entrenched in
academia who are bound and determined to STOP all progress made in
science!
Those who willingly hurt others by their own selfishness are guilty of
CRIMES against humanity. THAT is the current state of G. D. Physics
in every University in the World. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Mar 2, 2012, 7:01:42 AM3/2/12
to
> an escape velocity of c and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s)?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: Like I've already explained: Escape Velocity is not a
>
> - Show quoted text -
variable that is required for the determination of mass. Please
rephrase you question till it is logical. I know that is asking a lot
of someone with so much light showing through your two ears, but try.
— NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Mar 2, 2012, 7:04:59 AM3/2/12
to
On Feb 26, 11:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/12 8:11 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On 2/26/12 8:11 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >> If you are so smart, John, what is the mass of an object with
> >> an escape velocity of c and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s)?
>
> > ROFL. I can't actually see a mass term in these equations, so its going
> > to be impossible to use them to calculate mass.
>
> Webb struck out, John. Perhaps you can do better!
Dear Sam: Peter has more logic in his words than any of you
> >> If you are so smart, John, what is the mass of an object with
> >> an escape velocity of c and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s)?
>
> > ROFL. I can't actually see a mass term in these equations, so its going
> > to be impossible to use them to calculate mass.
>
> Webb struck out, John. Perhaps you can do better!
Einsteiniacs. The only one, here, who strikes out like a compulsion,
is you! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Mar 2, 2012, 7:07:15 AM3/2/12
to
replied to your question three times already? — NE —
NoEinstein
Mar 2, 2012, 7:07:47 AM3/2/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
Mar 2, 2012, 7:10:49 AM3/2/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam, the NUT case: What is the mass of a snowflake? Or of a
> - Show quoted text -
FLAKE like you? A lot of FAT, I would bet. Ha, ha, HA! — NE —
NoEinstein
Mar 2, 2012, 7:12:43 AM3/2/12
to
to the padded cell before long. — NE —
PD
Mar 2, 2012, 10:44:21 AM3/2/12
to
by charter, ALL posts and posters are welcome. If you don't like the
charter, John, then you've made a mistake by posting here. See your mistake?
Sam Wormley
Mar 2, 2012, 11:51:53 AM3/2/12
to
On 3/2/12 5:56 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> Dear Sam: One hundred repeats of FALSE science like: The M-M
> experiment
Your poor performance at Clemson does not falsify the null result
> Dear Sam: One hundred repeats of FALSE science like: The M-M
> experiment
of the Michelson-Morley Experiment, John. No wonder you claim to
be NoEinstein! :-o
Sam Wormley
Mar 2, 2012, 11:53:50 AM3/2/12
to
On 3/2/12 6:10 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> What is the mass of a snowflake?
Weigh it wet or dry, John Armistead, who admits he is NoEinstein!
> What is the mass of a snowflake?
Sam Wormley
Mar 2, 2012, 11:57:25 AM3/2/12
to
On 3/2/12 6:07 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> Dear Sam: If you are so "smart" (ha!), why don't you read that I've
> replied to your question three times already? — NE —
Answer to: what is the mass of an object with, an escape velocity of c
> Dear Sam: If you are so "smart" (ha!), why don't you read that I've
> replied to your question three times already? — NE —
and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s^2)?
1. An object that has an escape velocity of c is satisfied by a
Schwarzschild black hole.
2. Given a surface gravity (acceleration due to gravity) of
g = 9.8 m/s^2, one can calculate the mass of the black hole
M = 1/g * c^4/4G = 3.088 * 10^42 kg
John Armistead, who admits he is NoEinstein, could come up with
an answer.
Sam Wormley
Mar 2, 2012, 12:13:54 PM3/2/12
to
Answer to: what is the mass of an object with, an escape velocity of c
and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s^2)?
1. An object that has an escape velocity of c is satisfied by a
Schwarzschild black hole.
2. Given a surface gravity (acceleration due to gravity) of
g = 9.8 m/s^2, one can calculate the mass of the black hole
M = 1/g * c^4/4G = 3.088 * 10^42 kg
Webb struck out, John, and so did you!
and a surface gravity of g (9.8 m/s^2)?
1. An object that has an escape velocity of c is satisfied by a
Schwarzschild black hole.
