Michelson and Morley experiment

On Nov 12, 10:53*am, Dono wrote:
On Nov 12, 7:15 am, "Strich.9" wrote:



Keep lying. *This is usenet. *I can have my student do research on how
much PD has lied and make a paper out of it.

You have students? At the loony bin whhere you reside,oStitch?
Interesting :-)

Why is it that "Don't Know" Dono keeps butting in? — NoEinstein —

On Nov 12, 11:19*am, "Strich.9" wrote:
On Nov 12, 10:53*am, Dono wrote:

On Nov 12, 7:15 am, "Strich.9" wrote:

Keep lying. *This is usenet. *I can have my student do research on how
much PD has lied and make a paper out of it.

You have students? At the loony bin whhere you reside,oStitch?
Interesting :-)

You call an academic setting a looney bin? *Then what do you call the
real looney bin where you are? *Home? *try your looney mind on this
simple question:

1) You have a clock and I have a clock. We are at relative rest.
2) Both clocks are ticking at the same rate.

3) I move at v=0.41c. *My clock rate does not change locally. *NO
CHANGE, got that?

4) You are left behind. *Your clock rate does not change locally. *NO
CHANGE, got that?

5) Since neither clock changed, WHERE IS TIME DILATION?

Dear Stritch.9: Time dilation (Ha!) in clocks is just an ether impact
effect on the mechanical or atomic mechanism of the clock. It has
nothing to do with SR or Lorentz's rubber rulers. "Varying ether flow
and density can explain every observation in nature." And it was
written in just ONE sentence! — NoEinstein —

On Nov 12, 11:28*am, Dono wrote:
On Nov 12, 8:19 am, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Nov 12, 10:53 am, Dono wrote:

On Nov 12, 7:15 am, "Strich.9" wrote:

Keep lying. *This is usenet. *I can have my student do research on how
much PD has lied and make a paper out of it.

You have students? At the loony bin whhere you reside,oStitch?
Interesting :-)

You call an academic setting a looney bin?

No, I call the asylum where you reside a loony bin.

Dear Dono: What graveyard did Dr. Frankenstein dig YOU up in? —
NoEinstein —

On Nov 12, 11:38*am, doug wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:06 pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 11, 6:05 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 7, 8:11 am, PD wrote:

On Nov 6, 8:41 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 5, 3:12 pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 5, 11:41 am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:03 am, PD wrote:

On Nov 4, 9:38 am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 3, 9:10 am, PD wrote:

On Nov 2, 8:53 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 1, 7:06 am, PD wrote:

On Oct 31, 5:33 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Oct 30, 3:45 pm, PD wrote:

On Oct 30, 2:26 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Oct 29, 12:27 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

Why do you bother with him?

Dougie is actually a patient in a mental institution where part of the
treatment is to encourage those with very low esteem to believe they are famous
people. ...quite a good idea really...
In dougie's case it has worked so well that he has now become quite proficient
at random sentence generation using words associated mainly with the
condemnation of superior people, intermingled with the occasional scientific
term that appears purely by chance.

The same treatment works well on Chimpanzees.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/in...idequotedtext-

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: *WELL SAID! * — NoEinstein —

In what way is a lie or a libelous statement ever "well said"?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *When such ISN'T a lie, not a libelous statement! *—
NoEinstein —

And so you know for a fact that Doug is a patient in a mental
hospital? Or are you just making that up?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Deductive reasoning suggests that mental illness (or
alcoholism) is in play in some who reply to my posts. *— NoEinstein —

Well, what is suggested is not necessarily fact. For example, you can
note that several readers of your posts have applied deductive
reasoning to arrive at the suggestion that you do not have, nor ever
have had, certification as an architect. You can also note that your
complete inability to create a blog using a web browser and are
fixated on using Outlook Express and newsgroups as a surrogate method
for distributing your blog, suggests quite naturally that you do not
have access or ability to perform simple tasks on the internet. Now,
whether those are facts or not is clearly a separate matter. If you
can observe that what is *suggested* to others are not necessarily
facts about you, then you would be wise to also note that what is
*suggested* by reason to you about others is not necessarily fact.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *When you can't attack my science, you attack my profession.
The only people who need to know my accreditation are myself, my
clients, and the SC Bd. of Arch. Examiners! *— NoEinstein —

I wasn't impugning your profession, though apparently I have reason to
doubt your ability to read for comprehension.

