🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 5, 7:53 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
Dear Henri:  Whoa!  M-M was specifically ASSUMED to be able to detect
the SLOWING of light (a velocity change) due to having such rays be
shined——from the moving Earth——toward the (stationary) ether.  Or...
it was supposed to detect the DRAG on light due to the luminiferous
ether.  Before you wise-off about ANYTHING relative to M-M, please
realize that it was me who discovered that such experiment lacks the
require CONTROL.  And it was me who designed an X, Y, and Z
interferometer which easily detects Earth's motion in the Cosmos.
Einstein himself said: "If any Earth mounted instrument is capable of
detecting Earth's velocity, my theories are proved wrong."  So, by his
own words I disprove that moron!

Two years or so ago when you read my post describing that the "Red
Shift" of more distant light sources is due to the AGING of light, NOT
to the expansion of the Universe—as might result from there having
been a Big Bang—you attacked me for "stealing" your idea.  After that,
I have humored you.  Now, you are getting way OUT of your league to
even comment regarding any of my NEW science truths.

I feel sorry for anyone, like you, who hides behind purported degrees
as if your notions about anything are worth a damn.  Be it known: Your
notions aren't worth a damn.  You are just a one-notion, armchair,
science groupie whose ideas have long faded from viability.  ——
NoEinstein ——

>
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:57:46 -0800 (PST), NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 3, 6:57 am, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamAustraliaMail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 00:22:31 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> > (2) The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms
> >> > the hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
> >> > the light source (the future 1905 light postulate of Einstein)
>
> >> Since we are in 1887, there is no hypothesis that the speed of light is
> >> independent of the speed of the light source.
>
> >> actually Michelson and Morley were quite stunned with their results and
> >> could not explain it.
>
> >Dear SolomonW:  M-M was a wrongly designed experiment which was
> >incapable of measuring the velocity of light or the velocity of
> >anything else.  
>
> This is crap. The MMX was a beautifully designed and performed experiment that
> had nothing whatsoever to do with measuring the speed of light.
> Its sole intention was to measure the speed of the earth through the then
> assumed absolute aether.
> Its results appeared to prove the nonexistence of the latter...but Lorentz and
> Fitzgerald got around that by suggesting that mass and time contracted on
> objects that were moving wrt the absolute aether. It was virtually impossible
> to disprove this theory.
>
> Ballistic theory explains the null result simply by stating that light moves at
> c wrt its source and everything at rest in the source frame. So all light moves
> around the MMX apparatus at the same speed c (wrt all components), irrespective
> of its orientation.
> Einstein fluked the same result, by claiming that light moves at c in any
> frame....and of course everything in the MMX IS at rest in the same frame.
>
> >Pentcho knows that Einstein was wrong.  But he keeps
> >insisting on making arguments which I have made outmoded.  M-M simply
> >lacked a CONTROL.  So, no "rubber rulers" and warped space-time are
> >needed to explain the nil results.  The following links should edify
> >THINKING people who aren’t infected with Einstein's Disease.  —
> >NoEinstein —
>
> You, unfortunately, lack both control and brains....
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
>
> .....