On Apr 22, 12:45*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...
On Apr 21, 7:55 am, "Paul Mays" wrote:



--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...
On Apr 19, 4:51 am, "Paul Mays" wrote:

"Paul Mays" wrote in message

.. .

"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a
wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic
Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to
know
whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because
Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps
as
somewhat quantum string like items. Of course, this still
doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each
and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of
gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting
with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available
gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
. - Brad Guth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc"..

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the
quantum
string like photon. In other words, without the spin of atoms, we
got
nothing.
. - Brad Guth

Well my interpretation Explains why there no need for gravitons to
denote the Causation of Gravity, What specifically light is and why its
detectable as a Wave or Little ball of stuff (Photon), Why its velocity
will always be independent of source or target, and seemingly a
constant..

Yet allows all existing physical rules to remain valid to a
Intrinsically
Biased
observer.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: You're right on all but one point: "The velocity of
emitted (or reflected) light ALWAYS increases or decreases depending
on the velocity and direction of the source or reflecting surface." —
NoEinstein —

No .. A car is going 50mph at a brick wall... if the wall is moving at the
car
at 50 mpg yes the impact comes sooner and with more force but the car
is still doing 50mph..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: Closing velocity is confusing you.

No its not.. Never said a thang bout closing v

Think of a baseball
pitcher on the bow of a boat. *If the boat is going 10 mph, and he
throws a 90 mph fast ball (relative to the boat) in the direction the
boat is headed, the baseball will be increased in speed to 100 mph.
But if the same pitcher throws the ball 90 mph from the stern, the
ball will only be traveling 80 mph relative to the shore. *Light does
EXACTLY the same thing! *— NoEinstein —

Light does not work the same way.. *

Balls don't even work that way. Baseballs and light behave exactly the
same way.
In the ball/boat example, the speed of the thrown ball relative to the
shore is (90 mph + 10 mph) / (1 + (90 mph)(10 mph)/c^2).
In the light/boat case, swap c for the 90 mph of the thrown ball, and
see what you get.

Been validated many,many times.
not even a questional point... *Physics is ruled by the Relitive. * Nothing
has
any velocity without relitive measure to some other moving thing. *When
I spoke of the car the 50mph was Relitive to Ground State. *I could say
the car was the referance and the wall and ground was moving under it at
50mph.. But if the wall was moving at 50mph relitive to ground and the car
at 50mph relitive to ground at each other closing is 100.

Light on the other hand is independent of source or target. As its referance
is the UGC (Universal Gravitational Constant) not matter

--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

On Apr 21, 10:23*pm, wrote:
On Apr 21, 5:12*pm, PD wrote:



On Apr 21, 5:46*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 21, 8:29*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 20, 8:26*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 19, 4:14*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:

"BradGuth" wrote in message

... On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know
whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion..php

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps as
somewhat quantum string like items. *Of course, this still doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
*. - Brad Guth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the quantum
string like photon. *In other words, without the spin of atoms, we got
nothing.
. - Brad Guth

Depends on whos Bias you follow..

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: *"Believing" is the anti-science. *KNOWING is the true
science! *— NoEinstein —

KNOWING is religious faith, NoEinstein. Do you know the difference
between a scientist and a priest?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* :-} -

We seem to be getting someplace, NoEinstein. At first, I got a
detailed response. Then I got an elaborate "PD is a persona non grata
because....". Then I got, "Folks, ignore PD because he's a persona non
grata and you should ignore him." Then I got, "PD is a PNG." Then I
got, "PD = PNG". Now I get " :-}- "

You're gradually catching on. Pretty soon you won't be conversing at
all. You'll just be posting into the void and not answering responses
at all. You'll become as useful as Archimedes Plutonium and
EinsteinHoax, and just as ignored.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Light is the unified force. Electric Magnetic.

And toast burns brightly in the quantum foam.

PD

chazwin wrote:


Light is the possiblity of sight.

Have you ever seen what a megwatt laser can do to 1/4 of steel? That is
some possibility of sight.

Bob Kolker

Huang wrote:

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

You should question what you are told. You should ask "if it is a wave
what is the wave propagating IN". The answer you will get is that modern
physics does not attempt to answer those sorts of question. I feel it
should.



I think that the answer to this question is at hand. In fact, I do.

Probabilistic considerations explain this.


This was only the first of a number of experiments which disproved the
idea that light is a wave. It was eventually discovered that light
consists of particles we call photons and these leave the source and
arrive at their destination unchanged.


Strange that one can prove it a wave, and also a particle.

One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both. One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently.

