Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
184 views
Skip to first unread message
NoEinstein
Apr 22, 2012, 1:44:04 PM4/22/12
to
On Apr 18, 7:43 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> I stand by my guns;
> light is not ballistical, at all.
>
>
>
> > the originator of this item also believes that
> > eminem had "null results," but you have changed your story,
> > to attempt to explain them away; good try.
>
> > now, if you can configure a Michelson interferometer, or
> > one of its latter-day emanations, you can get into it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Whoever said that light is ballistic? Your "brain" (ha!) is
stuck in a groove. — NE —
wrote:
> I stand by my guns;
> light is not ballistical, at all.
>
>
>
> > the originator of this item also believes that
> > eminem had "null results," but you have changed your story,
> > to attempt to explain them away; good try.
>
> > now, if you can configure a Michelson interferometer, or
> > one of its latter-day emanations, you can get into it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Whoever said that light is ballistic? Your "brain" (ha!) is
stuck in a groove. — NE —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Apr 23, 2012, 8:28:34 PM4/23/12
to
Your "brain" (ha!) is ballistic!
yeah, sometimes.
yeah, sometimes.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Apr 24, 2012, 12:50:28 AM4/24/12
to
you said or implied that rock was massless rocks
of light-energy, just like newton and Einstin,
two guys that you say, cause the perfect vacuum
(actually, it was Pascal .-)
I don't care about it, either.
of light-energy, just like newton and Einstin,
two guys that you say, cause the perfect vacuum
(actually, it was Pascal .-)
I don't care about it, either.
NoEinstein
Apr 27, 2012, 11:50:48 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 23, 8:28 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> Your "brain" (ha!) is ballistic!
>
> yeah, sometimes.
1tree: I "resemble" that remark, most of the time. — NE —
>
> yeah, sometimes.
NoEinstein
Apr 27, 2012, 11:58:05 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 24, 12:50 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
1tree: Masses give off light, including heat energy, when those get
or have energy. Photons, being only energy, aren't like rocks,
because they can deform around small objects or other photons in their
path. Hard matter, like rocks, isn't forgiving of other masses in the
path. — NE —
wrote:
or have energy. Photons, being only energy, aren't like rocks,
because they can deform around small objects or other photons in their
path. Hard matter, like rocks, isn't forgiving of other masses in the
path. — NE —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Apr 28, 2012, 7:54:38 PM4/28/12
to
yes, but that is because it propogates
in wave-form, not becuase it is pointlike;
polarizability cannot be a characteristic
of "zero-dimensional points."
light is a three-dimensional wavefront,
minimally a quadric surface (such as a sphere;
that is the secret of the lightconeheads,
as well).
yes, you are a smart builder of some buildings, perhaps,
but you have no patience for science (or
*mathematica*, teh four subjects that began all
of science).
in wave-form, not becuase it is pointlike;
polarizability cannot be a characteristic
of "zero-dimensional points."
light is a three-dimensional wavefront,
minimally a quadric surface (such as a sphere;
that is the secret of the lightconeheads,
as well).
yes, you are a smart builder of some buildings, perhaps,
but you have no patience for science (or
*mathematica*, teh four subjects that began all
of science).
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Apr 30, 2012, 7:50:32 PM4/30/12
to
this is very well understood, classically,
viz constructive & destructive interference;
taht's what it *is*.
light has so few qualities,
that not using any one of them is fatal,
such as polarizability.
viz constructive & destructive interference;
taht's what it *is*.
light has so few qualities,
that not using any one of them is fatal,
such as polarizability.
NoEinstein
Apr 30, 2012, 8:48:09 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 28, 7:54 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > path.- Hide quoted text -
1tree, saying errant things about science a million times won't make
anything about light be a wave! If that was so, light would be
incapable of traveling through the etherless Swiss cheese voids
between galaxies. Only photons are happy traveling both in ether and
without ether. Listen and learn. — NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, right—according to a stuck-in-the-groove science amateur.
> - Show quoted text -
1tree, saying errant things about science a million times won't make
anything about light be a wave! If that was so, light would be
incapable of traveling through the etherless Swiss cheese voids
between galaxies. Only photons are happy traveling both in ether and
without ether. Listen and learn. — NE —
NoEinstein
Apr 30, 2012, 8:52:33 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 7:50 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > > path.- Hide quoted text -
narrow diffusion grating slits, I know that photons are flat disk
shapes, like a stack of pancakes—perhaps about 1/4 as high as the
diameter of the pancakes. — NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Because light can be polarized so that none passes through
> - Show quoted text -
narrow diffusion grating slits, I know that photons are flat disk
shapes, like a stack of pancakes—perhaps about 1/4 as high as the
diameter of the pancakes. — NE —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 1, 2012, 12:30:39 AM5/1/12
to
you don't get it (and neither do most Einsteinmaniacs)
that there is no absolute vacuum or "void,"
through which light is unable to refract, although
even such a putative void sould conform to Snell's law,
its index of refraction being 1.0000...;
air's is, like, 1.00000004.
Pascal thought, y'know, and
he verified this by experiment.
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.
that there is no absolute vacuum or "void,"
through which light is unable to refract, although
even such a putative void sould conform to Snell's law,
its index of refraction being 1.0000...;
air's is, like, 1.00000004.
Pascal thought, y'know, and
he verified this by experiment.
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.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 1, 2012, 12:33:04 AM5/1/12
to
how would you possibly have shown this?
this is your problem:
you obviously cannot answer any predicative question
about physics, and more importantly,
cannot ask them.
> Because light can be polarized so that none passes through
> narrow diffusion grating slits, I know that photons are flat disk
> shapes, like a stack of pancakes—perhaps about 1/4 as high as the
> diameter of the pancakes.
thus:
this is your problem:
you obviously cannot answer any predicative question
about physics, and more importantly,
cannot ask them.
> Because light can be polarized so that none passes through
> narrow diffusion grating slits, I know that photons are flat disk
> shapes, like a stack of pancakes—perhaps about 1/4 as high as the
> diameter of the pancakes.
NoEinstein
May 7, 2012, 7:45:55 AM5/7/12
to
> yes, but that is because it propogates
> in wave-form, not becuase it is pointlike;
> polarizability cannot be a characteristic
> of "zero-dimensional points."
>
1tree: WRONG! As I've explained, those supposed (by you) zero-
> in wave-form, not becuase it is pointlike;
> polarizability cannot be a characteristic
> of "zero-dimensional points."
>
dimension points have diameter and a "stack" height probably about 1/4
of the diameter. Being energy instead of matter there is a slight
ability to distort when meeting other photons or tiny dust specks in
space, without deviation from the line of travel. Oh, one photon can
be deviated, alright, but the train of photons keeps the effective
course of the many trains straight. Flowing-ether-caused course
deviations near massive objects are the exception. Even though the
lines in polarizing filters and diffraction gratings are tiny, the
electrical fields extending beyond those lines makes the "window of
passage" even narrower. Photons, hitting, say, water at a low angle
of incidence will skip like rocks on a pond and all will become
polarized. With ordinary light, the photons tumble randomly. That
doesn't prevent "hobo ether" from getting caught inside of these
conveyor belts and being transported back out into space. I know that
that process isn't a perfect means of transport, however, because most
of the hobo ether falls out of the train relatively close to the
massive object. If it didn't fall out, there would be no mass-
proportional ether pool to keep the forces of gravity working. Thank
"God" the hobo ether... jumps train! — NoEinstein —
>
> light is a three-dimensional wavefront,
> minimally a quadric surface (such as a sphere;
> that is the secret of the lightconeheads,
> as well).
>
> yes, you are a smart builder of some buildings, perhaps,
> but you have no patience for science (or
> *mathematica*, teh four subjects that began all
> of science).
>
>
>
> > Photons, being only energy, aren't like rocks,
> > because they can deform around small objects or other photons in their
NoEinstein
May 7, 2012, 8:36:10 AM5/7/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: You couldn't explain constructive and destructive interference
> - Show quoted text -
if your life depended on it. Here is the nutshell: All supposed
reflected light (except low incidence light from, say, glass or water)
is actually the harmonic re-emission—one-half phase later—of a
corresponding photon with the same rate of arrival (except for the
‘friction of reflection’ which causes a slight red shift). The
different electron shells have the ability to re-emit light that is
harmonic with the particular shell, meaning that light of a specific
“color” (or spacing of the photons) will travel into the material
until the right electron shell is impacted. If only light of that one
color or photon spacing arrives, the target, as in an interferometer,
will appear to be whatever was the color of the source light.
A problem happens when light from two sources arrive at the target.
