Prev: LAPTOP RECOVERY
Next: HOW TO STOP THE ENVIRONMENTAL CASTASTROPHE
From: cosmojoe on 24 May 2010 19:22
Re: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?

By the looks of it, yes. So it was said (Encyclopedia Brittanica 1937),
the advent of relativity required the absence of luminiferous ether, yet
once ether was observed and measured, proponents of relativity claim
that luminiferous ether is accommodated by relativity. So ether way, in
their judgment, relativity is "necessitated", or in the least permitted.
But what about the possibility of Maxwell's field expression operating
quite well in a relativity free inertial region moving near the speed of
light, or a completely relativity free explanation for the aberration of
starlight? Is not then, that simply relativity not essential at all to
the Standard Model, or has a malevolent hoax been committed shackling
mankind to religious doctrine, since all Jewish scientists are religious?
From: cosmojoe on 24 May 2010 19:49
My data is quick simple, overwhelming and unexpected. Actually speeds,
in the vicinity if 300 mps are measured at the body of the apparatus,
not 100,000 miles distant from earth mass, where in between, both before
and aft of the earth's relative motion through the ether, the ether is
compressed and decompressed. Preliminary thesis suggests a ten times
differential between measured and actual, which means we are looking at
speeds around 3,000 mps, rather than 300 mps.

If the earth is traveling behind other ponderable bodies, such as the
moon and the sun, eddy currents could drive these measured observations
into the 10,000 to 20,000 mps range, which is somewhat indicated by one
extreme measurement.

The unexpected measurements are the flock of red vectors directed
towards the galactic center. The expected measurements are the blue
vectors toward 61 Cygni. Ref. zyx2.org
From: Androcles on 24 May 2010 19:53

"cosmojoe" <cosmojoe(a)hawaiiantel.net> wrote in message
news:4BFB0A30.5070900(a)hawaiiantel.net...
| Re: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
|
| By the looks of it, yes.

Yes, but one-speed-of-light-only aerialists like you are just as fraudulent.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/






From: J. Clarke on 24 May 2010 19:58
On 5/24/2010 7:22 PM, cosmojoe wrote:
> Re: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
>
> By the looks of it, yes. So it was said (Encyclopedia Brittanica 1937),
> the advent of relativity required the absence of luminiferous ether, yet
> once ether was observed and measured, proponents of relativity claim
> that luminiferous ether is accommodated by relativity. So ether way, in
> their judgment, relativity is "necessitated", or in the least permitted.
> But what about the possibility of Maxwell's field expression operating
> quite well in a relativity free inertial region moving near the speed of
> light, or a completely relativity free explanation for the aberration of
> starlight? Is not then, that simply relativity not essential at all to
> the Standard Model, or has a malevolent hoax been committed shackling
> mankind to religious doctrine, since all Jewish scientists are religious?

Take a physics class. Maybe you'll meet someone who will buy you a life.

From: jimp on 24 May 2010 20:45
In sci.physics cosmojoe <cosmojoe(a)hawaiiantel.net> wrote:
> Re: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
>
> By the looks of it, yes. So it was said (Encyclopedia Brittanica 1937),
> the advent of relativity required the absence of luminiferous ether, yet
> once ether was observed and measured, proponents of relativity claim
> that luminiferous ether is accommodated by relativity.

1. No "ether" has ever been observed.

2. 2010 - 1937 = 73 years

3. You are an idiot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: LAPTOP RECOVERY
Next: HOW TO STOP THE ENVIRONMENTAL CASTASTROPHE