X, Y and Z Interferometer Update

[NoEinstein]

Einstein said: “If any Earth-based experiment ever detects Earth’s
velocity in the cosmos, my Special Theory of Relativity will have been
disproved.” In late 2000 my new interferometer—which I myself
constructed for under $1,000.00 and then successfully tested—easily
detected Earth’s velocity! Such fact was manifested by there being
hundreds, if not thousands of fringe shifts in 360 degrees of rotation
on a Lazy Susan. NOTE: Other than for there being a continual change
in the orientation of the instrument relative to Earth’s velocity
vector, nothing else can possibly explain the observed high number of
fringe shifts. For you perfection-only skeptics out there, no
instrument ’vibration’ nor ‘light course misalignment’, even if
evident, could possibly account for the very high number of fringe
shifts on the paper target. Vibrations of any kind, even intentional
vibrations that I caused as a test, will totally negate seeing a
fringe pattern on the target! The effect of the latter is much like
having the signal be cut off on a TV. When that happens, all that you
will see on the paper target will be (‘red’) static. The static was
red in color, because I used a helium-neon laser purchased from Edmond
Industrial Optics for about $500.00. By carefully rotating my
interferometer with just my fingers, the entire 360 degrees of
instrument rotation can be affected without there being a single
second in which the fringe pattern isn’t visible on the paper target.

I designed my experiment to answer Einstein’s above-paraphrased
challenge. Mine was a “yes or no”, 1st generation experiment, which
I’ve never purported would yield an accurate numerical Earth velocity
measurement. Instead of faulting me for not providing reams of Earth
velocity data for every possible spherical orientation and for every
second of Earth’s yearly orbit about the Sun, why not acknowledge that
my under $1,000.00 X, Y and Z interferometer provides experimental
PROOF that the M-M experiment, now resting in a basement at Case
Western Reserve University, was an improperly DESIGNED experiment for
detecting light velocity. I repeat: The M-M experiment was an
improperly designed experiment for detecting light velocity in any
manner! That’s because such experiment had no CONTROL light course.
It placed all of the optical components on the same, horizontal stone
base, and then rotated every optical component on just the single
horizontal plane. That caused both light courses to change in
identical ways at the like-number of emissions; normal mirror
reflections; beam splitter reflections and arrival at the target.

“Ether drag” is incapable of modifying the velocity of light over any
length of light course, because ether is composed of polar IOTAS
having a tangential velocity of ‘c’. The ether NURTURES light on its
course, and doesn’t drag it slower. [A proviso: Light traveling for
millions of light years began that journey with the velocity being V =
‘c’ +/- v, or the velocity of the source. Because the tangential
velocity of the IOTAS is ‘c’, over very great distances, light will be
speeded up, or slowed down, to be traveling just at velocity ‘c’.]
Nothing about that STUPIDLY designed experiment justifies making any
statements about the existence or the non existence of the aether
(ether) nor the motion or non motion of the ether. Ether, or more
correctly the IOTA, is the primal energy unit of the Universe, and not
some nonsensical reference object for defining motion or for distances
traveled in space.

Unlike the M-M experiment, my X, Y and Z interferometer places the
control light course on the Z axis only. The laser shines down to a
normal (180 degree reflection) beam splitter, then straight back up to
a paper target glued to the front of the laser (an approximate 5“
shorter light path. As much as I tried, I could not get the laser’s
manufacturer to provide me with an accurate measurement of the
location of that back mirror inside of the laser.)

There is a precision pin hole in the center of the paper target to
allow the laser light to pass out. Because there is no 45 degree
mirror (a 90 degree reflection) or beam splitter in the control light
course, even though the entire apparatus is moving laterally at
velocity v, the TIME of travel of the light from the laser back mirror
to the beam splitter and up again to the target will never change!
However, because the TEST light course does strike a 45 degree mirror
(It makes a 90 degree light bend.) then any of the constantly
occurring, Earth-motion-caused, lateral movement of the entire
apparatus will force the TEST light course to hit OFF CENTER of the
point of aim on that 45 degree mirror.

The effect of missing the center point of the 45 degree mirror is to…
PHYSICALLY CHANGE THE LENGTH OF THE TEST LIGHT COURSE and to cause a
corresponding change in the TIME of travel from the laser; through the
normal T70/R30 beam splitter; to the 45 degree mirror, located about
1“ below; to a normal, precision flat mirror, that’s about 12” from
the 45 degree mirror; back to the 45 degree mirror; back through the
normal, T70/R30 beam splitter, and up about 36” to the paper target.
The exact distances aren’t important in a “yes or no” experiment. Of
course the answer is YES and Einstein has forever been disproved!

The “Update” referred to in the title of this post regards my
realization that the PULSING light seen on the paper target as my
interferometer is being rotated has a mathematical, harmonic cause.
Some of you out there might like to calculate the number of fringe
shifts that are uniformly occurring in each one of those pulses. It
would then be quite easy for me to calculate the number of pulses in
360 degrees of apparatus rotation. By knowing that number, it will be
possible, for the first time by Earth born humans, to calculate the
velocity of the Earth. The accuracy would probably be plus or minus
5%! Not too bad for an under $1,000.00, home made, X, Y and Z
interferometer.

As much as I might like, my present (year 2000) interferometer won’t
allow determining the “inflection” point when the fringes shift from
an advance to a retard (seeming to come out from the pin hole, then
seeming to move in toward the pin hole). The inflection points will
occur every 180 degrees of apparatus rotation. My later generation
interferometers will allow space ships to precisely determine their
speed and course without once needing to look out at the stars nor to
check a spinning gyroscope!

To understand the needed math for determining how many fringe shifts
are occurring between the pulses of light, consider these parameters:
The known helium-neon laser passes out of the 1 mm pin hole in a
narrow cone of light. That cone, in the control light course has a
SHORTER distance of travel back to the target than does the TEST light
course that travels about two feet further back to the target (six
feet of travel vs. eight feet of travel). The latter disparity means
that the ‘component’ bulls eye (which is not yet a visible light and
dark fringe) will be 33.33% bigger (more blown-up in scale) for the
TEST light course, than for the control. *** The maximum brightness
of the pulses on the target will occur when there are the LEAST number
of dark bands on the target, and the maximum number of light bands.
By making a computer graphic of the target bulls eye, which occurs in
just a nominal 3/8” circle centered on the pin hole, the motion of the
two different fringe ’components’ should be able to be plotted and the
number of fringe ‘component’ shifts necessary to cause the pulses can
be calculated.

I realize that doing the above harmonic pulse calculation could well
require a “Good Will Hunting” level of mathematical proficiency. Once
that calculation has been made, hopefully, proponents of The
Scientific Method, if there are any out there from anywhere in the
World, will rush to replicate my X, Y and Z interferometer
experiment. One day, such interferometer is destined to be housed in
the Smithsonian in Washington.

I invite non-crackpot readers of this who know real science when they
hear it described, to inform any of the staid math professors and
possibly grad students they know who might like to strive for having
their own 15 minutes of fame. I will gladly reply with an attachment
of a schematic drawing showing my interferometer to any real scientist
or mathematician who will request getting such by emailing me,
directly. I apologize for being spread so thin, time-wise, with my
many personal projects that I can’t calculate the fringe shift in each
pulse of light myself.

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —

AKA John A. Armistead

[Peter Webb]

"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5118926c-b610-431c...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

Einstein said: “If any Earth-based experiment ever detects Earth’s
velocity in the cosmos, my Special Theory of Relativity will have been
disproved.” In late 2000 my new interferometer—which I myself
constructed for under $1,000.00 and then successfully tested—easily
detected Earth’s velocity!

____________________________________________
What is the earth's velocity in the cosmos?

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/17/12 8:21 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> Einstein said: “If any Earth-based experiment ever detects Earth’s
> velocity in the cosmos, my Special Theory of Relativity will have been
> disproved.” In late 2000 my new interferometer—which I myself
> constructed for under $1,000.00 and then successfully tested—easily
> detected Earth’s velocity!

In what direction and what speed?