If both of the photon trains are in sync, the light on the target will
stay bright. But if the distances to the target don’t match, then the
energy from the mismatched light source will counteract the energy
from the other light source. To better understand this, consider that
the valance rings of those atoms are like an almost closed box full of
rubber balls. The opening in the box is just big enough so that an
arriving ball (or photon) will pass through the hole and compress the
balls inside. Half a phase later, a rubber ball comes flying out of
the hole. Now suppose that before that ball can get out, that another
out-of-phase ball arrives at the hole in the box, and strikes the ball
trying to get out. Nothing gets out, so the process is completely
negated. On an photonic level light re emission with out-of-phase
sources is a yes or a no situation. The ENERGY of the out-of-phase
portion is saved as heat in the material. So, why is there a gradient
of brightness in the interference fringes? Because the individual
trains of photons do NOT hit all points on the target! There are
billions of photon trains arriving at the target at the same photon
rate, and depending upon the geometric destination, are more likely to
be in phase or out of phase with a particular atom(s) at the point of
incidence. The pin hole or slit at the light source isn’t tiny enough
to stop those billions or trillions of light trains from hitting the
target “in sync” by degrees. — NoEinstein —
Pubkeybreaker
May 7, 2012, 8:46:07 AM5/7/12
to
by repeatedly posting off-topic gibberish to sci.math???
Do you enjoy proving that you are an idiot to the general public?
Hey moron, let me give you a clue:
physics is not math.
Debates over relativity do not belong in sci.math
NoEinstein
May 7, 2012, 8:48:46 AM5/7/12
to
On May 1, 12:30 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > between galaxies.- Hide quoted text -
That is because when the light intensity gets low enough, away from
the major light sources, such as galaxies, the ether is undisturbed
enough to allow the forming of electromagnet lines of flux that
eventually wind into huge meniscuses that can bound the Swiss cheese
voids. Initially, there is dilute ether inside of the voids. But
over very long time periods, the photon trains passing through the
voids will sweep away the IOTAs and allow those to find a place in the
meniscus. The Swiss cheese voids are the super-highways of the
Universe—putting no drag on spacecrafts, which can exceed ‘c’ ten fold
without a problem. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: The Swiss cheese voids between galaxies are devoid of ether.
> - Show quoted text -
That is because when the light intensity gets low enough, away from
the major light sources, such as galaxies, the ether is undisturbed
enough to allow the forming of electromagnet lines of flux that
eventually wind into huge meniscuses that can bound the Swiss cheese
voids. Initially, there is dilute ether inside of the voids. But
over very long time periods, the photon trains passing through the
voids will sweep away the IOTAs and allow those to find a place in the
meniscus. The Swiss cheese voids are the super-highways of the
Universe—putting no drag on spacecrafts, which can exceed ‘c’ ten fold
without a problem. — NoEinstein —
Kent
May 9, 2012, 6:28:59 PM5/9/12
to
just say, Duh, thank you.
> anything about light be a wave! If that was so, light would be
> incapable of traveling through the etherless Swiss cheese voids
> between galaxies. Only photons are happy traveling both in ether and
> without ether. Listen ot the chorus line.
> anything about light be a wave! If that was so, light would be
> incapable of traveling through the etherless Swiss cheese voids
> between galaxies. Only photons are happy traveling both in ether and
Kent
May 9, 2012, 6:29:39 PM5/9/12
to
you don't get it (and neither do most Einsteinmaniacs)
that there is no absolute vacuum or "void,"
through which light is unable to refract, although
even such a putative void sould conform to Snell's law,
its index of refraction being 1.0000...;
air's is, like, 1.00000004.
Pascal thought, y'know, and
he verified this by experiment.
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.
that there is no absolute vacuum or "void,"
through which light is unable to refract, although
even such a putative void sould conform to Snell's law,
its index of refraction being 1.0000...;
air's is, like, 1.00000004.
Pascal thought, y'know, and
he verified this by experiment.
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.
Kent
May 9, 2012, 6:31:53 PM5/9/12
to
Kent
May 9, 2012, 6:31:32 PM5/9/12
to
you would be hard-pressed to "do physics
wihtout any *mathematica*, but
that is four subjects, at minimum.
> physics is not math.
wihtout any *mathematica*, but
that is four subjects, at minimum.
> physics is not math.
NoEinstein
May 9, 2012, 10:05:27 PM5/9/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Dunce: Sci.math is where idiots go to think they are smart. I
> - Show quoted text -
have posted there only once or twice hoping to get some Good Will
Hunting mentality to be willing to calculate the number of fringe
shifts between interferences pulses in my X, Y & Z interferometer.
The pulses are caused by the disparity in the lengths of the TEST
light course vs. the CONTROL light course. Here is the link to my
explanation of that problem:
X, Y and Z Interferometer Update
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/61234425e16ac83b/dbee87a96b7c1ee8?hl=en#dbee87a96b7c1ee8
It that one is too hard for you, Dunce, why not see if you can write
two or more algebraic equations for the TIMES of travel of two exactly
aligned (out-of-the-gate) photons traveling the two separate courses
of the M-M experiment. I'll bet you don't know enough math to do
that. Nor where you smart enough to realize that E = mc^2 and KE =
1/2 mv^2 both violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy. I'll bet
you never realized that no ENERGY equation can be anything other than
additive, NEVER exponential—so as to get OUT more energy than was put
IN. If you or any other Dunce are teaching science or math, resign
immediately. Your non-existent services to true science are certainly
not needed!!
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
— NoEinstein —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 9, 2012, 10:26:32 PM5/9/12
to
apparently, you can't believe that "ernergy is associated
with a power law, because hte math is too hard."
that's a paraphase; no amount of proclamation of your own greatness,
the giganticness of your shoulder, is going to help you
to convince anyone who is a working engineer.
this has been validated for centuries, since Liebniz wrote ut "up."
with a power law, because hte math is too hard."
that's a paraphase; no amount of proclamation of your own greatness,
the giganticness of your shoulder, is going to help you
to convince anyone who is a working engineer.
this has been validated for centuries, since Liebniz wrote ut "up."
NoEinstein
May 9, 2012, 10:27:06 PM5/9/12
to
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Kent: B. S.! Ether NURTURES light on its course and NEVER
refracts it! Why do you suppose that light can stay coherent enough
over billions of years of travel to still allow forming distinct
images? If the ether could refract light, that would happen at the
meniscus boundaries of the Swiss cheese voids. But the light keeps
going straight though the voids and the ether spaces with equal
facility. Find another hobby. You don't have the smarts to even pose
an intelligent question—something that 1tree manages to do with
regularity. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 9, 2012, 10:19:33 PM5/9/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kent: How about saying Duh, no thank you? The Einstein family maid
> - Show quoted text -
called Albert, who didn't speak his first word until after age two,
“the DOPY One”. Einstein flunked out of H. S. and his father had to
bribe his way into college. His intellect was so poor that he had to
mouth the words of any statement before he could even speak. And his
speaking speed was about 1/2 of normal. In order to "seem" smart he
memorized a lot of quotes of others and said those on many occasions.
He specialized in physics, because that subject had so few who knew
anything, that Albert figured there would be less chance people could
prove him wrong. Though he lived in the USA for decades, his English
was so poor that he had to write his "books" in German. I've read the
word-for-word translation from the German back to English, and each of
the short chapters have a different writing style—proving that he
PLAGIARIZED everything. So, Kent, wouldn't you suppose that Albert,
with an IQ no greater than 85, would be someone likely to say: DUH? —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 9, 2012, 10:29:08 PM5/9/12
to
—
NoEinstein
May 9, 2012, 10:30:47 PM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 6:31 pm, Kent <kentron...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Kent: Where do you plagiarize your stupidity? Ha, ha, HA! — NE
> - Show quoted text -
—
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 10, 2012, 1:07:05 AM5/10/12
to
** yours, Silly.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 10, 2012, 1:06:18 AM5/10/12
to
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.
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.
palsing
May 10, 2012, 11:29:32 AM5/10/12
to
NoEinstein
May 13, 2012, 5:42:22 AM5/13/12
to
On May 9, 6:31 pm, Kent <kentron...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Kent: You fail even as a pedant want-a-bee. Ha, ha, HA! — NE —
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
May 13, 2012, 5:51:47 AM5/13/12
to
On May 9, 10:26 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > 1/2 mv^2 both violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy.- Hide quoted text -
did he rightly use his latest theory to wipe his poor ass. Ha, ha,
HA! For any of you serious readers out there, about the 1st half of
this longest running sci.physics post was my shooting-down 1tree's
virtual OBSESSION with some guy named Liebniz. I have no intention of
starting up that God Damned debate with 1tree, again Sorry, guy, but
you've alrady lost that exchange, big time! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Liebniz WHO? Didn't they have garbage cans in his day? Or
> - Show quoted text -
did he rightly use his latest theory to wipe his poor ass. Ha, ha,
HA! For any of you serious readers out there, about the 1st half of
this longest running sci.physics post was my shooting-down 1tree's
virtual OBSESSION with some guy named Liebniz. I have no intention of
starting up that God Damned debate with 1tree, again Sorry, guy, but
you've alrady lost that exchange, big time! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 13, 2012, 5:57:56 AM5/13/12
to
On May 10, 1:07 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> ** yours, Silly.
