Prev: Perfectly safe science-fiction, earth heated from outside in?
Next: A repulsive Fifth Interaction regulates the Universe
From: Me, ...again! on 13 Apr 2010 06:46

Empty post?

edited off sci.math

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> .
>
From: Me, ...again! on 13 Apr 2010 06:46

Empty post?

Say, which NG do you hang out on mostly?

edited off sci.math

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> .
>
From: Arindam Banerjee on 13 Apr 2010 07:57
On Apr 13, 8:46 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> Empty post?

Actually, I was showing this as the way to reply to stupid pricks,
such as the kallu-mallu quotawallah, the one corrupt to the core, and
his guru Romanise, the rattiest rat of Gujerat. On the google or IE
you can see the links on the tree, but on some other news server you
may not get the links. Sorry if I have confused you. I usually hang
out at sci and alt.philosophy, rec.arts.books and
soc.culture.bengali.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
From: spudnik on 13 Apr 2010 13:10
just because the Einsteinmaniacs insist -- including
herr doktor-professor E., when he was presented
with an article at his office in Caltech -- that
Michelson and Morley got "null reults," does not mean
that hte principle of relativity is wrong,
Galilean or "Einsteinian." the only criterium
for a phenomenon that needs any thing faster
than teh dystrubance called light, is "science fiction."

> > Everyone  but you takes that for granted. It is implicit in
> > calculations using Galilieoan/Newtonian relative or vector velocities.
> > i.e  Total distance (D +or- d) is proportional to the relative
> > velocity (V +or- v) or the vectorial velocity. .
>
> > Also everyone concedes that the MM  experimental null result does not
> > preclude  that  the speed of light is dependent on the speed of its
> > emitting source but it does not disprove evidence that indicates
> > otherwise.

--Light: A History!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
From: Arindam Banerjee on 13 Apr 2010 18:05
There is a difference between dogma and science, but this is not something
careerists want to understand.

"spudnik" <Space998(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b419dfe8-9b05-4106-948f-6fabdfb5c9e2(a)g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
just because the Einsteinmaniacs insist -- including
herr doktor-professor E., when he was presented
with an article at his office in Caltech -- that
Michelson and Morley got "null reults," does not mean
that hte principle of relativity is wrong,
Galilean or "Einsteinian." the only criterium
for a phenomenon that needs any thing faster
than teh dystrubance called light, is "science fiction."

> > Everyone but you takes that for granted. It is implicit in
> > calculations using Galilieoan/Newtonian relative or vector velocities.
> > i.e Total distance (D +or- d) is proportional to the relative
> > velocity (V +or- v) or the vectorial velocity. .
>
> > Also everyone concedes that the MM experimental null result does not
> > preclude that the speed of light is dependent on the speed of its
> > emitting source but it does not disprove evidence that indicates
> > otherwise.

--Light: A History!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: Perfectly safe science-fiction, earth heated from outside in?
Next: A repulsive Fifth Interaction regulates the Universe