Michelson and Morley experiment

doug wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:17:49 -0800, doug wrote:



Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:


On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:23:40 -0800, doug wrote:


The EPG seems to think that a 'tuned' microwave oscillator that
energises the thing that is supposed to tune it...ie., a cesium
spectral line...cannot alter the actual energy levels involved
in producing that spectral line.

That is correct. That is why the second is defined from this
transition.


If TIME is defined by what a clock reads, time itself will be
wrongly assumed to vary with any clock malfunction.

It is defined that way since it is the most stable way there is
now of measuring time. You are starting to sound like that idiot
spaceman.


....and you are beginning to sound like Andersen.



It is very possible that the line itself DOES vary very slightly
due to both the excitation process and gravity/magnetic field
changes.


You will be shocked to learn that it varies exactly as predicted
by relativity. That is why the clocks of the GPS are setup that
way before launch.



you are definitely beginning to sound like Andersen

That is a compliment as he is a rational intelligent person.

ROFLOL
Rational and intelligent people that do not understand a clock malfunction
but do allow for time travel, multiple dimensions, wormholes, parallel
universes,
singularities, warped space, the fabric of spacetime, the spacetime
continuum,
and all sorts of new and wonderous Scif bull**** the more the religious
study continues.
LOL

If all that is rational and intellegent, boy I am glad I am stupid since
my stupidity puts me more in touch with reality.
LOL

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:17:49 -0800, doug wrote:



Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:


On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:23:40 -0800, doug wrote:


The EPG seems to think that a 'tuned' microwave oscillator that energises the
thing that is supposed to tune it...ie., a cesium spectral line...cannot alter
the actual energy levels involved in producing that spectral line.

That is correct. That is why the second is defined from this transition.


If TIME is defined by what a clock reads, time itself will be wrongly assumed
to vary with any clock malfunction.

It is defined that way since it is the most stable way there is
now of measuring time. You are starting to sound like that idiot
spaceman.


....and you are beginning to sound like Andersen.



It is very possible that the line itself DOES vary very slightly due to both
the excitation process and gravity/magnetic field changes.


You will be shocked to learn that it varies exactly as predicted by
relativity. That is why the clocks of the GPS are setup that way
before launch.



you are definitely beginning to sound like Andersen

That is a compliment as he is a rational intelligent person.


You keep pretending to not know that but ignoring

it only makes you look sillier.


Dream on....


Since the stability is far higher than the change from GPS and
since it is exactly as predicted by relativity, it shows that
relativity works whether you like it or not.


....except that nobody in the GPS world even thinks about relativity.

Except, of course, those people who design the clocks for it. You
keep trying to deny this but you are lying.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary

On Sep 29, 9:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 28, 5:31*pm, PD wrote:



On Sep 28, 4:34*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 25, 12:47*am, PD wrote:

On Sep 24, 11:31*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 22, 2:40*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 22, 9:54*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 11:07*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:06*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:17*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 20, 5:14*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 18, 12:10*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:37:15 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 17, 2:15*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:05:37 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

Dear Henri: The entire chapter on mechanics in physics texts is wrong
except for defining work as force times distance. *I won't try to
convince you, because your approval isn't necessary. *

I doubt if you will ever convince me or anyone else of anything.

All in all, I'd
say your ideas concerning the Universe are 10% right, 90% wrong. *Who
would invite you to a "tea party"? *—— NoEinstein ——

I'm rarely wrong, Nilbrain.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people. Send abortion pills not food aid.