1tree: What, now you're a starving proctologist? I've upped every
argument you ever made about anything to do with science. Go back to
'The Globe'; those who go in circles tend to like theatre-in-the-
round. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
> ** yours, Silly.
1tree: What, now you're a starving proctologist? I've upped every
argument you ever made about anything to do with science. Go back to
'The Globe'; those who go in circles tend to like theatre-in-the-
round. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 13, 2012, 6:06:39 AM5/13/12
to
On May 10, 1:06 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > regularity.- Hide quoted text -
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 —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: When you can't win by discussing my New Science, you TRY to
> - Show quoted text -
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 —
NoEinstein
May 13, 2012, 6:12:53 AM5/13/12
to
messenger, because your rubber-tipped arrows won't reach more than 50
feet up my personal science hill, where I am the KING. If there are
any doubters regarding my supremacy, describe the underling(s) you
suppose could best me in any area. — NoEinstein —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 16, 2012, 12:23:26 AM5/16/12
to
"fuck Liebniz" is not an argument;
just try to convince a working engineer of your "disproof,"
or rather, of your hairball scheme with the falling balls.
just try to convince a working engineer of your "disproof,"
or rather, of your hairball scheme with the falling balls.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 16, 2012, 12:20:37 AM5/16/12
to
that was just a "toy problem" (or gedanken experiment), but
your neinstein science is unable to make any prediction, whatever,
as far as *anyone* can see (but, I am hte only one,
who is even looking).
your neinstein science is unable to make any prediction, whatever,
as far as *anyone* can see (but, I am hte only one,
who is even looking).
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 16, 2012, 10:27:55 AM5/16/12
to
yeah, I won, and until you can give any kind of answer, or
supply your own question of a quantifiable nature,
you are "up Shitz Creek without a paddle."
supply your own question of a quantifiable nature,
you are "up Shitz Creek without a paddle."
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 16, 2012, 10:30:14 AM5/16/12
to
folks make fun of us, proctologists, til they need one.
as for Shakespeare, you need his help with your English,
more than I do.
as for Shakespeare, you need his help with your English,
more than I do.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 16, 2012, 10:32:58 AM5/16/12
to
> "kiss my butt" is not an argument;
> or rather, of your screwball scheme with the falling balls.
specifically, your assumption about the linearity
of the deformation of clay.
> just try to convince a working engineer of your "disproof
> of Liebniz's *vis viva*,"
> or rather, of your screwball scheme with the falling balls.
specifically, your assumption about the linearity
of the deformation of clay.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 17, 2012, 12:05:16 AM5/17/12
to
probably even more important, would be some "classical
reading" of some "classical German," if
that is your mother tongue. my only suggestion,
there, is a contemporary of Shakespeare, Schiller
(there are more busts of Schiller in the USA
-- http://www.schillerinstitute.org/ --
than any other person, or foreigner, or some thing, although
he may possibly have been superceded by Mao).
> as for Shakespeare, you need his help with your English,
> more than I do.
thus:
probably, they dare say that, because
they are not familiar with the NOAA datum
on the "non-decreasing heighth of the three big icesheets,"
as I put it in math-proofy terms.
integrate that with the GRACE data, and the decreasing rate
of (apparent) sealevel rise.
> They have
> stated that more than half a trillion tons of long-period ice is
> lost every year without reforming. Oh, how DARE they?!
thus:
no matter how much of a kludge,
Miskolczi's toy model really is,
it is essenitally equivalent to the datum
of the paucity of the CO2 abosprtive spectrum -- tiny,
compared to H2O's.
of course, the Big Poster of All Radiation probably needs
to be updated; I can think of one, offhand, as well
as the whole topic of Raman spectroscopy, and
probably cast new realms of spectroscopy.
that I've never even heard of.
thus:
I read the weekly of the AGU, alot, and it is not as you say;
as a matter of fact, I just, again, referenced a nice survey
of glacial moraines, which does not allow
for the usual chicken little thing of "egadz --
the sky is glowing," as it does, every six months,
when you get your annual "hole in the ozonosphere,"
which first truly became a known unkown
during the IGY, '57-9, when Dobson et Nicole set-out
their little dobsonometers (units of dobsons,
not the church of the subgenius .-)
> > Royal Society web site, the American Geophysical Union web site.
thus:
a) CO2 increase -- check (although it's much more variable,
historically, although this is probably due to human influence,
and thus really local to cities);
b) melting ice caps, North, South, Iceland -- no check; no-one has,
yet,
diputed my NOAA datum about their "non-decreaasing hieghth;"
c) melting glaciers -- no check; for much the same reasons, although
local factors viz deforestation are clearly far more important,
than for the three big caps, which may be *fed* by those factors,
viz a really nice survey of the cycles of surging of glaciers
of various types, based on studying the moraines etc.;
d) sealevel rise -- no check; name-calling at Morner, no dice --
he is a totally mainstream student of the Quaternary Period;
thank you, and carry on.
> the physics is pretty compelling...
reading" of some "classical German," if
that is your mother tongue. my only suggestion,
there, is a contemporary of Shakespeare, Schiller
(there are more busts of Schiller in the USA
-- http://www.schillerinstitute.org/ --
than any other person, or foreigner, or some thing, although
he may possibly have been superceded by Mao).
> as for Shakespeare, you need his help with your English,
> more than I do.
probably, they dare say that, because
they are not familiar with the NOAA datum
on the "non-decreasing heighth of the three big icesheets,"
as I put it in math-proofy terms.
integrate that with the GRACE data, and the decreasing rate
of (apparent) sealevel rise.
> They have
> stated that more than half a trillion tons of long-period ice is
> lost every year without reforming. Oh, how DARE they?!
thus:
no matter how much of a kludge,
Miskolczi's toy model really is,
it is essenitally equivalent to the datum
of the paucity of the CO2 abosprtive spectrum -- tiny,
compared to H2O's.
of course, the Big Poster of All Radiation probably needs
to be updated; I can think of one, offhand, as well
as the whole topic of Raman spectroscopy, and
probably cast new realms of spectroscopy.
that I've never even heard of.
thus:
I read the weekly of the AGU, alot, and it is not as you say;
as a matter of fact, I just, again, referenced a nice survey
of glacial moraines, which does not allow
for the usual chicken little thing of "egadz --
the sky is glowing," as it does, every six months,
when you get your annual "hole in the ozonosphere,"
which first truly became a known unkown
during the IGY, '57-9, when Dobson et Nicole set-out
their little dobsonometers (units of dobsons,
not the church of the subgenius .-)
> > Royal Society web site, the American Geophysical Union web site.
thus:
a) CO2 increase -- check (although it's much more variable,
historically, although this is probably due to human influence,
and thus really local to cities);
b) melting ice caps, North, South, Iceland -- no check; no-one has,
yet,
diputed my NOAA datum about their "non-decreaasing hieghth;"
c) melting glaciers -- no check; for much the same reasons, although
local factors viz deforestation are clearly far more important,
than for the three big caps, which may be *fed* by those factors,
viz a really nice survey of the cycles of surging of glaciers
of various types, based on studying the moraines etc.;
d) sealevel rise -- no check; name-calling at Morner, no dice --
he is a totally mainstream student of the Quaternary Period;
thank you, and carry on.
> the physics is pretty compelling...
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 17, 2012, 12:09:00 AM5/17/12
to
hogwash; thank you. or,
did you escape from a German gymnasium at the age of seven?
did you escape from a German gymnasium at the age of seven?
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 17, 2012, 4:08:18 PM5/17/12
to
and, if you can find an engineer who says that
such deformations are linear, that would be strange;
no-one with any chops in any field of engineering
would say such a thing.
such deformations are linear, that would be strange;
no-one with any chops in any field of engineering
would say such a thing.
NoEinstein
May 17, 2012, 9:52:33 PM5/17/12
to
On May 7, 8:46 am, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 1:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 7:43 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I stand by my guns;
> > > light is not ballistical, at all.
>
> > > > the originator of this item also believes that
> > > > eminem had "null results," but you have changed your story,
> > > > to attempt to explain them away; good try.
>
> > > > now, if you can configure a Michelson interferometer, or
> > > > one of its latter-day emanations, you can get into it.- Hide quoted text -
> On Apr 22, 1:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 7:43 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I stand by my guns;
> > > light is not ballistical, at all.
>
> > > > the originator of this item also believes that
> > > > eminem had "null results," but you have changed your story,
> > > > to attempt to explain them away; good try.