The aether was originally hypothesised to explain electrostatic and
magnetic action at a distance as at the time magnetic and electrostatic
attraction were seen to defy nature as all other force seemed to require
a "connection rod" to transmit it. Now it is apparent that ALL force
acts at a distance. Even a "connecting rod" at the molecular level acts
'at a distance'. The option is open therefore to simply accept that in
nature all force acts naturally at a distance and therefore requires no
intermediary. If one takes that view then a 'field' is simply the field
of influence of a charge and a field of influence cannot exist without a
source of influence. One of the absurdities of modern physics is the
retention of the idea of an independent field, which used to be a stress
in the aether, having got rid of the aether it was a stress in. Physics
hasn't got rid of the aether at all. All they have done is renamed it
'something in which independent fields can exist'.

If one accepts that there is no aether and that force naturally acts 'at
a distance' without any intermediary then a field is a field of
influence and cannot exist without a source of influence.

Maxwell showed a link between the mathematics of charge and the
mathematics of light therefore there must be a link between photons and
charge.

If light has associated with it fields and if fields can only be 'fields
of influence' then a photon must contain sources of influence i.e. a
photon must contain charge. It has no overall charge so it must have
equal positive and negative charges and it seems logical that these must
be rotating in order to give rise to a field changing at a rate we
associate with frequency.

It seems to me that this is a basis on which one might be able to
explain the wavelike properties produced by photons.

You might sensibly ask how two observers moving with respect to each
other can both be stationary w.r.t the same aether and I can tell you
that there is no sensible answer.


There is a sensible answer to this.
Probabilistic considerations explain this as well.

perhaps you can explain.

This far from sensible assumption
rescues Maxwell's wave in aether theory from the results of the MM
experiment but not from the glaring inconsistency that light is made up
of particles. It has dire consequences. In order to get the right answer
one has to assume that at different speeds a ruler changes its length,
time slows down, and the mass of an object changes. Note that no
physical processes have been identified which could cause a ruler to
change its length etc. These effects are *assumed* to occur in order to
get the answer required having made the absurd assumption embedded in
the second postulate.

What you will be told, and it isn't true, is that Einstein came up with
a theory which doesn't need an aether. Einstein actually argued in
favour of retaining the idea of the aether. An aether which every
observer can be naturally stationary with, is clearly absurd so
physicists got rid of it from their thinking but they did not rethink
how that affected the very basis of relativity. Its removal was not the
result of experiment nor some clever theoretical argument. It was
removed from physics by the totally arbitrary decision taken by
physicists that physics did not need to explain what is going on in
physical terms, that mathematics will suffice. That modern physics does
not attempt to answer those sorts of question.



Agreed. And I dont like it either.



There are now two branches of physics which deal with light and it
depends what question you are asking.

One will tell you that light is an electromagnetic wave because its
properties can be modelled by Maxwell's wave equation. You will be told
that the aether does not exist and nothing has replaced it for light
waves to be physical waves IN. You may be told that it consists of
electromagnetic fields but fields were stresses in the aether and now
there is no aether for them to be stresses in. Because physics no longer
has to explain anything in physical terms it does not have to explain
what a field is made of as long as they can write an equation describing
its properties.

The other branch of physics will tell you that light is made up of
photons but so as not to encroach on the other branch of physics it
claims that photons have no internal structure. Such a structureless
photon cannot explain the wavelike properties of light.

Essentially by retaining a disproved theory Physics has ended up with
two branches which further down the line disagree. Attempts are being
made to unify these two branches by means of highly complicated
mathematics called string theory. According to Stephen Hawking string
theory may succeed in unifying physics if we assume that the universe
has either 10 or 26 dimensions and even then "only if the infinities
cancel" - whatever that means.


I'm not a huge fan of String Theory because it makes no predictions

Physics decided it no longer needs a physical interpretation to
complicate the maths because it wanted to accept a theory which is
physically absurd - SR. Physics no longer tries to understand nature
merely to model it mathematically. In modern physics it is assumed that
it is nature which is weird rather than that physics might have got it
wrong and it is no longer a part of physics remit to try and make sense
of it.

The problem now is that once it is accepted that it is nature which is
cocked up rather than physics which has got it wrong, there really is no
quality assurance criteria. You cannot reject an idea on the basis that
"physics is weird but it cannot be THAT weird" so now anything goes. You
can invent whatever you want to patch up a theory. If you want a
particle to be both massless and massive you invent a Higgs field which
turns a massless particle into a massive one. I understand that parallel
universes are becoming popular - an idea nicked from science fiction.
Virtual photons, which are inherently undetectable and are allowed to
ignore the normal laws of physics provided they hop in and out of
hyperspace quickly enough. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy
invented to prop up a theory because the data didn't fit the theory.



--
John Kennaugh
"If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation I should
have recommended something simpler." Alfonso 'the wise' of Castile

On Apr 22, 9:00*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:


One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.

