🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 20, 3:45 pm, Yanick Toutain <YanickTout...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 juil, 23:49, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 10:25 am, YanickToutain<YanickTout...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://monsyte.blogspot.com/2008/07/misinformation-campaign-against-i...
> > > en ===>frhttp://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=b...
> > > en ====> zthttp://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=b...
>
> > > Misinformation campaign against Isaac Newton/Campagne de
> > > désinformation contre Newton
> > > Mr. Ian Parker
>
> > > lang=en
>
> > > I do not understand with whom your answer is addressed.
> > > You answer me or you address to another interlocutor ?
> > > For my part, as for the "misinformation campaign" , the only one that
> > > I know is the misinformation campaign against the true theses of Isaac
> > > Newton:
> > > All occurs in the vacuum.
> > > All is objective.
> > > Speeds are objective.
> > > It is the beginning of its " Principia".
>
> > > Consequently, the relation between speed of light and the speed of the
> > > bodies is simple:
> > > Speed of light is the maximum speed.
> > > Any speed is a fraction (a ratio, a percentage) of the maximum speed,
> > > a fraction, a proportionality of the speed of light.
> > > For example: it is extremely probable which the speed of the sun is
> > > equal to 1/60 speed of light.
> > > =====================
> > > lang=fr
> > > Je ne comprends pas à qui votre réponse est adressée.
> > > Est-ce que vous me répondez vous ou bien est-ce que vous vous adressez
> > > à un autre interlocuteur ?
> > > Pour ma part, quant à la "campagne de désinformation", la seule que je
> > > connaisse est la campagne de désinformation contre les véritables
> > > thèses de Isaac Newton :
> > > Tout se passe dans le vide.
> > > Tout est objectif.
> > > Les vitesses sont objectives.
> > > C'est le début de ses "Principia".
>
> > > En conséquence, la relation entre la vitesse de la lumière et la
> > > vitesse des corps est simple :
> > > La vitesse de la lumière est la vitesse maximale.
> > > Toute vitesse est une fraction (un rapport, un pourcentage) de la
> > > vitesse maximale, une fraction, une proportionalité de la vitesse de
> > > la lumière.
> > > Par exemple : il est fort probable que la vitesse du Soleil soit égale
> > > à 1/60 de la vitesse de la lumière.
> > > ==============
>
> > > =========================
> > > lang=en
> > > The text of Ian Parker :
> > > Look experiments have been performed where light passes a rotating
> > > disc. If there was even a modicum of truth in this light would travel
> > > at a different speed near a rotating object.
> > > No, as we have said time after time what we are seeing is an organized
> > > disinformation campaign. Facts are irrelevant.
> > > - Ian Parker
> > > Regardez expériences ont été effectuées où la lumière passe à un
> > > disque tournant. Si il y avait même un minimum de vérité dans vos
> > > theories, cette lumière voyage à une vitesse différente à proximité
> > > d'un objet en rotation.
> > > Non, comme nous l'avons dit maintes fois ce que nous voyons est
> > > organisé une campagne de désinformation. Les faits ne sont pas
> > > pertinentes.
> > > ========================
> > > On 17 juil, 13:23, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 17 Jul, 02:59, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 14, 6:26 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > YanickToutainwrote:
>
> > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > > Michelson and Morley and Miller were wrong about that: They ignored
> > > > > > > the motion of the Sun.
>
> > > > > >    1) Michelson-Morley, 1887, no aether to differential 10^(-8)
>
> > > > > >    2) 2002, no aether to differential 1.7x10^(-15),
>
> > > > > > Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
>
> > > > > >    3) 2007, no aether to differential 10^(-16),
>
> > > > > >http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
> > > > > > Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 050401 (2007)
>
> > > > > > Two simultaneous interferometers ==> over a year's observation <==:
> > > > > > Optical in Berlin, Germany at 52°31'N 13°20'E and microwave in Perth,
> > > > > > Australia at 31°53'S 115°53E. An aether background could never be at
> > > > > > rest relative to both of them.  No vacuum dispersion, no vacuum
> > > > > > dichroism.
>
> > > > > >    4) Fucking imbecile.
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > > > > >  (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
>
> > > > > Dear Uncle Al:  The ether flow at the Earth's surface is straight
> > > > > down. That's what causes the force of gravity.  Interferometer
> > > > > experiments expecting to detect ether that is just waiting in Earth's
> > > > > path, don't take into account that ether rotates WITH the Earth and
> > > > > flows straight down.  At higher distances the ether flow is at an
> > > > > angle.  Think of this like looking at storm systems on Earth.
> > > > > Understanding ether flow is really like understanding weather
> > > > > systems.  — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Look experiments have been performed where light passes a rotating
> > > > disc. If there was even a modicum of truth in this light would travel
> > > > at a different speed near a rotating object.
>
> > > > No, as we have said time after time what we are seeing is an organized
> > > > disinformation campaign. Facts are irrelevant.
>
> > > >   - Ian Parker
>
> > > > Regardez expériences ont été effectuées où la lumière passe à un
> > > > disque tournant. Si il y avait même un minimum de vérité dans vos
> > > > theories, cette lumière voyage à une vitesse différente à proximité
> > > > d'un objet en rotation.
>
> > > > Non, comme nous l'avons dit maintes fois ce que nous voyons est
> > > > organisé une campagne de désinformation. Les faits ne sont pas
> > > > pertinentes.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> > > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
>
> > > Bonjour
>
> > > I don't understand- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Dear Yanick:  If you don't understand, you have lots of company on
> > this news group.  I've disproved SR and GR.  To understand more, read
> > the following links.  — NoEinstein —
>
> > Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...
> > Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
> > Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
>
> Dear Mr NoEinstein
> I have take of a copy (I am in a cyberspace) of your 3 links on my USB
> key
> I will read it (after translation) at home.
> Thank you.
>
> quote: "you have lots of company on this news group."
> Do you accept Newton's vacuum space and asbsolute speed ?
> Are you newtonist ?
> Who is newtonist here, in this newsgroup ?
>
> Yanick Toutain- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Yanick:  Newton was a scientist; Einstein wasn't.  Newton tried
to verify things via experiment; Einstein had no concept of what
experimentation is.  Einstein was a science GROUPIE.  He talked to,
and/or corresponded with, trying-to-be-real scientists.  An astronomer
friend told Einstein that the moons of Jupiter reappear sooner than
their periods predict.  So, Einstein supposed that gravity was curving
the light.  It was no great stretch to assume that a massive object
would bend light more than a less massive one.  To test that idea,
Einstein figured the light of a star passing behind the Sun during a
solar eclipse would be bent an angle that is directly proportional to
the square of the Sun's mass (taking the mass of Jupiter as unity).
He was so ‘cock sure’ that he was right, I suspect that he had his
astronomer friend put an opaque disk over the Sun's lumen.  That would
enable making light bending observations any day of the year, if
stars' light was seen through infrared filters.
     The other points you make about relativity are all pointless.
Varying ether flow and density is the correct cause of every
observation in nature.  Newton made a contribution.  All Einstein did
was to keep making guesses.  And he guessed wrong.  — NoEinstein —