>
> > > > now, if you can configure a Michelson interferometer, or
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > 1tree: Whoever said that light is ballistic? Your "brain" (ha!) is
> > stuck in a groove. — NE —
>
> Is there something that compels you to display your idiocy in public
> by repeatedly posting off-topic gibberish to sci.math???
>
> Do you enjoy proving that you are an idiot to the general public?
>
> Hey moron, let me give you a clue:
>
> physics is not math.
>
> Debates over relativity do not belong in sci.math- Hide quoted text -
> > stuck in a groove. — NE —
>
> Is there something that compels you to display your idiocy in public
> by repeatedly posting off-topic gibberish to sci.math???
>
> Do you enjoy proving that you are an idiot to the general public?
>
> Hey moron, let me give you a clue:
>
> physics is not math.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear P.: Can't you read? This is sci.astro, but I didn't post,
> - Show quoted text -
there. Someone must have realized that my New Science is the science
of the STARS. No one explains the Universe better than yours truly!
— NE —
NoEinstein
May 17, 2012, 10:02:49 PM5/17/12
to
On May 16, 12:23 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
physics behind my $40.00 falling ball experiment a hundred times. But
you either can't or won't learn. Read the link below to understand
the SCIENCE behind my invalidation of KE = 1/2 mv^2 that has graced
science texts for nearly two centuries. 1tree, YOUR science
accomplishments are? Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
wrote:
> "fuck Liebniz" is not an argument;
> just try to convince a working engineer of your "disproof,"
> or rather, of your hairball scheme with the falling balls.
Dear 1tree, the stuck-in-the-groove dunce: I've explained the correct
> just try to convince a working engineer of your "disproof,"
> or rather, of your hairball scheme with the falling balls.
physics behind my $40.00 falling ball experiment a hundred times. But
you either can't or won't learn. Read the link below to understand
the SCIENCE behind my invalidation of KE = 1/2 mv^2 that has graced
science texts for nearly two centuries. 1tree, YOUR science
accomplishments are? Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
NoEinstein
May 17, 2012, 10:10:41 PM5/17/12
to
On May 16, 12:20 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > win by discussing the maximum velocity of the wind at sea level;- Hide quoted text -
academia will have so much EGG on their faces, because of my New
Science, that their value as a "food source" will exceed their never-
was-there value for education. For starters: CLOSE 90% of the
supposed institutions of "higher learning"; the WORLD is being ripped-
off by our non-functioning systems of education! You heard it here,
first. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear 1tree: I "predict" that most who are teaching physics in
> - Show quoted text -
academia will have so much EGG on their faces, because of my New
Science, that their value as a "food source" will exceed their never-
was-there value for education. For starters: CLOSE 90% of the
supposed institutions of "higher learning"; the WORLD is being ripped-
off by our non-functioning systems of education! You heard it here,
first. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 17, 2012, 10:14:40 PM5/17/12
to
On May 16, 10:30 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> folks make fun of us, proctologists, til they need one.
>
> as for Shakespeare, you need his help with your English,
> more than I do.
1tree: And your point of science is? — NE —
>
> as for Shakespeare, you need his help with your English,
> more than I do.
NoEinstein
May 17, 2012, 10:13:22 PM5/17/12
to
On May 16, 10:27 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
as though they are going somewhere. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
> yeah, I won, and until you can give any kind of answer, or
> supply your own question of a quantifiable nature,
> you are "up Shitz Creek without a paddle."
>
>
>
> > > win by discussing the maximum velocity of the wind at sea level- Hide quoted text -
> supply your own question of a quantifiable nature,
> you are "up Shitz Creek without a paddle."
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Losers like you don't win, they just keep running in circles
> - Show quoted text -
as though they are going somewhere. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 17, 2012, 10:35:20 PM5/17/12
to
On May 16, 10:32 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
1tree: NO, NO, NO!!!!! I have NEVER said that deformation of the
clay is linear!!!!! What I have said is: Equal size but different
weight balls striking the SAME bed of soft clay SHOULD embed equally
if Coriolis's 1830 kinetic energy equation provides the heights of
drop such that both balls will impact the clay with identical kinetic
energy (according to his now proved errant formula). His equation
underestimates the KE during the first approximate 2.75 seconds of
fall and greatly exaggerates the KE after that, because the correct
equation, my own KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m), is linear rather than
exponential. Note: I'm saying that the KE increases linearly, or one
weight unit of force per second of fall; and NOT saying that the
penetration into soft clay is linear. Soft clay can only gage the
equality of KE of equal size balls, NOT the quantify the KE based on
the depth of penetration! I must have explained this to senile you
two dozen times, 1tree. Find yourself a good rocking chair and give-
up science as a hobby. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
clay is linear!!!!! What I have said is: Equal size but different
weight balls striking the SAME bed of soft clay SHOULD embed equally
if Coriolis's 1830 kinetic energy equation provides the heights of
drop such that both balls will impact the clay with identical kinetic
energy (according to his now proved errant formula). His equation
underestimates the KE during the first approximate 2.75 seconds of
fall and greatly exaggerates the KE after that, because the correct
equation, my own KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m), is linear rather than
exponential. Note: I'm saying that the KE increases linearly, or one
weight unit of force per second of fall; and NOT saying that the
penetration into soft clay is linear. Soft clay can only gage the
equality of KE of equal size balls, NOT the quantify the KE based on
the depth of penetration! I must have explained this to senile you
two dozen times, 1tree. Find yourself a good rocking chair and give-
up science as a hobby. — NoEinstein —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 17, 2012, 10:30:23 PM5/17/12
to
you are not the biggest a-hole in Universe. I mean,
theoretically!
theoretically!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 17, 2012, 10:32:26 PM5/17/12
to
Newton's fucking balls, Neinstein;
where did you prove the linearity of the deformation of the clay?
> I've explained the correct
> physics behind my $40.00 falling ball experiment a hundred times.
you really like youreslf all over the God-am facebook,
i'm sure.
where did you prove the linearity of the deformation of the clay?
> I've explained the correct
> physics behind my $40.00 falling ball experiment a hundred times.
i'm sure.
NoEinstein
May 17, 2012, 10:44:24 PM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 12:05 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > the physics is pretty compelling...- Hide quoted text -
mechanical engineering on a grand scale can remedy. I know how to
"air-condition" the world! And folks can drive their gas powered cars
right up Obama's backside, because correcting the CO^2 need not be
done in order to correct the symptoms of G. W.! — NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Quit plagiarizing! Global warming is a problem that
> - Show quoted text -
mechanical engineering on a grand scale can remedy. I know how to
"air-condition" the world! And folks can drive their gas powered cars
right up Obama's backside, because correcting the CO^2 need not be
done in order to correct the symptoms of G. W.! — NE —
NoEinstein
May 17, 2012, 10:53:53 PM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 12:09 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > PLAGIARIZED everything.- Hide quoted text -
English is a Germanic language with a more northen European linage.
That is positive. But it is negative that Germans (including
Einstein) could be dumb enough to cause TWO world wars simply because
their perceived leaders told them that they should. It will take at
least four generations before the "sins of the fathers" can be
forgiven. I, for one, will never forgive the Germans nor the
Japanese. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: To call someone a German is both a compliment and an insult.
> - Show quoted text -
English is a Germanic language with a more northen European linage.
That is positive. But it is negative that Germans (including
Einstein) could be dumb enough to cause TWO world wars simply because
their perceived leaders told them that they should. It will take at
least four generations before the "sins of the fathers" can be
forgiven. I, for one, will never forgive the Germans nor the
Japanese. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 17, 2012, 10:55:49 PM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 4:08 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > of the deformation of clay.- Hide quoted text -
before. Sad, very sad. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Get some rest; your mind doesn't recall what you wrote minutes
> - Show quoted text -
before. Sad, very sad. — NoEinstein —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 18, 2012, 3:57:14 PM5/18/12
to
the point is, if you really need a proctologist,
don't call an engineer.
the other point is that you could be in hte largest class
of what folks online generally refer to as "cranks,"
that are simply folks who are stuck between two languages,
usually not at all litereate in hte "mother tongue"
-- although you say, that you can read German;
can you write it? --
and are only halfway literate in English (say, because
that is the only case that I know about,
being essentially monolingual), although
you may be able to type like a God-am secretary.
I'm just stating an additional hypothesis, that
"crankery" could mostly be a linguistic problem,
whether or not it really applies
to your so-called thoery of everything,
which doen't look like anything, at all.
supposedly, you are a well-to-de architect, but
that is not a "necessary & sufficient condition
to be able to do any math or physics."
> And your point of science is?
and, I might add, "necessary & sufficient" or
"if and only if" or just "iff," is the criterium
for "proof" that was stated by Liebniz; so, theresville.
don't call an engineer.
the other point is that you could be in hte largest class
of what folks online generally refer to as "cranks,"
that are simply folks who are stuck between two languages,
usually not at all litereate in hte "mother tongue"
-- although you say, that you can read German;
can you write it? --
and are only halfway literate in English (say, because
that is the only case that I know about,
being essentially monolingual), although
you may be able to type like a God-am secretary.
