1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.PHYSICS.RELATIVITY

  • A Message From Uncle John

    From Jane@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 4 20:21:03 2023
    Anyone who cannot locate the shocking error in Paul Andersen's claimed 'refutation of Emission theory' , seen here:

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf

    or in Michelson's hilarious and obviously faked '1913 moving mirror experiment':

    https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers- Relativity%20Theory/Download/4874

    is a perfect example of the type of scientific ignoramus that still
    believes SR and all its associated crap is somehow true. If you cannot do
    this, you are totally unqualified to post to this or any other Physics NG.

    Both of these experiments were highly influential in promoting SR and are completely wrong. There are thousands of others that include similar
    mistakes.

    So, as uncle would say, 'find the errors or accept that you are an
    incompetent idiot and shut up!'



    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu May 4 14:26:09 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 3:21:06 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    Anyone who cannot locate the shocking error in Paul Andersen's claimed 'refutation of Emission theory' , seen here:

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf

    or in Michelson's hilarious and obviously faked '1913 moving mirror experiment':

    https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers- Relativity%20Theory/Download/4874

    is a perfect example of the type of scientific ignoramus that still
    believes SR and all its associated crap is somehow true. If you cannot do this, you are totally unqualified to post to this or any other Physics NG.

    Both of these experiments were highly influential in promoting SR and are completely wrong. There are thousands of others that include similar mistakes.

    So, as uncle would say, 'find the errors or accept that you are an incompetent idiot and shut up!'

    I am very aware that Michelson's 1913 experiment did not
    disprove all forms of emission theory, and I can undoubtedly
    discuss why it failed to disprove certain variants better than
    you can.

    YOU, however, have yet to demonstrate your knowledge of
    anything at all about the experiment. You are nothing but
    a blowhard.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Thu May 4 23:42:16 2023
    On Thu, 04 May 2023 14:26:09 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 3:21:06 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    Anyone who cannot locate the shocking error in Paul Andersen's claimed
    'refutation of Emission theory' , seen here:

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf

    or in Michelson's hilarious and obviously faked '1913 moving mirror
    experiment':

    https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-
    Relativity%20Theory/Download/4874

    is a perfect example of the type of scientific ignoramus that still
    believes SR and all its associated crap is somehow true. If you cannot
    do this, you are totally unqualified to post to this or any other
    Physics NG.

    Both of these experiments were highly influential in promoting SR and
    are completely wrong. There are thousands of others that include
    similar mistakes.

    So, as uncle would say, 'find the errors or accept that you are an
    incompetent idiot and shut up!'

    I am very aware that Michelson's 1913 experiment did not disprove all
    forms of emission theory, and I can undoubtedly discuss why it failed to disprove certain variants better than you can.

    Rubbish, you have know understanding of basic physics. You cannot
    identify the blatant error. You are a useless waste of space. and my
    uncle would certainly agree.

    YOU, however, have yet to demonstrate your knowledge of anything at all
    about the experiment. You are nothing but a blowhard.

    Does it boost your ego to make statements like that?.. telling a fully qualified and very experienced physicist she is a 'blowhard'. You are
    nothing. You know nothing and never will learn anything about physics.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu May 4 18:34:44 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:42:20 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 04 May 2023 14:26:09 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    YOU, however, have yet to demonstrate your knowledge of anything at all about the experiment. You are nothing but a blowhard.
    Does it boost your ego to make statements like that?.. telling a fully qualified and very experienced physicist

    Don't make me laugh.

    I gave you a link to Pauli's classic book on the Theory of
    Relativity, so that you could at least bring yourself up to the
    year 1921 in your knowledge of ballistic theory. However,
    you refused to bring yourself up to even a 1921 level of
    understanding.

    she is a 'blowhard'. You are
    nothing. You know nothing and never will learn anything about physics.
    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri May 5 23:43:29 2023
    On Thu, 04 May 2023 18:34:44 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:


    Don't make me laugh.

    I gave you a link to Pauli's classic book on the Theory of Relativity,
    so that you could at least bring yourself up to the year 1921 in your knowledge of ballistic theory. However,
    you refused to bring yourself up to even a 1921 level of understanding.

    Why would I want to read a book on Einstein's silly version relativity
    when I already know it has a massive error in the second paragraph?


    -- lover of truth





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri May 5 18:36:26 2023
    On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 4:45:30 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 04 May 2023 18:34:44 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:


    Don't make me laugh.

    I gave you a link to Pauli's classic book on the Theory of Relativity,
    so that you could at least bring yourself up to the year 1921 in your knowledge of ballistic theory. However,
    you refused to bring yourself up to even a 1921 level of understanding.

    Why would I want to read a book on Einstein's silly version relativity
    when I already know it has a massive error in the second paragraph?

    An "error" that you cannot point out... mostly because there *is* no error!

    Show me to be wrong.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri May 5 22:10:40 2023
    On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 4:45:30 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 04 May 2023 18:34:44 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:


    Don't make me laugh.

    I gave you a link to Pauli's classic book on the Theory of Relativity,
    so that you could at least bring yourself up to the year 1921 in your knowledge of ballistic theory. However,
    you refused to bring yourself up to even a 1921 level of understanding.
    Why would I want to read a book on Einstein's silly version relativity
    when I already know it has a massive error in the second paragraph?


    -- lover of truth
    --
    -- lover of truth

    Love to see this massive error, could you please oblige us so we could settle the matter?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Fri May 5 23:31:30 2023
    On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 03:36:28 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 4:45:30 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 04 May 2023 18:34:44 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:


    Don't make me laugh.

    I gave you a link to Pauli's classic book on the Theory of Relativity, so that you could at least bring yourself up to the year 1921 in your knowledge of ballistic theory. However,
    you refused to bring yourself up to even a 1921 level of understanding.

    Why would I want to read a book on Einstein's silly version relativity when I already know it has a massive error in the second paragraph?
    An "error" that you cannot point out... mostly because there *is* no error!

    Show me to be wrong.

    Al, poor halfbrain, his insane mumble was inconsistent,
    it was shown many times here and the only thing you can
    do about it is pretending that you haven't noticed.

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