2. Given a surface gravity (acceleration due to gravity) of
g = 9.8 m/s^2, one can calculate the mass of the black hole
M = 1/g * c^4/4G = 3.088 * 10^42 kg
Sam Wormley
Mar 2, 2012, 12:20:41 PM3/2/12
to
On 3/2/12 6:01 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> Dear Sam: Like I've already explained: Escape Velocity is not a
> variable that is required for the determination of mass.
Newton's Escape Velocity, v = √(2MG/r) and knowing
>
> Dear Sam: Like I've already explained: Escape Velocity is not a
> variable that is required for the determination of mass.
v, G and r, one can solve for M.
Planets are routinely "weight" by using Newton's
Satellite Orbital velocity, v = √(MG/r) and knowing
v, G and r, one can solve for M.
> Please rephrase you question till it is logical. I know that is asking a lot
> of someone with so much light showing through your two ears, but try.
> — NoEinstein —
Sam Wormley
Mar 2, 2012, 12:21:59 PM3/2/12
to
Sam Wormley
Mar 2, 2012, 12:23:07 PM3/2/12
to
On 3/2/12 6:07 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
> Dear Sam: If you are so "smart" (ha!), why don't you read that I've
> replied to your question three times already? — NE —
> replied to your question three times already? — NE —
NoEinstein
Mar 6, 2012, 8:30:09 PM3/6/12
to
As soon as light stops going OUT, there is no means of replenishing
the ether flow IN—that IS the mechanism of gravity!!! The star
distribution data for the center of the Andromeda Galaxy shows a
starless band where the stars that had been about to be "gobbled up"
by the super massive STAR at the center simply flew out on their
tangents when the gravity shut off. So, my "theory" (truthful
knowledge!) about what the mechanism of gravity is has been absolutely
confirmed!!!
You have schizophrenia real BAD, Sam. You have zero idea what reality
is, and keep trying to confirm reality by only reading things that
agree with your own idiocy. Folks, isn't it amazing that Sam's
standard for whether my NEW Science is correct is to compare such to
the OLD and wrong science which I, the greatest physicist who has ever
lived on this Earth, have so easily disproved! Webb nor I have struck
out, Sam. You are simply in the final stages of terminal
Einsteinomania, affecting most Einsteiniacs. Get HELP, Sam, before
it's too late. If the worst happens, I will promise not to laugh too
loud over your grave. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Mar 6, 2012, 9:04:38 PM3/6/12
to
On Mar 2, 12:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/2/12 6:01 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Sam: Like I've already explained: Escape Velocity is not a
> > variable that is required for the determination of mass.
>
> Newton's Escape Velocity, v = √(2MG/r) and knowing
> v, G and r, one can solve for M.
Dear Sam: I have invalidated Newton's (supposed) Law of Universal
> On 3/2/12 6:01 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Sam: Like I've already explained: Escape Velocity is not a
> > variable that is required for the determination of mass.
>
> Newton's Escape Velocity, v = √(2MG/r) and knowing
> v, G and r, one can solve for M.
Gravity. Gravity is proportional to the photons being exchanged
between the attracting objects and is not in any way (except
coincidentally) determined by the mass of the objects, and is in
absolutely no way determined by the UNKNOWABLE distance between the
objects' centers of mass!!!
Any equation, even a wrong one, will allow calculating different
forces at different locations in space. Neither Newton nor Einstein
had the foggiest notion what the mechanism of gravity is!!! Einstein,
to his laughable MORONIC credit, attributed the force of gravity to
having objects travel along their "world lines" in his warped space-
time (sic!) so that those objects could be predicted to be at a
certain point at a certain time. But that was the same as his saying
that his EQUATIONS are the mechanism that causes gravity, which
somehow (sic) agrees with observation. [Ha, ha, HA!] The additive GR
equations do correctly predict orbital observations, because that
MORON spent over a decade writing trial and error equations for
defining the KNOWN orbital positions of the planet Mercury. Writing
an empirical equation from accurate date is NOT the same thing as
having figured out the CAUSE of the force of gravity! Only yours
truly has figured out the latter!!!
All supposed calculations of the mass of the planets, and even of the
Sun itself are all WRONG! How is it that a near moron like Newton,
who had no idea what causes apples to fall from trees, can stick the
word "universal" on a wrong equation and every idiot physicist since
has just bowed-down in awe? The only "proof" that Newton was right
(sic) was that the masses of the planets correctly caused the orbital
periods (or close) of the planets. But of course! Since the masses
were determined by the SAME God Damned equation that was being
"tested", of course there was agreement!!! What airhead physicists do
is to use the results of an equation to prove the equation when there
is no PHYSICAL SCALE to actually measure the masses of the planets!