[NoEinstein]

On Jan 17, 10:34 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

Dear Peter: In spite of there being so many orbital (Earth; Sun,
galaxy, galaxy cluster, etc., etc.) motions occuring at one time,
there is one and only one EFFECTIVE velocity determined by, say, where
the Earth was in 'fixed space' one hour ago, and where the Earth is in
'fixed space' at the benchmark, moment in question. If you will read
my entire post, it is explained that the sole purpose of my under
$1,000 experiment was to show that velocity alone can cause a lot of
fringe shifts in a properly designed experiment. That is just a
simple “yes or no” question. Of course, M-M was an IMPROPERLY
designed experiment, because such, stupidly, omitted having the
required CONTROL light course. — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

Dear Sam; OH, dear Sam: Your "contribution" to science (Ha!) is to
read every single science article or link by others, and then to post
a snippet of such and a link to the words of others, as if you know
what the hell anything means. So far, you are correct only regarding
global warming being a real situation that is beginning to threaten
all of life on this Earth. Do everyone a huge favor, Sam: Figure out
what your strongest area of science is, and then make a '+new post'
based on your ideas and yours alone. I realize I'm asking... "the
impossible" for you, but unless you do that, your BLUFF has been
called for the umpteenth time. Good luck writing that, I'm sure,
"interesting" post! — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

Folks: Have you ever had a key that can only go into a lock one of
two ways? Then, why is it that there are times when it seems you put-
in that key, wrong, time and again? The beam splitter called out
above is a mini-example of that key. When I constructed my first
(trial) interferometer, the beam splitter needed to be a T70/R30. To
improve the contrast on the target (in a different design), I changed
to a T60/R40 beam splitter. Visually (not optically) those two are
indistinguishable. When I constructed my X, Y and Z interferometer, I
inadvertently glued on the 70T/30R when I should have used the other
one. That confusion caused this "I had had it wrong" idea about which
beam splitter was correct. I had wished to write 60T/40R when this
voice said, I got it wrong. I changed that, and now must tell any of
you SERIOUS scientists out there to use only a 60T/40R beam splitter
in replicating my X, Y and Z Interferometer. Such will illuminate the
target with the relative brightness being 40/36 or 36/40, depending
upon one's manner of reference. Long ago I read that smart people do
make mistakes. But it went on to say that smart people will usually
catch those mistakes without outside assistance. Did you "catch" the
mistake, Peter and Sam?? Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —

[Sam Wormley]

[PD]

I love the fact that his figure of success is that, if there is an
aether, then there would be movement of fringes when the interferometer
is rotated. So he rotated the interferometer and all hell broke loose
and he says, "Movement of fringes! I've proven the aether!"

He also says that gravity is the flow of aether into the earth. I would
propose that he test this with a bucket of fine sand, sand that would be
sensitive to the flow of aether by being caught up in it, like dandelion
seeds in the wind. Then he can turn the bucket on its side, detect the
motion of the sand, and declare the existence of the aether!

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/20/2012 2:35 AM, PD wrote:

>> In what direction and what speed?
>
> I love the fact that his figure of success is that, if there is an
> aether, then there would be movement of fringes when the interferometer
> is rotated. So he rotated the interferometer and all hell broke loose
> and he says, "Movement of fringes! I've proven the aether!"

Wash my mouth out with soap, PD but I'm afraid you are right about this
one. I think I'd like to see what this under $1000 "interferometer"
looks like and what data it produced before I'd make any statements
about "proving" there is an aether. I'd first want to check that it's
not like German YouTube one where as near as I can tell he proved that
aluminum bends under gravity.

> He also says that gravity is the flow of aether into the earth. I would
> propose that he test this with a bucket of fine sand, sand that would be
> sensitive to the flow of aether by being caught up in it, like dandelion
> seeds in the wind. Then he can turn the bucket on its side, detect the
> motion of the sand, and declare the existence of the aether!

On the other hand, you never disappoint. Quite frankly your sand bucket
aether experiment is about the most scientific and logical thing you've
come up with so far. It certainly beats waves in nothing at all and
nothing at all having properties, that you are usually spouting. Even
the "real" Einstein didn't buy that one.

[NoEinstein]

> motion of the sand, and declare the existence of the aether!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

PD, the jealous Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. — NE — For you
'new' readers that means he is a persona non grata, or one who
misunderstands, then blames the messenger for his psychosis of
attacking those who CAN understand. PD has NEVER made a '+new post'
on any of these groups, yet he replies as though he is the final
authority. This explanation should suffice for the present post.
Laugh each time PD raises his ugly head, anywhere!

[NoEinstein]

> nothing at all having properties, ***that you are usually spouting. Even

> the "real" Einstein didn't buy that one.

***Can you quote and link to where I "spouted" any such thing?

Dear BJACOBY: Email me directly and I will reply with an attachment
drawing of my interferometer. If A. A. Michelson had respected HIS
low cost, first generation interferometer's nil results, he could have
saved the world from over a century of being in the dark because of
Einstein's MORONIC notions. — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

On Jan 20, 3:13 am, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> On 1/20/2012 2:35 AM, PD wrote:
>
> >> In what direction and what speed?
>
> > I love the fact that his figure of success is that, if there is an
> > aether, then there would be movement of fringes when the interferometer
> > is rotated. So he rotated the interferometer and all hell broke loose
> > and he says, "Movement of fringes! I've proven the aether!"
>
> Wash my mouth out with soap, PD but I'm afraid you are right about this
> one. I think I'd like to see what this under $1000 "interferometer"
> looks like and what data it produced before I'd make any statements
> about "proving" there is an aether. I'd first want to check that it's
> not like German YouTube one where as near as I can tell he proved that
> aluminum bends under gravity.

Dear BJACOBY: I, too, looked at the same YouTube post. The mechanics
of the thing was great (bending accepted). But the guy had zero
understanding of light and of fringe shifts. First, fringes can NOT
be magnified by lenses BEFORE the light hits a target. They can only
be magnified AFTER the light has hit a target! Some of my next
generation interferometer designs favor, as a target, having a
precision, optically flat glass window that has a thin coat of quality
white enamel paint sprayed on the BACK surface (away from the light
source). That way, the fringes will occur at the precision flat
juncture of the glass with the paint. That paint is thin enough so
that the light and dark fringes can easily be seen through the paint
without having much sideways diffusion.

The light and dark bands that his screwed-up presentation showed were
conglomerate ZONE bands perhaps made up of HUNDREDS of actual
fringes. The flexure in the arms of his device was great enough so
that there were X number of shifts in the bands. That means X times
the conglomerate number of bands of unseeable fringes that compose a
single light or dark ZONE.

You show cowardliness and shallow-mindedness to reply to the dregs of
sci.physics, Paul Draper, or PD, rather than to me, the author of the
post. Ether flow toward the Earth is what is holding you in your
chair while you read this reply. It is also the SAME force/weight-
causing ether flow that keeps sand (water, or other) in a level
bucket. And it is the same force/weight-causing ether flow that will
expel the sand from the bucket when the bucket is tilted on its side.

Prove to the readers that you aren't some PD want-a-bee, by discussing
any point raised in my present post or in any of my previous posts.
If you suppose you can refute one IOTA of my New Science, give it your
best shot! I can assure you that I am not shaking-in-my-boots from
any of the know-nothing replies to me thus far. I continually invite
others to join in. No genius like me should have to converse with
those who are clearly jealous idiots! — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

> > the "real" Einstein didn't buy that one.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Folks: Isn't it interesting how much the know-it-all-know-nothings
will clam up when I call their bluff? There have to be dozens of
readers of what I write, every day, who understand my logical
thinking, but are too shy to reply in a public forum. I invite all
readers who are simply shy to reply with either of four easy words: "I
agree"; or "I disagree." Those who say the latter should then ask
themselves this: If you disagree, then why are you and so many others
drawn to read what I write? If after searching for the answer to that
question you would like to make a short comment on any portion of my
New Science, I would be happy to reply to you in kind. — NoEinstein —

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

most avionics is based these days
upon little rings of fiber-optic,
I believe one around each of the roll, pitch & yaw axes
of the plane; these are interferometers, and
presumbaly the whole of the Michelson-Morley experiments
can be done with these little boxes. incidentally,
it is not true that they had no result;
the small, annual anomaly was measured repeatedly, as well
as been verfied by others, D.C.Miller e.g.,
probably most consonant "at the time"
with "aether drag.

not that there is any need, at all,
for any aether other than the nucleii, electrons and
diatomic (uncharged with no dipole) molecules,
like H2, which is about an order of magnitude more,
out there, than ionic H+ (taht is,
elsewhere than stars).

Good Will Hunting is about your speed, dood!

