Re: How to Replicate NoEinstein's M-M Invalidation (is Copyrighted.)

On Jan 17, 2:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 17, 12:13 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jan 16, 3:37 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 16, 10:12 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 15, 7:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 9, 2:23 am, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:

Dear None: Please read my reply to you onhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e892...
You are a persona non grata. -- NoEinstein --

...and you hide behind a pseudonym.

Dear Eric: Tell me where it is stated that posers can't use computer
names? If I commit any crimes, Google will be more than happy to
provide my full name. And Bell South will be more than happy to give
my complete address. You can't run from the NET, Eric. Your main
problem is that you can't attack my science, so you keep attacking my
name. Considering that the "Einstein" part is... your idol, then you
must really dislike that "No" part. Probably that's because you
yourself would like to be known as: DR. NO! Sorry, Guy; I beat you to
the punch! -- NoEinstein --

I attack your name because your science has already been attacked and
defeated. Mostly because you have none. I also attack your name
because you are a hypocrite for hiding behind a pseudonym while
simultaneously insulting none for doing the same.

You never offer computations, literature references, or performed
experiments. Maybe if you had some of those, we would pay more
attention to you. But you don't, and we won't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Eric: Over the past year, about 10% of my replies to you were
because you actually mentioned a science issue about which others
would benefit from reading my explanations. But lately, you have been
making false personal attacks. My "science" is alive and well, thank
you! You, nor anyone, have objectively proved that my most simple to
understand Einstein disproofs--and from every conceivable direction, I
might add--aren't valid. My elementary kick-*** disproof: That M-M
lacked a CONTROL, has never been addressed by you. If you disagree,
say so, AND explain your reason(s). Unless you can do that, SR and GR
are in the dust.
None has been a pest for about a month. I don't know whether his
name is a pseudonym or not. Nor do I care. I will counter-attack
anyone who leads as an 'expert' who hasn't even read my links to posts
this past year. To be respected, you and that rag-tag army of
Einsteiniacs, should show a little respect. Just showing up with
those holier-than-thou statements that I am wrong, shows a sick (with
'Einstein's disease') mentality. Address the "yes" or "no" M-M
CONTROL issue or shut up, Eric! -- NoEinstein --

Why should I show respect for someone who hides behind a pseudonym and
doesn't understand even the most basic physics?

You still have no idea what an interferometer is or why it doesn't
need a "control".
.

Quantcast