I was commenting on the *documented* perception of your credentials
(which is plain to see on this newsgroup) and how that perception has
nothing necessarily to do with fact. I was making this comment because
you were also confusing fact with perception in the matter of Doug's
residency in a mental institution.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Doug has all of the symptoms of a person with an extreme
inferiority complex which is over-compensated by his attacks on those
who are his superiors. *I doubt that there is any perception of my
"credentials" other than the words I write, daily.

Do you need links to posts by others that cite their perception of
your credentials?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/a382789968f...

You regularly
protect yourself from being attacked on issues of science, by always
changing the subject to the messenger, rather than the message. *It's
obvious that you enjoy frustrating others more than you like
discussing

I'm happy to discuss *putative* truths. That's why it's so important
to get the terminology straight. It's a pity you get impatient quickly
(like a small child) and do not suffer questions and interruptions
well.

and embracing truths. *So, you—like Doug—are feeling
important by your wasteful attacks on those dedicated to learning
about science. *Tell me PD, I don't recall reading a single post that
was started by you…

You haven't looked very hard. You can do a search on the newsgroups
for threads originated by me. You know how to do that, don't you?
(Despite your very limited access to the internet.)

If you have any—which actually discuss science—I
would appreciate it if you would attach the links. *Thanks! *—
NoEinstein —

You can't do a search on groups.google.com?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *If I was so... 'wrong', you messenger attackers wouldn't
care. *But I'm right, and THAT makes your blood boil! *So, you all
attack anything of mine that isn't science which you can—like my being
a architect. *Sad, very sad… *— NoEinstein —

You share this mentality with Strich9.
If you get responses to what you post, you take this to mean that you
have struck a nerve and that scientists are rushing to defend the
status quo -- and that therefore you must be right.
If you get no responses to what you post, you take this to mean you
have tacit approval from scientists -- and that therefore you must be
right.

Tell me, NoEinstein, what methodology do you have to let you know when
you're wrong?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: There are NO scientists from whom I seek approval!

Yes, I know. Of course, that's why you're posting your results around,
because you're NOT seeking approval.

But the question still stands. By what methodology do you ever
determine that you are wrong?

Most
don't know their asses from holes in the ground! *— NoEinstein —

PS: *What methodology is there to get YOU to know that you are WRONG!

Corroborated experimental results. That's how I know I'm wrong.-

Let me return that question to you (originally posted by NoEinstein to
you, which you could not answer, so you repost back to him):

What methodology is there to get YOU to know that you are WRONG!

How many NULL results do you need? *Let me guess, 3. First null result
from LIGO (a few hundred million in cost); second null result from GPB
(a few billion) and a third null result from a would-be star trek type
experiment (to cost trillions).

You keeping on repeating your ignorance of LIGO and GPB does not help
make your case. You have no clue about experimental design and analysis
and so you do no understand what is going on.

You also have been unable to refute any experiment in support of
relativity like you claimed you could do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Doug: SR and GR got refuted by yours truly when I discovered
that M-M doesn't have a CONTROL. Einstein's cases are CLOSED! —
NoEinstein —

On Nov 12, 11:40*am, doug wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:16 pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 11, 6:16 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 7, 3:02 pm, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Nov 7, 3:41 pm, PD wrote:

As it turns out, no such
theory involving spirits has had any predictive power to date.

And the same goes for relativity. *What has it predicted (besides the
post-hoc predictions) that has been verified?

Nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Well, that's three.