> The “Update” referred to in the title of this post regards my
> realization that the PULSING light seen on the paper target as my
> interferometer is being rotated has a mathematical, harmonic cause.
> Some of you out there might like to calculate the number of fringe
> shifts that are uniformly occurring in each one of those pulses.  It
> would then be quite easy for me to calculate the number of pulses in
> 360 degrees of apparatus rotation.

> interferometers will allow space ships to precisely determine their
> speed and course without once needing to look out at the stars nor to
> check a spinning gyroscope!

[NoEinstein]

On Jan 24, 10:33 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > require a “Good Will Hunting” level of mathematical proficiency.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: In all short term M-M test runs, the ONLY factor causing
the small number of fringe shifts was not having the optics positioned
orthogonally. OR it was due to force-centering the fringe image on
the target when the overall fringe pattern (bulls eye) SHOULD,
correctly, only be centered twice in 360 degrees of instrument
rotation. Unless the centering of the images on the target "chanced"
to be made at one of the two proper instrument orientations, the
centering act will force the optics off of orthogonal! That effect
was especially noticeable in the Michelson's fixed-in-place, "Mile
long" interferometer at Clearing, IL. The force-centering, there, was
the only cause of the laughable fringe shift data Michelson observed.
He had been hoping to see a "sine curve (or cosine curve)" somewhere
in his data as proof that ether drag in a "long enough" experiment
would change as the Earth rotated on its axis. But because no single
plane interferometer can detect velocity changes in light (no CONTROL
light course!), the only variable causing minor fringe changes was the
time of day in which the measurements were made, and likely due to the
thermal expansion of the tubes, and not because of any non-existent
ether drag on light! Michelson (laugh if you want to) selected times
of day or night so that he could freehand points on his graph of data
that had a sine or cosine shape—not as a curved LINE, but as an AREA
with a crude sine edge pattern. Michelson, the great technician (not
scientist) had zero idea why none of his interferometers (all mounted
on a single plane) did not work. If the Clearing interferometer HAD
worked, it would have been so historic that the thing never would have
been dug-up for scrap and forgotten.

That annual shift you mention, is NOT a confirmation that the M-M
experiment worked! Astronomers looked at the same, known distant
star and were able to predict, mathematically, where that star should
be six months later and a year later. Strangely, the star was in a
different location from the predicted place after one year. The
actual cause of that shift was the optical distortion caused by the
Solar Systems ether constantly spiraling into the Sun as the mechanism
of gravity. That larger spiraling ether pattern is less apparent on
the Earth because the Earth has its own, smaller, spiraling ether
pattern. Only when looking at far away stars does the Solar System’s
ether flow DOMINATE and cause the observed stars to be moved (right-
hand-rule) off of position. This effect is the visual manifestation
of “sling-shot” maneuvers, around the Moon, Earth, or other planets,
etc. that require a satellite or space ship to pass close to the back
side of those, headed in the SAME direction the celestial body is
rotating. What is actually imparting the increased speed to the
satellite or space ship is the flowing ether which imparts a gravity-
like KICK to increase the speed.

Know this, 1tree: Understand varying ether flow and density and you
will be able to understand everything about the Universe! —
NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

> NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Important Clarification: Most of the “mess” in status quo physics has
resulted from making wrong assumptions and then building on those as
if they are solid truths. A big part of the mess regards light being
a wave that requires a luminiferous ether in order to be propagated.
The off-the-line-of-sight interference fringes observed in double-slit
experiments implied that light has a wavelike quality (sic). If a
boat’s velocity can be influenced by the motion of the water, it was
wrongly assumed that light velocity would be influenced by the sure-to-
be-there ether flow caused by the Earth orbiting the Sun. J. C.
Maxwell was way over his head when he supposed A. A. Michelson’s new
interferometer design should be able to detect the velocity changes in
the light (sic). If Maxwell had had a brain, he would have realized—
without any experiments needing to be done—that the ether could not
possibly drag light, because the ether, which was assumed to be
everywhere, would keep dragging (slowing) light until the light from
the Sun and the stars could not reach us, and there would be no life
at all in the UNIVERSE! Notice how simple LOGIC, such as the latter,
can start to build a true picture of how the Universe functions,
without there needing to be any experiments run, nor equations
written. My New Science is based on finding the most basic truths,
then using those to deduce other truths until the entire puzzle of the
Universe has been fitted together.

Another part of the “mess” in status quo physics was due to supposed
scientists not realizing that light is composed of trains of identical
photons. Since observation, combined with logic, shows that light in
air travels in straight lines, a logical thinker like me quickly
realized that light in transit to a mirror, such as is the M-M
experiment, will not be influenced by the apparatus itself, which
continues to move with the motion of the Earth. I knew from having
shot rifles that one must “lead” a moving target in order to hit it.
Since light in transit to a mirror will certainly miss the point of
aim if the mirror is moving, it will miss the mirror more so, the
faster the mirror is moving.

All of the laughable algebraic analyses by others are pasted together
going on the erroneous assumption that ether drag is the only factor
causing the tiny number of fringe shifts observed in some iterations
of the M-M experiment. Since I knew, by logic, that ether drag was
non existent, I performed simple middle-school-level algebraic
calculations of the TIME of travel of each of the two light courses.
The logical theorem I used disregarded Einstein’s ridiculous notion
that ‘c’ is the universal maximum velocity of light. Such theorem is:
“The resultant velocity of light is V = ‘c’ plus or minus the velocity
of the source. If a pitcher throws a baseball at 90 mph, a ball
thrown by that same pitcher from the bow of a boat traveling 15 mph,
will be traveling 105 mph. Understand? If the above theorem is
correct, the times of travel of both light courses around M-M from
the light source to the target must not change. Taking into account
how far off center each photon (not ‘wave or ray’) will hit, to 9
decimal places the times of travel, regardless of the apparatus’s
orientation relative to the velocity vector NEVER CHANGE! I knew such
information before I designed my X, Y and Z interferometer. And I
realized, for certain, that the small number of fringe shifts observed
in some iterations of the M-M experiment had to have a logical cause.
And that cause was not having all of the mirrors be precisely
orthogonal.

In doing my detailed analyses of how photons travel around M-M, I
realized that both pairs of photons will oscillate, in unison, off
center of the target depending on what the orientation of the
instrument is relative to the Earth’s velocity vector. There are no
fringe shifts, only the oscillation of the fringe bulls eye. I
quickly realized that there are only TWO orientations in 360 degrees
of instrument rotation in which the fringe bulls eye will be centered
on the target! That is a hugely important realization, because it
means that force-centering of the fringe bulls eye will cause the
mirrors to be off of orthogonal. And THAT will account for the few,
far less than expected fringe shifts in M-M!

In Michelson’s mile long interferometer in Clearing, IL, the induced
number of fringe shifts due to force-centering the image on the target
was much greater. However, those fringe shifts had varied in number,
because of Earth’s daily rotation which placed the apparatus at
different angles relative to Earth’s velocity vector. The number of
fringe shifts were less at those times of day in which the apparatus
was close to the proper datum alignment for the bulls eye, and greater
at times 12 hours earlier or later. A. A. Michelson—realizing that
the shifts were varying, predictably—deliberately selected times of
day for making his observations so that he could PAINT a sine or
cosine curve that would have validated his results. If Michelson, or
anyone, had done simple algebra, he or they would have realized that
no single-plane, truly orthogonal interferometer will ever show fringe
shifts regardless of the velocity and regardless of the orientation of
the apparatus relative to the velocity vector!!!!! It early 2001, it
only took me one hour of analysis in my local library, where I found a
schematic drawing of M-M in an encyclopedia, to realize that the times
of travel of pairs of “racing” photons in both light courses would
always reach the target in identical times!

The ‘Important Clarification’ which I prefaced this with, was my
intent of removing “thermal expansion” as the reason for the varying
number of shifts that Michelson observed. I knew that there were
alignment difficulties, because Michelson mentioned those. He was an
outstanding technician, who must have been miffed that he could not
keep the bulls eye centered on the target. He simply did not
understand the cause of the oscillations. Nor did he realize that the
small number of fringe shifts were due to having his mirrors be off of
orthogonal. This long addendum was for correcting my “temperature”
error. But because it has necessitated my explaining in detail the
REAL cause of the observed fringes, that temperature error has helped
to get out my New Science message! — NoEinstein —

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

as far as we know,
you are a dog that can use a spell-checker.

we know this, because of your amuzing mystaque
of substituting the word, audit,
with "edit," although the terms are used
in quite a similar manner -- I had
just realized this, because
it was so God-am funny, I'd never thought
about it -- so the confusion
by an English-as-an-Nth-language personage,
such as Yusef, is totally theresville.

unlike the "there's no 'where,'
there in yuor so-called theory of every God-am thing
in Universe ... other than electromagnetism etc.
etc. ad vomitorium -- thank you
for saying that I'm the greatest sceintist
of all space, time and/or spacetime,
while I clear-up a few minor details!"

