Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction
Y.Porat
> On Jul 30, 1:04 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 7:09 pm, hhc314 <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 30, 12:20 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 30, 10:54 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 30, 5:28 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Mister X wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Hi again
>
> > > > > > > So, Newton postulated:
>
> > > > > > > F = G * (m1 * m2) / (r * r)
>
> > > > > > > Forgetting m1, m2 and G for a moment (they cause me enough grief)...
>
> > > > > > > Why 1/(r*r)
>
> > > > > > > Why not 1/r
>
> > > > > > > Why not 1/r-dot
>
> > > > > > > Why this form.
>
> > > > > > > I am NOT asking for justification based upon current (or even in Newton's
> > > > > > > time - then current) experiments.
> > > > > > > I am asking for a justification from the mind. Why was it natural to assume
> > > > > > > 1/(r*r)
>
> > > > > > > I, for example, (in my ignorance) would have assumed 1/r because that is how
> > > > > > > a spring acts.
> > > > > > > Or I might have used 1/r-dot to bring in damping of some sort.
>
> > > > > > > Anyone?
>
> > > > > > 1/r^2 is the surface of a sphere. Given a point source of "fluid,"
> > > > > > that is how concentration varies with distance.
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > > > > > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
>
> > > > > --------------
> > > > > it means the number of force lines
> > > > > per unit of aria
>
> > > > > and brings us to think
> > > > > about real force messengers
> > > > > that are epread evenly in alldirections starting from the
> > > > > mother mass
>
> > > > > and that is again another sighn
> > > > > that we are dealing here with force messengers
> > > > > that stem out of mass
> > > > > and not any idiotic
> > > > > curved space dependence
> > > > > iow
> > > > > it showes clearly that mass
> > > > > and force messengers of mass
> > > > > are doing the job
>
> > > > Porat, you will notice that the electrostatic force has the same 1/r^2
> > > > form that gravity does.
>
> > > > You will also notice that the electromagnetic interaction is described
> > > > *either* by field lines or by force messengers, with equal
> > > > satisfaction of the 1/r^2 law.
>
> > > > This is understood by most freshman physics students. I don't know why
> > > > you have such difficulty with it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Not to rain on Porat's Parade, I tend to think of him as one of those
> > > clueless individuals who believes science is like art, where the
> > > masterpieces are simply the result of inspiration springing from
> > > within the brain of a gifted genius.
>
> > > Fact is, it is anything but. Newton digestes and analyzed the works
> > > accomplished before his time, and his genius what his amazing ability
> > > to digest them into generalized equations through his application of
> > > simple calculus, invented by him as simply a tool for the purpose. Do
> > > note that prior to calculus, Newton's Principia Mathematica also
> > > contains magnificient graphic constructions that he also employed as
> > > analytical devices.
>
> > > James Clerk Maxwell made similar accomplishment using his mathematical
> > > skills to fully analyze and extend the works of Farraday and others,
> > > going on to explain the nature of electromagnic wave propagation, and
> > > obviating the need for an Aether.
>
> > > As someone once noted, science build and grows by scientists standing
> > > on the shoulders of those what went before, not by divine inspiration
> > > while under the influence of mind altering substances.
>
> > > Because he has not yet spent the years of scientific study to realize
> > > this is the source of Porat's confusion.
>
> > > Harry C.
>
> > -----------------
> > confusion ???
> > (:-)
> > in case you still dont know
> > youare right that much of science
> > is by people who stand on the shoulders of others
>
> > the other thing you dont know is
> > that a lot of scientific advance
> > was done **accidentally**
> > and even by' outsiders'!!
>
> I'm sure you can think of 5 examples. Please:
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
>
> I realize this is where you hang your hope -- that you are one of the
> outsiders, trying to land on something accidentally.
>
> > espacially while the situation is
> > IN a dead lock!!
> > you are not talented enough to notice
> > that a lot of 'our modern physics
> > IS IN A dead lock!!!
> > (virtual particles without mass
> > Higgs bosons
> > and the list is long !!!)
>
> > kep well
> > Y.P
---------------------
not accientally at all!!
it is decades of phisics atudy:
2
i was working on my Atomic and nuc model
about tem years!!
somethimes day and night
based on experinetal data
the books of nuclear chemical and physical data
were 'on my knees' day and night
all along that time
th eworkitsef was
indeed an trial and error unhuman efort
by the data i was fiddling'' with
WAS ALL THAT EXPERIMENTAL DATA "
then step by step in 'Ants work'
some law and order started to d'drip down'
to my control
and as a went on with it
that stream of law and order
became bigger and bigger!!
that is an experience you will never in your life
experience !!
and will nerveunderstand !!
becaue yo wasnever (and i doublt if you will ever be there
it was a coincidence of circumstances
that i wonder if it will be found soon!!
for example
it started with anaccidental data thati found in a scientific magazine
that
*the Carbon nuc is composed of 3 Alpha particles!!
someone like you will read such a thing
and it will inter through one ear
and get imediately throught the other ear
may be because you aere a mathemariciam
not as it was for me!!
it is rathe because i am astructural engineer
that is well trrained in 3d geometry
that is for me bread and butter in my day job!!
do i took
the chemistry book of the great chemist
Linus Pauling that he was as well one of the pioneers of advance in
the conection between
chnisrty and geometry
and looked at his 3d description of the
Carbon Atom - a tetraheder
for you a tetraheder if a inice picture
for me it is a wonderful uniqyue structre
in which allits four 'armes are seprated
*by the same exact Angle of about 108 degrees
and i understood imediately that this 3d structure
is one of the secrets for the uniqu styrenth and stabilty of that
Alpha particle
then i went on and tried many ways
**to combine that 3 of those Apha structure
TO ANOTHER BGGER STRUCTURE
TAH WILL BE AS WELL A TETRAHEDER
in order of doing it eveni had to do 3d sketches
and even built to yself a 3d model from simple iron
wires
and Voilaa and Huray !!
i found how 3 Alpha can be connected to
anotherstructure (the Carbon)
and i found that in order to doit
i musr coect them linearily !
with only one of each Alpha connected to theother
and sooni founf that since i have ther
two arms that are protons and two that are
neutrons (marking seprately by a different sighn
the protons and a diffe4rnt say 'co lour for the neutrons
i foud that i get not only anothe bigger tetraheder
i get
4** free** arms of 'PTOTONS'
two of them belong to the alpha aty thr edges
of the Carbon
and two free Proton Arms that belong to the Alpha
tha belongs to the middle Apha
all the four free arms
directed to ...
4 directions in space that are seprated by the same 108 degrees
between eachteo of them
AND THAT WAS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF A DAY AND NIGHT WORK THAT LASTED TO
ACTYALLY 10 TEN YEARS !
and the rest id histotry !!
so Mr PD
will you from now on dare to call my work and stsrem of work
outside accidental achievement??
btw
i didnt tell you here all the accidental circumstances
that enabled me to do all that work
for instance
at that time i was working far from home and my
wife and cildren
with no television to waist my time and no other
comforts so out of that bordm' i foud a new important promising work
ie to work on tha t model
something exciting that will fill all my spare time
so that inly some of theunique spacial circumstances
that enabled me todvote a lot of time and eforths
concentration in a 'unhumane' efforth
onone ver specific
btw
my tactics in my lfe is
**to concentrate efforths on a very limited
point parget
that is a way in amny cases to penetrate deeper than anyone else
besides
by ahrsh life lerned me and gave me the sense
( i would say good intuition)
tofeel right from the beginning
what is promising
and what is dead by arival !!
while keeping in mids always
the
NEED TO BE ORACTICAL
and alway look for paractial results
and if not to quick as possible to drop it
in order of not wastind my precious' leaking quickly beneath my
fingers .....) time
so is that for
you not a scintific outsider worth less work
(provided you know something about my model
or about my discussions say
about the mass of the photon )
2
you was flowing alog many years ny struggle
to prove that
the photon has mass!
and the only single mass that exist
will you call such a work as a n outsde work
of an outsider' that is 'worth nothing !!
and thats motre than enough for one post (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
PD
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Where is your list of 5 examples?
Y.Porat
>
> read more »
i ddint understood
and didnt botherwhat did you mean
now suince you started with insults
you are going to realize that you did
a taclical mistake
by 'starting with me
(that i restricted myself untill now
so :
since non of the 3 pattots
PD
The mug face pigg shit Gisse
and the psycopth who calles himsenf
Whatever
could not understand my hints
i would like to ask other peiole
not the 3 above pompous mathematics parrots
th e folowing question::
Uncle Al
reminded us jsut above
the 'old' excplanation to the
1/R^2 law of gravitation(thank you al for reminding it to us !!
you see i am not stingy in giving credits
as the others ...
so)
considring Uncle Als explanation to that law
can someone get out of it some
*new breakthrough insight**
of that 'primitove' explanation ???!!
(again
the question is not to the above parrots
who no matter waht will be
are unable to do it)
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
PD
> On Jul 31, 4:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > -----------------
> > > > > confusion ???
> > > > > (:-)
> > > > > in case you still dont know
> > > > > youare right that much of science
> > > > > is by people who stand on the shoulders of others
>
> > > > > the other thing you dont know is
> > > > > that a lot of scientific advance
> > > > > was done **accidentally**
> > > > > and even by' outsiders'!!
>
> > > > I'm sure you can think of 5 examples. Please:
> > > > 1.
> > > > 2.
> > > > 3.
> > > > 4.
> > > > 5.
>
> > Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Where is your list of 5 examples?
Still no answer to this, Porat? Why not?
David Bostwick
Actually, we all know that the law of gravitational attraction is really a
metaphor for love. Bob told us that a long time ago.
Y.Porat
are you readt for a deal??
i have read back your post
and a ithink i can give some examples
just beleive me
i didnt think about it more than two minutes
and here are results of jsut two minutes
of an old man with an old mans memory
so
it starts with medicine
the peniciline
the vaxination as whole
the electric batery of volta
(the story of the frogg)
Eddisons inventions
Michael Faradys dynamo
and electro dynamics
if you m\like
my model of the Atomand nuc (:-)
the Tuneling efect by Ivar giaever
he was an engineer
and you can immagine that the list is much longer than i can tell you
in 5 minutes!!
and now is your turnn to tell us
does the gamma factor
apply to the photon or not
2
i dont expect you and i dont wahnt you to answer my above question
about Uncle Al explanation
let other try to answer
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------
Y.Porat
Bostwick) wrote:
> Actually, we all know that the law of gravitational attraction is really a
> metaphor for love. Bob told us that a long time ago.