Oh, now, we've talked about this before. There are lots and lots of
experimental tests (not post-dictions) of relativity. Measuring time-
of-flight of back-to-back photons emitted simultaneously from a moving
source is one of my favorites, but it's just one out of a couple
hundred or so. Another is pseudorapidity distributions of secondaries
in fixed-target and collider experiments, where relativity made a firm
prediction of what would be seen long before it was actually measured..
Another is the design of the g-2 muon ring, which would not have
worked at all if relativity were not correct, and I believe I gave you
references to that.

Well, that's three.

PD

Dear PD: *Where did you copy such crap?" *— NoEinstein —

Didn't have to copy it at all. The first and second experiments I
repeated myself, with some colleagues. The third was directly verified
in experiments by colleagues. Been there, examined the apparatus,
reviewed the data and the analysis.

PD-

It's biased then. *Do not quote your research. *Somebody may really
examine them and find that you fiddled the data. *You may lose your
degree and your job retroactively.

You are back to the Henri Wilson line of thought where he claims that
all the experimenters lied. You are used to lying and do not see why
others are not. You clearly do not understand how science works.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Doug: Being wrong isn't necessarily the same as lying. The
later requires the intentional statement of a falsehood. — NoEinstein
—

On Nov 12, 12:31*pm, "Strich.9" wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:42*am, doug wrote:





Strich.9 wrote:
On Nov 12, 9:28 am, PD wrote:

On Nov 12, 8:24 am, wrote:

On Nov 11, 7:16 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 7, 3:02 pm, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Nov 7, 3:41 pm, PD wrote:

As it turns out, no such
theory involving spirits has had any predictive power to date.

And the same goes for relativity. *What has it predicted (besides the
post-hoc predictions) that has been verified?

Nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Well, that's three.

Oh, now, we've talked about this before. There are lots and lots of
experimental tests (not post-dictions) of relativity. Measuring time-
of-flight of back-to-back photons emitted simultaneously from a moving
source is one of my favorites, but it's just one out of a couple
hundred or so. Another is pseudorapidity distributions of secondaries
in fixed-target and collider experiments, where relativity made a firm
prediction of what would be seen long before it was actually measured.
Another is the design of the g-2 muon ring, which would not have
worked at all if relativity were not correct, and I believe I gave you
references to that.

Well, that's three.

PD

Dear PD: *Where did you copy such crap?" *— NoEinstein —-

He cannot tell you. *Like his co-relativist Eric Gisse, he makes up
experimental results, or misinterprets other experiments.

Would you like references? Oh, gee, you've already been given the
references to two of them. Did you lose track?

Keep lying. *This is usenet. *I can have my student do research on how
much PD has lied and make a paper out of it.

Keep lying.

You really are getting desperate.-

Please state that fictional prestigious university you claimed you
finished from?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Stritch.9: Graduation from ANY university doesn't prove that a
person knows how to think. It just proves that they have a piece of
paper saying that they don't have to think! — NoEinstein —

On Nov 12, 1:10*pm, RustyJames wrote:
On Nov 12, 10:58*am, doug wrote:





Strich.9 wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:38 am, doug wrote:

You keeping on repeating your ignorance of LIGO and GPB does not help
make your case. You have no clue about experimental design and analysis
and so you do no understand what is going on.

LIGO: negative

And what do you think negative means in this case?
And how does this have any effect on the validity of relativity?
Hint: PD explained this to you but it went over your head.

GPB: negative

And what do you think negative means in this case?

Let me know if you have NEW DATA saying otherwise.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What if nobody sends a signal? *Does time dilation still exist?
Where?