> And that cause was
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...

thus:
so, ignoring the Alfven cosmology and
its validated (laboratory) plasma physics,
what is the maximum possible speed of the wind
at Eaaarth sealevel?

> per the Alfven cosmology.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

... and, before you launch into your usual doggie-style
of insults & blather, please,
just answer the question,
What is the maximum possible speed of the wind?

in what ever terms, units or "dimensional analysis"
that you prefer.

thank you.

[NoEinstein]

On Jan 26, 5:07 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > per the Alfven cosmology.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: Go see a shrink, or get off of the sauce. You are
clearly loosing it again. But who cares. — NE —

[NoEinstein]

On Jan 26, 9:19 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Dear 1tree: From your backside that speed must be very high indeed!
Is that funny noise some "new language" you are creating? Ha, ha,
HA! — NE —

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

here is the question, again,
intended as a simple analogy to the problem
of the speed of lightwaves (not the velocity
of little rocks of masslessness a.k.a. photons):

What is the fastest possible wind on Eaaarth?

Okay, go ahead & try to ionsult me, again --
again!

[Peter Webb]

"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:016fe953-6d9e-49e5...@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

____________________________________________
You said you built it successfully, which means you must have measured the
earth's absolute velocity in the cosmos. What was it?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

I am waiting with baited --bated?-- breath
for your insulting "reply" to my simple question.

or, what "sauce" are *you* on?

[NoEinstein]

On Jan 31, 1:37 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I am waiting with baited --bated?-- breath
> for your insulting "reply" to my simple question.
>
> or, what "sauce" are *you* on?
>
>
>

> > What is the fastest possible wind on Eaaarth?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

1tree: The correct word is "bated" (suspended) breath. There is no
answer to the maximum speed of the wind at sea level. Tell us all
this: Why in hell is such a question needing to be answered? Most
realize that alcohol has killed-off most of your neurons. Get some
rest, guy! — NoEinstein —

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

since when does being an oenophile,
cause one to be drunk, all of the time?

(I have only been drunk, once in my life,
when I was in college.)

yes, there is an easy answer, but
why do you have to act like a big a-hole,
to your loan correspondent?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

no; there don't "have to be dozens" of them, but
there are at least the five or six that have bothered
to reply to your antimathematical stuffm
in this particular item.

maybe you could learn of the lurkers, if any,
via the googolplex stats.

> There have to be dozens of
> readers of what I write, every day, who understand my logical
> thinking, but are too shy to reply in a public forum.

thus:
no; it's mentioned on the very first page of the write-up,
published in the journal in the 19th cce, althogh
he did the experiment, so many times, that I'm not sure, if
it's in the first paper. others improved on this anomaly,
such as Dayton C. Miller.

> the negative results of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment.

thus:
you cannot give the absolute limit on the speed
of sound (not its velocity,
as with lightwaves; interestingly enough,
in the field of acoustics, a "phonon" is akin
to a massless rock of sound .-)

thus:
not as far as I know (nAFAiK), but that's not hing. anyway,
as far as I can say (AFAiCS),
the only reason that the 4cc was converted
into graph-form (or
just the geometrical dual of the mapping problemma),
was that of saving the cost of hand-coloring
the notional maps.

> Are there any theorems regarding the chromatic number of planar
> regular graphs of degree 4 and 5 that do not rely on the 4CC?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

and, just to prove how easy it is,
I'm going to ask a few physicists on campus,
this very same question, although it may
be a while, before they cognize on this. well,
I should begin with a few atmospheric folk, but
whoever gets in teh way, firstly, is fine.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

and, since Neinstein999666999 won't do it,
let's see anyone else come up with a hypothesis,
as to the fastest possible speed of wind.

hint: Gauss could have easily answered it!

thus:
the main conceptual, hardly logical -- because
the mere logic of the Trivium, which is just arithmetic,
cannot dsicover a God-am thing -- problem, is that
no-one in climatology has ever bothered (AFAiK)
to model a glass house at *a* lattitude ... or, even,
to pretend that the atmosphere is a giant geodesic sphere
o'glass, around Eaaarth.

thus:
I don't know of a single study, saying that
the Little Ice Age was not bihemispheric, although
(quite naturally most of the studies were related
to only one of them.

> The Little Ice age cooling was on top
> of no long term CO2 variation of note. So
> if the same series of irruptions occurred now,
> there is less the likelihood of a longer term cooling,
> but it is not excluded.

thus:
the usual figure, I have read is, that the Holocene has lasted
about 10,800 years, about the average length,
hence the former "mainstream" of so-called "global" cooling,
although it is just as foolish as "global" warming,
an oxymoron apparently connected to no-one --
including Svente Ahrrenius -- having bothered
to "model" an ordinary (or geodesic) glass house
*at some lattitude* (although glass does absorb the UV,
that the O3 didn't .-)

> > Maybe you mean the interglacial before that. Maybe you mean
> > the last Holocene Climate Optimum.

thus:
yes, but take the hardiness maps of the USDA
as a *time* series, not just "the current one,
cersus the prior one."

> native species have a hard time fending off parasites, due
> in part to immune systems that work less effectively
> in the changed climate. Bark Beetles

thus:
no; it's mentioned on the very first page of the write-up,

published in the journal in the 19th cce, although

[NoEinstein]

On Jan 30, 7:22 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Dear 1tree, the hardhead: LIGHT IS NOT WAVES! LIGHT IS COMPOSED OF
TRAINS OF IDENTICAL PHOTONS, ONLY! Therefore, there is no need for
you to search for some analogy in sound that might (sic) be applied to
light. — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

Dear Peter: First, learn to READ! My X, Y & Z interferometer was
designed, built and constructed solely for the purpose of answering
this question: "Can any Earth bound instrument DETECT Earth's motion
in the Cosmos?" The answer to that question is a resounding YES!!!
Einstein, the MORON, said that if any Earth bound instrument can ever
detect Earth's motion in the Cosmos, then his SRT will have been
disproved. Have you disproved Einstein, lately? Ha, ha, HA! Go
back to the first page of this post where I explain how the many
observed pulses of light caused by rotating my instrument on a Lazy
Susan are each harmonically determined by the different light path
lengths, which cause the bulls eye cone of light to be larger for the
longer of the two light courses. If any competent mathematician out
there (Is that a conflict of terms?) can perform the needed math, the
number of fringe shifts in each pulse can be ascertained. By knowing
the latter, my interferometer can then give the velocity of the Earth—
probably accurate to within plus or minus five percent. Not bad for a
device which cost less than two thousand dollars to construct! And
note: That money came out of my own pocket, not from some corrupted
GRANT from the NSF or the NSB!! — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 2, 6:24 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > at sea level.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: Perhaps it is because I must deal with so much of your
crap! Ha, ha, HA! — NE —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 2, 9:53 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > > at sea level.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: If you are... "on campus", that indicates your brain is
in as bad a shape as anyone DRUNK on the sauce! Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 2, 11:17 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
Dear 1tree: Do this: If you would like to challenge others with your
POINTLESS science quest regarding the maximum speed of sound, please
make your OWN '+new post' and see how many readers you can get. Ha,
ha, HA! — NE —

> > regular graphs of degree 4 and 5 that do not rely on the 4CC?- Hide quoted text -

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 2, 9:51 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > regular graphs of degree 4 and 5 that do not rely on the 4CC?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: I, and every single reader of this thread, am fed up with
your fixation on the maximum speed of sound. Like Rhet Butler said in
Gone With The Wind: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!!!!!" — NE
—

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

that's the problem with your theory;
you are just like Fig Newton who said,
"I make no hypotheses," and thus was unable
to create a theory of light.

as for Einstein, the main problem is just one
of mere nomenclature, the useless relabeling
of *phase space* as a "space-time,"
due to Minkowski's silliness.

so, by way of saying that
you just don't give a good God-am,
you ahv admitted that you cannot answer;
tank you very much, and
sorry about the legroom.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

light has no "corpuscular" qualities, what so ever,
although the phptoelectrical effect is often taken
to be such a ballisitical matter. but, then,
that is what the Nobel cmte. rewarded Einstein, for, and
his mere interpretation of a word, "photon,"
that he happened to have coined,
is of no real importance, any more than "spacetime"
of Minkowski, Feynman et al ad vomitorium.