I'm just stating an additional hypothesis, that
"crankery" could mostly be a linguistic problem,
whether or not it really applies
to your so-called thoery of everything,
which doen't look like anything, at all.
supposedly, you are a well-to-de architect, but
that is not a "necessary & sufficient condition
to be able to do any math or physics."
> And your point of science is?
"if and only if" or just "iff," is the criterium
for "proof" that was stated by Liebniz; so, theresville.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 18, 2012, 4:00:35 PM5/18/12
to
if I keep-on trying to debate with you
-- who refuses to answer any question
about his God-am theory of every thing --
that would appear to be an accurate assessment!
-- who refuses to answer any question
about his God-am theory of every thing --
that would appear to be an accurate assessment!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 18, 2012, 4:19:55 PM5/18/12
to
also, if you really need an engineer,
stop calling a God-am proctologist!
stop calling a God-am proctologist!
NoEinstein
May 20, 2012, 1:39:47 PM5/20/12
to
> folks make fun of us, proctologists, til they need one.
>
> as for Shakespeare, you need his help with your English,
> more than I do.
1tree: "The Globe" is for your escape, not your cure. — NE —
>
> as for Shakespeare, you need his help with your English,
> more than I do.
NoEinstein
May 20, 2012, 1:38:19 PM5/20/12
to
> yeah, I won, and until you can give any kind of answer, or
> supply your own question of a quantifiable nature,
> you are "up Shitz Creek without a paddle."
>
>
>
> > > win by discussing the maximum velocity of the wind at sea level- Hide quoted text -
> supply your own question of a quantifiable nature,
> you are "up Shitz Creek without a paddle."
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Creeks I can wade Who needs a canoe? Ha, ha, HA! — NE —
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
May 20, 2012, 1:42:03 PM5/20/12
to
explained my dropped ball experiment on this group dozens of times. —
NE —
NoEinstein
May 20, 2012, 1:44:18 PM5/20/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: My being blond and blue-eyed would have made Hitler proud.
> - Show quoted text -
But my being SMART would have made Hitler dead! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 20, 2012, 1:49:54 PM5/20/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: You have no "chops" in any field at all, do you. Numbers of
> - Show quoted text -
times I said that we need to put the responsibility for solving world
problems into the hands of inventors and engineers. The last ones we
should defer to about ANYTHING are politicians and airhead, academic
scientists like Hawking and Cookoo KaKu. Understand? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 20, 2012, 1:53:31 PM5/20/12
to
On May 17, 10:30 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
enough so that you or others think like that, then my New Science is
starting to catch fire! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
> you are not the biggest a-hole in Universe. I mean,
> theoretically!
>
>
>
> > No one explains the Universe better than yours truly!- Hide quoted text -
> theoretically!
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Thanks for the compliment! If I can rattle the status quo
> - Show quoted text -
enough so that you or others think like that, then my New Science is
starting to catch fire! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 20, 2012, 2:09:09 PM5/20/12
to
On May 17, 10:32 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
1tree: If you could only READ, you would understand that I have NEVER
said deformation of clay from falling objects can measure the quantity
of KE. What I said was: Equal deformations of same size, but
different WEIGHT balls will indicate when the drop heights of those
two balls will cause their kinetic energies to match. Since the drop
heights determined by Coriolis's 1830 equation, KE = 1/2 mv^2, don't
cause equal embedments in soft clay, then the KEs were not equal.
That easy to verify experiment invalidates Coriolis's nearly two
century old equation AND disproves Einstein's SRT—which was based on
Coriolis's errant equation and on Newton's errant F = ma as well as
his errant g = 32.174 feet per second SQUARE. Note: NO ENERGY
EQUATION CAN BE EXPONENTIAL WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LAW OF THE
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY! I, an architect, knew that fact, while not a
single PhD in physics for the last two centuries has known such a
simple truth. That is why I am the greatest scientist to ever live on
planet Earth! (Extraterrestrials not considered in the claim.) —
NoEinstein —
wrote:
said deformation of clay from falling objects can measure the quantity
of KE. What I said was: Equal deformations of same size, but
different WEIGHT balls will indicate when the drop heights of those
two balls will cause their kinetic energies to match. Since the drop
heights determined by Coriolis's 1830 equation, KE = 1/2 mv^2, don't
cause equal embedments in soft clay, then the KEs were not equal.
That easy to verify experiment invalidates Coriolis's nearly two
century old equation AND disproves Einstein's SRT—which was based on
Coriolis's errant equation and on Newton's errant F = ma as well as
his errant g = 32.174 feet per second SQUARE. Note: NO ENERGY
EQUATION CAN BE EXPONENTIAL WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LAW OF THE
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY! I, an architect, knew that fact, while not a
single PhD in physics for the last two centuries has known such a
simple truth. That is why I am the greatest scientist to ever live on
planet Earth! (Extraterrestrials not considered in the claim.) —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 20, 2012, 2:15:27 PM5/20/12
to
On May 18, 3:57 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
1tree: I read the word-for-word TRANSLATION from the German, not the
German writing itself. Einstein got ghost writers to "smooth up" his
language. Those writers are called "translators", when they should
have been called co-conspirators to FRAUD. When MORONS like Einstein
are considered by average and below people to be geniuses, the world
is quickly going to the DOGS. — NoEinstein —,\
wrote:
German writing itself. Einstein got ghost writers to "smooth up" his
language. Those writers are called "translators", when they should
have been called co-conspirators to FRAUD. When MORONS like Einstein
are considered by average and below people to be geniuses, the world
is quickly going to the DOGS. — NoEinstein —,\
NoEinstein
May 20, 2012, 2:31:27 PM5/20/12
to
On May 18, 4:19 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I mean that sincerely. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
> also, if you really need an engineer,
> stop calling a God-am proctologist!
1tree: You know what? You are sometimes a big pain-in-the-ass. And
> stop calling a God-am proctologist!
I mean that sincerely. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 20, 2012, 2:29:34 PM5/20/12
to
On May 18, 4:00 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > as though they are going somewhere.- Hide quoted text -
problem is that you evaluate science by the lame-brain assumption that
the quantity of everything must be spelled out. Know this: If the
SCIENCE is correct, the quantity of anything need not be known in
order to explain the entire Universe! "Quantities" are arguing-points
between airhead, armchair scientists who wouldn't recognize a TRUTH in
science if it hit them over the head like a 2 x 4! — NoEinstein —
P. S.: My KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m) correctly predicts the height
of drop to cause the KE of a small clevis pin to match the inertia
(weight) of a larger, suspended clevis pin. I knew the correct theory
beforehand, but did the experiment and made the height calculations
just to satisfy fools such as you. What have YOU ever done for
science, 1tree? Ha, ha. HA!
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817
Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a
NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849
NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7
There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en&
PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en&
Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9
A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing
Shedding New Light on Comet Tails
http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b40de4f?...
What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082ccdb7b1bf67/0eb5a96f57493f20?lnk=raot
Busting MythBusters.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e95660ecf69048d/ae6c137610ee3437?hl=en#ae6c137610ee3437
Gravity Effects Across Etherless Regions of Space.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7f59b900f24e881/38262930c6655db1?hl=en#38262930c6655db1
Where is the matter Einstein says velocity creates?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/85646434c6d7cd3b/fa38761134ee8408?hl=en#fa38761134ee8408
Dropping Coriolis like a feather.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/182d6fbe7e70b75f/21c92e2427fd7e98?hl=en#21c92e2427fd7e98
Busting MythBusters… again.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/b9e0c340772c003f?hl=en
SRT Demands Energy in Amounts that Aren’t Available.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/b1e62f3e355fb626?hl=en#
The Spaghetti-fication of the Brains of the Naïve.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f254a0888104090c?hl=en
Mythbusters’ Merry-go-round
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/6105670c690f3987/720f7f9871f38c1c?hl=en#720f7f9871f38c1c
True Science is hampered by the culture of stupidity.
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4239b858b10cb1e4?hl=en#
X, Y and Z Interferometer Update
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/61234425e16ac83b/dbee87a96b7c1ee8?hl=en#dbee87a96b7c1ee8
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: The "answers" to your questions are being given, daily. The
> - Show quoted text -
problem is that you evaluate science by the lame-brain assumption that
the quantity of everything must be spelled out. Know this: If the
SCIENCE is correct, the quantity of anything need not be known in
order to explain the entire Universe! "Quantities" are arguing-points
between airhead, armchair scientists who wouldn't recognize a TRUTH in
science if it hit them over the head like a 2 x 4! — NoEinstein —
P. S.: My KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m) correctly predicts the height
of drop to cause the KE of a small clevis pin to match the inertia
(weight) of a larger, suspended clevis pin. I knew the correct theory
beforehand, but did the experiment and made the height calculations
just to satisfy fools such as you. What have YOU ever done for
science, 1tree? Ha, ha. HA!
