XPost: sci.physics.relativity

By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical
theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the
ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to
retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. There was much argument
and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction.

That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a
moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v,
(c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light

His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
explain why when people here have studied it.
I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The
experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's
SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to
disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious.
Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the
same error.





--
-- lover of truth

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 11:05:23 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:

By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the
ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. There was much argument and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction.

That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a
moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v,
(c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light

His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
explain why when people here have studied it.
I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious.
Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the same error.

--
-- lover of truth

And, you do not understand Special Relativity. Everyone goes at SR in the way you go at SR.

Those who actually know SR, what it is, bypass the nonsense you wrote above.

SR is simply all based in Electromagnetic theory. Thrusting a bar magnet through a stationary coil must be the same as thrusting a coil through a stationary bar magnet. If not the same, then you have Newton's absolute reference frames. If the same, then
you have Special Relativity.

Wrap yourself around the idea of the Primary Principle of Physics-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Think always in terms of -- how is this electricity and magnetism.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert Einstein.

Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies
that might stray in here:

By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream.
Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911,
and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations.
Universities were competing over getting him a full professorate.

Einstein was of course invited (by Lorentz)
to attend the first Solvay conference, also in 1911.
All the 'big names' in physics were there.
Do have a look at the photograph and the who is who.
By 1913 there wasn't a professional physicist
who didn't know that Einstein was one of the greats.

The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the
ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to
retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. There was much argument
and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction.

That very same Lorentz, in person, did what he could
to get Einstein as his successor in Leyden in 1912.
Alas, Prague had gotten him first, and Zurich next,
and finally Berlin won.
Leyden did eventually succeed in getting Einstein a professorate
on a part-time basis, for a few weeks at a time.

Lorentz and Einstein became great friends, based on mutual respect,
after their first meeting in person in 1911 at the Solvay conference.

You really should try to get your history right,
(instead of inventing your own)

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 19 April 2023 at 14:05:23 UTC+10, Jane wrote:

By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the
ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to
retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. There was much argument
and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction.

That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a
moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v,
(c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light

His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
explain why when people here have studied it.
I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious.
Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the same error.

--
-- lover of truth

Well, it was not obvious till I pointed it out in 2005.
Everybody had accepted that the nulls were happening because the light speed was invariant, till I pointed out the subtle bungle involved in the analysis of the results.
It is true that SR leads to wrong and bizarre conclusions, and that put off very many, and it was a joke, dismissed as "Jewish science".
The atom bombs gave it credibilty, so nonsense was accepted as the highest sense, giving marvellous scope to the hoaxers, who rule globally to this day.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
c(V)=c+V

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote:

His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
explain why when people here have studied it.

Why not just explain it anyway?

Sylvia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical
theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert
Einstein.

Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might stray in here:

By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream.
Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911,
and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities
were competing over getting him a full professorate.

He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect.

You haven't mentioned the majority of physicists who regarded the whole
thing was nonsense...or the fact that his main opponents Poincare and Ritz
had prematurely died. (probably poisoned by relativists)

Jan

--
-- lover of truth

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote:

His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
explain why when people here have studied it.

Why not just explain it anyway?

There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the publication.
I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist rabble.
The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you.
Can you spot the blatant error?

Sylvia.

--
-- lover of truth

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:15:03 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:

By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical >> theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert >> Einstein.

Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might stray in here:

By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream.
Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911,
and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities
were competing over getting him a full professorate.

He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect.

You haven't mentioned the majority of physicists who regarded the whole thing was nonsense...or the fact that his main opponents Poincare and Ritz had prematurely died. (probably poisoned by relativists)

Jan

--
-- lover of truth

If you have more than one frame to compare
that gives different relative speeds... they both
can't be accurate. What then is the relative
movement of a frame if it is more than from one?

Mitchell Raemsch

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 20-Apr-23 2:08 am, Jane wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote:

His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
explain why when people here have studied it.

Why not just explain it anyway?

There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the publication.
I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist rabble.
The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you.
Can you spot the blatant error?