> LIGHT IS NOT WAVES!  LIGHT IS COMPOSED OF
> TRAINS OF IDENTICAL PHOTONS, ONLY!

thus:

mere nomenclature, the useless relabeling

of *phase space* as "space-time,"

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

yeah; your items are totally dead without me!

> make your OWN '+new post' and see how many readers you can

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 6, 9:08 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > your fixation on the maximum speed of sound.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

1tree: You are quite welcome, IF you will talk about
interferometers. Mine is the X, Y, and Z; remember? — NE —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 6, 9:15 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> light has no "corpuscular" qualities, what so ever,
>

Oh? Why do you say that? Be specific, 1tree. Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 6, 9:10 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Is that what you call "your own new post"? — NE —

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

it was proven by Young, a hundred years
after Fig Newton's fake corpuscular theory,
in which he could not even get Snell's law
of refraction; it wasn't actually a theory,
anymore than yours is.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

of course, I remember, but it's hard to see,
what you are trying to say, and
you seldom seem to see what anyone else is trying
to say, including me.

I believe this is because of "English
as a second language," or "not being literate
in the language of one's mother, either."

so, the speed of light is a limit
for the velocity of anything in space;
the speed of what is a limit for the movement
of wind?

(the answer to the latter is implicit
in one of Gauss's famous physical papers.)

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

so, how would you be able to find Snell's law
of refraction in your theory, thus beating Fig Newton,
who got the exact opposite conclusion.

really, the problem of the velocity of the wind,
is really too simple; so,
try to derive the law of refraction.

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 7, 12:31 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Dear 1tree: There needs to be a more exacting word for my New Science
than "a theory". I prefer to call my New Science THE correct
explanation of the entire Universe. No tiny-area-of-science theories
are needed for that which is known, by logic, to be in agreement with
every single accurate observation ever made about science, and to be
in disagreement with the majority of the explanations for those
observations given by supposed, but airhead, scientists. After
Maxwell, Michelson, Lorentz and Einstein screwed things up, the
typical scientist (ha!) placed more value on adding to the complex and
WRONG descriptions of the Universe, than on weeding-out the erroneous
stuff (75 plus percent), then figuring out the CORRECT and most simple
explanations. Mother Nature does things in the most simple ways
possible, except in cases of biological organisms which are still
evolving to find the niche of success for each organism. You have
spent far too much time being near academia. Most of those long-dead
figures from science history which you cite have made zero
contribution toward correctly explaining how the Universe works. You
are far too PAST oriented, 1tree. My New Science is NOW oriented! —
NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 7, 12:37 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

1tree: My goal in life isn't to have dialogues with those who are too
narrow-minded, or proud, to recognize that they have been wrong. The
"ego trip" of having seemed "smart" (to the naïve) is what makes the
Einsteiniacs so defensive of their errant complexity. I have
disproved Einstein up, down and sideways! Yet, none in academia and
in the media are rushing to have so many millions of people all over
the world be seen as having EGG on their faces. Indeed, it is lonely
at the top of the Science Hill where I am the King. But it is pitiful
to look below and see the great numbers of fools, sinking into the
bog, below, simply because they have been unable to know real science
truths when they see them. The majority of those who read what I
explain every week agree with my logic, but are simply too timid to
say so. If there had been fewer "less timid" science minds during all
of the years since Newton and Coriolis, there wouldn't be the need for
me to carry the entire burden of straightening-out science on my
shoulders, now. Please speak up, you timid ones; your voices have
been repressed for far too long!! — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 7, 1:23 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > of refraction; it wasn't actually a theory,- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: Light is refracted because photons are polar (though not
always "polarized" or oriented in the thinnest planes possible). All
materials, even steel, will bend light at the edges, because of the
charges (plus and minus) of the ether which composes the 'matter' and
the spaces inside of the matter. Whatever "Snell's Law” states,
varying ether flow and density will correctly explain it! —
NoEinstein —

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

exactly my "point;"
you cannot derive such a simple law as Snell's law
of refraction from your anti-mathematical,
linguistically-challenged "theory of every God-am thing
in Universe, except for electromagnetism etc. etc.
ad vomitorium."

true, light waves are always polarized, but
exactly nothing can be said about that, if
you know exactly nothing about poalrization and
electromagnetism -- sheesh, what a fool: he,
who believes that math is just manipulation
of equations to "define laws as equations,"
such as Newton's mere algebraization
of Kepler's three orbital constraints,
to give the so-called universal law of gravitation
-- which he actually stole from Hooke.

> Light is refracted because photons are polar

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

that is a good "goal, not to have." also,
it's a good thing that Gauss is not played-up
any where near as much as Einstein, Newton and
Hawking -- like, in Star Trek: The Movie -- or
you would be insisting that you had ripped his ****
to shreds, too!

> > the speed of what is a limit for the movement
> > of wind?
>
> > (the answer to the latter is implicit
> > in one of Gauss's famous physical papers.)
>

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

... and, my next New Moon Resolution,
is not to argue with fools;
that seems to be rather foolish, at present.

thus:

light has no "corpuscular" qualities, what so ever,

although the photoelectrical effect is often taken

to be such a ballisitical matter. but, then,
that is what the Nobel cmte. rewarded Einstein, for, and
his mere interpretation of a word, "photon,"
that he happened to have coined,

is of no real importance, any more than the "spacetime"
of Minkowski, Feynman et al ad vomitorium (as great
as they seem to have been).

thus:
just read in the paper, about the next blast of arctic air,
coming out of Canada; how many records will be set,
in all of N. America (including perhaps Mexico) ??

> In the year 2000, global warming proponents theorized that
> the UK would have no more snow.

thus:
tell us, how much energy is involved?... now,
I believe that HAARP is fueled by Alaskan natural gas, although
it is not "fossilized" per se.

see Morner's re-reanalysis of the sealevel data
(he is the past-president of the intl. organization
that deals with the Quaternary period of glaciation,
viz the Holocene -- "you are/were then" !-)

thus:
this has been mooted for some time,
that several periods in the Holocene were warmer,
than nowsville. also. with regard to models,
GrIS and AnIS have only risen -- according to you-know-whom.

thus: a)
there is no such a thing as a fossilized fuel (TM), and b)
it (biomass) is always being created.

thus:
I didn't write the name of the journal down, but
it seemed perfectly authoritative, and confirms that
Einstein wouldn't even consider the actual results
of the M&M experiment, along with the rest
of you, Einsteinmaniacs.

> > I actually found the same say-so from Einstein,
> > himself, summarily disputing D.C.Miller's paper
> > on this subject, with Miller's data.

> > actually, this was only reported, second-hand,
> > in a journal, by someone who interviewed Einstein,
> > on one of the few ocaissions when he was at his office
> > at Caltech (in Pasadena).

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 8, 9:55 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > varying ether flow and density will correctly explain it!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No, 1tree: I simply don't have the time to go looking up the likely
errant work of others. If you would like for me to comment further on
your "Snell’s Law", please copy and past such in your next reply.
Remember, my New Science correctly explains the entire Universe!! —
NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 8, 9:59 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > narrow-minded, or proud, to recognize that they have been wrong.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

1tree: History... BORING! — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 10, 1:59 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > > at Caltech (in Pasadena).- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: I don't have time to go on your "science trip" of the
day. Please cover your MAIN idea for a reply in the first two
paragraphs. If what I see is much longer than that, I just assume it
is more of your copy-and-paste garbage. The other readers of this
post will appreciate your being more focused, I'll bet. — NoEinstein —

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

if you've never heard of Snell's law ... um, well;
how do you procribe the refraction of "rays"
of light, then?

so far, all of your descriptions are on a par
with Descartes' silly explanation
of Snell's law, which Fermat had shown
-- in a letter back to Descartes, himslef --
how useless it was.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

I always do that; some folks complain,
because it is "top-posting,"
which is somehow supposed to be bad, bad, bad.

arguing with fools isn't one of goals!

