On Jul 20, 8:52***am, Ian Parker <ianpark...***gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Ian: You have been exposed to the trappings of 'science' enough
to know some of the terminology and issues. But your reasoning
ability is so small that you are incapable of differentiating a
scientific truth from science fiction. Instead of letting the flawed
reasoning of others substitute for your own "knowledge", you should
take most of what has passed for... 'physics' with a grain of salt.
Unless you do, you would be better off to find yourself another
hobby. — NoEinstein —
>
> On 19 Jul, 23:11, NoEinstein <noeinst...***bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Jul 17, 11:58***am, Ian Parker <ianpark...***gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Jul, 15:25, Yanick Toutain <YanickTout...***gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://monsyte.blogspot.com/2008/07/...aign-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 seuleque 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 vitessede
> > > > 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 dansvos
> > > > 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:
>
> > > > > > > Yanick Toutain wrote:
>
> > > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > > > Michelson and Morley and Miller were wrong about that: Theyignored
> > > > > > > > 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 Earthand
> > > > > > 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 lumièrepasse à un
> > > > > disque tournant. Si il y avait même un minimum de vérité dans vos
> > > > > theories, cette lumière voyage à une vitesse différente àproximité
> > > > > 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
>
> > > Newton's laws are an approximation at low speed and weak gravitational
> > > fields. All the textbooks on Relativity make this absolutely clear. If
> > > gravity is caused by aether falling into the Earth and the reasion for
> > > a null result in the Michaelson Morley experiment is the fact that
> > > aether clings to the Earth it should also cling to any spinning disc.
> > > This experiment has in fact been performed. It was done in the early
> > > 20th century.
>
> > > Relativity has vever lacked experimental verification. There have been
> > > many experiments confirming it and none in contradiction.
>
> > > SPECIAL
>
> > > 1) Michaelson Morley
> > > 2) GPS clocks (there is a General effect here too)
> > > 3) Motion of particles.
> > > 4) Synchrotron radiation
> > > 5) relativistic version of Schroedinger;s equation. Dirac equation and
> > > positron.
>
> > > GENERAL
>
> > > 1) Bending of light round the sun.
> > > 2) Precession of the orbit of Mercury.
> > > 3) Loss of energy from rotating pulsars (gravitational waves)
> > > 4) Precession of spinning disc - this is the latest experiment.
> > > 5) Observation of compact objects (Black holes)
>
> > > What I mean by disimformation is simply this. These effects are not
> > > predicted by any classical theory but have all been proved to be true..
> > > I would have thought that would be an end of the matter, but no all
> > > kinds of specious arguments are produced, none of them being any good..
> > > gravity caused by the aether falling onto the Earth is one of a very
> > > very long line.
>
> > > *** ***- Ian Parker
>
> > > Les lois de Newton sont une approximation à basse vitesse et faible
> > > champs gravitationnels. Tous les manuels sur la relativité faire dece
> > > tout à fait clair. Si la gravité est causée par aether tombant vers la
> > > Terre et le reasion pour un résultat nul dans le Michaelson Morley
> > > expérience est le fait que l' aether s'accroche à la Terre, il
> > > convient également de s'accrocher à un disque en rotation. Cette
> > > expérience a en fait été réalisée. Il a été fait au début du 20e
> > > siècle.
>
> > > Relativité Vever a manqué la vérification expérimentale. Il ya eu
> > > beaucoup d'expériences confirmant et en aucune contradiction.
>
> > > SPÉCIAL
>
> > > 1) Michaelson Morley
> > > 2) horloges GPS (il ya un effet général ici aussi)
> > > 3) Proposition de particules.
> > > 4) Rayonnement synchrotron
> > > 5) relativiste version de Schroedinger; s équation. Équation de Dirac
> > > et de positons.
>
> > > GÉNÉRALE
>
> > > 1) La flexion de la lumière autour du soleil.
> > > 2) La précession de l'orbite de Mercure.
> > > 3) Perte d'énergie de rotation des pulsars (ondes gravitationnelles)
> > > 4) La précession de disque en rotation - Il s'agit de la dernière
> > > expérience.
> > > 5) L'observation des objets compacts (trous noirs)
>
> > > Ce que je veux dire par disimformation est simplement celui-ci. Ces
> > > effets ne sont pas prévus par une théorie classique, mais ont tous été
> > > prouvée pour être vrai. J'aurais pensé que serait une fin de la
> > > question, mais pas de toutes sortes d'arguments spécieux sont
> > > produits, aucune d'entre elles soit la bonne. gravité causé par la
> > > aether tombent sur la Terre est l'un des très très grands.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Dear Ian: ***Every one of your supposed proofs of SR and GR can be
> > correctly explained by: Varying ether flow and density. ***Einstein's SR
> > has been disproved by me. ***Einstein copied his E = mc^2 from
> > Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2. ***To disguise his plagiarism, Einstein simply
> > dropped the "1/2". ***The divisor under the SR equation is plagiarized
> > from Lorentz, who offered his equation as a possible explanation for
> > the nil result of M-M. ***In just one hour of though, I was able to
> > prove that the M-M experiment didn't have a CONTROL. ***That nullifies
> > SR; space-time; Big Bang; and GR—which also used the Lorentz
> > transformation to account for non Newtonian aspects of gravity. ***GR
> > was just a close mathematical analogy of the astronomical anomalies
> > being reported. ***It wasn't a "prediction" of those occurrences.
> > *** *** ***Einstein had zero idea what the mechanism of gravity is. ***I'm
> > telling you: Gravity is ether flowing down into the ...
>
> I have read through the Einstein hoax. Indeed the only half valid
> point is the fact that an aether with electromagnetic interactions
> explained by quantum electrodynamics would reproduce some of the
> effects of special relativity.
>
> It does not however explain the relativistic invariance of the other
> forces, weak and strong nuclear + gravitation. Speaking of gravitation
> it does not explan the bending of light (twice that of classic
> corpusclar theory, the precession in the orbit of Mercury or why
> orbiting pulsars lose energy.
>
> You will also have to explain E-Mc^2. I suppose it is possible (just)
> to do this with some sort of aether field theory, but particle mass
> also includes weak and strong interactions. Both the weak and the
> strong force look the same no matter how fast you are going.. Indeed
> mu mreson decay obeys relativity exacly.
>
> It should be pointed out too that Schroedinger's equation is not
> relativistically invariant as it stands. This inspired the Dirac
> equation.
>
> I have looked at the Eintein Hoax and I find it to be a mass of
> misconceptions and untruths. The first misconception is that a more
> compact Universe (at an earlier stage of Evolution) would be a black
> hole. This is untrue because the matter is RECEDING and has an event
> horizon. In fact the Universe has a constant Omega which fixes
> closure.
>
> I do not understand how their explanation of "dark matter" could
> possibly work.
>
> http://www.christianparty.net/einstein.htmWhat the **** has
> Christianity got to do with it! I have claimed ulerior motives. Here
> is the proof.
>
> The Einstein Hoax also has a record of postings. I will at some point
> check with my paq compressor how much redundant information there is.
>
> You see I might at some point upgrade my "cult class" I am interested
> in natural language and translation, which is why I have got a
> compressor.
>
> *** - Ian Parker