-----------------
but i was much more specific
i asked whether th e old explanation that Al brought
can tell us much more about modern paradigm
of gravitation
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
PD
OK, but that's not a scientific advance. That is finding a drug.
Antibiosis was a scientific principle discovered in the 1870s.
Penicillin was discovered in the late 1920's.
There was a whole slew of work done in this era long before
penicillin. Look it up.
>
> the vaxination as whole
Was not an accident. Nor was it found by outsiders.
>
> the electric batery of volta
> (the story of the frogg)
Volta was not an outsider -- he was a physicist -- and he'd been
working with electricity storage devices for 20 years prior to his
experiments with frog legs. That was no accident.
>
> Eddisons inventions
You seem not to know the difference between the discovery of a new
scientific principle and a technological invention. Quantum mechanics
was discovered in the 1930s. Solid state chips, based on quantum
mechanical principles, were invented in the 1950s. Solid state chips
are not a scientific discovery, they are an invention.
> Michael Faradys dynamo
> and electro dynamics
Again, not an outsider, not an accident. He'd been tinkering with this
stuff and doing active investigation with electricity and electricity
generation for 20 years. Not an accident.
>
> if you m\like
> my model of the Atomand nuc (:-)
>
> the Tuneling efect by Ivar giaever
> he was an engineer
Yes, he was, and he was working with Esaki (a physicist), while
another physicist Josephson shared the Nobel with them for parallel
work. And the physics behind tunneling had been worked out in 1928,
approximately 32 years before the work that Giaever did.
>
> and you can immagine that the list is much longer than i can tell you
> in 5 minutes!!
I'm still waiting.
So far you've listed a bunch of technological inventions, not
scientific principle discoveries.
>
> and now is your turnn to tell us
>
> does the gamma factor
> apply to the photon or not
We've talked about this at length. If you do not remember those
conversations, I'm not about to give you another one to forget.
Y.Porat
do you want me to call you
an ungreatful lier ???
it was not fiscovered by theoreticians
it was discovered by a doctor
not a physicist!!
That is finding a drug.
> Antibiosis was a scientific principle discovered in the 1870s.
> Penicillin was discovered in the late 1920's.
do you dent that it was an acidental discovery??!!
ie*** not** by theory ??
> There was a whole slew of work done in this era long before
> penicillin. Look it up.
>
>
>
> > the vaxination as whole
>
> Was not an accident. Nor was it found by outsiders.
so you are an ignorant lier
it was discovered by a doctor
that worked as a practialdoctor
he was not a theorist
the theoretists didnt predict it
luis Paster was not a physicsit
nore a mathematician!!
>
>
>
> > the electric batery of volta
> > (the story of the frogg)
>
> Volta was not an outsider -- he was a physicist
he was not a physicsit
HE WAS A DOCTOR !!
ntoa physicist
and without him
you woudnt know a fuck about
what is an electric circuit
or electric voltage etc etc
you are an ungeatful lier !!
and deciever !!!
-----------
dont lie !!!!!!--
and he'd been
> working with electricity storage devices for 20 years prior to his
> experiments with frog legs. That was no accident.
faraday was not a tthat time
a elerticphysicist
allyou pomous physicsit
and mathematician
knew nothing about
electrodymamics
AND COULD VEVER DO IT
UNLESS THE ACCIDENTAL
CASE
IN WHICH fARADWY WAS FROSTRATED AND ANGREE
AND THROUGH ACIDENTALLY
THE MAGNET INTO THE
WIRE COIL
AND NOTICED THA THE
MAGMETOMETER GAGE
STSTED YO MOVE!!
if you was you or somepne elese than you you would not
notce and advance it
to the gerates electricity
revolusion of our moden life!!
ungeateful moron lier
------------
i can add here
the accidental discovery of x rays
again
ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY !!
nothing was there in theory about it
and the radioactivity discovery
nothin was ther in theory
it was net acidental finding
done by EXPERIMENTAL SCIENTISTS
NOT BYPOMPOUS MATHEMATICIANS
got it
ungreateful lier !!
the MRI done by experimental engineers
the semiconductir
done by engineers not fucken
matrhematicians
the radio !!
not by theoreticians
there was nothing there at that time!!!
***again you are decorating youself with others feathers !!!**
--------------
the steam engine !!
not by theotretists
the discovery of connection
between work and heat
WAS NEVER BEFORE IN THEORY !
it was done by a gun producer !!
you are a complete ignorant
about the history of science
and a self decorator of yourself
and your cast by featers
OF OTHERS
-------------
> > Eddisons inventions
>
> You seem not to know the difference between the discovery of a new
> scientific principle and a technological invention. Quantum mechanics
you seems not to know
what wa sleading science
theory or acidental findings of
acidental scintists
while there was
NO THEORY ABOUT IT BEFORE THATACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY
i can recall
the galvanization effect that was discovered
**acidentally* with nothing in theory about it
**chemist can give you thousants of examples
of accidental example of discoveries
**that LEADING A THE THEORY !!
so again
you are a pompous moron abot
science advance and how it was done !!
-----------------
and now about my question:
does ther gamma factor apply to
the photon or not??
why are you smartguying
and cannot answer simply whae
even the crook Gisse naswered
correctly
that it was understood 100 years
ago??
why cant you spill it out??
but still that is not themain point now
the main point is todo
THE NEXT INSIGHT
that if so
**there was never a real rason
to 'invent' the relativistic mass !!!
> was discovered in the 1930s. Solid state chips, based on quantum
> mechanical principles, were invented in the 1950s. Solid state chips
> are not a scientific discovery, they are an invention.
>
> > Michael Faradys dynamo
> > and electro dynamics
>
> Again, not an outsider, not an accident. He'd been tinkering with this
> stuff and doing active investigation with electricity and electricity
> generation for 20 years. Not an accident.
i am talking about his
dsicovery of the dymamo
it was not predicted by ant thoery!!
the theory came after that
faraday discovered that
THERE IS A NEED FOR MECHANICAL MOTION
IN THAT COIL
IT WAS NEVER IN THEORY
A YOU ARE A MORON
ungreatful LIER !!
and a coward to answer questions
ihe telescope was discovered
based on accidental discoveries
about the magnifying glass
ther was nothing before in theory
the theory came only later
**based on those accidental discoveries
and the pompus mathematicians
took a ride on it much later !!
ungreatful pompous lier !!
and the other examples
are endless !!
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.Porat
and another little punch question:
i am just' and engineer!!!
*can you call me
AN OUTSIDER TO SCIENCE??!!
2
now litte example to show the differnce
between an 'outsider ;
Bsc like me
and an insider Phd like you :
i initiated the insight explanation that
it should be
not
F=Gamma ma a
but rather
F/Gamma = m a
and that cancels the relativistic
understanding of mass
and you quoted that
without mentioning me
as originatir of that
revolutionary insight
if you dont undestand it its your
problem
anyway
you tried later to claim that
it was understood 80 years before
but could never document that lie!!
iow in much simpler blant words
you tried to steal it from me!!
can you say now
that i am a senile person
who does not remember ??
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Meenken
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:7279f073-083e-47ca...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------\
well, Porat,
Newton apparently was an modest man,as he was a brilliant scientist
he could not understand why the moon was attracted and kept in orbit by
earth on a distance like that,
and he once said "i hope and expect that in the future someone will come and
explain that",
and that someone came, his name was Einstein,
and Porat i am sure, that Newton would have been very pleased by einsteins
explanation,
and his explanation was/is,
"mass dictates spacetime how to curv, and space in turn ,dictates mass how
to move"
it can be said Porat in a few words, not like yours!,
you know Occams razor!!
and I am sure Newton,would have liked ik, (even he did not think about that
himself),
he was to big for that, same as his follower 100 dreds of years later,
both great men,the top of physics
and he would have been pleased, as he would have reckonized that that was
the answer,because it was/is brilliant,
look into those few words Porat and if possible become modest too, and try
to join the great by modesty ,
and come up with brilliant ideas as well,
as matter of fact ,
we indeed are bit in a slob , and it is about time, to get further
this is a anwers from holland!!
marten
Whoever
news:8fe8d825-a45a-426a...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 31, 1:44 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> does the gamma factor
>> apply to the photon or not
In which formula?
As I've pointed out .. formulas which multiply by gamma (when v=c, it is
1/0) will lead to either infinite results (if multiplied by a non-zero
value), or indeterminate results (if multiplied by zero) If you divide by
gamma (multiply by zero) then you get zero (or indeterminate if you multiply
it by infinity).
The equations are still meaningful .. they are telling you about situations
that cannot exist (eg an object with non-zero rest mass travelling at c
would have infinite energy, so is not possible), or that the formula does
not give you a particular value. eg E = gamma.mc^2 is indeterminate when
m=0, meaning it does not yield any particular value for E. When formulated
as m = E / gamma / c^2 the formula is valid, and yields m=0 for any value of
E. So we need to go elsewhere in the physics for working out E .. eg E =
pc, or E = hf.
One can't just wipe out gamma from formulas because you happen to be talking
about a photon .. and say that the laws of physics that predict only
zero-masses can travel at c do not apply to photons, simply because one
doesn't like the idea of photons having a zero rest-mass.
> We've talked about this at length. If you do not remember those
> conversations, I'm not about to give you another one to forget.
I've also covered this with him many times. He thinks that if he ignores it
and instead pile insults onto us, and the repeats his nonsense again that
somehow he is defeating us .. but the only loser is him for missing an
opportunity to learn and remaining in ignorance. The positive is that maybe
someone else reading this thread will learn from what we post.
Whoever
news:a7622859-789c-4fc6...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
[snip a slew]
> and now about my question:
>
> does ther gamma factor apply to
> the photon or not??
You STILL on about that?
> why are you smartguying
> and cannot answer simply whae
> even the crook Gisse naswered
> correctly
> that it was understood 100 years
> ago??
Perhaps if you explain what you mean by "the gamma factor applying to the
photon" .. the gamma factor is formula whose value is dependant on speed ..
how to you apply a calculated value to that to a quantum entity like a
photon? Do you stick it on with glue? Perhaps you should show what uses of
the gamma value in what equations are valid or not.
> why cant you spill it out??
> but still that is not themain point now
> the main point is todo
> THE NEXT INSIGHT
> that if so
> **there was never a real rason
> to 'invent' the relativistic mass !!!
Its a sometimes-useful concept. There is debate whether it should be used
as a term in its own right .. many saying one should just refer to momentum
and energy and rest mass. But it keeps turning up in equations, so its
probably sensible to give it a name.
