Michelson and Morley experiment

On Nov 17, 10:36*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Nov 15, 8:38*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 15, 6:38*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

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-

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 —

You are just a little wheel that keeps going in circles, PD. *...Or a
78 rpm record stuck in the groove. *NE

Likewise, your repetition of something that is factually incorrect is
a profound waste of your time. Why do you so heavily invest in wasting
your time?

PD

On 18 Nov, 15:19, PD wrote:
On Nov 17, 10:36*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Nov 15, 8:38*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 15, 6:38*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

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-

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 —

You are just a little wheel that keeps going in circles, PD. *...Or a
78 rpm record stuck in the groove. *NE

Likewise, your repetition of something that is factually incorrect is
a profound waste of your time. Why do you so heavily invest in wasting
your time?

PD

Inglish:

Newton cheating in calculating the orbits of planetary motion.

Coulomb took the leadership of the magnetic poles wrong.

Faraday poorly defined the electromagnetic force by taking the
magnetic poles of Coulomb wrong.

Maxwell elaborates his equations of electromagnetism bad for taking
the wrong strength of Faraday.

Michelson average real and imaginary as if they could be averaged.

Einstein said that the RG and RE are compatible when they are not at
all.

We carry more than 300 years wasting our time.

Greetings.

Español:

Newton hace trampas en el cálculo de las órbitas de movimiento
planetario.

Coulomb toma la dirección de los polos magnéticos equivocada.

Faraday define mal la fuerza electromagnética por tomar los polos
magnéticos equivocados de Coulomb.

Maxwell elabora mal sus ecuaciones del electromagnetismo por tomar la
equivocada fuerza de Faraday.

Michelson promedia valores reales e imaginarios como si pudieran
promediarse.

Einstein dice que la RE y la RG son compatibles cuando no lo son en
absoluto.

Llevamos más de 300 años perdiendo el tiempo.

Saludos.

On Nov 19, 1:18*pm, Xaustein wrote:
On 18 Nov, 15:19, PD wrote:





On Nov 17, 10:36*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Nov 15, 8:38*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 15, 6:38*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

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-

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 —

You are just a little wheel that keeps going in circles, PD. *...Or a
78 rpm record stuck in the groove. *NE

Likewise, your repetition of something that is factually incorrect is
a profound waste of your time. Why do you so heavily invest in wasting
your time?

PD

Inglish:

Newton cheating in calculating the orbits of planetary motion.

Coulomb took the leadership of the magnetic poles wrong.

Faraday poorly defined the electromagnetic force by taking the
magnetic poles of Coulomb wrong.

Maxwell elaborates his equations of electromagnetism bad for taking
the wrong strength of Faraday.

Michelson average real and imaginary as if they could be averaged.

Einstein said that the RG and RE are compatible when they are not at
all.

We carry more than 300 years wasting our time.



Absolutely, your parents wasted their time conceiving an idiot like
you.

On 19 nov, 22:42, Dono wrote:

Inglish:

Newton cheating in calculating the orbits of planetary motion.

Coulomb took the leadership of the magnetic poles wrong.

Faraday poorly defined the electromagnetic force by taking the
magnetic poles of Coulomb wrong.

Maxwell elaborates his equations of electromagnetism bad for taking
the wrong strength of Faraday.

Michelson average real and imaginary as if they could be averaged.

Einstein said that the RG and RE are compatible when they are not at
all.

We carry more than 300 years wasting our time.

Absolutely, your parents wasted their time conceiving an idiot like
you.

Inglish:
There is a Spanish proverb that says: "I do not want to hurt, but I
can."

Español:
Hay un refrán español que dice: "No hiere quien quiere, sino quien
puede".

Saludos.

On Nov 20, 5:49 am, Xaustein wrote:
On 19 nov, 22:42, Dono wrote:





Inglish:

Newton cheating in calculating the orbits of planetary motion.

Coulomb took the leadership of the magnetic poles wrong.

Faraday poorly defined the electromagnetic force by taking the
magnetic poles of Coulomb wrong.

Maxwell elaborates his equations of electromagnetism bad for taking
the wrong strength of Faraday.

Michelson average real and imaginary as if they could be averaged.

Einstein said that the RG and RE are compatible when they are not at
all.

We carry more than 300 years wasting our time.

Absolutely, your parents wasted their time conceiving an idiot like
you.

Inglish:
There is a Spanish proverb that says: "I do not want to hurt, but I
can."