No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

Sylvia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/19/2023 11:14 AM, Jane wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical
theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert
Einstein.

Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might
stray in here:

By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream.
Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911,
and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities
were competing over getting him a full professorate.

He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect.

This sloppy on your part. When you are hard on others you should
expect similar treatment.

Einstein earned his bachelor's degree in 1900. In 1905 He was awarded
his doctoral degree at the University of Zurich. Neither of these
had anything to do with the photoelectric effect.

The Nobel prize he received did not come with the strength one would
expect given all the hoopla later associated with the man.

"During the selection process in 1921, the Nobel Committee for Physics
decided that none of the year's nominations met the criteria as outlined
in the will of Alfred Nobel."

So:

"According to the Nobel Foundation's statutes, the Nobel Prize can in
such a case be reserved until the following year, and this statute was
then applied. Albert Einstein therefore received his Nobel Prize for
1921 one year later, in 1922."

<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/summary/>

You haven't mentioned the majority of physicists who regarded the whole
thing was nonsense...or the fact that his main opponents Poincare and Ritz had prematurely died. (probably poisoned by relativists)

The particular camp you belong to probably has much to do with how you
see these, and several other, issues related to Einstein. There's plenty
enough narcissism relevant to physics (on all sides) let alone
relativity to go around.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Apr-23 2:08 am, Jane wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote:

His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
explain why when people here have studied it.

Why not just explain it anyway?

There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the publication. I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist rabble. The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you.
Can you spot the blatant error?

No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

Sylvia.

Cat fight!


we're gonna see panites!!!!

Jane wears pink panties...what color are Sylvia's panties???








--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 02:15:03 UTC+10, Jane wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:

By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical
theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert
Einstein.

Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might stray in here:

By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream.
Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911,
and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities
were competing over getting him a full professorate.

He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect.

You haven't mentioned the majority of physicists who regarded the whole
thing was nonsense...or the fact that his main opponents Poincare and Ritz had prematurely died. (probably poisoned by relativists)

I should be careful. Roachie is organising a physicist group to fund assassins to kill me.
Good for me, that the physicists are even more mean than poor, and that assassins have the good sense to ask for proper compensation.
Anyway, killing me would be unnecessary, for quod scripsi, scripsi. (What I have written I have written.)
Now, by what I sense is public demand, I will stray away from physics, done my job there, and write epic prose-poetry. On the lines of "The Son of Hiranyaksh".
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Jan

--
-- lover of truth

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 6:43:48 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Now, by what I sense is public demand, I will stray away from physics, done my job there, and write epic prose-poetry.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 12:20:58 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 6:43:48 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Now, by what I sense is public demand, I will stray away from physics, done my job there, and write epic prose-poetry.

Rotating-head Alsing vomited the pea-soup below:

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out...

I didn't say I would leave sci.physics, Alsing. Your surliness I relish.
What I meant was, my basic work in physics is done, for all I get as reaction to them is snarls from the wannabes and racists/bigots, nothing scientific.
Which means, I have been on the right track, what could be more satisfactory but doing superb engineering, making new reactionless electric motors.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/19/2023 9:20 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 6:43:48 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Now, by what I sense is public demand, I will stray away from physics, done my job there, and write epic prose-poetry.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out...

That wonderful old adage is so suitable here, "better late than never."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:36:23 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 12:20:58 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 6:43:48 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Now, by what I sense is public demand, I will stray away from physics, done my job there, and write epic prose-poetry.

Rotating-head Alsing vomited the pea-soup below:

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out...

I didn't say I would leave sci.physics, Alsing. Your surliness I relish.

Bummer, dude... I was hoping that we had seen the last of you here... since you are clueless about physics and have contributed exactly *zero* to science...

What I meant was, my basic work in physics is done, for all I get as reaction to them is snarls from the wannabes and racists/bigots, nothing scientific.

"Nothing scientific" is exactly what you excel at, Arindam...

Which means, I have been on the right track, what could be more satisfactory but doing superb engineering, making new reactionless electric motors.