Whoever
That's a pretty useless rewrite of the same formula .. it doesn't give a
value for F, or m, or a
> and that cancels the relativistic
> understanding of mass
It doesn't cancel anything
It's like saying the
KE = 1/2 m.v^2
has 1/2 mass in it (which is obviosuly silly as we know mass is in units of
1 kilogram), and that writing it as
2.KE = m.v^2
cancels the Newtonistic understanding of mass.
> and you quoted that
> without mentioning me
> as originatir of that
> revolutionary insight
There is no insight there .. you're deluded
> if you dont undestand it its your
> problem
> anyway
Nothing there to understand.. you just wrote the formula in a useless manner
> you tried later to claim that
> it was understood 80 years before
> but could never document that lie!!
Its the same formula as F = gamma . ma, or m = F / gamma / a, or a = F /
gamma / m .. except those are useful rewrites.
> iow in much simpler blant words
> you tried to steal it from me!!
Why would anyone try to steal your nonsense?
> can you say now
> that i am a senile person
> who does not remember ??
Yes .. yes you are senile.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-------------
since you wrote in somewhat civilized manner
i will answer about your question
'where does the gamma factor
**does apply**
it applies as along as
v is not c!!
the moment v=c
the gamma becomes INFINITE
and has no room in a useful physics formula !!!
(full stop!! and as simple as that
nothing more-- no additional smart guying
even Gisse told you that
it was undestood 100 years ago
no need to be a genius in order to understand it !!!
on the other hand
PD could not spill it out
because of personal politics !!
or may be stupidity and over smart guying...
------------------------------
Y.P
----------------------
Y.Porat
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
--------------
infinie times zero is an indeterminate number !!
and therefore
has no room
in a sane useful physics equation
full stop !!
it is undetermined and meaninlees
and worthless for physics !!!
Y.P
----------------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
imbecile crook psychopath moronmay be try betetr
i am quite sure you are unable for more !!
Y.P
--------------
Whoever
I always do .. you on the other hand seem to have problems with remaining
civilised.
> i will answer about your question
> 'where does the gamma factor
> **does apply**
>
> it applies as along as
> v is not c!!
> the moment v=c
> the gamma becomes INFINITE
> and has no room in a useful physics formula !!!
1/gamma is zero, however .. and that is quite valid. I thought I'd already
told you all this
so you can use
m = E / gamma / c^2
to show that m = 0 when v=c
In other words, no object with mass (rest mass) can achieve speed c.
> (full stop!! and as simple as that
> nothing more-- no additional smart guying
> even Gisse told you that
> it was undestood 100 years ago
> no need to be a genius in order to understand it !!!
I've said all along that multiplying by gamma gives you infinite or
indeterminate values. The infinite ones show impossiblity .. so
E = gamma . mc^2
Shows that energy becomes infinite when mass is non-zero, hence further
showing that nothing with a non-zero rest mass can travel at c.
> on the other hand
> PD could not spill it out
> because of personal politics !!
> or may be stupidity and over smart guying...
You seem to think that saying 'gamma does not apply' over and over makes
your position right .. whereas instead it is part of what justifies my
position (and that of physicists supported by experimental evidence) that
the mass of a photon is zero.
Whoever
That's right .. X = infinity x 0 works for any number.
> and therefore
> has no room
> in a sane useful physics equation
> full stop !!
Yeup .. and, as I've said, that means an equation that uses that does not
give any result. Maybe you're finally getting it.
But 1/gamma is not infinity .. it is zero, so the formula
m = E / gamma / c^2
gives m = 0 when v=c
> it is undetermined and meaninlees
> and worthless for physics !!!
Which is why I am not using it. I've pointed this out many times. You are
a little slow on the uptake though.
Whoever
Try better at what? I'm doing just fine, thanks.
> i am quite sure you are unable for more !!
More what? I have just had a meal, so I don't really want any more just
now.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
you ddint notice that
i didnt use the c velocity situation
i wrote
E/Gamma =m a (a not c !!!!!!)
it is while V is not c
and gamma **is not infinite !!!
dont you give me that littl e credit
that i know well
tha the devil is in the details (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:7279f073-083e-47ca...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------
Newton was a genious
but at his time
none claimed the nonsense physics
that curves spcae is dictation gravity
it is you who do it
2
Einstein was a genius
but that was not an insurance card that
anything he guessed
will not ne nonsense physics
2
please
go to my other thread
'nocurvature and no schmervature of space
i think that thread is more appropriate
i wil answer you there !!!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
Whoever
Then you made a mistake .. its
F = Gamma . m a
so
F / Gamma = m a
> it is while V is not c
> and gamma **is not infinite !!!
Its fine for v < c AND for v =c
For v = c, 1/Gamma = 0, so you get m = 0 .. no mass again
Thanks for showing once gain that I'm right
> dont you give me that littl e credit
> that i know well
> tha the devil is in the details (:-)
Nope .. you've not done anything credit-worthy .. other than show I'm right.
But I was right already, so no prize for that.
Whoever
Who said they did? Physics was not yet advanced enough in its development
for anyone to come up with it.
> it is you who do it
Not only .. it is the bulk of physicists who do. You know . .the one who
take time to study and experiment and think.
> 2
> Einstein was a genius
> but that was not an insurance card that
> anything he guessed
> will not ne nonsense physics
Quite true .. he made quite a few mistakes at various times. He was only
human. The name 'Einstein' on something doesn't in any way mean it has to
be right. Each theory has to be taken on its own merit and on experimental
evidence.
> 2
> please
> go to my other thread
> 'nocurvature and no schmervature of space
>
> i think that thread is more appropriate
> i wil answer you there !!!
I'm sure you'll just end up swearing at him, like you do everyone who
actually tries to discuss physics with you and points out the flaws in what
you say.
Y.Porat
E/Gamam while v=c
is E/zero --->
------>is infinite!!
and you have no way to change the left side of the
formula !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
even if you stand on your head
and if the left side of the formula is infinit
the right side is infinite as well !!
even if you stand on your haed
and that is nonsense physics
got it
and infinite energy is nonsens physics
and that is why it does not apply
tor reality physics
and sorry
i have no more patience for you ???
Bye Y.Porat
-------------------------
Y.Porat
sorry typo
while v=c
gamma is infinite
so
E/gamma is zero
and zero energy is nonsense physics !!!!!
ie nothing practical
so the right side is zero as well
and all the formula becomes nonsens physics
so \ conclusion
while Gamma is infinit
it is uselsss to any physics
so gamma is useful **as long** as
V< c!!!
and i have no more patience for you
Bye
Y.Porat
------------------------
Whoever
Gamma = 1 / sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)
so
1/Gamma = sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)
so
E/Gamma = E * 1/Gamma = E * sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2) = E * sqrt(1-1) = E * 0 = 0
I think you need to brush up on the difference between multiplication and
division
> ------>is infinite!!
Zero is not infinite
> and you have no way to change the left side of the
> formula !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yet you just tried to .. sorry .. it doesn't work
> even if you stand on your head
>
> and if the left side of the formula is infinit
Zero is not infinite
> the right side is infinite as well !!
Zero is not infinite
> even if you stand on your haed
> and that is nonsense physics
Yes .. what you wrote is nonsense physics
> got it
Oh yeah .. I've got that what you wrote is nonsense physics.
> and infinite energy is nonsens physics
Which is exactly why a photon cannot have mass. Got it?
> and that is why it does not apply
> tor reality physics
Yes .. your claim of a photon with mass do not apply to reality physics
> and sorry
> i have no more patience for you ???
I'm the one who has been showing a great deal of patience here. How many
times do I need to write the correct equations for you to ignore them?
Whoever
Rubbish .. We get zeros all the time. An object at rest has zero velocity
and zero momentum and zero kinetic energy.
You do realize, that the E in the equation is not zero
But m = E / gamma / c ^ 2 IS zero
zero mass when v=c.
If something is moving at c it can have energy, and momentum, but its rest
mass MUST be zero
> ie nothing practical
It is very practical .. you just don't like that you are wrong.
> so the right side is zero as well
Yeup .. and so you are wrong
> and all the formula becomes nonsens physics
No .. it shows that the mass is zero, even when the energy is NOT zero, and
so you are wrong
> so \ conclusion
Conclusion: You are wrong
> while Gamma is infinit
> it is uselsss to any physics
> so gamma is useful **as long** as
> V< c!!!
> and i have no more patience for you
How on earth did you manage to do anything useful with engineering if you
can't understand the importance of zero?
Sad .. very sad. And .. in case you missed it .. you are WRONG !! :):)
Y.Porat
--------------
actually i forgot my orriginal expalntion
from afew year ago
(PD adopted it!!)
so my original interpretationof it wa sthis
actually there id no dispute that
while V=c
the formula is useless
solets take the case of
V<c
while
E/gamma =ma (not mc never !)
so if v starts to grow
gamma starts to grow as well
and
E/Gamma could be shrink
but no !!!
**siace m is constant then a grows
and e isnot constant !!!
E is not The constant
THAT IS MY MAIN POINT !!
in order to keep the right growing side
in ballance with the left side
E MUST GROW !!
** in order to ballance the ma growing **side
and i even explained it by every day practice
if you push a care *in order to ignite it
as the car satrt to 'run away from you
you need to run fater and faster after it
iow
YOU HAVE TO INVESTMORE ENERGY
tokeep adding accelaration to the accelerated car
you the differnce betwwen
an armchair physicsit
whonever in his life pushed a car
and a simple engineer that
pused cars many times in his life
OHYSICS IS BETWEEN MY AHNDS AND FINGERS
got is ?? (:-(
i said that
pushed his car' not onlypractically
but as a metaphor of a physicist
who was not just scrambling formulas
on papers
anyway than ks whoever for
forcing me to remember *in details my
historic new explanation and insight for
E =gamma m a
and some hints about my way
of thinking physics !!! (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Y.Porat
Oh sorry again
i am in rudh to somewhere
and you lean on me
another typo
it is not
E=m a
it is F = m a !!
and actuallly we could demonstate it more clearly with
momentum formula
M (momentum)/gamma = m v !!
it is v and not c
and now really i am in rush (:-)
BYE
Y.P
----------------------
Whoever
Which formula?
> is useless
> solets take the case of
> V<c
> while
>
> E/gamma =ma (not mc never !)
Wrong formula again
E = gamma.mc^2 is the formula for energy
> so if v starts to grow
> gamma starts to grow as well
> and
> E/Gamma could be shrink
> but no !!!
Yes it does
> **siace m is constant then a grows
> and e isnot constant !!!
> E is not The constant
Who said it was? m is
> THAT IS MY MAIN POINT !!
>
> in order to keep the right growing side
> in ballance with the left side
>
> E MUST GROW !!