Why not?

One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently.


A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also
exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird. This does not imply
that the quarter is either a US president or a carnivorous bird. Nor
does it imply that US presidents should exhibit feathers and talons,
nor that birds of prey get elected to federal offices.

PD

In article ,
PD wrote:

One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.

Why not?

Because, in the normal use of those terms, "particle and "wave" are
mutually exclusive, one denoting a physical object and the other
denoting a movement.

Light has wave-like and particle-like properties.

-- Richard
--
:wq

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
news | Huang wrote:
|
| 2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
|
| You should question what you are told. You should ask "if it is a wave
| what is the wave propagating IN". The answer you will get is that
modern
| physics does not attempt to answer those sorts of question. I feel it
| should.
|
|
|
| I think that the answer to this question is at hand. In fact, I do.
|
| Probabilistic considerations explain this.
|
|
| This was only the first of a number of experiments which disproved the
| idea that light is a wave. It was eventually discovered that light
| consists of particles we call photons and these leave the source and
| arrive at their destination unchanged.
|
|
| Strange that one can prove it a wave, and also a particle.
|
| One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
| Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
| that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
| It cannot be both.

I cannot be a father and a cyclist, a diner and an airline passenger,
an engineer and a clerk? You have a strange idea of what cannot be.

Light is a wave and a particle, it can be and it is both.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 22, 9:00 am, John Kennaugh
wrote:


One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.

| Why not?

One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently.


| A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also
| exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird. This does not imply
| that the quarter is either a US president or a carnivorous bird. Nor
| does it imply that US presidents should exhibit feathers and talons,
| nor that birds of prey get elected to federal offices.

Amazing... I actually agree with you for a change. Have you gone
stark raving mad and started thinking for once in your life?

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

On Apr 22, 7:00 am, John Kennaugh
wrote:
Huang wrote:

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

You should question what you are told. You should ask "if it is a wave
what is the wave propagating IN". The answer you will get is that modern
physics does not attempt to answer those sorts of question. I feel it
should.

I think that the answer to this question is at hand. In fact, I do.

Probabilistic considerations explain this.

This was only the first of a number of experiments which disproved the
idea that light is a wave. It was eventually discovered that light
consists of particles we call photons and these leave the source and
arrive at their destination unchanged.

Strange that one can prove it a wave, and also a particle.

One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both. One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently.

The aether was originally hypothesised to explain electrostatic and
magnetic action at a distance as at the time magnetic and electrostatic
attraction were seen to defy nature as all other force seemed to require
a "connection rod" to transmit it. Now it is apparent that ALL force
acts at a distance. Even a "connecting rod" at the molecular level acts
'at a distance'. The option is open therefore to simply accept that in
nature all force acts naturally at a distance and therefore requires no
intermediary. If one takes that view then a 'field' is simply the field
of influence of a charge and a field of influence cannot exist without a
source of influence. One of the absurdities of modern physics is the
retention of the idea of an independent field, which used to be a stress
in the aether, having got rid of the aether it was a stress in. Physics
hasn't got rid of the aether at all. All they have done is renamed it
'something in which independent fields can exist'.

This is nice some sanity


If one accepts that there is no aether and that force naturally acts 'at
a distance' without any intermediary then a field is a field of
influence and cannot exist without a source of influence.

Have you seen my postings where I look at the idea of a relativistic
space ship dragging an anchor by a black hole where the speed of light
is only 1/2 and noting if noting if the cable could not break or the
space ship slow down that it would drag on the entire black hole no
mater how small the anchor.This was because it could be shown that
otherwise it would have resulted in a local speed of light violation
for any observers in the same orbit.
I use this gedanken to point out the idea that everything is somehow
connected.


Maxwell showed a link between the mathematics of charge and the
mathematics of light therefore there must be a link between photons and
charge.


Later thoughts on this and relating it to the quantum vacuum and the
extreme mathematical predictions for the Zero point energy around even
a single nucleus was something like the mass of an entire star that
was so extreme it was rejected let me to the idea that measuring the
zero point energy in this was might turn out to be the same as trying
to weight a single ling in an infinitely long chain stressed
infinitely tightly.In other words could no weight the single lings
without actually weighing the surrounding universe.This analogy is
similar to the one described above with the black hole showing how
everything is linked.
Note some more clues result from the experiments on entangled photons
and how the Casimir effect woks by excluding some wavelengths
suggesting that something similar to quantum entanglement but one that
also effects inertia etc.
What this suggests is that there may be another dimensions where
distances are ignored.So could might mean that their is no aether or
quantum foam but just a dimension that ignores distances or is the
terminology all wrong.Actually to be honest I still don't know what to
think.