The Earth-Moon gravity system comes close to being correct gravity
measurements. But all of the other masses, including the WRONG mass
of the entire universe is GREATLY over exaggerated, because no one
before me has realized that very HOT bodies have higher gravities per
unit of mass than do colder bodies. If both Newton and Einstein roll
over in their graves, it must be from the SHAME of what I have just
described, which neither of them were smart enough to infer!!!!! —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Mar 6, 2012, 9:15:53 PM3/6/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: Please list for the readers what YOUR contributions to
> - Show quoted text -
science are. Making cut and paste links to the words of others
doesn't come close to elevating you to be above an insane idiot. Your
only "standard" for the correctness of NEW science is to consider the
old, and easily disproved, OLD science to be the standard of truth.
You, like so many airheads who have taught physics in colleges or
universities were hired by those who didn't understand rational
physics, and you were JUDGED by how defensive you could be of the God
Damned status quo. You will be remembered as one of the main people
with EGG on your face, once rational thinkers return to the science
arena. Look in the mirror, Sam. That yellow stuff on your face is
egg! Ha, ha, HA!!! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Mar 6, 2012, 9:17:53 PM3/6/12
to
brain! You have copied and pasted the same errant reply twice! —
NoEinstein —
Sam Wormley
Mar 6, 2012, 9:54:49 PM3/6/12
to
to gravity is the same as on earth, but yet has an escape velocity
of c, John. Not so intuitive!
NoEinstein
Mar 12, 2012, 8:39:29 AM3/12/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Folks: Sam Wormley, the insane, schizophrenic IDIOT, is still
> - Show quoted text -
vainly trying to use "relativity"—which I have easily invalidated as
having ZERO effect on how the Universe ACTUALLY functions—as a measure
of the correctness of my New Science. I can explain more real
science, extemporaneously, in a single reply than Sam Wormley can "dig
for" in his sea of science clippings that were the largely errant work
of other airhead physicists. Know this: I AM THE ONE WHO DETERMINES
WHAT SCIENCE TRUTH IS, at least in the realms of physics and
astrophysics. If anyone of you readers doubts that fact, I invite you
TIMID souls to make your best effort at proving even one IOTA of my
New Science wrong!!! I can hardly wait to see how miserably you will
fail! Oh, yes: In science, the status quo can NOT be used as its own
defense after having been disproved. So, you must prove WHY the
status quo is correct. I'll bet anyone a steak dinner (a token bet)
that you will never succeed. Any takers? Ha, ha, HA!!! —
NoEinstein —
PD
Mar 12, 2012, 8:57:47 AM3/12/12
to
On Mar 12, 7:39 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Folks: Know this: I AM THE ONE WHO DETERMINES
Why would anyone bother responding seriously about physics to a
complete lunatic, John?
Get some help. You are going to become non-functional very soon.
>
> Dear Folks: Know this: I AM THE ONE WHO DETERMINES
> WHAT SCIENCE TRUTH IS, at least in the realms of physics and
> astrophysics.
> NoEinstein —
> astrophysics.
Why would anyone bother responding seriously about physics to a
complete lunatic, John?
Get some help. You are going to become non-functional very soon.
NoEinstein
Mar 14, 2012, 10:01:25 PM3/14/12
to
and shall ever be, a persona non grata!!! — NE —
NoEinstein
Mar 18, 2012, 9:36:33 AM3/18/12
to
> of c, John. Not so intuitive!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam wishes to side-step his being an IDIOT by supposing that his
>
> - Show quoted text -
'intellectual challenge' has any relevancy. I'm the KING of the
science hill! I, alone, determine what IS or IS NOT relevant!!!!! —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Mar 18, 2012, 9:41:03 AM3/18/12
to
On Mar 12, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
DUNCE is undeserving of a response," He is, and shall ever be, a
persona non grata. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Mar 18, 2012, 10:04:46 AM3/18/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alright timid readers: I am giving you more real and correct
> - Show quoted text -
information about physics and astrophysics in just a few days than you
could ever manage to get in an entire graduate school level university
curriculum. That being so, why don't more of you speak up? If you
are negative, prepare to be attacked (or laughed at). But if you are
in agreement, you become allied with the New Science that can take the
human race to the stars! My time would be better spent working toward
those goals than in "trying" to convince airheads that their beloved
status quo has long since been disproved. The justification for
having a single soul major in physics has been nulled by my easy
disproofs of Newton, Coriolis, Lorentz and Einstein. You will be
doing the world a big favor by telling your friends about my New
Science. At some point, there has to be some PRESSURE of the science
truths that will pass the threshold of suppression by the media, and
by the airhead powers-that-be in academia. If 90% of those presently
going to colleges and universities would quit, in unison, perhaps
those bastard institutions will finally have their ivory towers
knocked down, and their heads would finally be out of the clouds of
their delusions of grandeur!!!!! — NoEinstein —
Sam Wormley
Mar 18, 2012, 1:55:03 PM3/18/12
to
On 3/18/12 8:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> Sam wishes to side-step his being an IDIOT by supposing that his
> 'intellectual challenge' has any relevancy.