Yes, Gabriel Xaus, your butt hurts. From so much kicking :-)

On Nov 18, 12:55*am, Dono wrote:
On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, NoEinstein wrote:



Dear Eric: Only those willing to write an algebra equation for science
would be qualified to evaluate my algebra. *Until you, or anyone else
have shown such objectivity, I will keep my Copyrighted article that
contains the mathematical invalidation of M-M, and the disproof of
Einstein's theories of relativity, to myself. *—— NoEinstein ——

Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-Mhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en

Hey, knucklehead,

Ken ****o beat you to your "invention".
He "invented" the same exact imbecility as you are peddling.

:-} ~~ - - - — NeEinstein — PS: If so, then 'Ken' is head-snd-
shoulders above 'don't know Dono'!

On Nov 18, 12:58*am, Dono wrote:
On Oct 14, 11:35 am, Xaustein wrote:





Suppose an interferometer with a single arm (1881), is reached
the Similar conclusions and I find it easier to understand:

Impose the condition that the arm can only be
oriented according to two situations (a) and (b), all others are
discarded:

(a) the arm is oriented along the same lines as the
speed "v" to which the Earth moves with respect to the ether.

T_1 = L_o * (1 / (c ^ 2 - v ^ 2)) = (L_o / c) * (1 / (1 - (v / c) ^
2))
(L_o / c) * (1 + (v / c) ^ 2)

"L_o" is the length of the interferometer that light travels in
opposite directions.
"c" is the speed of light in the event that "v" is zero.

(b) the arm is oriented along the perpendicular to the speed "v"
to which the Earth moves with respect to the ether.

T_2 = L_o * [sqrt] (1 / (c ^ 2 - v ^ 2)) = (L_o / c) * [sqrt] (1 / (1
- (v /
c) ^ 2)) (L_o / c) * (1 + 1 / 2 * (v / c) ^ 2)

So far we all agree, the time it takes to travel the
arm of the interferometer in the case t_1 is greater than the time
slow in the case t_2 in value commensurate with "(1 / 2) * (v / c) ^
2".

Bzzt, wrong, wacko.
The experiment has shown that t_1=t_2.
The theoretical reason is very simple, do you know why?

rest of your lengthy imbecilities snipped- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Xaustein: The best thing is not to engage in replies with the
likes of Dono, PD, and Doug. Scientific objectivity they lack. —
NoEinstein —

On Nov 18, 1:00*am, Dono wrote:
On Oct 18, 3:14 am, Xaustein wrote: It simply produces a NO constant interference pattern si matter how it
is
orientated.

Hicks (1902), Esclangon (1927), Miller (1925,1933), Marinov (1975,
1984), Munera (1998), Cahill (2004), ...

...all crackpots, a little more sophisticated than you

Talk science, squirt, or bug off! — Noeinstein —

On Nov 18, 9:17*am, PD wrote:
On Nov 17, 10:32*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Nov 15, 8:36*pm, PD wrote:

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

Dear PD: *I never said anything about tax dollars on education. *I
said money (parents’ money) spent of science education is wasted. *NE

Well, it's fortunate I paid for my own education.
Why do you think science education is worthless? Consider that the
newsgroup you are posting to, and the computer you're using to post
with, would not exist if science education were gone.
Where do you think the money should be better spent?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: First... FIRE all of the status quo teachers who only care
about their memorized lessons, and NOT about weeding out the deadwood
in science texts. The latter represents 25% to 30% of the total. Get
kids enthused to read about science while still in grade school. Most
of what I learned in science was from reading, NOT from having a
teacher explain things. In fact, I was one of those students who
corrected the teachers. They called me a "challenging" student. But
I exempted the exams. The main things teachers do is to assign
lessons and grade papers. The "learning" part is the responsibility
of the students themselves. So why send kids to take science at all?
— NoEinstein —

On Nov 18, 9:19*am, PD wrote:
On Nov 17, 10:36*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Nov 15, 8:38*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 15, 6:38*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

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-

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 —

You are just a little wheel that keeps going in circles, PD. *...Or a
78 rpm record stuck in the groove. *NE

Likewise, your repetition of something that is factually incorrect is
a profound waste of your time. Why do you so heavily invest in wasting
your time?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: Mainly, I don't want the 95% of readers of these posts who
never reply, to think that dunces like you, Doug, and Dono, have
anything going for you at all. Your 'minor' saving grace is that you
sometimes ask questions which, when answered, might edify OTHER
readers. Experience has shown that YOU are beyond being edified about
anything, yourself. That's why I don't want to start 'off subject'
conversations with you. There should be give-and-take in
conversations. But your ego will only allow you to... take. —
NoEinstein —