Stump-stupid about physics and quite proud of it, that is Arindam...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 12:54:14 UTC+10, whodat wrote:

On 4/19/2023 9:20 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 6:43:48 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Now, by what I sense is public demand, I will stray away from physics, done my job there, and write epic prose-poetry.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out...

That wonderful old adage is so suitable here, "better late than never."

Never say never again, works better, whodumbo.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 13:12:01 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:36:23 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 12:20:58 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 6:43:48 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Now, by what I sense is public demand, I will stray away from physics, done my job there, and write epic prose-poetry.

Rotating-head Alsing vomited the pea-soup below:

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out...

I didn't say I would leave sci.physics, Alsing. Your surliness I relish.

Bummer, dude... I was hoping that we had seen the last of you here... since you are clueless about physics and have contributed exactly *zero* to science...

What a lie, Alsing.
Check out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
About 1 sec of supreme experiment with a new invention is enough to blast all modern and much of conventional physics.
Galileo took a bit longer to show the moons moving around Jupiter.

What I meant was, my basic work in physics is done, for all I get as reaction to them is snarls from the wannabes and racists/bigots, nothing scientific.

"Nothing scientific" is exactly what you excel at, Arindam...

A couple of senior PhDs I know socially lamented that no one knows what science is these days.
Now that is because of the impact of the e=mcc=hv wallahs, who as prolific pernicious polluters power pimps, prostitutes, professors, politicians...
So only the dregs/scums like you, whodumbo, Archie, Moroney, etc. are left for me to play with.
Some fun, what.
The world that has no power now is my constituency. They will have their day, though I may not live to see it.

Which means, I have been on the right track, what could be more satisfactory but doing superb engineering, making new reactionless electric motors.

Stump-stupid about physics and quite proud of it, that is Arindam...

All modern physics is a hoax and conventional physics relating to thermodynamics is dodgy at best.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

On 4/19/2023 11:14 AM, Jane wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical >>> theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert >>> Einstein.

Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might >> stray in here:

By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream.
Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911,
and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities
were competing over getting him a full professorate.

He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect.

This sloppy on your part. When you are hard on others you should
expect similar treatment.

Indeed. Being incompetent in mathematics,
or not understanding Maxwell's equations can happen.
Some people just don't have the brains for those kinds of things.

But there can be no such excuse for falsifying the facts
of well-documented history.
Our 'Jane' entity is not just dumb, it is mean,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 1:31:02 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

On 4/19/2023 11:14 AM, Jane wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:

By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical
theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert
Einstein.

Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might
stray in here:

By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream.
Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911,
and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities >> were competing over getting him a full professorate.

He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect.

This sloppy on your part. When you are hard on others you should
expect similar treatment.

Indeed. Being incompetent in mathematics,
or not understanding Maxwell's equations can happen.
Some people just don't have the brains for those kinds of things.

But there can be no such excuse for falsifying the facts
of well-documented history.

You are the one without the history jan.
Your professors didn't represent Einstein
all of the way... that is how education is
the tyrant... and you rely on it to believe
you are right. You are just another
tyrant in the world of education...
Einstein didn't need it. Look at what
he did at Zurich Polytechnic.
He didn't have to go to class at
that college.


Mitchell Raemsch

Our 'Jane' entity is not just dumb, it is mean,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 10:57:35 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 13:12:01 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:36:23 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 12:20:58 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 6:43:48 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Now, by what I sense is public demand, I will stray away from physics, done my job there, and write epic prose-poetry.

Rotating-head Alsing vomited the pea-soup below:

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out...

I didn't say I would leave sci.physics, Alsing. Your surliness I relish.

Bummer, dude... I was hoping that we had seen the last of you here... since you are clueless about physics and have contributed exactly *zero* to science...

What a lie, Alsing.

It is not a lie, Arindam... anyone with even 2 function neurons can see for themselves that you are uite clueless... and your videos are a complete joke.

The clown who isn't trying to be a clown still makes people laugh, whether he intended to or not.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 15:58:32 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 12:54:14 UTC+10, whodat wrote:

On 4/19/2023 9:20 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 6:43:48 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Now, by what I sense is public demand, I will stray away from physics, done my job there, and write epic prose-poetry.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out...