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817
Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a
NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849
NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7
There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en&
PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en&
Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9
A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing
Shedding New Light on Comet Tails
http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b40de4f?...
What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082ccdb7b1bf67/0eb5a96f57493f20?lnk=raot
Busting MythBusters.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e95660ecf69048d/ae6c137610ee3437?hl=en#ae6c137610ee3437
Gravity Effects Across Etherless Regions of Space.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7f59b900f24e881/38262930c6655db1?hl=en#38262930c6655db1
Where is the matter Einstein says velocity creates?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/85646434c6d7cd3b/fa38761134ee8408?hl=en#fa38761134ee8408
Dropping Coriolis like a feather.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/182d6fbe7e70b75f/21c92e2427fd7e98?hl=en#21c92e2427fd7e98
Busting MythBusters… again.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/b9e0c340772c003f?hl=en
SRT Demands Energy in Amounts that Aren’t Available.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/b1e62f3e355fb626?hl=en#
The Spaghetti-fication of the Brains of the Naïve.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f254a0888104090c?hl=en
Mythbusters’ Merry-go-round
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/6105670c690f3987/720f7f9871f38c1c?hl=en#720f7f9871f38c1c
True Science is hampered by the culture of stupidity.
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4239b858b10cb1e4?hl=en#
X, Y and Z Interferometer Update
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/61234425e16ac83b/dbee87a96b7c1ee8?hl=en#dbee87a96b7c1ee8
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 22, 2012, 8:37:13 PM5/22/12
to
well, you asked for it.
> > you are not the biggest a-hole in Universe. I mean,
> > theoretically!
> Thanks for the compliment!
> > you are not the biggest a-hole in Universe. I mean,
> > theoretically!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 22, 2012, 8:41:13 PM5/22/12
to
it does not invalidate any of the experiments,
that were quite a bit more careful, than yours.
as I have stated,
when you take the written test for a driver's license,
there is a heuristic formula
fro "braking from different speeds,
which is totally nonlinear."
oh, but Neinstien9999 insists
that "Ford was wrong!"
that were quite a bit more careful, than yours.
as I have stated,
when you take the written test for a driver's license,
there is a heuristic formula
fro "braking from different speeds,
which is totally nonlinear."
oh, but Neinstien9999 insists
that "Ford was wrong!"
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 22, 2012, 8:47:33 PM5/22/12
to
good news; PSA tests are no longer indicated. so,
this basically means that so are digital exams.
great; now I don't have to pretend not to mind,
dooing that ****. butt, iff
you still must have it done,
it'll be extra!
this basically means that so are digital exams.
great; now I don't have to pretend not to mind,
dooing that ****. butt, iff
you still must have it done,
it'll be extra!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 23, 2012, 11:23:07 AM5/23/12
to
so, if you can't read German,
"how do you draw your mad conclusion, sir?"
"how do you draw your mad conclusion, sir?"
NoEinstein
May 24, 2012, 10:37:24 AM5/24/12
to
On May 23, 11:23 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
been installing my third in a group computer, sharing two monitors.
My space is tight and the wiring lengths never ideal. Out-of-the-box
Windows 7 seems like it is intended for recreation, not serious work.
Why do so many things, that are supposed to be an improvement, go back
to the stone age? I will delete most of the junk and install programs
for serious people, not computer neophytes like Windows 7 is
apparently aiming for. As if the world didn't have enough problems,
"computer gaming" is wasting the minds and bodies of should-be adults
and kids who like playing anything better than work. I say: Cut out
the games, sports and playing; and reduce public education for AVERAGE
people to age 16. By the time smart people are age 18 they should
already have their bachelors degree. When people start seeing work as
a better use of time than play, maybe there can be hope that those
looking for free lunches will not be fighting to be on the public
dole. In my mind, when SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM are promulgated as a
"next election" choice, those responsible should be hanged for TREASON—
starting with B. H. O!
That short book that I read at my public library was credited as being
the word-for-word TRANSLATION from the German of Einstein's book. (I
don't care to go look up the title). Later, I read the same book that
was credited as having a "translator" but not mentioning word-for-
word. In the latter the five word sentences of the MORON were
combined and fluffed out with an adjective or two. Einstein had a
maximum 85 to 90 I. Q. He talked at one half of normal speed, and
couldn't say a thing with out a 10 or 15 second pause to "think" (a
non sequitur) what to say. His mentor was Lorentz, a drunk. Is there
any doubt that science is so screwed up? And so few wish to go into
that field? — NoEinstein —
wrote:
> so, if you can't read German,
> "how do you draw your mad conclusion, sir?"
>
>
>
> > I read the word-for-word TRANSLATION from the German, not the
> > German writing itself.- Hide quoted text -
> "how do you draw your mad conclusion, sir?"
>
>
>
> > I read the word-for-word TRANSLATION from the German, not the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear 1tree: Sorry for my longer than usual delay in replying. I have
> - Show quoted text -
been installing my third in a group computer, sharing two monitors.
My space is tight and the wiring lengths never ideal. Out-of-the-box
Windows 7 seems like it is intended for recreation, not serious work.
Why do so many things, that are supposed to be an improvement, go back
to the stone age? I will delete most of the junk and install programs
for serious people, not computer neophytes like Windows 7 is
apparently aiming for. As if the world didn't have enough problems,
"computer gaming" is wasting the minds and bodies of should-be adults
and kids who like playing anything better than work. I say: Cut out
the games, sports and playing; and reduce public education for AVERAGE
people to age 16. By the time smart people are age 18 they should
already have their bachelors degree. When people start seeing work as
a better use of time than play, maybe there can be hope that those
looking for free lunches will not be fighting to be on the public
dole. In my mind, when SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM are promulgated as a
"next election" choice, those responsible should be hanged for TREASON—
starting with B. H. O!
That short book that I read at my public library was credited as being
the word-for-word TRANSLATION from the German of Einstein's book. (I
don't care to go look up the title). Later, I read the same book that
was credited as having a "translator" but not mentioning word-for-
word. In the latter the five word sentences of the MORON were
combined and fluffed out with an adjective or two. Einstein had a
maximum 85 to 90 I. Q. He talked at one half of normal speed, and
couldn't say a thing with out a 10 or 15 second pause to "think" (a
non sequitur) what to say. His mentor was Lorentz, a drunk. Is there
any doubt that science is so screwed up? And so few wish to go into
that field? — NoEinstein —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 24, 2012, 4:29:34 PM5/24/12
to
his mentor was not Lorentz, but Minkowski,
who cameup with the bizaare slogan about space
and time being equivalent, based solely
upon putting a "time line" on a piece of paper;
then, he died at teh age of only 43.
any other stupid conclusions,
based upon slim translations or popularizations?
your "audience" is sitting, here,
at this terminal.
who cameup with the bizaare slogan about space
and time being equivalent, based solely
upon putting a "time line" on a piece of paper;
then, he died at teh age of only 43.
any other stupid conclusions,
based upon slim translations or popularizations?
your "audience" is sitting, here,
at this terminal.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 24, 2012, 4:33:55 PM5/24/12
to
tee-hee.
> > > you are not the biggest a-hole in Universe. I mean,
> > > theoretically ... insofar as I am only acquainted
with *some* of Universe, you are the biggest a-hole *that
I know-of*, at least as regards either physics, or
as regards "math-phobia -- yeah;
I couldn't do quadratic equations --completing
the God-am regular tetragon-- in middleschool,
so I dropped out ... and became a great archiect/
inventor/fizzyqist!"
> > Thanks for the compliment!
> > > you are not the biggest a-hole in Universe. I mean,
with *some* of Universe, you are the biggest a-hole *that
I know-of*, at least as regards either physics, or
as regards "math-phobia -- yeah;
I couldn't do quadratic equations --completing
the God-am regular tetragon-- in middleschool,
so I dropped out ... and became a great archiect/
inventor/fizzyqist!"
> > Thanks for the compliment!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 24, 2012, 5:08:34 PM5/24/12
to
but, of course, you already know this, iff
you have ever driven a car with manual brakes,
doctor Flintstone.
anyway, here is the main "point" that I will make
on your behalf; if you don't get it,
after this, you are on your own:
between any two data-points,
it is very easy to draw a linear relationship, although,
of course, the relationship might not be linear,
given three data-points.
> a heuristic formula for "braking from different speeds,
> which is not linear."
you have ever driven a car with manual brakes,
doctor Flintstone.
anyway, here is the main "point" that I will make
on your behalf; if you don't get it,
after this, you are on your own:
between any two data-points,
it is very easy to draw a linear relationship, although,
of course, the relationship might not be linear,
given three data-points.
> a heuristic formula for "braking from different speeds,
> which is not linear."