Dear Henri: *Please edify the many readers with the following: List
ten simple statements about what you believe the correct laws of
physic are which govern the universe. *—— NoEinstein ——

Most readers here are incapable of being edified.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people.. Send abortion pills not food aid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: *OK. *So, you really don't have a position on how the
Universe works. *Can you write even THREE things that you believe to
be true about physics which aren't status quo? *—— NoEinstein ——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: Most research papers have Abstracts. *Writing three sentences
of the gist of a paper isn't too much to ask. *And I don't even
require that there be a paper to follow. *—— NoEinstein ——

Research that is just abstract isn't published. And very little
research is stating anything that people just "believe are true" but
are also carefully and explicitly demonstrated in gory detail. What
you've asked for, and what you do, is "pretend physics", just doing a
little costume-jewelry and improvised impersonations of what you think
physics is. I have no idea why you would attempt such a charade among
people who know better. What do you get out of it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *OK, then. *Please write three sentences stating positions of
yours in science which differ from the status quo garbage. *And
provide links to the more detailed proofs... BEYOND the Abstract.
Note: The latter is your own requirement; so meet it! *—— NoEinstein
——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *If you don't disagree with the status quo, somewhere, you
simply aren't thinking for yourself.

I don't attempt to disagree with the status quo when the status quo is
amply backed up by experimental observations. That appears to be a
pointless exercises in contrariness with disregard for the truth. I
see no better value in being original and wrong, over unoriginal and
right.

Fortunately, there is ample ground where there is active investigation
where there IS NO status quo, and where the experimental evidence is
sketchy or is begging to be obtained. However, knowing where that
ground is does require some knowledge about what ground has been
covered.

Now, NoEinstein, if you spent a little more time learning what ground
has been covered and where being counter to the status quo would
simply be foolish, then you would also learn where there is fertile
new ground to explore.

*If you can figure out how to
form that ceiling, you should be making a contribution in other areas,
too. *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Spending any more time on “what ground has been covered”,
when the results of those "experiments" is counterintuitive, is the
process by which gullible people become favored in science.

This is *precisely* where you run aground. Scientists do not filter
experimental results by whether they are reconcilable with intuition,
rejecting those that are counterintuitive. That is unmitigated
scientific fraud, and selection of data to support a preconceived
conclusion. It is the WORST practice possible in science.

*Science
should be new and vital, not "locked-in" because those who "profess"
to know were too lazy, or too dumb to question the counterintuitive.
If one's badge of intellect is just how complex one's specialty is,
the counterintuitive tends to become the "religion" of choice. *I've
embraced the Scientific Method and disproved the "logic" behind the
majority of mechanics. *And in so doing, I have disproved Einstein's
theories of relativity. *If I had been a "complexity rules" person,
those things would never have happened. *—— NoEinstein ——- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *The supposed high mental processes by which you so readily
favor the counterintuitive, because such separates you from the more
common-sense crowd, should be the mental processes that make you
believe what you own mind tells you, more than what some unknown
person managed to get printed in a textbook.

But it is NOT what I've seen printed in a textbook. It is what I have
confirmed for myself in *experiment*. I am a professional experimental
physicist.

There is no denying what nature says is reality.

*Accepting textbooks as
religion, is religion——Judaism. *Jews publish the texts. *The more
people they can dupe, the more MONEY they can make. *—— NoEinstein ——

On Sep 29, 9:33*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 28, 5:44*pm, PD wrote:



On Sep 28, 4:47*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 25, 8:34*am, PD wrote:

On Sep 24, 11:31*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 22, 2:40*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 22, 9:54*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 11:07*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:06*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:17*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 20, 5:14*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 18, 12:10*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:37:15 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 17, 2:15*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:05:37 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

Dear Henri: The entire chapter on mechanics in physics texts is wrong
except for defining work as force times distance. *I won't try to
convince you, because your approval isn't necessary. *

I doubt if you will ever convince me or anyone else of anything.

All in all, I'd
say your ideas concerning the Universe are 10% right, 90% wrong. *Who
would invite you to a "tea party"? *—— NoEinstein ——

I'm rarely wrong, Nilbrain.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people. Send abortion pills not food aid.

