Michelson and Morley experiment

On Nov 14, 12:35*am, doug wrote:
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 —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


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 —

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 —

On Nov 14, 8:57*am, PD wrote:
On Nov 13, 8:56*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Nov 11, 9:13*pm, PD wrote:

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

On Nov 7, 12:53*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 7, 9:03*am, "Strich.9" wrote:

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

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

That is a question you should ask yourself, PD.

Experiment tells me when I'm wrong. What experimental evidence do you
have that relativity is wrong?

PD

Dear PD: *How about M-M? *That instrument didn't have a CONTROL..

Well, so you say. The results have been corroborated by other
experiments.

But in any event, the results of that experiment don't show that I'm
wrong. What you are doing is trying to discount an experiment that
shows that I'm *right*. Removal of that experiment result doesn't then
imply that I'm wrong.

Here, let me give you a simple example. Suppose there were a little
gray sack and in it was a pebble that was either blue or red, but the
sack is opaque. Now suppose I predicted the pebble was red. And then I
did an experiment by tapping on the sack with a little hammer, and I
said the high-pitched tone is true of red pebbles, not of blue
pebbles, and this demonstrates that the pebble is red. Now you come
along and fuss that the experiment with the hammer is flawed and does
not prove that the pebble is red at all. This would NOT mean that the
pebble is blue. All it means is that this experiment doesn't prove
that it's red. But then there's all those other experiments that in
fact show it's red after all.

*ALL
of relativity results from Lorentz's ludicrous "rubber ruler"
explanation for the nil results of M-M.

Why, NoEinstein, that's simply wrong. Relativity doesn't rest on the M-
M experiment at all.

*"No CONTROL" is proven
mathematically and experimentally to negate SR and GR! *But you are
too dense, and to mentally ill to understand. *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *There you go again! *You love to side-step the subject at
hand by proposing ridiculous "parallel" arguments.

I'm not presenting arguments. These are simple facts, basics of
science known to high-school students.



*You don't like to
learn truths. You just like to matador yourself around the bulls which
keep charging after you! *— 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 —

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 —

On Nov 14, 9:00*am, PD wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:05*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Nov 12, 9:28*am, 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).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Stritch.9: *Misspent... dollars don't make cents! *— NoEinstein —

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?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

On Nov 14, 9:01*am, PD wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:08*pm, NoEinstein 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?

It must be awful to have an IQ of 200 and a memory that can't retain
anything from a week ago.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *IQ relates to reasoning ability, NOT to fact memorization!

It's awfully hard to reason well if you can't remember what the chain
of thought was a couple days ago.



You memorized the status quo, and that's where your
"contribution" (HA!) to science ended! *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: With YOU there is no chain of thought! There is only a
knotted rope that can serve no useful purpose! — NoEinstein —

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 —

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 —

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 —

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.