On May 10, 1:06 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ah, thanks, but > you s t i l l don't get it (nor do most Einsteinmaniacs) that > THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE VACUUM (or "void") > through which light is NOT able to refract ... although > even such a putative void would conform to Snell's law > (its index of refraction being 1.0000..., compared > to air's, like, 1.00000004 (don't recall the number of sig figs). > > Pascal verified this by experiment, and > you would have to know about this, to disproof it, but > you refuse to dod a God-am thing. > > there is tons of mainstream crappola about "zero point energy" > and the vacuum, because of this silly pretense > about an absolute void, which has no substance to it; > no-one has ever found or created one, and > it is strictly impossible. > > > > > an intelligent question?something that 1tree manages to do with > > regularity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
1tree: When you can't win by discussing my New Science, you TRY to win by discussing the maximum velocity of the wind at sea level; the refraction of light by "anything"; or that pet idiot of yours from history, Liebniz. You are like a 78 rpm record stuck in any of those three groves most of the time. Neither history nor Shakespeare can save you, 1tree. Find another hobby, or hang-out 24/7 at the dustiest and darkest pub you can find. ? NoEinstein ?