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 25, 2012, 5:51:10 PM5/25/12
to
hey; it should be called the FtFl,
the faster than Fred lemma.
> given three data-points.
the faster than Fred lemma.
> given three data-points.
NoEinstein
May 28, 2012, 4:15:22 PM5/28/12
to
> the point is, if you really need a proctologist,
> don't call an engineer.
>
1tree: Engineers try to avoid s... whenever possible.
> don't call an engineer.
>
>
> the other point is that you could be in hte largest class
> of what folks online generally refer to as "cranks,"
> that are simply folks who are stuck between two languages,
> usually not at all litereate in hte "mother tongue"
> -- although you say, that you can read German;
> can you write it? --
> and are only halfway literate in English (say, because
> that is the only case that I know about,
> being essentially monolingual), although
> you may be able to type like a God-am secretary.
>
1tree: My New Science is just simple and verified truths. "Your"
> the other point is that you could be in hte largest class
> of what folks online generally refer to as "cranks,"
> that are simply folks who are stuck between two languages,
> usually not at all litereate in hte "mother tongue"
> -- although you say, that you can read German;
> can you write it? --
> and are only halfway literate in English (say, because
> that is the only case that I know about,
> being essentially monolingual), although
> you may be able to type like a God-am secretary.
>
science is just semantics and devotion to the now disproven status
quo. Thanks for the compliment that I write like a secretary!
Writing is something I do a lot of, so I should be good at it. It
doesn't hurt that I am also very, very smart! — NE —
>
> I'm just stating an additional hypothesis, that
> "crankery" could mostly be a linguistic problem,
> whether or not it really applies
> to your so-called thoery of everything,
> which doen't look like anything, at all.
>
> supposedly, you are a well-to-de architect, but
> that is not a "necessary & sufficient condition
> to be able to do any math or physics."
>
1tree: Tell that to those who never graduated in architecture! I know
> I'm just stating an additional hypothesis, that
> "crankery" could mostly be a linguistic problem,
> whether or not it really applies
> to your so-called thoery of everything,
> which doen't look like anything, at all.
>
> supposedly, you are a well-to-de architect, but
> that is not a "necessary & sufficient condition
> to be able to do any math or physics."
>
that the Law of the Conservation of Energy/Mass requires that the
Energy/Mass IN must = the Energy/Mass OUT. That simple statement,
that is NOT of my creation, requires that ALL ENERGY EQUATIONS BE
ADDITIVE, never exponential! Simply by applying my intellect, I have
disproved Einstein's moronic SRT and Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2, using
an EXISTING equation. There are NO proofs anywhere that a single
equation that Einstein ever wrote is backed up by anything other than
utter stupidity!!!!! — NE —
NoEinstein
May 28, 2012, 4:22:40 PM5/28/12
to
> also, if you really need an engineer,
> stop calling a God-am proctologist!
1tree: Fortunately, I haven't had much need for either. Because I
> stop calling a God-am proctologist!
majored in what used to be called Architectural Engineering, I know
enough about most areas of engineering (except chemical) to get by. —
NE —
NoEinstein
May 28, 2012, 4:26:21 PM5/28/12
to
On May 22, 8:37 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> well, you asked for it.
>
>
>
> > > you are not the biggest a-hole in Universe. I mean,
> > > theoretically!
> > Thanks for the compliment!- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
> > > you are not the biggest a-hole in Universe. I mean,
> > > theoretically!
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah? Well you just GOT it! — NE —
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
May 28, 2012, 4:40:33 PM5/28/12
to
On May 22, 8:41 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
1tree: What? My New Science is so PURE that I don't need to be
making predictions about things that have so many variables as to be
outside of the realm of science (but not outside of simple
mensuration). If you want to know the stopping distances of Fords,
get some Fords and make actual timed and taped experiments. Such
things can satisfy one’s curiosity. But there is no requirement that
stopping distances be predicted by any “pure science” equation. Note:
Empirical equations based on observations are NOT pure science. If
not for the many precise measurements of the location of the planet
Mercury in orbiting the sun, Einstein never could have written his
ADDITIVE and empirical GRT equations that he fraudulently claimed were
the result of his thought processes, alone. Any "Good Will Hunting"
mathematician worth his salt could have written, in just three months,
what it took Einstein, the MORON, ten years to write! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
making predictions about things that have so many variables as to be
outside of the realm of science (but not outside of simple
mensuration). If you want to know the stopping distances of Fords,
get some Fords and make actual timed and taped experiments. Such
things can satisfy one’s curiosity. But there is no requirement that
stopping distances be predicted by any “pure science” equation. Note:
Empirical equations based on observations are NOT pure science. If
not for the many precise measurements of the location of the planet
Mercury in orbiting the sun, Einstein never could have written his
ADDITIVE and empirical GRT equations that he fraudulently claimed were
the result of his thought processes, alone. Any "Good Will Hunting"
mathematician worth his salt could have written, in just three months,
what it took Einstein, the MORON, ten years to write! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 28, 2012, 4:41:48 PM5/28/12
to
On May 22, 8:47 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > You are sometimes a big pain-in-the-ass.- Hide quoted text -
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: You "brain" is fixated in the WRONG place! — NE —
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
May 28, 2012, 4:20:21 PM5/28/12
to
On May 18, 4:00 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> if I keep-on trying to debate with you
> -- who refuses to answer any question
> about his God-am theory of every thing --
> that would appear to be an accurate assessment!
>
>
>
> > they just keep running in circles
> > as though they are going somewhere.- Hide quoted text -
wrote:
> if I keep-on trying to debate with you
> -- who refuses to answer any question
> about his God-am theory of every thing --
> that would appear to be an accurate assessment!
>
>
>
> > they just keep running in circles
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: The only "question" you've asked is: "What is the maximum
> - Show quoted text -
velocity of sound at sea level?" You imply that I am skirting your
issues when, in actuality, I am simply pointing out that your ideas
about true science are all wet. — NE —
NoEinstein
May 28, 2012, 4:49:15 PM5/28/12
to
> so, if you can't read German,
> "how do you draw your mad conclusion, sir?"
>
>
>
> > I read the word-for-word TRANSLATION from the German, not the
> > German writing itself.- Hide quoted text -
> "how do you draw your mad conclusion, sir?"
>
>
>
> > I read the word-for-word TRANSLATION from the German, not the
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: If the direct translation from the German shows Einstein had a
> - Show quoted text -
20 word vocabulary, he had only a twenty word vocabulary! Admittedly,
some of the plagiarized portions were a little better, but not by
much. As A WRITER, I can easily detect changes in writing style.
Every single chapter of Einstein's books has a different writing
style, so I know he plagiarized the vast majority of what he wrote. —
NE —
NoEinstein
May 30, 2012, 7:19:02 AM5/30/12
to
On May 7, 8:46 am, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 1:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 7:43 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I stand by my guns;
> > > light is not ballistical, at all.
>
> > > > the originator of this item also believes that
> > > > eminem had "null results," but you have changed your story,
> > > > to attempt to explain them away; good try.
>
> > > > now, if you can configure a Michelson interferometer, or
> > > > one of its latter-day emanations, you can get into it.- Hide quoted text -
> > stuck in a groove. — NE —
>
> Is there something that compels you to display your idiocy in public
> by repeatedly posting off-topic gibberish to sci.math???
>
> Do you enjoy proving that you are an idiot to the general public?
>
> Hey moron, let me give you a clue:
>
> physics is not math.
>
> Debates over relativity do not belong in sci.math- Hide quoted text -
IDIOT has on the KING of the science hill! Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
> On Apr 22, 1:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 7:43 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I stand by my guns;
> > > light is not ballistical, at all.
>
> > > > the originator of this item also believes that
> > > > eminem had "null results," but you have changed your story,
> > > > to attempt to explain them away; good try.
>
> > > > now, if you can configure a Michelson interferometer, or
> > > > one of its latter-day emanations, you can get into it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > 1tree: Whoever said that light is ballistic? Your "brain" (ha!) is
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > stuck in a groove. — NE —
>
> Is there something that compels you to display your idiocy in public
> by repeatedly posting off-topic gibberish to sci.math???
>
> Do you enjoy proving that you are an idiot to the general public?
>
> Hey moron, let me give you a clue:
>
> physics is not math.