Dear Henri: *Please edify the many readers with the following: List
ten simple statements about what you believe the correct laws of
physic are which govern the universe. *—— NoEinstein ——

Most readers here are incapable of being edified.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people.. Send abortion pills not food aid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: *OK. *So, you really don't have a position on how the
Universe works. *Can you write even THREE things that you believe to
be true about physics which aren't status quo? *—— NoEinstein ——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: Most research papers have Abstracts. *Writing three sentences
of the gist of a paper isn't too much to ask. *And I don't even
require that there be a paper to follow. *—— NoEinstein ——

Research that is just abstract isn't published. And very little
research is stating anything that people just "believe are true" but
are also carefully and explicitly demonstrated in gory detail. What
you've asked for, and what you do, is "pretend physics", just doing a
little costume-jewelry and improvised impersonations of what you think
physics is. I have no idea why you would attempt such a charade among
people who know better. What do you get out of it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *OK, then. *Please write three sentences stating positions of
yours in science which differ from the status quo garbage. *And
provide links to the more detailed proofs... BEYOND the Abstract.
Note: The latter is your own requirement; so meet it! *—— NoEinstein
——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *If you don't disagree with the status quo, somewhere, you
simply aren't thinking for yourself. *If you can figure out how to
form that ceiling, you should be making a contribution in other areas,
too. *— NoEinstein —

A second comment on this.
IF (and it's a big IF) it were claimed that everything were figured
out by science, then the only place to be original would be to re-
question something already established. But this isn't claimed at all.
There are LOTS of places where science knows very little, if anything,
and so there is plenty of opportunity to dig new ground.

If you were a gold prospector, and IF it were claimed that all the
gold in the world had already been dug up, then the place to dig might
be where someone else had already dug. But since there are lots of
places where gold hasn't been mined for, choosing to dig in a mine
that has already been spent is a foolish way to look for gold. But to
be a decent prospector, you'd need to learn where the *unexplored*
places are, and which of these places is most likely to yield gold.

You are looking for gold by poking your shovel in places where the
gold has already been mined out. And in fact, a good number of places
where there are no mine shafts may have already been considered and
dismissed because of their knowledge about where gold is likely not to
be found. But there are much better places that are still untapped
where there is ample gold to be found.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Most science publications favor those "new" areas of science
whereof so little is known that nothing in the status quo will get
shaken up.

Where little is known is where the interesting action is, and this is
where people of *all* backgrounds are welcome to contribute with new
ideas, especially testable ideas. And in fact, this is the area where
there is the *most* cross-disciplinary activity, not limited to
physicists at all.

*In effect, such publications become clearing houses for
what can be shown to be science truths. *Anytime old things are shown
to be wrong, the years of past articles by those publications make
then look truly dumb. *

What's your objective? To find new truth or to make scientists look
dumb. You have the opportunity to choose to work in an exciting area,
but you choose only to work in a more established area, with the hope
of making scientists look truly dumb. Why???

The problem with science is: The egos of those
who supported the status quo keep preventing those people from
acknowledging any new science truths.
*22 of our nation's universities
don't think it is "important" to teach students that Einstein was
wrong.

Well, he certainly was wrong about a number of things -- we know this
already. Why is it so important to you to focus in on Einstein and
show that he was wrong? What is it about him that concentrates your
effort on him? (Keep in mind that you say it's Einstein, but you've
been trying to critique all the physics that was done 200 years BEFORE
Einstein published anything. So it's not clear that you're trying to
show it important that *Einstein* was wrong so much as showing that
*everyone* in physics has been wrong about *everything*. And for that
end, I would ask you why it's so important to you to try to discredit
a whole field?

*There’s just too much infrastructure in place that must be…
protected. *Higher education, from such universities, isn't worth the
cost of the paper and gold seals on the diplomas. *—— NoEinstein ——

What precisely is to be gained from the wholescale elimination of
higher education, NoEinstein, other than easing your sensitivity about
your lack of having one?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Science should build upon truths, then explain new areas.
Disproving what were supposed truths is the only way to assure that
new areas of science have a sound foundation.

That's ridiculous. You do NOT need to disprove old and well-mined
areas of science to make progress in new areas. I have no idea where
you got the notion that you do.

*To accept what you are
told, is gullibility.