Yes it does .. it tends to infinity
> ** in order to ballance the ma growing **side
> and i even explained it by every day practice
>
> if you push a care *in order to ignite it
> as the car satrt to 'run away from you
> you need to run fater and faster after it
> iow
> YOU HAVE TO INVESTMORE ENERGY
> tokeep adding accelaration to the accelerated car
Hence the Newtonian F = ma .. becomes even MORE force required in
relativity as speed gets closer to c
> you the differnce betwwen
> an armchair physicsit
> whonever in his life pushed a car
> and a simple engineer that
> pused cars many times in his life
>
> OHYSICS IS BETWEEN MY AHNDS AND FINGERS
So how long have you them amputated?
> got is ?? (:-(
> i said that
> pushed his car' not onlypractically
> but as a metaphor of a physicist
> who was not just scrambling formulas
> on papers
BAHAH .. you think YOU are explaining things to ME. What a joke
> anyway than ks whoever for
> forcing me to remember *in details my
> historic new explanation and insight
Historic stupidit
> for
> E =gamma m a
Wrong formula
> and some hints about my way
> of thinking physics !!! (:-)
Your way is nonsense. You should learn.
Whoever
In Newtonian physics.
In relativity it is
F = (Gamma^3).m.a
> and actuallly we could demonstate it more clearly with
> momentum formula
>
> M (momentum)/gamma = m v !!
OK .. use that . .though it is a silly way to write it
> it is v and not c
Yes it is. As opposed to energy which it
E = gamma.mc^2
And the 'v' only appear there as part of gaama
> and now really i am in rush (:-)
So m = M/gamma/v
when v=c
So m = M/gamma/c = 0
Mass must be zero when v=c
No matter which formula you use, you end up with m=0 when v=c and is m is
not zero, you get infinities (so that cannot happen, which is obvious
because it tell us m=0)
NoEinstein
>
Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether that is
greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
science FICTION. The latter is science FACT! — NoEinstein —
>
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:7279f073-083e-47ca...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Whoever
news:d05624aa-e626-49e3...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>
> Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether that is
> greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
> replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
BAHAHAHA .. given that no such ether has ever been detected (yet alone a
flow in it), and there is no requirement for photon exchange for gravity to
work .. that really is a joke.
Whether the GR explanation of gravity as curved space is entirely correct,
we don't really know .. but it is well supported experimentally .. there is
a lot of theoretical research (which hopefully would lead to further
experimental tests and observations) on various descriptions of the
mechanism of gravity. In particular trying to reconcile the quantum notion
with the relativistic one. It may well be they are (to 'coin' a phrase) two
sides of the same coin :):)
Uncle Al
>
> On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
> >
> Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether
idiot
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-------------------
let the guy i addressed my answer speak
or respond to me
he didnt nominate you as his speaker !!!
untill now
you hand waved only personal politics
and propaganda tricks
Y.P
--------------------------
Y.Porat
-------------------
lets do it again:
(we can do it on many formulas of force and energy)
if you take for instance for
E=gamma times 1/2 m V^2
e can write it as
E/Gamma = 1/2 m V^2
(while V<c !!)
have you ant objection to that ??
so
while v becomes bigger gamma becomes smaller
now V becomes bigger on the right side as well
and ??
m remains constant !!
if more balace is needed
it is done by
***more Energy invested in !!
iow
sticking the gamma only tothe mass
IS AN ARBITRARY PREJUDICE !!!
sowe can stick it to the energy as well
do you have experimental
justifications to stick it only to the mass??
the similar way if you take the
F= gamma m a
i say
F/gamma = m a
F is growing with faster motion
not the mass!!
and m remains constant !!
do you have experimental evidence
to stick that Gamma just to the mass
while experimentally
my equation
gived exactly the same results
as 'yours' ??
or may be it is jsut and arbitrary prejudice
explanation
if not please explain
why to stick it just to the mass
and not to the force ???!!!
(just a btw --additional to the above- remark in order of getting
ACCUMULATIVE EVIDENCE )
we know from say chemistry
the mass is conserved !!!
do you have* accumulative evidence* that mass is inflating by motion
or by anything else )
2
(just an btw question
though the analysis of above is enough)
if mass inflated with motion
were does all that excess of mass dsiapear ??
th e moment movement stops ??
or may be you want to say that
while two bodies collide
SOME OF ONE MASS IS TRANSFERRED
TO OTHER ONE (that was accelerated
by coliding with the other one ??!!)
Y.Porat
-------------------------
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether that is
> greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
> replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
> science FICTION. The latter is science FACT! � NoEinstein �
No, john is a science fool. He understands no science and only comes
here to look stupid. He is getting very good at being the village
fool.
PD
> On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether that is
> greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
> replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
> science FICTION. The latter is science FACT! — NoEinstein —
Nope. What determines which is fact and which is fiction in science is
whether numbers calculated from the explanation match measured values.
Einstein's calculation lets you do those calculations and the results
match the measurements. It is therefore taken to be accepted. Your
explanation provides no mechanism to calculate anything at all, and so
it can't be compared to experimental measurements. It is therefore
taken as spurious noise.
David Bostwick
>
>"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
>On Jul 31, 6:10 pm, david.bostw...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David
>Bostwick) wrote:
>> Actually, we all know that the law of gravitational attraction is really a
>> metaphor for love. Bob told us that a long time ago.
>
>-----------------
>but i was much more specific
>i asked whether th e old explanation that Al brought
>can tell us much more about modern paradigm
>of gravitation
>
>TIA
But Bob's makes more sense than all of the other junk that's been in this
thread.
NoEinstein
>
Dear "Whoever...": You come from out of nowhere, and like the
majority who reply on these groups, you use the status quo as your
"authority". So that the readers can understand your mind-set, would
you please give links to your 'new posts' on these groups? Attached
are a few of mine. — NoEinstein —
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/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
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:d05624aa-e626-49e3...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> > time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether that is
> > greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
> > replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
> > science FICTION. The latter is science FACT! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Al: Like a coward you attack, me, the messenger. You sure
as hell don't have the counter-arguments to attack my New Science
truths. — NoEinstein —
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> > time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> idiot
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
> <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
> No aether
>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
Whoever
> On Aug 1, 9:10 pm, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
> Dear "Whoever...": You come from out of nowhere,
I've been around for a while
> and like the
> majority who reply on these groups, you use the status quo as your
> "authority".
I use experimentally supported and consistent physics
> So that the readers can understand your mind-set, would
> you please give links to your 'new posts' on these groups? Attached
> are a few of mine. � NoEinstein �
[snip spam]
Whoever
> On Aug 1, 9:55 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
> Dear Uncle Al: Like a coward you attack, me, the messenger. You sure
> as hell don't have the counter-arguments to attack my New Science
Your site is full of errors and lies .. you fail to acknowledge them .. that
is dishonest
David Bostwick
>On Aug 1, 9:55=A0pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>Dear Uncle Al: Like a coward you attack, me, the messenger. You sure
>as hell don't have the counter-arguments to attack my New Science
>>
"New Science," or something similar, is usually code for, "The rest of the
world knows I'm wrong, but I refuse to accept it." Since your Old Nonsense
has no truths, there are no counter-arguments.
NoEinstein
>
Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics, you don't have
the credentials to be replying to me. Consider yourself found out as
being a know-little who likes to belittle of those who do know. —
NoEinstein —
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> [snip spam]
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:43efc71a-61c8-4aac...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 1, 9:55 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > Dear Uncle Al: Like a coward you attack, me, the messenger. You sure
> > as hell don't have the counter-arguments to attack my New Science
>
> Your site is full of errors and lies .. you fail to acknowledge them .. that
> is dishonest
Dear "Whoever": PUT UP OR SHUT UP! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Bostwick) wrote:
> In article <43efc71a-61c8-4aac-9ca8-71b70dd99...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 1, 9:55=A0pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Dear Uncle Al: Like a coward you attack, me, the messenger. You sure
> >as hell don't have the counter-arguments to attack my New Science
> >truths. =97 NoEinstein =97
>
> "New Science," or something similar, is usually code for, "The rest of the
> world knows I'm wrong, but I refuse to accept it." Since your Old Nonsense
> has no truths, there are no counter-arguments.
In just one reply "David Bostwick" becomes a code word for a CHEMIST
who is out of his league to be commenting about PHYSICS! — NoEinstein
—
Whoever
> On Aug 5, 1:01 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
> Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
> links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics,
I don't post on that group
> you don't have
> the credentials to be replying to me.
I don't need any
> Consider yourself found out as
> being a know-little who likes to belittle of those who do know. �
You clearly don't know anything. You're nothing but a flooding troll.
Whoever
> On Aug 5, 1:02 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:43efc71a-61c8-4aac...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Aug 1, 9:55 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Uncle Al: Like a coward you attack, me, the messenger. You sure
>> > as hell don't have the counter-arguments to attack my New Science
>>
>> Your site is full of errors and lies .. you fail to acknowledge them ..
>> that
>> is dishonest
>
FUCK YOU
Whoever
Your posts show you have no idea about physics .. so you are in no position
to talk. Your list of nonsense posts only further shows that.
David Bostwick
>On Aug 5, 9:02=A0am, david.bostw...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David
>Bostwick) wrote:
>> In article <43efc71a-61c8-4aac-9ca8-71b70dd99...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups=
>..com>, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Aug 1, 9:55=3DA0pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Dear Uncle Al: =A0Like a coward you attack, me, the messenger. =A0You su=
>re
>> >as hell don't have the counter-arguments to attack my New Science
>>
>> "New Science," or something similar, is usually code for, "The rest of th=
>e
>> world knows I'm wrong, but I refuse to accept it." =A0Since your Old Nons=
>ense
>> has no truths, there are no counter-arguments.
>
>In just one reply "David Bostwick" becomes a code word for a CHEMIST
>=97
Sorry, dude, your name says it all. The whole world's out of step but you.
PD
> On Aug 5, 1:01 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
> links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics, you don't have
> the credentials to be replying to me.
Because "credentials" = "new posts on an unmoderated usenet
newsgroup".
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:d73ed136-9e9e-4f89...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 5, 1:01 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
> > links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics,
>
> I don't post on that group
>
> > you don't have
> > the credentials to be replying to me.
>
> I don't need any
>
> > Consider yourself found out as
>
> You clearly don't know anything. You're nothing but a flooding troll.
Dear "Whoever": You fail the test, then call the teacher dumb. Where
is your... degree? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
'Whomever". Also, unless you are an attractive female, your "wishful
thinking" will definitely go unheeded. — NoEinstein —
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:935acdc6-6865-4225...@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 5, 1:02 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:43efc71a-61c8-4aac...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Aug 1, 9:55 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Dear Uncle Al: Like a coward you attack, me, the messenger. You sure
> >> > as hell don't have the counter-arguments to attack my New Science
>
> >> Your site is full of errors and lies .. you fail to acknowledge them ..