*time dialation can only occur if measured from two or more frame
refrances independantly from one another.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Rusty: Time dilation—as a result of relativity—doesn't exist
ANYWHERE! Ether impacts will simply slow the MECHANISM of the faster
moving clocks. — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 11, 9:06 pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 11, 6:05 pm, NoEinstein wrote:






On Nov 7, 8:11 am, PD wrote:

On Nov 6, 8:41 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 5, 3:12 pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 5, 11:41 am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:03 am, PD wrote:

On Nov 4, 9:38 am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 3, 9:10 am, PD wrote:

On Nov 2, 8:53 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 1, 7:06 am, PD wrote:

On Oct 31, 5:33 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Oct 30, 3:45 pm, PD wrote:

On Oct 30, 2:26 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Oct 29, 12:27 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

Why do you bother with him?

Dougie is actually a patient in a mental institution where part of the
treatment is to encourage those with very low esteem to believe they are famous
people. ...quite a good idea really...
In dougie's case it has worked so well that he has now become quite proficient
at random sentence generation using words associated mainly with the
condemnation of superior people, intermingled with the occasional scientific
term that appears purely by chance.

The same treatment works well on Chimpanzees.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/in...idequotedtext-

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: WELL SAID! — NoEinstein —

In what way is a lie or a libelous statement ever "well said"?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: When such ISN'T a lie, not a libelous statement! —
NoEinstein —

And so you know for a fact that Doug is a patient in a mental
hospital? Or are you just making that up?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: Deductive reasoning suggests that mental illness (or
alcoholism) is in play in some who reply to my posts. — NoEinstein —

Well, what is suggested is not necessarily fact. For example, you can
note that several readers of your posts have applied deductive
reasoning to arrive at the suggestion that you do not have, nor ever
have had, certification as an architect. You can also note that your
complete inability to create a blog using a web browser and are
fixated on using Outlook Express and newsgroups as a surrogate method
for distributing your blog, suggests quite naturally that you do not
have access or ability to perform simple tasks on the internet. Now,
whether those are facts or not is clearly a separate matter. If you
can observe that what is *suggested* to others are not necessarily
facts about you, then you would be wise to also note that what is
*suggested* by reason to you about others is not necessarily fact.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: When you can't attack my science, you attack my profession.
The only people who need to know my accreditation are myself, my
clients, and the SC Bd. of Arch. Examiners! — NoEinstein —

I wasn't impugning your profession, though apparently I have reason to
doubt your ability to read for comprehension.

I was commenting on the *documented* perception of your credentials
(which is plain to see on this newsgroup) and how that perception has
nothing necessarily to do with fact. I was making this comment because
you were also confusing fact with perception in the matter of Doug's
residency in a mental institution.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: Doug has all of the symptoms of a person with an extreme
inferiority complex which is over-compensated by his attacks on those
who are his superiors. I doubt that there is any perception of my
"credentials" other than the words I write, daily.

Do you need links to posts by others that cite their perception of
your credentials?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/a382789968f...

You regularly
protect yourself from being attacked on issues of science, by always
changing the subject to the messenger, rather than the message. It's
obvious that you enjoy frustrating others more than you like
discussing

I'm happy to discuss *putative* truths. That's why it's so important
to get the terminology straight. It's a pity you get impatient quickly
(like a small child) and do not suffer questions and interruptions
well.

and embracing truths. So, you—like Doug—are feeling
important by your wasteful attacks on those dedicated to learning
about science. Tell me PD, I don't recall reading a single post that
was started by you…

You haven't looked very hard. You can do a search on the newsgroups
for threads originated by me. You know how to do that, don't you?
(Despite your very limited access to the internet.)

If you have any—which actually discuss science—I
would appreciate it if you would attach the links. Thanks! —
NoEinstein —

You can't do a search on groups.google.com?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: If I was so... 'wrong', you messenger attackers wouldn't
care. But I'm right, and THAT makes your blood boil! So, you all
attack anything of mine that isn't science which you can—like my being
a architect. Sad, very sad… — NoEinstein —

You share this mentality with Strich9.
If you get responses to what you post, you take this to mean that you
have struck a nerve and that scientists are rushing to defend the
status quo -- and that therefore you must be right.
If you get no responses to what you post, you take this to mean you
have tacit approval from scientists -- and that therefore you must be
right.