That wonderful old adage is so suitable here, "better late than never."

Never say never again, works better, whodumbo.

Sorry, E*.devils, I got some insights about the reason for valency from my new physics, so will write about that.
Once the bunkum notions of entropy, relativity and quantum are dispelled, atomic structures and molecular formulations must be revised with electrostatics and electromagnetics.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 21 April 2023 at 10:25:59 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 10:57:35 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 13:12:01 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:36:23 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 12:20:58 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 6:43:48 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Now, by what I sense is public demand, I will stray away from physics, done my job there, and write epic prose-poetry.

Rotating-head Alsing vomited the pea-soup below:

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out...

I didn't say I would leave sci.physics, Alsing. Your surliness I relish.

Bummer, dude... I was hoping that we had seen the last of you here... since you are clueless about physics and have contributed exactly *zero* to science...

What a lie, Alsing.

It is not a lie, Arindam... anyone with even 2 function neurons can see for themselves that you are uite clueless... and your videos are a complete joke.

You are right as by science you mean dogmatic and ridiculous nonsense by scoundrels for fools to adore and pay.

The clown who isn't trying to be a clown still makes people laugh, whether he intended to or not.

E=mcc clowning via Einstein tongues is no longer funny as it is globally accepted, it is risiculous as ever and disastrous too.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Apr-23 2:08 am, Jane wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote:

His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute >>>>>> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will >>>>>> explain why when people here have studied it.

Why not just explain it anyway?

There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the
publication.
I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist
rabble.
The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you.
Can you spot the blatant error?

No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

Sylvia.

Cat fight!

Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Apr-23 2:08 am, Jane wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote:

His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute >>>>> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
explain why when people here have studied it.

Why not just explain it anyway?

There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the publication. >>> I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist rabble. >>> The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you.
Can you spot the blatant error?

No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

Sylvia.

Cat fight!

Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

Sylvia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 08:26:29 UTC+10, whodat wrote:

On 4/28/2023 4:18 PM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:

whodat wrote:

On 4/28/2023 2:28 AM, Jane wrote:

Where is YOUR maths that give you the right and reason to be sceptical >>> about my important observation?

The abuse of maths is the key instrument of the pseudoscientists who now infest all the top paying positions.

Skepticism is the backbone of all science.

The pseudoscientist - that is to say, all modern physicists - is not sceptical about the nonsenses (entropy, relativity, quantum) he preaches. He has converted physics to a religion.

not in mathematics, logic and so on. You can't have skepticism, idiot. I have to leak a wind. Another one. Good morning to you too.

Right. Mathematics and logic are incontrovertible, and so are the key basis for judging what is nonsense and what is not.

Clearly you do not know the definition of "science" that is the
systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and
natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Before that, science is the opinion of a collective of HONEST and knowledgeable people, not frauds with scientific degrees spouting endless nonsenses for career and political-theological reasons.
Unfortunately there is no place for honest people in the world of physics. One has to be a dogmatic fraud, a e=mcc chanting theologian.
But like all evils, this too shall pass, when my internal force engine finally gets developed to travel beyond light speeds, following e=0.5mVVN(N-k), v(final) =NV, c(v)=c+v as fundamental formulas with internal force.

Of course there are more modern definitions that incorporate "social
science" and things like mathematics to the detriment of society not
unlike calling a building janitor or garbage collector an "engineer."

No greater garbage than e=mcc.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote:

On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:

Why not just explain it anyway?

There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the
publication.
I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist
rabble.
The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you.
Can you spot the blatant error?

No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

Sylvia.

Cat fight!

Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper
and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error.





--
-- lover of truth

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/30/2023 7:04 PM, Jane wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote:

On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:

Why not just explain it anyway?

There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the
publication.
I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist
rabble.
The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error?

No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

Sylvia.

Cat fight!

Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper
and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error.

