Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.


"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151431530.173601.106530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| PD wrote:
| > Henri Wilson wrote:
| > > Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the
MMX null
| > > result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was
still taken
| > > as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official
verdict.
| >
| > The reason for that decision is the later experimental confirmation of
| > SR predictions that Lorentz's ether theory does NOT predict.
| >
| If it were true that decision is taken as HW asserts, it would be wrong
| then
| and still is wrong. Fortunately for the world, that is not the
| official verdict to
| physicists, only to those pseudophysicists who frequent these ngs, like
| you.
|
| For some psychological reason, you wish to believe that verdict is
| true. It
| isn't, and that makes you the laughing stock of the physics community.
| > >
| > > It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed
'contractions',
| > > it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether
will always
| > > MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
| > >
| > > Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front.
He BEGAN
| > > with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it
seemingly
| > > didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he
concocted his
| > > outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to
be
| > > correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
| >
| > Then it isn't outlandish, is it?
| >
| Wrong again. It isn't that now that you've gotten indoctrinated with
| it, but at
| the time it came out it was indeed extremely unusual and bizarre.
|

Phuckwit Duck:
" I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.

I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.

While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.

I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.

[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]"
-- Phuckwit Duck.

PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing "*exactly*
what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no matter
how
you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the typical
shithead
and arsehole.
Androcles





.

Loading