Tell me, NoEinstein, what methodology do you have to let you know when
you're wrong?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: There are NO scientists from whom I seek approval!

Yes, I know. Of course, that's why you're posting your results around,
because you're NOT seeking approval.

But the question still stands. By what methodology do you ever
determine that you are wrong?


Most
don't know their asses from holes in the ground! — NoEinstein —

—

PS: What methodology is there to get YOU to know that you are WRONG!

Corroborated experimental results. That's how I know I'm wrong.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Dear PD: One disproof which is conclusive negates a hundred carbon-
copy "proofs" that are wrong.

And your wrong experiments have no effects on millions of correctly
done experiments. You do not understand why your clay was a bad
choice of detector even though you had it explained to you. You eog
got ahead of you science.

Why don't you corroborated my $40.00
ball drop experiment?

I have done this test propertly many times and I know the result.
But you do not like the result.

If you had any scientific objectivity, you
should be able to trust your own observations of the overwhelming
results of such experiment:

Yes, I trust my results and no, you results are not correct.

KE = 1/2 mv^2 does NOT predict the
correct KE of falling objects!

It has done so for centuries and will continue to do so in the
future. Your wrong experiment has no effect on physics.


— NoEinstein —

NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 11, 9:16 pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 11, 6:16 pm, NoEinstein wrote:






On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 7, 3:02 pm, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Nov 7, 3:41 pm, PD wrote:

As it turns out, no such
theory involving spirits has had any predictive power to date.

And the same goes for relativity. What has it predicted (besides the
post-hoc predictions) that has been verified?

Nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Well, that's three.

Oh, now, we've talked about this before. There are lots and lots of
experimental tests (not post-dictions) of relativity. Measuring time-
of-flight of back-to-back photons emitted simultaneously from a moving
source is one of my favorites, but it's just one out of a couple
hundred or so. Another is pseudorapidity distributions of secondaries
in fixed-target and collider experiments, where relativity made a firm
prediction of what would be seen long before it was actually measured.
Another is the design of the g-2 muon ring, which would not have
worked at all if relativity were not correct, and I believe I gave you
references to that.

Well, that's three.

PD

Dear PD: Where did you copy such crap?" — NoEinstein —

Didn't have to copy it at all. The first and second experiments I
repeated myself, with some colleagues. The third was directly verified
in experiments by colleagues. Been there, examined the apparatus,
reviewed the data and the analysis.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Dear PD: :-} ~~ - - - on your "see what you want to see...
‘science’ ".

You are the one who badly did two experiments and then saw
what he wanted to see. The results of millions of experiments
disagree with you. If you had done the experiments correctly,
and we told you your mistakes, you would be singing a different
tune. In any case, the world will continue to ignore your
mistakes.




— NoEinstein —

On Nov 13, 8:51*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:06*pm, PD wrote:



On Nov 11, 6:05*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 7, 8:11*am, PD wrote:

On Nov 6, 8:41*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 5, 3:12*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 5, 11:41*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:03*am, PD wrote:

On Nov 4, 9:38*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 3, 9:10*am, PD wrote:

On Nov 2, 8:53*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 1, 7:06*am, PD wrote:

On Oct 31, 5:33*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Oct 30, 3:45*pm, PD wrote:

On Oct 30, 2:26*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Oct 29, 12:27*am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

Why do you bother with him?

Dougie is actually a patient in a mental institution where part of the
treatment is to encourage those with very low esteem to believe they are famous
people. ...quite a good idea really...
In dougie's case it has worked so well that he has now become quite proficient
at random sentence generation using words associated mainly with the
condemnation of superior people, intermingled with the occasional scientific
term that appears purely by chance.