Sorry the question was beyond your ability, John. :-o
> Sam wishes to side-step his being an IDIOT by supposing that his
> 'intellectual challenge' has any relevancy.
NoEinstein
Mar 20, 2012, 11:17:07 PM3/20/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: The truth is most obvious: Your recurring side-steps into
> - Show quoted text -
the now-dead Einstein relativity realm is as outdated as a buggy
whip. Someone should use such a whip on an airhead like you. Ha, ha,
HA! — NE —
NoEinstein
Mar 20, 2012, 11:39:51 PM3/20/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear readers: I continue to invite any of you to ask questions, make a
> - Show quoted text -
comment or a counterargument—anything to get past this "Sam Wormley"
boredom. Which makes the most sense: Our living in a universe that is
beautiful, logical and easily understood; or our living in a universe
that is strange and moot to those who favor the complex explanations
over the simple?? If you are an airhead like most physicists are, you
went to a university so that you could 'understand' the complex, not
because you wished to comprehend the simple. People who do the former
SEEM to be smart. But people who do the latter ARE smart! See the
philosophical difference, there? Every force, every material and
their interactions can be explained by varying ether flow and
density. Like in weather systems, the ether spirals down toward
massive objects and has a nearly vertical entry at the surface that
imparts a mass-proportional force to all objects. Realizing the
flowing characteristics of the ether explains gravity and disproves
such things as black holes; the big bang; the expanding universe; and
the 'missing mass' that the physics airheads keep trying so vainly to
find. So, readers, start making some replies! My New Science needs
to keep being explained until the "simple" is finally understood by
most of you.
— NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Mar 20, 2012, 11:35:55 PM3/20/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Dear readers: I continue to invite any of you to ask questions, make a
comment or a counterargument—anything to get past this "Sam Wormley"
boredom. Which makes the most sense: Our living in a universe that is
beautiful, logical and easily understood; or our living in a universe
that is strange and moot to those who favor the complex explanations
over the simple?? If you are an airhead like most physicists are, you
went to a university so that you could 'understand' the complex, not
because you wished to comprehend the simple. People who do the former
SEEM to be smart. But people who do the latter ARE smart! See the
philosophical difference, there? Every force, every material and
their interactions can be explained by varying ether flow and
density. Like in weather systems, the ether spirals down toward
massive objects and has a nearly vertical upon entry at the surface
comment or a counterargument—anything to get past this "Sam Wormley"
boredom. Which makes the most sense: Our living in a universe that is
beautiful, logical and easily understood; or our living in a universe
that is strange and moot to those who favor the complex explanations
over the simple?? If you are an airhead like most physicists are, you
went to a university so that you could 'understand' the complex, not
because you wished to comprehend the simple. People who do the former
SEEM to be smart. But people who do the latter ARE smart! See the
philosophical difference, there? Every force, every material and
their interactions can be explained by varying ether flow and
density. Like in weather systems, the ether spirals down toward
NoEinstein
Mar 24, 2012, 4:21:23 AM3/24/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: Those wishing to calculate using disproved science concepts
> - Show quoted text -
and equations are the ones reaching beyond their ability. Your even
purporting to "teach" anyone anything was way, way beyond your
ability! Unless you can correctly TALK science, you know no science!
— NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Apr 9, 2012, 4:53:45 PM4/9/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Folks: There is so much excellent science that I've explained in
> - Show quoted text -
this post. New ones of you readers are urged to ask questions so that
the nuances of my New Science can again be brought to the fore. Sam
Wormley, who hogged-in on my personal area of expertise, the M-M
experiment, surely realized that he was way over his head to be
doubting me about anything. So, give science a boost: Make some
replies! — NoEinstein —
0 new messages