Certainly. To reject it out of hand is foolishness.
To test *carefully* is essential.
What you have done is superficial, not careful, and fueled more by a
desire to reject than a desire to know.

*But to, thoughtfully, verify what you were told
is the Scientific Method. *—— NoEinstein ——

On Sep 29, 9:33*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 28, 5:44*pm, PD wrote:



On Sep 28, 4:47*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 25, 8:34*am, PD wrote:

On Sep 24, 11:31*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 22, 2:40*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 22, 9:54*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 11:07*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:06*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:17*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 20, 5:14*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 18, 12:10*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:37:15 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 17, 2:15*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:05:37 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

Dear Henri: The entire chapter on mechanics in physics texts is wrong
except for defining work as force times distance. *I won't try to
convince you, because your approval isn't necessary. *

I doubt if you will ever convince me or anyone else of anything.

All in all, I'd
say your ideas concerning the Universe are 10% right, 90% wrong. *Who
would invite you to a "tea party"? *—— NoEinstein ——

I'm rarely wrong, Nilbrain.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people. Send abortion pills not food aid.

Dear Henri: *Please edify the many readers with the following: List
ten simple statements about what you believe the correct laws of
physic are which govern the universe. *—— NoEinstein ——

Most readers here are incapable of being edified.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people.. Send abortion pills not food aid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: *OK. *So, you really don't have a position on how the
Universe works. *Can you write even THREE things that you believe to
be true about physics which aren't status quo? *—— NoEinstein ——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: Most research papers have Abstracts. *Writing three sentences
of the gist of a paper isn't too much to ask. *And I don't even
require that there be a paper to follow. *—— NoEinstein ——

Research that is just abstract isn't published. And very little
research is stating anything that people just "believe are true" but
are also carefully and explicitly demonstrated in gory detail. What
you've asked for, and what you do, is "pretend physics", just doing a
little costume-jewelry and improvised impersonations of what you think
physics is. I have no idea why you would attempt such a charade among
people who know better. What do you get out of it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *OK, then. *Please write three sentences stating positions of
yours in science which differ from the status quo garbage. *And
provide links to the more detailed proofs... BEYOND the Abstract.
Note: The latter is your own requirement; so meet it! *—— NoEinstein
——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *If you don't disagree with the status quo, somewhere, you
simply aren't thinking for yourself. *If you can figure out how to
form that ceiling, you should be making a contribution in other areas,
too. *— NoEinstein —

A second comment on this.
IF (and it's a big IF) it were claimed that everything were figured
out by science, then the only place to be original would be to re-
question something already established. But this isn't claimed at all.
There are LOTS of places where science knows very little, if anything,
and so there is plenty of opportunity to dig new ground.

If you were a gold prospector, and IF it were claimed that all the
gold in the world had already been dug up, then the place to dig might
be where someone else had already dug. But since there are lots of
places where gold hasn't been mined for, choosing to dig in a mine
that has already been spent is a foolish way to look for gold. But to
be a decent prospector, you'd need to learn where the *unexplored*
places are, and which of these places is most likely to yield gold.

You are looking for gold by poking your shovel in places where the
gold has already been mined out. And in fact, a good number of places
where there are no mine shafts may have already been considered and
dismissed because of their knowledge about where gold is likely not to
be found. But there are much better places that are still untapped
where there is ample gold to be found.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Most science publications favor those "new" areas of science
whereof so little is known that nothing in the status quo will get
shaken up.

Where little is known is where the interesting action is, and this is
where people of *all* backgrounds are welcome to contribute with new
ideas, especially testable ideas. And in fact, this is the area where
there is the *most* cross-disciplinary activity, not limited to
physicists at all.

*In effect, such publications become clearing houses for
what can be shown to be science truths. *Anytime old things are shown
to be wrong, the years of past articles by those publications make
then look truly dumb. *

What's your objective? To find new truth or to make scientists look
dumb. You have the opportunity to choose to work in an exciting area,
but you choose only to work in a more established area, with the hope
of making scientists look truly dumb. Why???

