> .... ahahahahaha.... AAHAHAHAHA...
> .......ahahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHAHAHA...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" nospAm.hotmail.com>
> who used to call himself
> "Dirk Vd M" ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> but grew embarrassed of that over the years... ahahaha.. & now
>                       ---------- CONSPIRES with ------------
> Lodo Ian Parker gmail.com> who wrote in message
> The
> other point is that people who have been posting against Relativity
> have been doing do for some time. It is not as though they were
> students questioning the foundations of Relativity, looking at the
> evidence and then finding it to be the only possible theory. No the
> structure of the postings indicate something a lot more
> conspiratorial. Thre holy memes are in danger and need a boost.
>
>  Dirk Vdm wrote:
> ...

> The TimeLord wrote:
> By 1905 the first postulate had been shown to be experimentally true in
> that the one type of experiment which was expected to show it to be
> false (the MMX and others) had failed to do so. Lorentz's aether theory
> recognised the experimental truth of the PoR. It is possible that
> Einstein wanted it to be more than that but either way mathematically it
> had been shown to be true - it forms the first postulate.
>
> What Einstein actually did next was to assume that Maxwell's wave in
> aether theory is impeccable (despite having got a Nobel prize for
> demonstrating that the waves of Maxwell's theory do not physically
> exist). If you assume Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable and
> if there is no obvious flaw in the MMX experiment then you interpret the
> MMX experiment as showing that an observer's speed relative to the
> aether is zero. The second postulate simply describes what an observer,
> stationary w.r.t the aether would observe.
>
> The rest of Einstein's 1905 paper is what Waldron calls "clumsy algebra" ...

> strich....@gmail.com a écrit :
>

>> Let us analyze that in detail.
>> Assumption 1: "Gravity is geometry"
>> Assumption 2: "Changes in the gravity geometry propagate at c"

>

>> Two major assumptions.  No evidence whatsoever.  And what else?  From
>> these 2 assumptions, no fruitful advancement in gravity research has
>> been made over the past century.

>
> . Precession of the perihelion of Mercury

> Darwin123 wrote:

>> On Aug 28, 1:00 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>> On Aug 27, 3:05 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> It seems that gravity would have to instantaneous because newtons law
>>> of gravitation requires it to do so.

>
> Netwon's "law of gravity" has been soundly refuted. Several times. So
> it's no basis on which to judge.