Is that your claim as to how science works? Stupid me, I was led to
believe that a person who found fault with an article that was
published in a peer reviewed journal was supposed to submit and
publish a dissenting article showing the error(s) missed by the
referee(s) in the first instance. The problem with the approach
you're taking is that Usenet, in recent times, has not had
individuals with the technical proficiency to undertake such
reviews and at the same time you've not demonstrated that caliber
of proficiency. If I am mistaken in my assessment then by all
means please show me. BTW, unsubstantiated claims never do the trick.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 01-May-23 2:40 pm, whodat wrote:

On 4/30/2023 11:29 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 01-May-23 10:04 am, Jane wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote:

On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:

Why not just explain it anyway?

There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the >>>>>>>> publication.
I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist >>>>>>>> rabble.
The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error?

No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

Sylvia.

Cat fight!

Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper >>> and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error.

The problem from the perspective of others is that if, as they
suspect, there is no blatant error, then of course they'll never find
it. If they claim to have read the paper, but not found the error,
you'll just disbelieve them, and either claim that they didn't really
read it, or that they are just incapable of spotting a blatant error,
and are therefore not worth bothering with.

They only way to resolve this is for you to state what you claim is
the error. Then others can assess your claim on its merits.

As things stand, your refusal to support your claim looks very odd.

As enticing as your logic is to any rational mind it seems to be
misplaced here. Have you ever had a positive result to your logic
in these Usenet newsgroups? Please bear in mind this is not a
criticism of your attempt(s).

You're right - it's a triumph of hope over experience. Still, it might
work, one day. Perhaps.

Sylvia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 01-May-23 10:04 am, Jane wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote:

On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:

Why not just explain it anyway?

There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the
publication.
I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist
rabble.
The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error?

No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

Sylvia.

Cat fight!

Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper
and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error.

The problem from the perspective of others is that if, as they suspect,
there is no blatant error, then of course they'll never find it. If they
claim to have read the paper, but not found the error, you'll just
disbelieve them, and either claim that they didn't really read it, or
that they are just incapable of spotting a blatant error, and are
therefore not worth bothering with.

They only way to resolve this is for you to state what you claim is the
error. Then others can assess your claim on its merits.

As things stand, your refusal to support your claim looks very odd.

Sylvia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/30/2023 11:29 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 01-May-23 10:04 am, Jane wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote:

On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:

Why not just explain it anyway?

There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the
publication.
I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist >>>>>>> rabble.
The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error?

No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

Sylvia.

Cat fight!

Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper
and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error.

The problem from the perspective of others is that if, as they suspect,
there is no blatant error, then of course they'll never find it. If they claim to have read the paper, but not found the error, you'll just
disbelieve them, and either claim that they didn't really read it, or
that they are just incapable of spotting a blatant error, and are
therefore not worth bothering with.

They only way to resolve this is for you to state what you claim is the error. Then others can assess your claim on its merits.

As things stand, your refusal to support your claim looks very odd.

As enticing as your logic is to any rational mind it seems to be
misplaced here. Have you ever had a positive result to your logic
in these Usenet newsgroups? Please bear in mind this is not a
criticism of your attempt(s).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/30/2023 11:44 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 01-May-23 2:40 pm, whodat wrote:

On 4/30/2023 11:29 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 01-May-23 10:04 am, Jane wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote:

On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:

Why not just explain it anyway?

There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the >>>>>>>>> publication.
I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist >>>>>>>>> rabble.
The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error?

No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

Sylvia.

Cat fight!

Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913
paper
and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error.

The problem from the perspective of others is that if, as they
suspect, there is no blatant error, then of course they'll never find
it. If they claim to have read the paper, but not found the error,
you'll just disbelieve them, and either claim that they didn't really
read it, or that they are just incapable of spotting a blatant error,
and are therefore not worth bothering with.

They only way to resolve this is for you to state what you claim is
the error. Then others can assess your claim on its merits.

As things stand, your refusal to support your claim looks very odd.

As enticing as your logic is to any rational mind it seems to be
misplaced here. Have you ever had a positive result to your logic
in these Usenet newsgroups? Please bear in mind this is not a
criticism of your attempt(s).

You're right - it's a triumph of hope over experience. Still, it might
work, one day. Perhaps.

I wish you well.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)