The problem with science is: The egos of those
who supported the status quo keep preventing those people from
acknowledging any new science truths.
*22 of our nation's universities
don't think it is "important" to teach students that Einstein was
wrong.

Well, he certainly was wrong about a number of things -- we know this
already. Why is it so important to you to focus in on Einstein and
show that he was wrong? What is it about him that concentrates your
effort on him? (Keep in mind that you say it's Einstein, but you've
been trying to critique all the physics that was done 200 years BEFORE
Einstein published anything. So it's not clear that you're trying to
show it important that *Einstein* was wrong so much as showing that
*everyone* in physics has been wrong about *everything*. And for that
end, I would ask you why it's so important to you to try to discredit
a whole field?

*There’s just too much infrastructure in place that must be…
protected. *Higher education, from such universities, isn't worth the
cost of the paper and gold seals on the diplomas. *—— NoEinstein ——

What precisely is to be gained from the wholescale elimination of
higher education, NoEinstein, other than easing your sensitivity about
your lack of having one?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Science should build upon truths, then explain new areas.
Disproving what were supposed truths is the only way to assure that
new areas of science have a sound foundation. *To accept what you are
told, is gullibility. *But to, thoughtfully, verify what you were told
is the Scientific Method. *—— NoEinstein ——

You have not answered my questions:
- What is your objective, to find new truth or to make scientists look
dumb?
- Why is it so important to you to focus on Einstein and show that he
in particular was wrong?
- Why is it so important to you to discredit a whole field?
- What is to be gained from the wholescale elimination of higher
education?

PD

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:02:45 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Sep 29, 9:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 28, 5:31*pm, PD wrote:


Dear PD: *The supposed high mental processes by which you so readily
favor the counterintuitive, because such separates you from the more
common-sense crowd, should be the mental processes that make you
believe what you own mind tells you, more than what some unknown
person managed to get printed in a textbook.

But it is NOT what I've seen printed in a textbook. It is what I have
confirmed for myself in *experiment*. I am a professional experimental
physicist.


Hahahahahaha! ...but you don't know anything about the subject.....

There is no denying what nature says is reality.

Nature says Newton was right.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:17:31 -0800, doug wrote:



Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:17:49 -0800, doug wrote:



you are definitely beginning to sound like Andersen

That is a compliment as he is a rational intelligent person.
What? A man who jumps from one frame to anotrher and back again in an attempt
to explain Sagnac.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary

On Sep 30, 4:06*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:02:45 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 29, 9:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 28, 5:31*pm, PD wrote:

Dear PD: *The supposed high mental processes by which you so readily
favor the counterintuitive, because such separates you from the more
common-sense crowd, should be the mental processes that make you
believe what you own mind tells you, more than what some unknown
person managed to get printed in a textbook.

But it is NOT what I've seen printed in a textbook. It is what I have
confirmed for myself in *experiment*. I am a professional experimental
physicist.

Hahahahahaha! ...but you don't know anything about the subject.....

So you say. I've done experiments using equipment I've designed and
built, along with others, and we've seen experimental results with our
own eyes.

You may titter about what people "know", but experimental results are
pretty straightforward and unambiguous. Only a fool lets what he
"knows" override what is seen in measurement. Are you a fool, Henri?


There is no denying what nature says is reality.

Nature says Newton was right.

For some things. For other things, definitely not, according to
experiment. You should try it sometime.

On Sep 29, 11:52*pm, doug wrote:
NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 28, 5:31 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 28, 4:34 am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 25, 12:47 am, PD wrote:

On Sep 24, 11:31 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 22, 2:40 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 22, 9:54 am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 11:07 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:06 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:17 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 20, 5:14 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:39 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 18, 12:10 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:37:15 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 17, 2:15 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:05:37 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

Dear Henri: The entire chapter on mechanics in physics texts is wrong
except for defining work as force times distance. *I won't try to
convince you, because your approval isn't necessary. *

I doubt if you will ever convince me or anyone else of anything.