> Please, cover your MAIN idea for a reply

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

yeah, true. let's talk about other things
that you won't look at, such as the Moon model
of the atom,
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com; I mean,
go ahead & make my day, and "don't have that
as a goal."

> History... BORING!  — Neinstein99999999999

thus:
why is it necessary to assume, a)
that oil & natural gas ages have anything to do
with the strata fron which they are taken, and b)
that there is no data?

thus:
yeah, Muller did it. this was covered in http://21stcenturysciencetech.com;
the technical term is "hormesis," but
it is a simple thing to see,
everywhere; viz, molybdenum is essential
to animal nuritition, but is very toxic.

now, whereas the radiaoctive elements per se,
may or may not have any nutritional role,
it is clear that a certain amount of ionizing radiation is normal
to living processes.

thus:
you act as if there is no data, or that
you are familiar with the data!

> The limit of carbon dating is not much more
> than 50,000 years. I doubt if any of our oil
> or natural gas is as young as that.

thus
how to do something for the intense lack
of historical data on virtually all glaciers? meanwhile, since
Sputnix,
GrIS and AnIS have only risen.

> the Karakoram range, where it was found that
> rocks and mud on the surface of glaciers
> are helping to protect them from melting.

thus:
the totality of evapotranspiration on land has
been reduced by what causes that part
of urban heat-islanding, ipso facto.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

which just goes to show, iff
you're a dog with a spellchecker,
anything is possible in your own little bubble (or
Universe, according to the Copenhagenskoolers .-)

didn't you type, that you had some sort
of advanced engineering degree or training or study,
and alos that you graduated from middleschool?

I mean, some of the brightest folks on Eaaarth have
only had eighth-grade educations ... but,
they didn't mostly think that they were the It Boy.

> Most of those from history have made no contribution toward correctly explaining how the Universe works.

thus:
ever since Dirac, we have known that
"atoms have internal (angular) momenta,"
that must be considered relativistically,"
mystical reification of Copenhagenskoolers, or not.

thus:
yeah, the Eemian;
most of the Confirmerists, as well as the Denierists,
really don't bother with "before our little Holocene --
we are then!"

> > Most likely it will rise more as the Greenland ice cap shrinks,
> > as it did in the previous interglacial (Eemian). Perhaps
> > up to 20 feet of additional sea level rise could be expected.

thus:
Morner was merely the president of a committee
of INQUA, devoted to paleoclimate & tide guages,
totally mainstream Quaternary Period studies.

> Morner is quack who believes in water dowsing.

thus:
that the Ptolemaic epicycles were always a hoax,
is manifest in the lack of a really big one,
for the precession of the equinoxes, and
I'm not a God-am Aquarius, either!

> in our universe, what you described never happened.

thus:
the guy who invented carbon-dating retired at my U,;
all of his stuff is probably there, but
I was told of this at a seminar by another Nobeliste
in chemistry, who developed a means of making fuel
from CO2 (say from a coalfired plant) and methane,
which is in commercial tryouts.

it's the oil company's that got the data;
whether or not they draw any obvious conclusion,
who knows, it will probably be in line with their Peack Oil analysis,
with which I must currently concur.

> Please give me an egrigeous source for carbon dating of oil.

thus:
this is a nice metastudy, as far
as retrospective statistics can go. I note that: a)
the nighttime warmth anomaly is duly noted & said to be
coherent with years of modeling; and that b)
there is no hypothesis given for that,
at least in this summary (meaning, perhaps,
it is just shoved into the models, ad hoc;
see _A Vast Machine_ MITPress 2011 .-)

thanks for not playing, folks -- again.

thus quoth:
record daily highs to record daily
lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations
in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950
through September 2009

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 13, 7:36 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> yeah, true.  let's talk about other things
> that you won't look at, such as the Moon model

> of the atom,http://21stcenturysciencetech.com;I mean,

> go ahead & make my day, and "don't have that
> as a goal."
>
> > History... BORING!  — Neinstein99999999999
>
> thus:
> why is it necessary to assume, a)
> that oil & natural gas ages have anything to do
> with the strata fron which they are taken, and b)
> that there is no data?
>
> thus:

> yeah, Muller did it.  this was covered inhttp://21stcenturysciencetech.com;

1tree: Stop changing the subject! This post is about interferometers
and light, remember? — NE —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 13, 7:31 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > in the first two paragraphs.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

1 tree: Great! Then, stop talking to yourself! Ha, ha, HA! — NE —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> which just goes to show, iff
> you're a dog with a spellchecker,
> anything is possible in your own little bubble (or
> Universe, according to the Copenhagenskoolers .-)
>
> didn't you type, that you had some sort
> of advanced engineering degree or training or study,
> and alos that you graduated from middleschool?
>
> I mean, some of the brightest folks on Eaaarth have
> only had eighth-grade educations ... but,
> they didn't mostly think that they were the It Boy.

1tree: My New Science, which correctly explains the entire Universe,
happens to be the simplest and thus the most beautiful explanation for
all natural observations in science. If middle school algebra solves
a problem, why go to college to learn calculus—which hasn’t been of
much use to anyone since the advent of efficient calculators? — NE —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 13, 7:28 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Dear 1tree: Since you obviously can't read and/or remember, I’ve
explained numbers of times the mechanism of how light rays are bent by
lenses and by prisms. For the newer readers among you, I will give
you a capsule repeat explanation of that mechanism: All of matter is
composed of tangles of IOTAs of different densities, i.e., having mass-
proportional resistance to the free passage of other IOTAs. The
atomic components are swimming in a soup of free-moving IOTAs that can
become depleted when atoms emit trains of photons. All regions near
masses, whether of glass or steel, have charged edges. Since photons
are themselves polar, or have both a positive and a negative spin
direction depending on which side is being referenced, photons passing
through glass will be tugged, magnetically, by the positive and the
negative mini-charges near the glass to air juncture. By nature, the
IOTAs that are disturbed or swung out of position by a passing photon
will try to return to the original position. But they will only be
partially effective at returning to the original position when other
photons keep arriving. Redder light has identical photons to bluer
light. The only “physical” difference is the bluer light has the
photons spaced much closer together, or has more energy density
passing by per unit of time. So, the IOTAs at the matter’s edges have
less time to return to the natural state. That causes blue light to
be bent less efficiently than red light. That fact accounts for the
color spectrum displayed when white light (composed of light of all
“wave lengths”, a misnomer) pass through prisms and get swung off-of-
course a predictable angular amount. It also accounts for the red
fringes of light when using non color-corrected lenses. — NoEinstein
—

[NoEinstein]

Alright readers: I always give the most readily understood
explanations of my New Science. I invite comments about any issue by
anyone with a logical mind. I know, requesting that those who reply
have logical-thinking minds is a huge order, but I'm getting sick and
tired of only getting replies from those who couldn't reason
themselves out of a bow knot. What I have done to advance science
exceeds the combined contribution of every single physicist who has
ever lived! My talents should be being used to improve the world
rather than spending hours explaining my New Science to mostly
airheads. So, speak up logical thinkers! The world can't start being
improved until all of the dumb asses in academia and in the science
media are laughed out of town!!! — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

> media are laughed out of town!!!  — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Readers: Sam Wormley began this post (or rather his usual cut
and paste link) in late January regarding the M-M experiment. He
called his post that, even though the subject was decaying atomic
particles that emitted some photons while traveling close to velocity
'c'. Photo electric detectors had determined that those photons had
arrived at very close to velocity 'c'——not withstanding the fact the
light source was moving very fast. Without mentioning me by name, Sam
was implying that my assertion that the velocity of light is: *V = 'c'
plus or minus v, or the velocity component of the light source. As
was the case with Lorentz's electron experiments never exceeding
velocity 'c', it is the polar ETHER that is everwhere near massive
objects that can put the brakes on stray or random photon emissions.
The requirement, in order for light to exceed velocity 'c', is for the
light to be emitted for more than a nano second, so as to allow the
trains of photons to orient the ether favorable to the passage of
such. Unfortunately for experimentors, it would be impossible for the
location of any continuous light source to be known, accurate enough
to measure which photon(s) had been emitted from where and from when.
Simple algebra can easily show that the equation marked *, above, will
correctly explain the nill results of the M-M experiment because such
disn't have a CONTROL, or unchanging, light course——as my own X, Y, &
Z interferometer does. I invite anyone who refutes my New Science in
any intelligent regard, to reply. Are there any of you with an
intellect worthy of sci.physics? — NoEinstein —

