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

On Jan 18, 11:08 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 18, 2:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jan 18, 12:06 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Eric: Till recently, your arguments related to your implied
"understanding" of science vs. mine. Now you are blatantly stating
falsehoods in your "shoot the messenger" attacks. For your
edification: An interferometer COMPARES two light beams for
differences. Such differences would--in a properly designed experiment--
show up as an advance or a retard of the interference fringe bulls eye
(or the light and dark bands, if 'a slit' is used at the light
source). To compare, say, the change in length of an arm of 'an'
interferometer, the light source used as the CONTROL (50% of the
total) must NOT travel on that portion of the interferometer where the
length change is to be measured. The other 50% of the light that does
travel on the arm whereon a length change is to be measured becomes
the TEST light source.

No control is needed, stupid. That is the whole point of an
interferometer. Any path length difference will scream as fringe
shifts.

Dear Eric: Measurements of physical change in the length of one of
the two arms of M-M was something M-M was well suited to measure. And
the rotation of the instrument wasn't part of the test. Nor did it
matter that all of the optics were on a single X-Y plane surface.

However, when James Clerk Maxwell proposed to Michelson that his
interferometer, when rotated, might be able to detect velocity
changes... that was something his instrument, by its design, was NOT
suited to detect. INTERFEROMETERS THAT CAN DETECT PHYSICAL LENGTH
CHANGES ARE NOT NECESSARILY SUITED TO DETECT VELOCITY CHANGES! Why?
Velocity detection is a race of two photons (actually a train of
photons) to circuit the entire instrument; and races are TIME(D)
events. Whereas, length change in one arm isn't a timed event at
all. It is just a gradual adjustment of the length of one arm and
observing the phase shifts as the length changes--by letting the light
course that doesn't change length act as the control.

If the points of reference on each of the two light beams always
circuit the interferometer in the same amount of TIME, regardless of
the instrument's orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector, then
it is because the instrument, for the purpose of velocity detection,
has no CONTROL. I've explained all of this to you in various ways,
before. But you just won't listen, or you just can't read. I think
history will show where stupidity lies. -- NoEinstein --


Michelson was a gifted experimentalist. Nothing you know about
interferometer design would be unknown to him.

The length change, as in the above example, is measured by micro-
adjusting the length of TEST arm to fit the object being tested.
While that happens one observes the number of shifts (advance or
retard) of the interference fringe pattern. Depending upon the
wavelength of the light source, each shift (light to dark) of the
fringe pattern corresponds to a 1/2 lambda change in the length of the
TEST arm.

This may be news to you but not me.

Michelson used his 1887 M-M experiment to precisely measure
LENGTHS. His instrument could do that because one arm of one light
course was used SOLELY by the light on that course; i.e, it was not a
leg COMMON to both light courses. Therefore, for LENGTH measurements
M-M was properly designed--with both a TEST course, and a CONTROL
course.

Yes your INFORMATION is being DISRUPTED by your unending use of
RANDOMLY CAPITALIZING WORDS.

Both paths were test paths, dummy. Remember what they were trying to
do - they were trying to observe the effects of the then-supposed
ether. If the ether they had in mind existed, then the path lengths
would be slightly different as the light slows down and speeds up
along the different paths. There would be an effect even if one arm
were perfectly aligned with the Earth's velocity vector.

But when Michelson attempted to measure VELOCITY, as might have
been manifested by the 'slowing' of light by that supposed 'ether
drag', he didn't realize: Velocity changes are measured based on the
WHOLE CIRCUIT TIMES from source to target. Since neither light course
was unaffected by the horizontal rotation of his instrument, then, in
such application, M-M had two TEST courses that always take the
identical TIME to circuit the apparatus. And equal TIMES to circuit
means: there were, or will be, ZERO fringe shifts observed.

Velocity is not being measured - the path length is.

This is rather elementary, why do you write a long post on the subject
while getting a large part of it wrong? You have no experience in
physics, or experimental design. Why don't you find a new hobby?

Eric, if you would take the time to do the simple algebra... as I
keep suggesting, you too can verify the equal times at all azimuths of
the apparatus's rotation. But you are spread so thin (on the groups)
that it is easier just to take pot shots at me and hope I'll get
wounded. Well kid, I'm not only well defended, I'm well armed! So,
why don't you do the math, and do you poo pooing elsewhere. --
NoEinstein --

If the algebra is so simple, and it proves your point so swiftly, why
do you have to keep asking others to do it for you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Loading