All in all, I'd
say your ideas concerning the Universe are 10% right, 90% wrong. *Who
would invite you to a "tea party"? *—— NoEinstein ——

I'm rarely wrong, Nilbrain.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people. Send abortion pills not food aid.

Dear Henri: *Please edify the many readers with the following: List
ten simple statements about what you believe the correct laws of
physic are which govern the universe. *—— NoEinstein ——

Most readers here are incapable of being edified.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people. Send abortion pills not food aid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: *OK. *So, you really don't have a position on how the
Universe works. *Can you write even THREE things that you believe to
be true about physics which aren't status quo? *—— NoEinstein ——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: Most research papers have Abstracts. *Writing three sentences
of the gist of a paper isn't too much to ask. *And I don't even
require that there be a paper to follow. *—— NoEinstein ——

Research that is just abstract isn't published. And very little
research is stating anything that people just "believe are true" but
are also carefully and explicitly demonstrated in gory detail. What
you've asked for, and what you do, is "pretend physics", just doing a
little costume-jewelry and improvised impersonations of what you think
physics is. I have no idea why you would attempt such a charade among
people who know better. What do you get out of it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *OK, then. *Please write three sentences stating positions of
yours in science which differ from the status quo garbage. *And
provide links to the more detailed proofs... BEYOND the Abstract.
Note: The latter is your own requirement; so meet it! *—— NoEinstein
——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *If you don't disagree with the status quo, somewhere, you
simply aren't thinking for yourself.

I don't attempt to disagree with the status quo when the status quo is
amply backed up by experimental observations. That appears to be a
pointless exercises in contrariness with disregard for the truth. I
see no better value in being original and wrong, over unoriginal and
right.

Fortunately, there is ample ground where there is active investigation
where there IS NO status quo, and where the experimental evidence is
sketchy or is begging to be obtained. However, knowing where that
ground is does require some knowledge about what ground has been
covered.

Now, NoEinstein, if you spent a little more time learning what ground
has been covered and where being counter to the status quo would
simply be foolish, then you would also learn where there is fertile
new ground to explore.

If you can figure out how to
form that ceiling, you should be making a contribution in other areas,
too. *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Spending any more time on “what ground has been covered”,
when the results of those "experiments" is counterintuitive, is the
process by which gullible people become favored in science.

This is *precisely* where you run aground. Scientists do not filter
experimental results by whether they are reconcilable with intuition,
rejecting those that are counterintuitive. That is unmitigated
scientific fraud, and selection of data to support a preconceived
conclusion. It is the WORST practice possible in science.

Science
should be new and vital, not "locked-in" because those who "profess"
to know were too lazy, or too dumb to question the counterintuitive.
If one's badge of intellect is just how complex one's specialty is,
the counterintuitive tends to become the "religion" of choice. *I've
embraced the Scientific Method and disproved the "logic" behind the
majority of mechanics. *And in so doing, I have disproved Einstein's
theories of relativity. *If I had been a "complexity rules" person,
those things would never have happened. *—— NoEinstein ——- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *The supposed high mental processes by which you so readily
favor the counterintuitive, because such separates you from the more
common-sense crowd, should be the mental processes that make you
believe what you own mind tells you,

My mind tells me that you do not know any physics.

more than what some unknown



person managed to get printed in a textbook. *Accepting textbooks as
religion, is religion——Judaism. *Jews publish the texts. *The more
people they can dupe, the more MONEY they can make. *—— NoEinstein ——- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Doug: Your reply got cut-off in mid non-thought... ——
NoEinstein ——

On Sep 30, 8:02*am, PD wrote:
On Sep 29, 9:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Sep 28, 5:31*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 28, 4:34*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 25, 12:47*am, PD wrote:

On Sep 24, 11:31*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 22, 2:40*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 22, 9:54*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 11:07*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:06*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:17*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 20, 5:14*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 18, 12:10*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:37:15 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 17, 2:15*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:05:37 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

Dear Henri: The entire chapter on mechanics in physics texts is wrong
except for defining work as force times distance. *I won't try to
convince you, because your approval isn't necessary. *

I doubt if you will ever convince me or anyone else of anything.