> >> that
> >> is dishonest
>
>
> FUCK YOU- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2155e75e-8229-45ba...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 9:02 am, david.bostw...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David
> > Bostwick) wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <43efc71a-61c8-4aac-9ca8-71b70dd99...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >> NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> >On Aug 1, 9:55=A0pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Dear Uncle Al: Like a coward you attack, me, the messenger. You sure
> >> >as hell don't have the counter-arguments to attack my New Science
> >> >truths. =97 NoEinstein =97
>
> >> "New Science," or something similar, is usually code for, "The rest of
> >> the
> >> world knows I'm wrong, but I refuse to accept it." Since your Old
> >> Nonsense
> >> has no truths, there are no counter-arguments.
>
> > In just one reply "David Bostwick" becomes a code word for a CHEMIST
>
> Your posts show you have no idea about physics .. so you are in no position
>
> - Show quoted text -
And YOUR credentials are? — NoEinstein —
mluttgens
> On Jul 31, 1:44 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Jul 31, 9:46 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 31, 4:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > -----------------
>
> > > > > > > > confusion ???
> > > > > > > > (:-)
> > > > > > > > in case you still dont know
> > > > > > > > youare right that much of science
> > > > > > > > is by people who stand on the shoulders of others
>
> > > > > > > > the other thing you dont know is
> > > > > > > > that a lot of scientific advance
> > > > > > > > was done **accidentally**
> > > > > > > > and even by' outsiders'!!
>
> > > > > > > I'm sure you can think of 5 examples. Please:
> > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > > 3.
> > > > > > > 4.
> > > > > > > 5.
>
> > > > > Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Where is your list of 5 examples?
>
> > > Still no answer to this, Porat? Why not?
>
> > > > i ddint understood
> > > > and didnt botherwhat did you mean
> > > > now suince you started with insults
> > > > you are going to realize that you did
> > > > a taclical mistake
> > > > by 'starting with me
> > > > (that i restricted myself untill now
> > > > so :
>
> > > > since non of the 3 pattots
>
> > > > PD
> > > > The mug face pigg shit Gisse
>
> > > > and the psycopth who calles himsenf
> > > > Whatever
> > > > could not understand my hints
> > > > i would like to ask other peiole
> > > > not the 3 above pompous mathematics parrots
> > > > th e folowing question::
> > > > Uncle Al
> > > > reminded us jsut above
> > > > the 'old' excplanation to the
> > > > 1/R^2 law of gravitation(thank you al for reminding it to us !!
> > > > you see i am not stingy in giving credits
> > > > as the others ...
>
> > > > so)
> > > > considring Uncle Als explanation to that law
>
> > > > can someone get out of it some
> > > > *new breakthrough insight**
> > > > of that 'primitove' explanation ???!!
>
> > > > (again
> > > > the question is not to the above parrots
> > > > who no matter waht will be
> > > > are unable to do it)
>
> > > > TIA
> > > > Y.Porat
> > > > -------------------------
>
> > are you readt for a deal??
>
> > i have read back your post
> > and a ithink i can give some examples
> > just beleive me
> > i didnt think about it more than two minutes
> > and here are results of jsut two minutes
> > of an old man with an old mans memory
>
> > so
> > it starts with medicine
>
> > the peniciline
>
> OK, but that's not a scientific advance. That is finding a drug.
> Antibiosis was a scientific principle discovered in the 1870s.
> Penicillin was discovered in the late 1920's.
> There was a whole slew of work done in this era long before
> penicillin. Look it up.
>
>
>
> > the vaxination as whole
What is vaxination, PD? :-)
Marcel Luttgens
>
> Was not an accident. Nor was it found by outsiders.
>
>
>
> > the electric batery of volta
> > (the story of the frogg)
>
> Volta was not an outsider -- he was a physicist -- and he'd been
> working with electricity storage devices for 20 years prior to his
> experiments with frog legs. That was no accident.
>
>
>
> > Eddisons inventions
>
> You seem not to know the difference between the discovery of a new
> scientific principle and a technological invention. Quantum mechanics
> was discovered in the 1930s. Solid state chips, based on quantum
> mechanical principles, were invented in the 1950s. Solid state chips
> are not a scientific discovery, they are an invention.
>
> > Michael Faradys dynamo
> > and electro dynamics
>
> Again, not an outsider, not an accident. He'd been tinkering with this
> stuff and doing active investigation with electricity and electricity
> generation for 20 years. Not an accident.
>
>
>
> > if you m\like
> > my model of the Atomand nuc (:-)
>
> > the Tuneling efect by Ivar giaever
> > he was an engineer
>
> Yes, he was, and he was working with Esaki (a physicist), while
> another physicist Josephson shared the Nobel with them for parallel
> work. And the physics behind tunneling had been worked out in 1928,
> approximately 32 years before the work that Giaever did.
>
>
>
> > and you can immagine that the list is much longer than i can tell you
> > in 5 minutes!!
>
> I'm still waiting.
>
> So far you've listed a bunch of technological inventions, not
> scientific principle discoveries.
>
>
>
> > and now is your turnn to tell us
>
> > does the gamma factor
> > apply to the photon or not
>
> We've talked about this at length. If you do not remember those
> conversations, I'm not about to give you another one to forget.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2
> > i dont expect you and i dont wahnt you to answer my above question
> > about Uncle Al explanation
> > let other try to answer
>
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
NoEinstein
Bostwick) wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear "Professor" Bostwick: Georgia Tech rates as a fairly good
engineering university. But the physics department there refused to
reply to my repeated offers to allow me to drive there and demonstrate
my X, Y, & Z interferometer — which readily disproves Einstein's SR.
An all too common failing of those in academia is the cling to the
notion that having an advanced degree(s) means that such person
must... know-it-all. In actuality, there are very few good
generalists in universities. Most, including you, are simply niche
specialists who enjoy looking down their long noses at others from
under the veil of their being totally learned. When you posture to
comment to me about physics, in any way, your aptitude will certainly
be lacking. But if you would like to "bark" about your physics
qualifications, I'm sure the readers would enjoy having a good laugh.
— NoEinstein —
PD
I'm not sure, Marcel. I didn't write it.
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> > greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
> > replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
> > science FICTION. The latter is science FACT! — NoEinstein —
>
> BAHAHAHA .. given that no such ether has ever been detected (yet alone a
> flow in it), and there is no requirement for photon exchange for gravity to
> work .. that really is a joke.
>
> Whether the GR explanation of gravity as curved space is entirely correct,
> we don't really know .. but it is well supported experimentally .. there is
> a lot of theoretical research (which hopefully would lead to further
> experimental tests and observations) on various descriptions of the
> mechanism of gravity. In particular trying to reconcile the quantum notion
> with the relativistic one. It may well be they are (to 'coin' a phrase) two
> sides of the same coin :):)
Folks: "Einstein's" GR "theory" is an empirical equation written to
explain the anomalies of planet Mercury's orbit about the Sun. It
took that Moron five years to write what any good mathematician could
have written in a single summer of weekend free time. Einstein had no
notion whatsoever about what the mechanism of gravity is. So, he
called his... 'equations' the mechanism. And since those equations
varied according to the inverse square law, Einstein proclaimed that
space and time must be warped. When an analogous equation(s) predicts
observed effects, that wrongly made the author seem... brilliant. To
allowing warped time and space to bastardize all of the physics of the
Universe, is a credit to the stupidity of Einstein's followers. —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> > On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> > time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether
>
>
> idiot
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
> No aether
>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Only a stupid reader would go on any of Uncle Al's wild goose chases.
Unless he is the AUTHOR of his links in blue, those signify his LACK
of knowledge rather than his mental acuity. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Bostwick) wrote:
> In article <4a740af6$0$1646$703f8...@textnews.kpn.nl>, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> >"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> >news:7279f073-083e-47ca...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >On Jul 31, 6:10 pm, david.bostw...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David
> >Bostwick) wrote:
> >> Actually, we all know that the law of gravitational attraction is really a
> >> metaphor for love. Bob told us that a long time ago.
>
> >-----------------
> >but i was much more specific
> >i asked whether th e old explanation that Al brought
> >can tell us much more about modern paradigm
> >of gravitation
>
> >TIA
>
> But Bob's makes more sense than all of the other junk that's been in this
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did you... look in the mirror, first? — NoEinstein —
PD
> On Aug 1, 9:10 pm, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:d05624aa-e626-49e3...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> > > time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether that is
> > > greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
> > > replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
> > > science FICTION. The latter is science FACT! — NoEinstein —
>
> > BAHAHAHA .. given that no such ether has ever been detected (yet alone a
> > flow in it), and there is no requirement for photon exchange for gravity to
> > work .. that really is a joke.
>
> > Whether the GR explanation of gravity as curved space is entirely correct,
> > we don't really know .. but it is well supported experimentally .. there is
> > a lot of theoretical research (which hopefully would lead to further
> > experimental tests and observations) on various descriptions of the
> > mechanism of gravity. In particular trying to reconcile the quantum notion
> > with the relativistic one. It may well be they are (to 'coin' a phrase) two
> > sides of the same coin :):)
>
> Folks: "Einstein's" GR "theory" is an empirical equation
Bald-faced lie. What some people will stoop to.
> written to
> explain the anomalies of planet Mercury's orbit about the Sun. It
> took that Moron five years to write what any good mathematician could
> have written in a single summer of weekend free time.
Another lie. Shameless.
> Einstein had no
> notion whatsoever about what the mechanism of gravity is. So, he
> called his... 'equations' the mechanism.
Lie again. Pitiful.
> And since those equations
> varied according to the inverse square law,
Wrong this time. Just bonehead stupid.
> Einstein proclaimed that
> space and time must be warped.
> When an analogous equation(s) predicts
> observed effects, that wrongly made the author seem... brilliant.
What analogous equation? Idiotic.
> To
> allowing warped time and space to bastardize all of the physics of the
> Universe,
Tell me about this "all of the physics of the Universe".
Whoever
> On Aug 6, 5:50 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d73ed136-9e9e-4f89...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Aug 5, 1:01 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
>> > links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics,
>>
>> I don't post on that group
>>
>> > you don't have
>> > the credentials to be replying to me.
>>
>> I don't need any
>>
>> > Consider yourself found out as
>>
>> You clearly don't know anything. You're nothing but a flooding troll.
>
> Dear "Whoever": You fail the test, then call the teacher dumb. Where
> is your... degree?
