🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 13:15:03 -0800 (PST), NoEinstein <noeinstein@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>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 ��

The MMX didn't need any controls, moron. It is a plain case of BaTh in action.
A Null result!!!!

>> 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.
>>
>> .....



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

.....