All in all, I'd
say your ideas concerning the Universe are 10% right, 90% wrong. *Who
would invite you to a "tea party"? *—— NoEinstein ——

I'm rarely wrong, Nilbrain.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond..com/hewn/index.htm

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people. Send abortion pills not food aid.

Dear Henri: *Please edify the many readers with the following: List
ten simple statements about what you believe the correct laws of
physic are which govern the universe. *—— NoEinstein ——

Most readers here are incapable of being edified.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people. Send abortion pills not food aid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: *OK. *So, you really don't have a position on how the
Universe works. *Can you write even THREE things that you believe to
be true about physics which aren't status quo? *—— NoEinstein ——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: Most research papers have Abstracts. *Writing three sentences
of the gist of a paper isn't too much to ask. *And I don't even
require that there be a paper to follow. *—— NoEinstein ——

Research that is just abstract isn't published. And very little
research is stating anything that people just "believe are true" but
are also carefully and explicitly demonstrated in gory detail. What
you've asked for, and what you do, is "pretend physics", just doing a
little costume-jewelry and improvised impersonations of what you think
physics is. I have no idea why you would attempt such a charade among
people who know better. What do you get out of it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *OK, then. *Please write three sentences stating positions of
yours in science which differ from the status quo garbage. *And
provide links to the more detailed proofs... BEYOND the Abstract.
Note: The latter is your own requirement; so meet it! *—— NoEinstein
——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *If you don't disagree with the status quo, somewhere, you
simply aren't thinking for yourself.

I don't attempt to disagree with the status quo when the status quo is
amply backed up by experimental observations. That appears to be a
pointless exercises in contrariness with disregard for the truth. I
see no better value in being original and wrong, over unoriginal and
right.

Fortunately, there is ample ground where there is active investigation
where there IS NO status quo, and where the experimental evidence is
sketchy or is begging to be obtained. However, knowing where that
ground is does require some knowledge about what ground has been
covered.

Now, NoEinstein, if you spent a little more time learning what ground
has been covered and where being counter to the status quo would
simply be foolish, then you would also learn where there is fertile
new ground to explore.

*If you can figure out how to
form that ceiling, you should be making a contribution in other areas,
too. *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Spending any more time on “what ground has been covered”,
when the results of those "experiments" is counterintuitive, is the
process by which gullible people become favored in science.

This is *precisely* where you run aground. Scientists do not filter
experimental results by whether they are reconcilable with intuition,
rejecting those that are counterintuitive. That is unmitigated
scientific fraud, and selection of data to support a preconceived
conclusion. It is the WORST practice possible in science.

*Science
should be new and vital, not "locked-in" because those who "profess"
to know were too lazy, or too dumb to question the counterintuitive..
If one's badge of intellect is just how complex one's specialty is,
the counterintuitive tends to become the "religion" of choice. *I've
embraced the Scientific Method and disproved the "logic" behind the
majority of mechanics. *And in so doing, I have disproved Einstein's
theories of relativity. *If I had been a "complexity rules" person,
those things would never have happened. *—— NoEinstein ——- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *The supposed high mental processes by which you so readily
favor the counterintuitive, because such separates you from the more
common-sense crowd, should be the mental processes that make you
believe what you own mind tells you, more than what some unknown
person managed to get printed in a textbook.

But it is NOT what I've seen printed in a textbook. It is what I have
confirmed for myself in *experiment*. I am a professional experimental
physicist.

There is no denying what nature says is reality.



*Accepting textbooks as
religion, is religion——Judaism. *Jews publish the texts. *The more
people they can dupe, the more MONEY they can make. *—— NoEinstein ——- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: It's amazing how having been brainwashed with wrong notions
can cause experiments to be viewed just like the authors of the
textbooks want you to believe. —— NoEinstein ——