You're a troll .. fuck off
Whoever
> On Aug 6, 5:50 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
> Dear "Whoever": To be grammatically correct your 'handle' should be
> 'Whomever".
Wrong
> Also, unless you are an attractive female, your "wishful
> thinking" will definitely go unheeded.
BAHAH. now fuck off
Whoever
> And YOUR credentials are?
None of your business. You're an idiot troll who repeatedly posts the same
crap.
Y.Porat
-----------------
Vaxination is all the science of
immunize living creatures
say by injection of
weakened nicrobs to the body
and then the body produces
immunity agist those microbes
PD was asking me for a few examples in which
'ousiders toscince
conttibuted
manly accidentally to historical advance of science
i brought the examplpe of that British **doctor **
(God forgive me for being ungreatful to him
by forgetting his name
another example that i mensuoned was of the Italian Doctor
who discovered *and invented*!!
the first electric battery
that started a new era
of electricity
the story is that]
he was insecting a frog !!
of a table that was made of Copper
and the knife was made of
Zink !!
ned i go onwith that expalnation
(if it was PD instead of Volta
he would noticed that
while he touches the frog
with the Zink knife its legs start to
move!!
so if it was PD he would say to himself
at eh good case he would at all notice it
he wouls say to himself
'so what is in my bussiness that the frogs legas move ??
1
my job is to **describe** the anatomy
of a frog
why its legs are shivering while i touch it
it is not my bloody bussiness
but thamk Godness
it was Volta there not PD ....
so thank you Volta
we owe you a lot !!
i gave another example of
Michel faraday
*who never finished a secondaty school and invented the
electric dynamo!!
we owe him all our modrn life
that could not be as it is now
electrified !!
so thank you Michel Faraday
the son of a poor black smith
that didnt finish a secondary school
and we could bring here
thousand of such examples !!
OTHOA
we could list here
millions of physics arm chire
mathematicians that contributed noting new to science !!!
while the only thing they di did
decorating themselves by feathers
of others !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Whoever
Like most crackpots, you attribute your own failings to others
NoEinstein
>
Folks: You should know by now that I won't "converse" with the likes
of PD, the Parasite Dunce. He wants the words of others to make his
points. He can't elucidate about science, and faults those who expect
the "arguments" expressed to be... in their own words. PD has made
like one 'new post' in all the years he has been pestering me. He has
nothing to offer science, but keeps trying to suck-into-his-quagmire
smart people whom he hopes will elevate his status above: A single
neuron, air-head, Parasite Dunce. — NoEinstein —
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:83f20e85-8143-4a2f...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 5:50 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d73ed136-9e9e-4f89...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Aug 5, 1:01 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
> >> > links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics,
>
> >> I don't post on that group
>
> >> > you don't have
> >> > the credentials to be replying to me.
>
> >> I don't need any
>
> >> > Consider yourself found out as
>
> >> You clearly don't know anything. You're nothing but a flooding troll.
>
> > Dear "Whoever": You fail the test, then call the teacher dumb. Where
> > is your... degree?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Whoever" has nothing to offer science but a poluted mouth. — NE —
PD
> On Aug 8, 12:02 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: You should know by now that I won't "converse"
Of course you won't. I just pointed out a string of your lies. What
would you have to say about that? Nothing.
Whoever
> On Aug 8, 6:33 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:83f20e85-8143-4a2f...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 6, 5:50 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:d73ed136-9e9e-4f89...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Aug 5, 1:01 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
>> >> > links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics,
>>
>> >> I don't post on that group
>>
>> >> > you don't have
>> >> > the credentials to be replying to me.
>>
>> >> I don't need any
>>
>> >> > Consider yourself found out as
>>
>> >> You clearly don't know anything. You're nothing but a flooding troll.
>>
>> > Dear "Whoever": You fail the test, then call the teacher dumb. Where
>> > is your... degree?
>>
>> You're a troll .. fuck off- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Which is more that you are offering.
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
... and YOU are an airhead without credentials! —— NoEinstein ——
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> Like most crackpots, you attribute your own failings to others- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Whoever: If there are any successes which can be attributed to
YOU, I'm sure the readers would love to learn of even ONE! Ha, ha,
HA! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
PD, the Parasite Dunce, is hereby requested to state, and then refute,
a single one of my purported "string of lies". But he can't, because
PD doesn't understand how to discuss SCIENCE. — NE —
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Aug 8, 7:06 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>>news:77272158-f067-4d77...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Aug 1, 9:55 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
>>>>>time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether
>>
>>>>[snip rest of crap]
>>
>>>>idiot
>>
>>>>http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
>>>>Physics Today 57(7) 40
>>>>(2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
>>>><http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
>>>> No aether
>>
>>>><http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
>>>> No Lorentz violation
>>
>>>>--
>>>>Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>>>> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most
>>>>mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
>>
>>>Only a stupid reader would go on any of Uncle Al's wild goose chases.
>>>Unless he is the AUTHOR of his links in blue, those signify his LACK
>>>of knowledge rather than his mental acuity. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>Like most crackpots, you attribute your own failings to others- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Dear Whoever: If there are any successes which can be attributed to
> YOU, I'm sure the readers would love to learn of even ONE! Ha, ha,
> HA! � NoEinstein �
On the same basis, you should give some successes you have had.
There have been none in science for you as you have shown yourself
to be a complete fool every time you try to say something about
science.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Whoever: Explain your issues about science IN YOUR OWN WORDS, or
shut up! — NoEinstein —
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ec40e8b4-0d59-41f8...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 6:33 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:83f20e85-8143-4a2f...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Aug 6, 5:50 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:d73ed136-9e9e-4f89...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Aug 5, 1:01 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
> >> >> > links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics,
>
> >> >> I don't post on that group
>
> >> >> > you don't have
> >> >> > the credentials to be replying to me.
>
> >> >> I don't need any
>
> >> >> > Consider yourself found out as
>
> >> >> You clearly don't know anything. You're nothing but a flooding troll.
>
> >> > Dear "Whoever": You fail the test, then call the teacher dumb. Where
> >> > is your... degree?
>
> >> You're a troll .. fuck off- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Which is more that you are offering.- Hide quoted text -
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Aug 9, 7:43 pm, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Whoever: Explain your issues about science IN YOUR OWN WORDS, or
> shut up! � NoEinstein �
There are no issues with science, just with your delusions.
>
>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>>news:ec40e8b4-0d59-41f8...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Aug 8, 6:33 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>news:83f20e85-8143-4a2f...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>On Aug 6, 5:50 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>news:d73ed136-9e9e-4f89...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>>>On Aug 5, 1:01 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
>>>>>>>links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics,
>>
>>>>>>I don't post on that group
>>
>>>>>>>you don't have
>>>>>>>the credentials to be replying to me.
>>
>>>>>>I don't need any
>>
>>>>>>>Consider yourself found out as
>>>>>>>being a know-little who likes to belittle of those who do know. �
>>
>>>>>>You clearly don't know anything. You're nothing but a flooding troll.
>>
>>>>>Dear "Whoever": You fail the test, then call the teacher dumb. Where
>>>>>is your... degree?
>>
>>>>You're a troll .. fuck off- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>"Whoever" has nothing to offer science but a poluted mouth. � NE �
NoEinstein
>
Folks: Dougie Boy, like PD, the Parasite Dunce, is an airhead who
attacks the Messengers, rather than the Message (of SCIENCE). The
only valid way to "put down" a messenger is to refute his or her
SCIENCE. If Dougie Boy, or anyone else for that matter, came refute
any point I have made on SCIENCE, I'm sure the readers would like to
hear the detailed rationale. But don't expect to get a discussion of
science from Dougie Boy, because he's just a jealous, airhead, do-
little, nobody. — NoEinstein —
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 7:43 pm, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Whoever: Explain your issues about science IN YOUR OWN WORDS, or
>
> There are no issues with science, just with your delusions.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ec40e8b4-0d59-41f8...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>On Aug 8, 6:33 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:83f20e85-8143-4a2f...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>On Aug 6, 5:50 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>news:d73ed136-9e9e-4f89...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>On Aug 5, 1:01 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
> >>>>>>>links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics,
>
> >>>>>>I don't post on that group
>
> >>>>>>>you don't have
> >>>>>>>the credentials to be replying to me.
>
> >>>>>>I don't need any
>
> >>>>>>>Consider yourself found out as
>
> >>>>>>You clearly don't know anything. You're nothing but a flooding troll.
>
> >>>>>Dear "Whoever": You fail the test, then call the teacher dumb. Where
> >>>>>is your... degree?
>
> >>>>You're a troll .. fuck off- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> >>Which is more that you are offering.- Hide quoted text -
>
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 4, 7:45 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: Dougie Boy, like PD, the Parasite Dunce, is an airhead who
> attacks the Messengers, rather than the Message (of SCIENCE).
Your "message" was destroyed after you first posts yet you still
come back as ignorant and egotistical as ever. You seem to want
to look stupid in public.
The
> only valid way to "put down" a messenger is to refute his or her
> SCIENCE. If Dougie Boy, or anyone else for that matter, came refute
> any point I have made on SCIENCE,
This has been done in every case. You stupidity is no excuse.
I'm sure the readers would like to
> hear the detailed rationale. But don't expect to get a discussion of
> science from Dougie Boy, because he's just a jealous, airhead, do-
> little, nobody. � NoEinstein �
>
However, I have done real science and you have not.
>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 9, 7:43 pm, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Whoever: Explain your issues about science IN YOUR OWN WORDS, or
>>>shut up! � NoEinstein �
>>
>>There are no issues with science, just with your delusions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>news:ec40e8b4-0d59-41f8...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>On Aug 8, 6:33 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>news:83f20e85-8143-4a2f...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>>>On Aug 6, 5:50 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>>>news:d73ed136-9e9e-4f89...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>>>>>On Aug 5, 1:01 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
>>>>>>>>>links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics,
>>
>>>>>>>>I don't post on that group
>>
>>>>>>>>>you don't have
>>>>>>>>>the credentials to be replying to me.
>>
>>>>>>>>I don't need any
>>
>>>>>>>>>Consider yourself found out as
>>>>>>>>>being a know-little who likes to belittle of those who do know. �
>>
>>>>>>>>You clearly don't know anything. You're nothing but a flooding troll.
>>
>>>>>>>Dear "Whoever": You fail the test, then call the teacher dumb. Where
>>>>>>>is your... degree?