If light has associated with it fields and if fields can only be 'fields
of influence' then a photon must contain sources of influence i.e. a
photon must contain charge. It has no overall charge so it must have
equal positive and negative charges and it seems logical that these must
be rotating in order to give rise to a field changing at a rate we
associate with frequency.

It seems to me that this is a basis on which one might be able to
explain the wavelike properties produced by photons.

You might sensibly ask how two observers moving with respect to each
other can both be stationary w.r.t the same aether and I can tell you
that there is no sensible answer.

There is a sensible answer to this.
Probabilistic considerations explain this as well.

perhaps you can explain.



This far from sensible assumption
rescues Maxwell's wave in aether theory from the results of the MM
experiment but not from the glaring inconsistency that light is made up
of particles. It has dire consequences. In order to get the right answer
one has to assume that at different speeds a ruler changes its length,
time slows down, and the mass of an object changes. Note that no
physical processes have been identified which could cause a ruler to
change its length etc. These effects are *assumed* to occur in order to
get the answer required having made the absurd assumption embedded in
the second postulate.

What you will be told, and it isn't true, is that Einstein came up with
a theory which doesn't need an aether. Einstein actually argued in
favour of retaining the idea of the aether. An aether which every
observer can be naturally stationary with, is clearly absurd so
physicists got rid of it from their thinking but they did not rethink
how that affected the very basis of relativity. Its removal was not the
result of experiment nor some clever theoretical argument. It was
removed from physics by the totally arbitrary decision taken by
physicists that physics did not need to explain what is going on in
physical terms, that mathematics will suffice. That modern physics does
not attempt to answer those sorts of question.

Agreed. And I dont like it either.

There are now two branches of physics which deal with light and it
depends what question you are asking.

One will tell you that light is an electromagnetic wave because its
properties can be modelled by Maxwell's wave equation. You will be told
that the aether does not exist and nothing has replaced it for light
waves to be physical waves IN. You may be told that it consists of
electromagnetic fields but fields were stresses in the aether and now
there is no aether for them to be stresses in. Because physics no longer
has to explain anything in physical terms it does not have to explain
what a field is made of as long as they can write an equation describing
its properties.

The other branch of physics will tell you that light is made up of
photons but so as not to encroach on the other branch of physics it
claims that photons have no internal structure. Such a structureless
photon cannot explain the wavelike properties of light.

Essentially by retaining a disproved theory Physics has ended up with
two branches which further down the line disagree. Attempts are being
made to unify these two branches by means of highly complicated
mathematics called string theory. According to Stephen Hawking string
theory may succeed in unifying physics if we assume that the universe
has either 10 or 26 dimensions and even then "only if the infinities
cancel" - whatever that means.

I'm not a huge fan of String Theory because it makes no predictions

Physics decided it no longer needs a physical interpretation to
complicate the maths because it wanted to accept a theory which is
physically absurd - SR. Physics no longer tries to understand nature
merely to model it mathematically. In modern physics it is assumed that
it is nature which is weird rather than that physics might have got it
wrong and it is no longer a part of physics remit to try and make sense
of it.

The problem now is that once it is accepted that it is nature which is
cocked up rather than physics which has got it wrong, there really is no
quality assurance criteria. You cannot reject an idea on the basis that
"physics is weird but it cannot be THAT weird" so now anything goes.

Wow I think you got it right
See the postings on this alternate theory that actually makes sense
and is testable and if you like Occam's razor the theory really does
reduce a lot of complexity and even the mysticism as a bonus.
Mind you you will find more about the theory on my postings than on my
site but at least I got the site started.Its www.alttheories.com
But despite its good logic theory has not caught on,its as if people
are more interested in the source of the info than its quality.I could
rave on more for the humor of it but why bother and will save it for
the site.
Dale

You
can invent whatever you want to patch up a theory. If you want a
particle to be both massless and massive you invent a Higgs field which
turns a massless particle into a massive one. I understand that parallel
universes are becoming popular - an idea nicked from science fiction.
Virtual photons, which are inherently undetectable and are allowed to
ignore the normal laws of physics provided they hop in and out of
hyperspace quickly enough. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy
invented to prop up a theory because the data didn't fit the theory.

--
John Kennaugh
"If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation I should
have recommended something simpler." Alfonso 'the wise' of Castile

On Apr 21, 6:21*pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 21, 5:18*pm, NoEinstein wrote:



My own X-Y-Z interferometer easily detects Earth's movement in the
cosmos. *Einstein himself said that no Earth based experiment could
detect such movement, but he was so WRONG! *— NoEinstein —

Unsupported assertion. You might as well be claiming that you have a
working fusion reactor in your garage that supplies all your heat and
electricity for the winter.

PD

:-} -