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 2:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Dear Readers:  Sam Wormley began this post (or rather his usual cut
> and paste link) in late January regarding the M-M experiment.  He
> called his post that, even though the subject was decaying atomic
> particles that emitted some photons while traveling close to velocity
> 'c'.  Photo electric detectors had determined that those photons had
> arrived at very close to velocity 'c'——not withstanding the fact the
> light source was moving very fast.  Without mentioning me by name, Sam
> was implying that my assertion that the velocity of light is: *V = 'c'
> plus or minus v, or the velocity component of the light source.  As
> was the case with Lorentz's electron experiments never exceeding
> velocity 'c', it is the polar ETHER that is everwhere near massive
> objects that can put the brakes on stray or random photon emissions.
> The requirement, in order for light to exceed velocity 'c', is for the
> light to be emitted for more than a nano second, so as to allow the
> trains of photons to orient the ether favorable to the passage of
> such.  Unfortunately for experimentors, it would be impossible for the
> location of any continuous light source to be known, accurate enough
> to measure which photon(s) had been emitted from where and from when.
> Simple algebra can easily show that the equation marked *, above, will
> correctly explain the nill results of the M-M experiment because such
> disn't have a CONTROL, or unchanging, light course——as my own X, Y, &
> Z interferometer does.  I invite anyone who refutes my New Science in
> any intelligent regard, to reply.  Are there any of you with an

> intellect worthy of sci.physics?  — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Einstein knew we were measuring statistically.
This is the reason why our small motion has not been measured.
The idea that rest is required for the Earth is going backward...
As he said also "there is no absolute rest."
He disproved his relative motion idea with that law of motion.
The Earth must have a motion...
And his relative motion has proven to be something else...
As he did not note: it is opposite in direction.

Mitchell Raemsch

[PD]

On 2/23/2012 5:10 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2:59 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>

>> Dear Readers: I invite anyone who refutes my New Science in

>> any intelligent regard, to reply. Are there any of you with an
>> intellect worthy of sci.physics? — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Einstein knew we were measuring statistically.
> This is the reason why our small motion has not been measured.
> The idea that rest is required for the Earth is going backward...
> As he said also "there is no absolute rest."
> He disproved his relative motion idea with that law of motion.
> The Earth must have a motion...
> And his relative motion has proven to be something else...
> As he did not note: it is opposite in direction.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

You two deserve each other. Have fun!

[NoEinstein]

> intellect worthy of sci.physics?  — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Correction: Change the sentence with "... was implying that my
assertion..." to add the two words: ...is wrong. I save my better
replies on my own computer for future reference, and made that
correction, then, but neglected to also correct the source, as above.
And change "disn't" to didn't — NoEinstein —

[PD]

On Feb 25, 9:48 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I save my better
> replies on my own computer for future reference

Oh dear, John, your mental illness is running through you like a
cancer these days. Totally absorbed in self-gratification and self-
adulation.
Your torment must be unbearable.

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 23, 6:10 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Mitchell Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Burt: No person, certainly not Einstein the MORON, can state
that there can be no place in the Universe that is absolutely at
rest. *** There are zillions and zillions of such places! *** With
later generations of my X, Y & Z interferometer, the absolute motion
of any "spaceship" that is not located close to a large gravitational
mass can be determined to high accuracy. In a non random way, the
absolute motion of the spaceship can be reversed using the thrusters
until that motion, along what had been the velocity vector, is made
null—which is defined as having the spaceship stay in the identical
position in unmoving 3D space for an extended period. In general,
velocities are measured by the change in position of where the object
WAS at some time in the past, rather than relative to the “ether” or
some form of coordinates.

Certainly, my X, Y & Z interferometers won’t be on every moving mass
in the Universe. But consider that charged particles are being
emitted in all directions and at velocities that can be influenced by
the ether density and/or by the gravity of the masses those charged
particles pass. Logic, and the laws of probability, then demand that
high numbers of those charged particles will, at least for brief
times, have velocity and direction changes of zero. The effect would
be like tossing a ball straight up and having the ball reach the at
rest velocity at the top of the throw. Tennis players, to serve
consistently, hit the ball exactly when the ball isn’t moving, or at
the high point. I would recommend you NEVER use the words of
Einstein, the MORON, to describe anything in nature. His IQ was so
low (85 to 90), and his ego so high, that he figured he was doing
science a favor to explain things WAY over his head to even mention.
Accept the fact that yours truly, John A. Armistead, has disproved
Einstein’s theories up, down and sideways! That is why my handle is
NO Einstein, or NoEinstein for short. — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 23, 6:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You two deserve each other. Have fun!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Folks: PD, the Jealous Dunce, is undeserving of a response. (He's a
persona non grata.) — NE —

[PD]

I wasn't talking to you.

[NoEinstein]

> persona non grata.) — NE —- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Readers: In late February, Sam Wormley made a mostly cut and
paste post entitled:

The Michelson-Morley Experiment
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5aac9f5252c6fc9f/91d5ef6e96d4fb0a?hl=en&

Since that post subject is a major area of my expertise, and is the
cause of much of my New Science, I will be providing that link to
allow any interested readers to see how my New Science correctly
explains things. For the past year or so, Google has done a poor job
of updating where my replies can be found. Apparently, some at Google
prefer that there be no assaults on status quo science, which I keep
flushing down the pipes. Speak up you timid ones, if you agree with
my New Science, or you can, objectively, take issue with it. Science
is about truths and logic, not about character attacks and killing the
messenger of science truths. Thanks! — NoEinstein —

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

if you cannot answer a simpler question (that is,
What is the absolute limit on the speed of wind?),
why should we believe in your primping, and
your alleged grasp of algebra?

there's is no "wherein" of this discussion;
you refuse to lift a finger in "reply."

> If middle school algebra solves
> a problem, why go to college to learn calculus—which hasn’t been of
> much use to anyone since the advent of efficient calculators?

> > ever since Dirac, we have known that
> > "atoms have internal (angular) momenta,"
> > that must be considered relativistically,"
> > mystical reification of Copenhagenskoolers, or not.

thus:

Koobee-doo has never attempted to answer my assertion
-- even though he may have found the elementary flaw,
perhaps the same as you, in the standard gedankenspiel --
that the internal (angular) momenta of atoms *must* be
accounted-for, relativistically.

> SR is mathematically consistent, ONLY if the RoS is assumed correct.

thus:
they never get this metaphor, perhaps because
it seems to be mixed, that "global" warming is a misnomer,
an oxymoron or nonsequiter, because Ahrrenius et al have
never bothered to apply the glasshouse "effect"
to a model of an actual glass house,
sited at some lattitude on Eaaarth.

thus:
aren't Himalyan glaciers a significant ration of all glaciers,
aside from those areound AnIS and GrIS?

> In fact where I am sitting at the moment
> in the State of NJ was once under a glacier.

thank you, IAS!

thus:
it is quite clear that our alteration of the biosphere
is rapidly changing the rate & kind of "evapotranspiration,"
notably through urban heat-islanding -- I be a verb -- and
deforestation.

however, note that these only appear to *increase* the rate
of snowfall on GrIS and AnIS,
the vast bulk of terrestrial ice, as shown
in the slides of the Man from NOAA, Swiss govt. affiliate,
at two catered events in Los Angeles, last year!

[NoEinstein]

Folks: PD, the Jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a response. (He is a
persona non grata.) — NE —

[NoEinstein]

On Feb 25, 6:41 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Dear 1tree: For the umpteenth time: I don't give a damn about the
speed of the wind! Nor do I give a damn about any reply you make that
is larger than two paragraphs. If you can't think of anything
reasonable to say, why don't you simply find another hobby besides
armchair science. — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

Folks: PD, the Jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a response. (He is a
persona non grata.) — NE —

[PD]

I'm not asking you for a response. It was a comment about your current
state. You know it is true. I'm so sorry for you.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

yes; is larger than that.

if you cannot make any quantitative evaluation of any
of the textbook problems, than you may be qualified
to create your own quantumfication; so, to say.

I just see no evidence for that possibility,
whatsoever, thus far ... I mean,
dullsville -- so, to say!