>>
>>>>>>You're a troll .. fuck off- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>"Whoever" has nothing to offer science but a poluted mouth. � NE �
NoEinstein
readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
go. He's just a slimy leech. — NoEinstein —
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 7:43 pm, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Whoever: Explain your issues about science IN YOUR OWN WORDS, or
>
> There are no issues with science, just with your delusions.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ec40e8b4-0d59-41f8...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>On Aug 8, 6:33 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:83f20e85-8143-4a2f...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>On Aug 6, 5:50 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>news:d73ed136-9e9e-4f89...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>On Aug 5, 1:01 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
> >>>>>>>links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics,
>
> >>>>>>I don't post on that group
>
> >>>>>>>you don't have
> >>>>>>>the credentials to be replying to me.
>
> >>>>>>I don't need any
>
> >>>>>>>Consider yourself found out as
>
> >>>>>>You clearly don't know anything. You're nothing but a flooding troll.
>
> >>>>>Dear "Whoever": You fail the test, then call the teacher dumb. Where
> >>>>>is your... degree?
>
> >>>>You're a troll .. fuck off- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> >>Which is more that you are offering.- Hide quoted text -
>
NoEinstein
>
As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science. You regular
readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
go. He's just a slimy leech. — NoEinstein —
>
> > On Sep 4, 7:45 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> > Folks: Dougie Boy, like PD, the Parasite Dunce, is an airhead who
> > attacks the Messengers, rather than the Message (of SCIENCE).
>
> Your "message" was destroyed after you first posts yet you still
> come back as ignorant and egotistical as ever. You seem to want
> to look stupid in public.
>
> The
>
> > only valid way to "put down" a messenger is to refute his or her
> > SCIENCE. If Dougie Boy, or anyone else for that matter, came refute
> > any point I have made on SCIENCE,
>
> This has been done in every case. You stupidity is no excuse.
>
> I'm sure the readers would like to> hear the detailed rationale. But don't expect to get a discussion of
> > science from Dougie Boy, because he's just a jealous, airhead, do-
>
> However, I have done real science and you have not.
>
>
>
> >>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>On Aug 9, 7:43 pm, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Dear Whoever: Explain your issues about science IN YOUR OWN WORDS, or
>
> >>There are no issues with science, just with your delusions.
>
> >>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:ec40e8b4-0d59-41f8...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>On Aug 8, 6:33 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>news:83f20e85-8143-4a2f...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>On Aug 6, 5:50 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>>>news:d73ed136-9e9e-4f89...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>>On Aug 5, 1:01 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>Dear "Whoever": Unless you can provide the readers with titles and
> >>>>>>>>>links to 'new posts' that you have made on sci.physics,
>
> >>>>>>>>I don't post on that group
>
> >>>>>>>>>you don't have
> >>>>>>>>>the credentials to be replying to me.
>
> >>>>>>>>I don't need any
>
> >>>>>>>>>Consider yourself found out as
>
> >>>>>>>>You clearly don't know anything. You're nothing but a flooding troll.
>
> >>>>>>>Dear "Whoever": You fail the test, then call the teacher dumb. Where
> >>>>>>>is your... degree?
>
> >>>>>>You're a troll .. fuck off- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>
PD
> On Aug 9, 3:07 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PD, the Parasite Dunce, is hereby requested to state, and then refute,
> a single one of my purported "string of lies". But he can't, because
> PD doesn't understand how to discuss SCIENCE. — NE —
Sure, let's start with one. You stated that Einstein's GR is an
*empirical* equation written to explain the anomalies of planet
Mercury's orbit about the Sun.
Empirical equations have at least one free-fit parameter. Always.
Einstein's field equation contains NO free-fit parameters, and no data
from Mercury's orbit was used to set any constant in the equation.
What you said is a bald-faced LIE.
Now, would you like to move onto the NEXT lie?
NoEinstein
>
Dear Readers ‘and’ PD, the Parasite Dunce:
After years of being pestered by PD, I know that he is genetically and
pathologically incapable of being convinced of anything that’s not
part of his “status quo’ education. But I do credit that rascal with
sometimes asking good questions. I will therefore give you, the
Readers (not PD), part of my rationale for saying that Einstein’s GR
resulted directly from analysis of the orbital data for the planet
Mercury.
Very early in my odyssey to conclusively disprove Einstein’s SR, I
spent an afternoon in my local library. I had already proven to my
own satisfaction that the M-M experiment simply lacked a CONTROL, or
unchanging light course. Lorentz’s lame attempt to explain the nil
results of M-M was to say—more stupidly than any other “scientist”
since—that: “All matter, regardless of its composition or geometry—
will contract in direct proportion to velocity, and will remain
contracted, without the possibility of elastic rebound, until the
velocity is reduced.” Some of you know the latter as the “rubber
ruler” effect, also called the “Lorentz transformation”.
My providing the correct explanation, as above, for the ’failure’ of M-
M, simultaneously shot Lorentz out of his drunken saddle! While
skimming McGraw-Hill’s Scientific Encyclopedia, I saw that Einstein
was also including a Lorentz transformation in the equations purported
to represent his GR theory. I would eventually learn that GR closely
’predicts’ numbers of astronomical occurrences. Since I knew that
Lorentz transformations were wrong as a “concept”, such equation,
somehow, must be ‘close’ to correct, mathematically—otherwise GR
wouldn’t ’predict’ anything.
One of the first little books I read that afternoon in my public
library was a word-for-word translation, from German, giving
Einstein’s “simple” explanation for both his SR theory and his GR
theory. English is a Germanic language. After reading just a few
pages, I was immediately aware that the writer had a very small
vocabulary, and that his syntax was below average. After reading
several, usually short, chapters, I realized that the writing style
changed dramatically throughout the book, suggesting to me that
portions of book were the words of others… Since I had seen a live TV
broadcast in which Einstein had been interviewed, I could conclude
that Einstein was a slow-talking, verbal MORON and that he was likely
a ‘science’ moron, too.
An Einstein biography that I skimmed that afternoon, mentioned that
Einstein had an astronomer friend who had observed that the moons of
Jupiter were re emerging from the backside of that planet sooner than
the orbital periods predicted. I also read that anomalies in the
orbit of the planet Mercury, inconsistent with Newton’s Law of
“Universal” (sic) Gravitation, was what inspired Einstein to try to
refine Newton’s equation to fit the observations for the orbital
locations of Mercury. Einstein, who was clearly jealous of Newton’s
status as a scientist, set about with maniacal zeal to write an
empirical equation(s) to predict the orbit of Mercury at any point
about the Sun.
Since Einstein knew that some of the moons of Jupiter, that had
essentially circular orbits, were re emerging (visually) sooner that
the orbital periods predicted, he (or another…) concluded that the
‘gravity’ of Jupiter was somehow bending light like a lens. And he
(or another…) concluded that the amount of optical bending of light
would be directly proportional to the mass of the planet (or star).
Other than for his (or another’s) observations on the photovoltaic
effect; and on Brownian Motion in liquids, Einstein was a lackluster
scientist. He would stake his entire reputation on being able to
‘predict’ the angle of bending of a star’s light in passing from
behind the Sun during a solar eclipse. A recent TV biography of
Einstein explained how he had been all set to predict the angle of
bending for an upcoming solar eclipse, when he realized that his
equations weren’t correct… A few years would pass before the
equations could be made to be satisfactory.
By deductive reasoning, Einstein’s GR equations had to have been based
about equally on Newton’s law and on the precise orbital data
available for the planet Mercury. That’s because: *** The latter were
the only “observations” that were available to Einstein, or to anyone,
for writing a ‘predicting’ equation(s)!*** To maximize the importance
of his GR equations, Einstein conveniently neglected to tell others
that Mercury was involved. One of the first “proofs” of GR was to let
others use his equations to “predict” where Mercury should be. Of
course they worked…
Just after the outbreak of WW I, Einstein managed to get photographic
observations of a solar eclipse inside Russia. When the measurements
of the star plates were taken, they showed the angle of bending to be
close enough to Einstein’s “predictions”, that the scientific
community started calling MORON Einstein a genius… I would read,
later, that Einstein had been cock-sure of his… prediction. But how
could that be, for a man with a marginal intellect?
Astronomy used to be my hobby. In reading over the years, I learned
that any low power telescope can have a disk put on the front to blank-
out the lumen of the Sun—just like the Moon would do during a solar
eclipse. Stars’ light is getting bent by the Sun all the time, but
the Sun’s brightness prevents the making of any observations. But
with a correctly sized and placed disk in front of the telescope, the
virtual eclipse(s) will allow star measurements to be made just about
any time.
The primary equation variable to (reverse) predict the angle of
bending would be the mass of the Sun. Newton’s Law of
“Universal” (sic) Gravitation gave a mass that was different from the
actual, because Newton’s Law didn’t consider that very hot bodies have
a higher gravity than a ‘colder’ body would have. Another important
variable would be the apparent distance of the star(s) from the center
of the Sun. Unbeknownst to Newton nor Einstein, the maximum gravity
of the Sun is where the maximum heat and illumination is. Often that
is at solar flairs on the surface. So, regardless of the equations
used, any mathematical prediction would likely vary from the observed
bending at any given time.
By constant hard work (not genius) Einstein formulated GR equations
which make satisfactory predictions. But Einstein never could figure
out what the mechanism of gravity is… Since his equations plotted to
vary according to the inverse square law, Einstein wrongly assumed
that… space and time… must be warped… close to massive objects. But
yours truly knows that the mechanism of gravity is simply downward
flowing ether whose density and velocity vary according to the inverse
square law. A “double variation” of an inverse square law,
coincidentally will plot similar to that conceptually errant, but
mathematically correct… “Lorentz transformation”.
I trust that the above explanation answers PD’s question, though I
don’t expect that air-head to acknowledge such fact. — NoEinstein
—
PD
So let's summarize. You supported a shorter version of something you
made up out of thin air, with a much more verbose version of something
you made up out of thin air.
You are a hoot, that's what you are. Crazy as a caged wombat, but a
hoot.
> ...
>
> read more »
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 11, 11:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Readers �and� PD, the Parasite Dunce:
>
> After years of being pestered by PD, I know that he is genetically and
> pathologically incapable of being convinced of anything that�s not
> part of his �status quo� education. But I do credit that rascal with
> sometimes asking good questions. I will therefore give you, the
> Readers (not PD), part of my rationale for saying that Einstein�s GR
> resulted directly from analysis of the orbital data for the planet
> Mercury.
>
> Very early in my odyssey to conclusively disprove Einstein�s SR, I
> spent an afternoon in my local library.
Wow, you spent an entire afternoon at a library. Well, that must
mean you are correct.
I had already proven to my
> own satisfaction that the M-M experiment simply lacked a CONTROL, or
> unchanging light course.
