🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 23, 6:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 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...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.

Are you sure? Einstein had a patent. Newton did not.

Do you have the SLIGHTEST idea of what you're talking about? No, I
didn't think so. Do you imagine that others cannot tell when you just
make stuff up on the fly?

> 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 —