[NoEinstein]

PD, the jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a response. (He is a
personna non grata and thus is not welcomed, here.) — NE —

[NoEinstein]

> personna non grata and thus is not welcomed, here.)  — NE —- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Folks: The general subject of this post concerns my designed,
built, and successfully tested X, Y, and Z interferometer which has
experimentally disproved Einstein-the-MORON'S Special Relativity
Theory. That experimental disproof followed my easy algebraic
disproof of the 1887 M-M experiment that confirmed the logical
assumption that light, "like bullets", has the ultimate velocity be V
= 'c' plus or minus the velocity of the source.

Because the down-and-back CONTROL light course, located only on the Z
axis, was about 2 feet shorter than the TEST light course that twice
reflected 90 degrees from a 45 degree mirror (not the beam splitter),
the rings of possible interference at the target were different in
sized. The fringe bulls eye, which was about 3/8" in diameter on a
paper target, that had a precision pin hole in the center, had two
different sized components. I had not realized, immediately, what was
causing the fringes to PULSE, as a whole, when the apparatus was
rotated on a Lazy Susan.

Recently, I realized that it should be possible to mathematically
calculate the number of fringe shifts that will occur before the
harmonic pulse of the image reaches maximum intensity, peak to peak of
the pulses. Knowing that number, accurate to, say, 5%, should allow
my interferometer to measure Earth's resultant velocity in the Cosmos
accurate to 5%! Not bad for an experiment that cost about $1,000 to
construct!!! (Note: There was another $1,000 spent investigating
other possible designs which weren't functional. So, the total cost
was about $2,000. How many of you readers could have disproved
Einstein's SR theory at so low a cost?)

*** Again, I invite any of you "Good Will Hunting" mentality
mathematicians to read my original explanation of the parameters for
calculating the number of pulse-to-pulse fringes in my X, Y, and Z
interferometer.*** Another post, authored by Sam Wormley, but clearly
having me as the "host", is: 'The Michelson - Morley Experiment'.
Such is now listed as one of the top 'older posts'. Check it out,
too! — NoEinstein —

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

there is not a single property of light that is "bullety,"
and this has been known for over a hundred years, although
most feel that Einstein's photoelectrical effect is "bullety,"
it most certainly is not;
all of thse folks merely confuse "mere ray-tracing"
with the actually wavey properties of light.

> assumption that light, "like bullets", has the ultimate velocity be V
> = 'c' plus or minus the velocity of the source.

thus:
please, try a hand at a simple calibration
of albedo on still, Arctic open water,
considering angle of Sun and "angle of total reflection
off of water" per Snell's law ... you just need
to plug-in the "colattitude" for that spot,
taking high noon at the equinox e.g.

thus:
is "global" warming is a nonsequiter, or
an oxymoron, or simply a misnomer?

> > > the Iceland Met Office say, "The GHCN 'corrections' are grossly
> > > in error in the case of Reykjavik"."

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

tee-hee, on the shoulder of giant;
which shoulder should we start with?

> Most of those long-dead
> figures from science history which you cite have made zero

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

giant of shoulder, on the; iff you're right-handed,
I want your right shoulder!

[NoEinstein]

On Mar 8, 1:28 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > contribution toward correctly explaining how the Universe works.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: If your notions about science had any validity, you
wouldn't need to stand on my shoulders. — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

On Mar 8, 10:50 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> giant of shoulder, on the; iff you're right-handed,
> I want your right shoulder!

[NoEinstein]

On Mar 8, 1:32 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> there is not a single property of light that is "bullety,"
>

Dear 1tree: Light photons behave exactly like bullets! Their
velocity is ‘c’ plus or minus the velocity vector of the source. In M-
M, since the light direction can be changed in the horizontal plane,
one must use algebra to realize that every increase in velocity is
exactly countered by a DECREASE in the velocity of the next leg of the
light course because of there being a 45 degree beam splitter in both
light courses. 45 degree (90 degree light bend) mirrors, when in BOTH
light courses, act to negate any change in the TIMES of travel from
source to mirror, or from mirror to target. Hell, I used simple “this
leg advances, this leg retards” to figure out that the times of travel
around the entire M-M apparatus NEVER change regardless of the
orientation of the apparatus relative to Earth’s velocity vector!
And I did that amazing feat in my head in less than 1 hour’s time!
How many of you folks can disprove Einstein’s SR without doing
anything but using the brain you were born with? Of course, I was
blessed to have been born with a super great brain. And add to that
fact that I have a lot of pure common sense. The loss of the latter
in science is the reason for our having been in the Dark Ages of
Einstein, now, going into its second century. Unfortunately,
stupidity seems to be the actual status quo. Sad but true; sad but
true. — NoEinstein —

P. S.: I will not reply to any of your insane wanderings of though,
below. But I invite you readers to replicate my algebraic
invalidation of the M-M experiment. My X, Y, and Z interferometer
disproves the design of M-M AND Einstein's SR in one fell swoop!

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

> > > > in error in the case of Reykjavik"."- Hide quoted text -

[ala]

"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1375a8b-2b98-4ab8...@x17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> giant of shoulder, on the; iff you're right-handed,
> I want your right shoulder!

Just the first?

[NoEinstein]

On Apr 5, 10:58 pm, "ala" <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:a1375a8b-2b98-4ab8...@x17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > giant of shoulder, on the; iff you're right-handed,
> > I want your right shoulder!
>
> Just the first?

Dear "ala": I'm befuddled: It's great that someone new is making a
comment. But what, exactly, is that "shoulder of a giant" thing?
1tree has been 'good' to reply, though sometimes his thoughts wander
to things like... English Literature. Since I am the originator of
this post, would you like to make a comment about my 'New Science'?
If you do, I'll promise to be realistically kind. — NoEinstein —

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

yes, we knew that, when you came-up with your soliloquoy
about F = ma = mv = mvv & Car Economics 1. anyway,
it was just a joke, becuase most folks do not know
-- being thoroughly embraced by Einsteinmania --
that "on the shoulders of giants" was a joke by Newton,
about his rival, Hooke, who happenned to be a dwarf.

> I'm befuddled:

[ala]

"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:387576d9-c222-4082...@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

if you are going to climb on the shoulder of giants, you would need the left
as well so as not to tip over

your science is fine not as crazy as Nancy or Porat

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

if I did taht, I would be either a)
eating dirt, or b)
kissing your stinky butt.

you, grammar-checker dawg,
don't have anything that even approaches a "notion,"
let alone a coherent grasp of the trivium (or, that is to say,
of some language; why I always refer you to Shakespeare, if
you are going to attempt English typing).

[NoEinstein]

On Apr 9, 9:03 pm, "ala" <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

Dear ala: Thanks! One must be brave, indeed, to compliment my simple
New Science over Einstein's demented, status quo science. Someone
should clone you! — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

On Apr 10, 10:39 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > wouldn't need to stand on my shoulders.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

1tree: Because I write a lot, I have above average proficiency. I
don't need to "escape" into Shakespeare to adequately express myself.
Since you think you're good at expression, why not tell me and the
readers WHY you think anything about status quo physics is worth
defending? Do you think the world will come to an end if that Jewish
MORON, Einstein, got dethroned for having only an 85 IQ? Trust me: I
have already easily dethroned Einstein, and the world hasn't come to
an end! — NoEinstein —

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

strict rule, here;
your onlly aloud to clown yourself.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

Two, What?

Para-
graphs. That was really good!

Thank you ... oops.

> > is larger than two paragraphs.  If you can't think of anything- Hide quoted text -

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

actually, *any thing*, including bullets,
exhibits aggregate behavior, but
you might only have no bullets.

<snip bullet-shaped theory>

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

as far as I can throw your tinfoil throne; uh-oh --
it's coming back!

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

isn't this, Funsville?

[ala]

"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1e8a6cf1-6c3a-41d5...@g38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

thanks!

[NoEinstein]

On Apr 9, 9:03 pm, "ala" <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote:

> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

Folks: Please note that ala has been brave enough to rate my
"science" as fine. Are there any more of you readers who understand,
and thus agree with what I write? — NoEinstein —

[NoEinstein]

On Apr 16, 12:38 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> strict rule, here;
> your onlly aloud to clown yourself.
>
> science.  Someone
>
>
>

> > should clone you!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: Don't you mean... allowed? Ha, ha, HA! — NE —

[NoEinstein]

On Apr 16, 12:40 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > > is larger than two paragraphs.  If you can't think of anything- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

1tree: A hit of the enter key does NOT a paragraph make. Look it
up! — NE —