Michelson and Morley experiment

NoEinstein wrote:


Dear Doug: You only "expertise" is to physically lift sand bags to a
certain height; drop them on things; and then verify that those things
which were impacted survived. And yet you pretend to tell a scientist
like me how to conduct experiments. Have you ever made a POST
yourself? I haven't seen one in two years. All you have to offer
science are your own delusions of self importance. Sad, but true; sad
but true. — NoEinstein —

You sure have a lot of delusions including what fracture mechanics
studies. Remember that you are the wannabe claimed architect who
thinks he knows physics. You are not a scientist, since you know
nothing about science or experiments. You do not even know the
difference between force and energy. I am a PhD physicist with
forty years of experience doing experiments. I have told you
what was wrong with your drop experiment and you did not
even understand what was said. You are incompetent to design
or evaluate experiments. Since there have been millions of
correct validations of the ke formula and your one wrong
one, the only thing to be done with yours is to laugh at
it. You are having no effect on the world. Your interferometer
experiment was as bad.

It is really funny that you think of yourself as a scientist.
You really should apologize to all scientists everywhere.

NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 14, 9:48 am, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Nov 14, 12:35 am, doug wrote:


NoEinstein wrote:

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.

How do you know? You've never done one experiment in your whole
life. (Putting the neighbor's cat in the microwave oven does not
count.)


Dear Stritch.9: Thanks for your moral support! Doug and PD are
getting... OLD fast. — NoEinstein —

Except, of course, that PD and I are the real physicists not the
pretend scientists that you and strich are.

NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 14, 9:03 am, PD wrote:

On Nov 13, 9:21 pm, NoEinstein wrote:






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 —

SR and GR in no way depend on the M-M experiment. Your misstatement
has been corrected before, but you are an exceedingly slow learner, as
I'm sure you've been told before.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Dear PD: Your formula of life: Whatever truths which are stated, take
the opposite position. I've already wasted weeks of my time re-
explaining things to you. Give us both a break. Go duck hunting and
don't come home! — NoEinstein —

The reason you are wasting your time is that PD knows the truth and
knows that you are spouting nonsense. You are not going to convince
him or me since we know physics.

On Nov 15, 6:22*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Nov 14, 8:55*am, PD wrote:



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 —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tell me PD, why should anyone reply to a mentally ill dunce like you?
You're just a waste of everyone's time! *— NoEinstein —

Well, gee, you just replied. I guess I don't know why you do things
for which you have no reason to them.

On Nov 15, 6:24*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Nov 14, 8:58*am, PD wrote:



On Nov 13, 8:59*pm, 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’ ". *— NoEinstein —

Well, seeing it with your own eyes, and someone independent saying
"Yes, I see the same thing" IS pretty compelling, yes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Then, why don't you HOP TO and do the experiment? *—
NoEinstein —

Sure. Give me more information on how to replicate it *exactly*.

On Nov 15, 6:26*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:00*am, PD wrote:


Then exercise your vote to choose different stewards of your tax
dollars. Your tax dollars are going to get spent, and there's a
certain chunk of it (not a big chunk) that your elected tax stewards
feel pretty strongly should support science in this country.

I'm curious, though. If you don't feel that tax dollars should be
spent on supporting higher education of any kind (so you have said),
why is that?

Dear PD: "Results" from... education like YOU——that's why! *Ha, ha
hah, HA! *— NoEinstein —

My work isn't supported by tax dollars. So why is my stuff relevant to
your complaint against how tax dollars are spent?

PD

On Nov 15, 6:38*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:03*am, PD wrote:



On Nov 13, 9:21*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

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 —

SR and GR in no way depend on the M-M experiment. Your misstatement
has been corrected before, but you are an exceedingly slow learner, as
I'm sure you've been told before.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Your formula of life: Whatever truths which are stated,

Except what you state is NOT the truth. Relativity is not dependent on
the M-M experiment.

take
the opposite position. *I've already wasted weeks of my time re-
explaining things to you. *Give us both a break. *Go duck hunting and
don't come home! *— NoEinstein —

On Nov 15, 7:44 pm, doug wrote:
I am a PhD physicist with forty years of experience...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA

On Nov 15, 7:44*pm, doug wrote:
NoEinstein wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:01 am, PD wrote:

On Nov 13, 9:09 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 12, 9:29 am, 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

... Does PD... HAVE a job? *— NoEinstein —

You betcha. A really good one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What job, PD, cleaning toilets in at the nut farm? *— NoEinstein —

I realize that you are in a stupid contest with strich but have you
ever heard of google? You can use it to look up things. We can show
you how to use it if you need help. *While you are at it, look up
thixotropic. *That is why your drop test was nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Doug: Look up DUNCE. That's why nothing you say matters. —
NoEinstein —

On Nov 15, 7:44*pm, doug wrote:
NoEinstein wrote:

Dear Doug: *You only "expertise" is to physically lift sand bags to a
certain height; drop them on things; and then verify that those things
which were impacted survived. *And yet you pretend to tell a scientist
like me how to conduct experiments. *Have you ever made a POST
yourself? *I haven't seen one in two years. *All you have to offer
science are your own delusions of self importance. *Sad, but true; sad
but true. *— NoEinstein —

You *sure have a lot of delusions including what fracture mechanics
studies. *Remember that you are the wannabe claimed architect who
thinks he knows physics. You are not a scientist, since you know
nothing about science or experiments. You do not even know the
difference between force and energy. *I am a PhD physicist with
forty years of experience doing experiments. *I have told you
what was wrong with your drop experiment and you did not
even understand what was said. You are incompetent to design
or evaluate experiments. Since there have been millions of
correct validations of the ke formula and your one wrong
one, the only thing to be done with yours is to laugh at
it. *You are having no effect on the world. Your interferometer
experiment was as bad.

It is really funny that you think of yourself as a scientist.
You really should apologize to all scientists everywhere.

:-} ~~ - - - — NoEinstein —