>
> Debates over relativity do not belong in sci.math- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks, isn't it amazing how little effect the bluster of a science
> - Show quoted text -
IDIOT has on the KING of the science hill! Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
May 30, 2012, 7:51:16 AM5/30/12
to
and has mostly been, my personal post, I resent having "1tree" or any
other near idiot rename the post so as to imply that I have EVER
supposed that clay deformation is a linear measure of anything. I've
been replying on these groups for about six years, now, and I haven't
seen how some NUTS are able to change the title of posts. Is this
something the "anti-human-race" GOOGLE people are doing? Know this:
I have NEVER stated nor implied that clay deformation, nor the
stopping distances of Fords is linear. Isn't there ONE intelligent
person among you readers who will stand up for science TRUTHS? Or
must I continue to do that all by myself? What I write about my New
Science is NOT being said for anyone's entertainment. If all you
readers are doing is sitting on your fat asses, then the WORLD is
loosing one of its greatest resources: My ability to solve many of the
world’s major problems, because of my one-in-a-billion intellect. I
don't want to sound like a sad sack, but it seems that teenage retards
who can bounce a basketball off of their hard heads and into a stupid
hoop get much more interest from the general public (millions of hits)
than my new science, that could beckon the survival of the human
race. Yes, that means YOUR grandchildren and their grandchildren (if
they survive). Why are so many BLIND to the promise that I hold for
humanity? Get off of your love of being entertained, folks! When you
are dying from radiation poisoning, the bouncing of God-damned stupid
basketballs won't matter too much, will it. — NoEinstein —
palsing
May 30, 2012, 11:46:08 AM5/30/12
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 1, 2012, 12:43:52 PM6/1/12
to
could get a bad sunburn, dood.
changing the title of an item is a feature,
at least of the googolplex front-end to these groups;
I changed it to reflect the worst/simplest problem
of your bazaar theory of every thing, but
you can change it to some thing else,
with a good attitude!
changing the title of an item is a feature,
at least of the googolplex front-end to these groups;
I changed it to reflect the worst/simplest problem
of your bazaar theory of every thing, but
you can change it to some thing else,
with a good attitude!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 1, 2012, 12:45:54 PM6/1/12
to
but, Pubkey never made any such grandiose/delusional/flakey claim;
did he?
he's a regular in sci.math, just like me, because
we actually "like *mathematica*,
which is four subjects, at minimum,
none of which you are even aware of.
did he?
he's a regular in sci.math, just like me, because
we actually "like *mathematica*,
which is four subjects, at minimum,
none of which you are even aware of.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 1, 2012, 12:51:49 PM6/1/12
to
good question; Gauss could have solved it, but
he's a dead European astrophysicist.
we don't really know,
what *your* problem is.
he's a dead European astrophysicist.
we don't really know,
what *your* problem is.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 1, 2012, 12:56:22 PM6/1/12
to
I haven't done it, but I'm sure that "braking distance"
is just a matter of mvv, and of static & dynamic coefficients
of friction for a)
brake pad materials, and b)
tire & road materials.
the point is that it cannot be linear.
> mathematician worth his salt could have written, in just three months,
> what it took Einstein, the MORON, ten years to write!
so, how long have we, two, been at this?
is just a matter of mvv, and of static & dynamic coefficients
of friction for a)
brake pad materials, and b)
tire & road materials.
the point is that it cannot be linear.
> mathematician worth his salt could have written, in just three months,
> what it took Einstein, the MORON, ten years to write!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 1, 2012, 12:50:00 PM6/1/12
to
interesting hypothesis, boring assertion of your "method,"
because herr doctor-professor E. was a product
of a typical German gymnasium. at least,
we know he *tried* to learn some of Euclid,
which includes two of the elements of *mathematica*.
now, I challenge you to read twenty words per day
of Shakespeare; call it,
the homeopathic way of English as a Seccond Language.
because herr doctor-professor E. was a product
of a typical German gymnasium. at least,
we know he *tried* to learn some of Euclid,
which includes two of the elements of *mathematica*.
now, I challenge you to read twenty words per day
of Shakespeare; call it,
the homeopathic way of English as a Seccond Language.
NoEinstein
Jun 2, 2012, 4:26:14 AM6/2/12
to
On May 24, 4:29 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > any doubt that science is so screwed up?- Hide quoted text -
airhead who would reply. When Lorentz wrote his "Beta" factor: (1 -
v^2/c^2)^1/2, and Einstein chose to use that "logic" to form his space-
time ideas AND to finalize his GRT, empirical equations, I would say
that Lorentz, the drunkard, was more of a mentor to Einstein than any
other IDIOT you can name. Nice try in your vain attempts to discredit
me, however. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear 1tree: Einstein was a science GROUPIE who corresponded with any
> - Show quoted text -
airhead who would reply. When Lorentz wrote his "Beta" factor: (1 -
v^2/c^2)^1/2, and Einstein chose to use that "logic" to form his space-
time ideas AND to finalize his GRT, empirical equations, I would say
that Lorentz, the drunkard, was more of a mentor to Einstein than any
other IDIOT you can name. Nice try in your vain attempts to discredit
me, however. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Jun 2, 2012, 4:29:30 AM6/2/12
to
On May 24, 4:33 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > > Thanks for the compliment!- Hide quoted text -
armchair physicist on this group? Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: And what did you become after middle school, the shallowest
> - Show quoted text -
armchair physicist on this group? Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Jun 2, 2012, 4:40:23 AM6/2/12
to
NE —
NoEinstein
Jun 2, 2012, 4:50:03 AM6/2/12
to
On Jun 1, 12:43 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > basketballs won't matter too much, will it.- Hide quoted text -
understanding what I write, and less time committing FRAUD with your
constant renaming of MY replies, the world would be a better place.
If you like having people see how creative you are (or aren't), please
name and list all of your '+ new posts' on this news group—if you have
any. Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: If you would spend more time actually reading and
> - Show quoted text -
understanding what I write, and less time committing FRAUD with your
constant renaming of MY replies, the world would be a better place.
If you like having people see how creative you are (or aren't), please
name and list all of your '+ new posts' on this news group—if you have
any. Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Jun 2, 2012, 4:35:54 AM6/2/12
to
On May 24, 5:08 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > which is not linear."- Hide quoted text -
stopping distances of ANYTHING are linear????? Your continuing to
make that assertion is one or both of the following: You are totally
senile. Or you are a total lying bastard! Know this fellow: Do not
suppose to refute any of my New Science or you will never be invited
to one of my King's banquets at the top of my science hill! Ha, ha,
HA! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Very profound! When have I ever said that the God Damned
> - Show quoted text -
stopping distances of ANYTHING are linear????? Your continuing to
make that assertion is one or both of the following: You are totally
senile. Or you are a total lying bastard! Know this fellow: Do not
suppose to refute any of my New Science or you will never be invited
to one of my King's banquets at the top of my science hill! Ha, ha,
HA! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Jun 2, 2012, 4:37:17 AM6/2/12
to
On May 25, 5:51 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> hey; it should be called the FtFl,
> the faster than Fred lemma.
>
>
>
> > given three data-points.- Hide quoted text -
> the faster than Fred lemma.
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Come again? — NE —
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
Jun 2, 2012, 4:57:03 AM6/2/12
to
On Jun 1, 12:45 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > IDIOT has on the KING of the science hill!- Hide quoted text -
have not required my reading a single science text or becoming
fascinated with a single airhead from the past. All of my
contributions to science result from applying simple logic to the
interpretation of the Universe. My off-the-charts IQ and analytical
abilities allow me to use teleological projection (seeing the unseen
by reasoning) to figure out how the universe is ordered. And your
contribution to science is? — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: As you should know by now, my many contributions to science
> - Show quoted text -
have not required my reading a single science text or becoming
fascinated with a single airhead from the past. All of my
contributions to science result from applying simple logic to the
interpretation of the Universe. My off-the-charts IQ and analytical
abilities allow me to use teleological projection (seeing the unseen
by reasoning) to figure out how the universe is ordered. And your
contribution to science is? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Jun 2, 2012, 5:01:04 AM6/2/12
to
On Jun 1, 12:51 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > "What is the maximum velocity of sound at sea level?"- Hide quoted text -
the maximum wind speed is at sea level????? Apparently, the only
thing that will make a math nut like you happy is to have a series of
long equations to predict everything that most people have no need to
know. Why are you so fixated, 1tree? — NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: As Reagan said, "There you go, again!" Who gives a damn what
> - Show quoted text -
the maximum wind speed is at sea level????? Apparently, the only
thing that will make a math nut like you happy is to have a series of
long equations to predict everything that most people have no need to
know. Why are you so fixated, 1tree? — NE —
NoEinstein
Jun 2, 2012, 5:03:05 AM6/2/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Sound, wind; Who cares? — NoEinstein —
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
Jun 2, 2012, 5:07:12 AM6/2/12
to
On Jun 1, 12:50 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > style, so I know he plagiarized the vast majority of what he wrote.- Hide quoted text -
secretary, then why should I read Shakespeare? You seem to be stuck
in Medieval times. — NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear 1tree: If, like you say, I write with the clarity of a
> - Show quoted text -
secretary, then why should I read Shakespeare? You seem to be stuck
in Medieval times. — NE —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 4, 2012, 8:45:34 PM6/4/12
to
<yawn>, it's way-past my naptime.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages