🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 3, 11:16 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 9:38 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 6:47 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 9:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 4:23 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
> > > > <paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> > > > > J.B. wrote:
> > > > > > On 25 Nov., 21:51, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > > > > > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >>   4e916daf-db77-4145-be62-ad2c262b9...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
> > > > > >> I wouldn't know what EINSTEINIANS could be, but knowing you,
> > > > > >> I guess that they HAVE A JOB, because IDIOTS HAVE NO JOB,
> > > > > >> and are doomed to stand on a soapbox in the park and whine and
> > > > > >> scream at those who do have the jobs and the fat cars.
>
> > > > > >> Dirk Vdm
>
> > > > > > Big Assholes need fat cars.
> > > > > > Especially these full of shit instead of brains.
> > > > > > These with an IQ smaller than their shoesize ...
>
> > > > > In your website:http://home.arcor.de/josef.braunstein/einstein/idw.htm
>
> > > > > You write:
> > > > > <<
> > > > >    Das Einzige, was bei M&M und Nachfolgern wie Kennedy-Thorndike bewiesen wurde,
> > > > >    ist dass das Trägermedium des Lichts (egal ob Äther oder Vakuum, oder gar keins)
> > > > >    sich mit der Erde mitbewegt, und sonst nichts.
> > > > >  >>
>
> > > > > In other words:
> > > > > The MMX and KTX prove that the carrier-medium of light (ether)
> > > > > is fully dragged by the Earth.
>
> > > > > Are you aware that stellar aberration falsifies this theory?
> > > > > That was known in 1887, why this rather obvious solution never
> > > > > was considered to be an option.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Paul
>
> > > > >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/-Hidequotedtext-
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Dear Paul: The Earth isn't dragging ether.  Ether is the mother energy
> > > > which makes up all matter.  Such is flowing down vertically near the
> > > > surface, and at an increasing angle further out.  
>
> > > This is an interesting remark. An increasing angle in which direction?
> > > Suppose I'm standing in Topeka, Kansas, and I'm facing east at 11am,
> > > and I want to trace the flow of ether. Near the surface of the earth,
> > > you say the ether flow is downward and nearly vertical. So higher up,
> > > say at an elevation of 10 km, the ether flow is not quite vertical but
> > > is at some angle with respect to the vertical. Is that angle oriented
> > > to the north (to my left), to the south (to my right), to the east (in
> > > front of me), or to the west (behind me)? Surely you have some
> > > idea....- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Dear PD:  The ether behaves just like weather systems.  The ether flow
> > forms spirals; and the "right hand rule" explains the direction of
> > ether flow looking down from the north pole of the Earth. — NoEinstein
> > —
>
> Well, in weather systems note that the air doesn't spiral everywhere.
> The air is flowing from high pressure spots to low pressure spots and
> the spiral around the low-pressure spot is due to the Coriolis effect.
> What this means is that if the low pressure zone is to the east of
> you, the wind where you're standing will be definitely flowing in one
> direction (to the south-east) and not in a spiral around your
> location.
>
> Now, were you supposing that there are low pressure regions of ether
> and high pressure regions of ether on the surface of the earth? If so,
> then what causes them?
>
> And why is the north pole a preferred axis for rotation of the ether
> flow?
> (Note that the weather patterns you note do not include a circulation
> of air in a circle around the north pole. That doesn't happen. Were
> you under the impression that it does?
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear PD:  Weather is analogous to the ether density and flow near
massive objects.  I never implied that "you" (a mass) could be placed
here or there (east or west) and have the weather system not be
affected.  Your reasoning deficiency: To inject your own set of
particulars which violate the premises stated, then to claim that the
primacies are wrong.  Actually, only PD is wrong, by constantly
violating the parameters stated.  — NoEinstein —