The same treatment works well on Chimpanzees.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/in...idequotedtext-

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: *WELL SAID! * — NoEinstein —

In what way is a lie or a libelous statement ever "well said"?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *When such ISN'T a lie, not a libelous statement! *—
NoEinstein —

And so you know for a fact that Doug is a patient in a mental
hospital? Or are you just making that up?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Deductive reasoning suggests that mental illness (or
alcoholism) is in play in some who reply to my posts. *— NoEinstein —

Well, what is suggested is not necessarily fact. For example, you can
note that several readers of your posts have applied deductive
reasoning to arrive at the suggestion that you do not have, nor ever
have had, certification as an architect. You can also note that your
complete inability to create a blog using a web browser and are
fixated on using Outlook Express and newsgroups as a surrogate method
for distributing your blog, suggests quite naturally that you do not
have access or ability to perform simple tasks on the internet. Now,
whether those are facts or not is clearly a separate matter. If you
can observe that what is *suggested* to others are not necessarily
facts about you, then you would be wise to also note that what is
*suggested* by reason to you about others is not necessarily fact.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *When you can't attack my science, you attack my profession.
The only people who need to know my accreditation are myself, my
clients, and the SC Bd. of Arch. Examiners! *— NoEinstein —

I wasn't impugning your profession, though apparently I have reason to
doubt your ability to read for comprehension.

I was commenting on the *documented* perception of your credentials
(which is plain to see on this newsgroup) and how that perception has
nothing necessarily to do with fact. I was making this comment because
you were also confusing fact with perception in the matter of Doug's
residency in a mental institution.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Doug has all of the symptoms of a person with an extreme
inferiority complex which is over-compensated by his attacks on those
who are his superiors. *I doubt that there is any perception of my
"credentials" other than the words I write, daily.

Do you need links to posts by others that cite their perception of
your credentials?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/a382789968f...

*You regularly
protect yourself from being attacked on issues of science, by always
changing the subject to the messenger, rather than the message. *It's
obvious that you enjoy frustrating others more than you like
discussing

I'm happy to discuss *putative* truths. That's why it's so important
to get the terminology straight. It's a pity you get impatient quickly
(like a small child) and do not suffer questions and interruptions
well.

and embracing truths. *So, you—like Doug—are feeling
important by your wasteful attacks on those dedicated to learning
about science. *Tell me PD, I don't recall reading a single post that
was started by you…

You haven't looked very hard. You can do a search on the newsgroups
for threads originated by me. You know how to do that, don't you?
(Despite your very limited access to the internet.)

*If you have any—which actually discuss science—I
would appreciate it if you would attach the links. *Thanks! *—
NoEinstein —

You can't do a search on groups.google.com?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *If I was so... 'wrong', you messenger attackers wouldn't
care. *But I'm right, and THAT makes your blood boil! *So, you all
attack anything of mine that isn't science which you can—like my being
a architect. *Sad, very sad… *— NoEinstein —

You share this mentality with Strich9.
If you get responses to what you post, you take this to mean that you
have struck a nerve and that scientists are rushing to defend the
status quo -- and that therefore you must be right.
If you get no responses to what you post, you take this to mean you
have tacit approval from scientists -- and that therefore you must be
right.

Tell me, NoEinstein, what methodology do you have to let you know when
you're wrong?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: There are NO scientists from whom I seek approval!

Yes, I know. Of course, that's why you're posting your results around,
because you're NOT seeking approval.

But the question still stands. By what methodology do you ever
determine that you are wrong?

*Most
don't know their asses from holes in the ground! *— NoEinstein —
—
PS: *What methodology is there to get YOU to know that you are WRONG!

Corroborated experimental results. That's how I know I'm wrong.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: One disproof which is conclusive negates a hundred carbon-
copy "proofs" that are wrong.

Proof comes with corroborated experimental counter-evidence. You do
not have that in hand. Do not claim what you do not yet have.

*Why don't you corroborated my $40.00
ball drop experiment? *If you had any scientific objectivity, you
should be able to trust your own observations of the overwhelming
results of such experiment: *KE = 1/2 mv^2 does NOT predict the
correct KE of falling objects! *— NoEinstein —