You are very easily satisfied. Scientists hold out for the truth.
Lorentz�s lame attempt to explain the nil
> results of M-M was to say�more stupidly than any other �scientist�
> since�that: �All matter, regardless of its composition or geometry�
> will contract in direct proportion to velocity, and will remain
> contracted, without the possibility of elastic rebound, until the
> velocity is reduced.� Some of you know the latter as the �rubber
> ruler� effect, also called the �Lorentz transformation�.
You do realize that material contraction is not part of relativity?
>
> My providing the correct explanation, as above, for the �failure� of M-
> M, simultaneously shot Lorentz out of his drunken saddle! While
> skimming McGraw-Hill�s Scientific Encyclopedia,
Skimming, yes that is the best detail study method.
I saw that Einstein
> was also including a Lorentz transformation in the equations purported
> to represent his GR theory. I would eventually learn that GR closely
> �predicts� numbers of astronomical occurrences. Since I knew
Well, more like "hoped".
that
> Lorentz transformations were wrong as a �concept�, such equation,
> somehow, must be �close� to correct, mathematically�otherwise GR
> wouldn�t �predict� anything.
>
> One of the first little books I read that afternoon in my public
> library was a word-for-word translation, from German, giving
> Einstein�s �simple� explanation for both his SR theory and his GR
> theory. English is a Germanic language. After reading just a few
> pages, I was immediately aware that the writer had a very small
> vocabulary, and that his syntax was below average.
So you decided that the translator was not very good?
After reading
> several, usually short, chapters, I realized that the writing style
> changed dramatically throughout the book, suggesting to me that
> portions of book were the words of others�
Oh, here it comes, the conspiracy or is it the plagerism charge?
Since I had seen a live TV
> broadcast in which Einstein had been interviewed, I could conclude
> that Einstein was a slow-talking, verbal MORON and that he was likely
> a �science� moron, too.
No, just the hatred and prejudice angle.
>
> An Einstein biography that I skimmed that afternoon,
More in depth study I see.
mentioned that
> Einstein had an astronomer friend who had observed that the moons of
> Jupiter were re emerging from the backside of that planet sooner than
> the orbital periods predicted. I also read that anomalies in the
> orbit of the planet Mercury, inconsistent with Newton�s Law of
> �Universal� (sic) Gravitation, was what inspired Einstein to try to
> refine Newton�s equation to fit the observations for the orbital
> locations of Mercury. Einstein, who was clearly jealous of Newton�s
> status as a scientist,
Yep, here is john's jealousy showing up again.
set about with maniacal zeal to write an
> empirical equation(s) to predict the orbit of Mercury at any point
> about the Sun.
>
> Since Einstein knew that some of the moons of Jupiter, that had
> essentially circular orbits, were re emerging (visually) sooner that
> the orbital periods predicted, he (or another�) concluded that the
> �gravity� of Jupiter was somehow bending light like a lens. And he
> (or another�) concluded that the amount of optical bending of light
> would be directly proportional to the mass of the planet (or star).
>
> Other than for his (or another�s) observations on the photovoltaic
> effect; and on Brownian Motion in liquids, Einstein was a lackluster
> scientist.
So other than the Nobel prize winning work among others, he did
not do very much.
He would stake his entire reputation on being able to
> �predict� the angle of bending of a star�s light in passing from
> behind the Sun during a solar eclipse. A recent TV biography of
> Einstein explained how he had been all set to predict the angle of
> bending for an upcoming solar eclipse, when he realized that his
> equations weren�t correct� A few years would pass before the
> equations could be made to be satisfactory.
>
> By deductive reasoning, Einstein�s GR equations had to have been based
> about equally on Newton�s law and on the precise orbital data
> available for the planet Mercury. That�s because: *** The latter were
> the only �observations� that were available to Einstein, or to anyone,
> for writing a �predicting� equation(s)!*** To maximize the importance
> of his GR equations, Einstein conveniently neglected to tell others
> that Mercury was involved. One of the first �proofs� of GR was to let
> others use his equations to �predict� where Mercury should be. Of
> course they worked�
>
> Just after the outbreak of WW I, Einstein managed to get photographic
> observations of a solar eclipse inside Russia. When the measurements
> of the star plates were taken, they showed the angle of bending to be
> close enough to Einstein�s �predictions�, that the scientific
> community started calling MORON Einstein a genius� I would read,
> later, that Einstein had been cock-sure of his� prediction. But how
> could that be, for a man with a marginal intellect?
More of john's hatred and jealousy.
>
> Astronomy used to be my hobby. In reading over the years, I learned
> that any low power telescope can have a disk put on the front to blank-
> out the lumen of the Sun�just like the Moon would do during a solar
> eclipse. Stars� light is getting bent by the Sun all the time, but
> the Sun�s brightness prevents the making of any observations. But
> with a correctly sized and placed disk in front of the telescope, the
> virtual eclipse(s) will allow star measurements to be made just about
> any time.
>
> The primary equation variable to (reverse) predict the angle of
> bending would be the mass of the Sun. Newton�s Law of
> �Universal� (sic) Gravitation gave a mass that was different from the
> actual, because Newton�s Law didn�t consider that very hot bodies have
> a higher gravity than a �colder� body would have. Another important
> variable would be the apparent distance of the star(s) from the center
> of the Sun. Unbeknownst to Newton nor Einstein, the maximum gravity
> of the Sun is where the maximum heat and illumination is.
My goodness, a new area for john to show his ignorance.
Often that
> is at solar flairs on the surface. So, regardless of the equations
> used, any mathematical prediction would likely vary from the observed
> bending at any given time.
>
> By constant hard work (not genius) Einstein formulated GR equations
> which make satisfactory predictions.
Yes, so GR works very well. You should be happy about that. What
is your complaint?
But Einstein never could figure
> out what the mechanism of gravity is� Since his equations plotted to
> vary according to the inverse square law, Einstein wrongly assumed
> that� space and time� must be warped� close to massive objects. But
> yours truly knows that the mechanism of gravity is simply downward
> flowing ether whose density and velocity vary according to the inverse
> square law.
Now here come john's complete delusions and ignorance. He likes
to make unsupported assertions instead of learning anything.
A �double variation� of an inverse square law,
> coincidentally will plot similar to that conceptually errant, but
> mathematically correct� �Lorentz transformation�.
>
> I trust that the above explanation answers PD�s question, though I
> don�t expect that air-head to acknowledge such fact. � NoEinstein
> �
Well it answered the question about john being too stupid to
ever come back.
>
>
>>On Sep 4, 4:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Aug 9, 3:07 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>PD, the Parasite Dunce, is hereby requested to state, and then refute,
>>>a single one of my purported "string of lies". But he can't, because
>>>PD doesn't understand how to discuss SCIENCE. � NE �
>>
>>Sure, let's start with one. You stated that Einstein's GR is an
>>*empirical* equation written to explain the anomalies of planet
>>Mercury's orbit about the Sun.
>>
>>Empirical equations have at least one free-fit parameter. Always.
>>Einstein's field equation contains NO free-fit parameters, and no data
>>from Mercury's orbit was used to set any constant in the equation.
>>What you said is a bald-faced LIE.
>>
>>Now, would you like to move onto the NEXT lie?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>On Aug 9, 11:06 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Aug 8, 12:02 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Folks: You should know by now that I won't "converse"
>>
>>>>Of course you won't. I just pointed out a string of your lies. What
>>>>would you have to say about that? Nothing.
>>
>>>>>with the likes
>>>>>of PD, the Parasite Dunce. He wants the words of others to make his
>>>>>points. He can't elucidate about science, and faults those who expect
>>>>>the "arguments" expressed to be... in their own words. PD has made
>>>>>like one 'new post' in all the years he has been pestering me. He has
>>>>>nothing to offer science, but keeps trying to suck-into-his-quagmire
>>>>>smart people whom he hopes will elevate his status above: A single
>>>>>neuron, air-head, Parasite Dunce. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>On Aug 7, 7:41 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Aug 1, 9:10 pm, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>>>news:d05624aa-e626-49e3...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>>>>>On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
>>>>>>>>>time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether that is
>>>>>>>>>greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
>>>>>>>>>replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
>>>>>>>>>science FICTION. The latter is science FACT! � NoEinstein �
>>>>>>>is a credit to the stupidity of Einstein's followers. �
>>>>>>>NoEinstein �- Hide quoted text -
Inertial
>
> After years of being pestered by PD, I know that he is genetically and
> part of his �status quo� education. But I do credit that rascal with
> sometimes asking good questions. I will therefore give you, the
> resulted directly from analysis of the orbital data for the planet
> Mercury.
>
Why do you feel that is something you need to do?
> I
> spent an afternoon in my local library. I had already proven to my
> own satisfaction that the M-M experiment simply lacked a CONTROL, or
> unchanging light course. Lorentz�s lame attempt to explain the nil
> results of M-M was to say�more stupidly than any other �scientist�
> since�that: �All matter, regardless of its composition or geometry�
> will contract in direct proportion to velocity, and will remain
> contracted, without the possibility of elastic rebound, until the
> velocity is reduced.� Some of you know the latter as the �rubber
> ruler� effect, also called the �Lorentz transformation�.
>
> My providing the correct explanation, as above, for the �failure� of M-
> M, simultaneously shot Lorentz out of his drunken saddle! While
> skimming McGraw-Hill�s Scientific Encyclopedia, I saw that Einstein
> was also including a Lorentz transformation in the equations purported
> to represent his GR theory. I would eventually learn that GR closely
> �predicts� numbers of astronomical occurrences. Since I knew that
> Lorentz transformations were wrong as a �concept�,
Why?
> such equation,
> somehow, must be �close� to correct, mathematically�otherwise GR
> wouldn�t �predict� anything.
Indeed. So this is all based on gut feeling rather than science
> One of the first little books I read that afternoon in my public
> library was a word-for-word translation, from German, giving
> Einstein�s �simple� explanation for both his SR theory and his GR
> theory. English is a Germanic language. After reading just a few
> pages, I was immediately aware that the writer had a very small
> vocabulary, and that his syntax was below average.
So your basis for SR being wrong is Einteins vocabulary, rather than
science.
Why is that even relevant?
> After reading
> several, usually short, chapters, I realized that the writing style
> changed dramatically throughout the book, suggesting to me that
> portions of book were the words of others�
Oh gawd .. here we go .. conspiracy theories and attacks on einsteins
charaxctersas the basis for claiming Sr is wrong
> Since I had seen a live TV
> broadcast in which Einstein had been interviewed, I could conclude
> that Einstein was a slow-talking, verbal MORON and that he was likely
> a �science� moron, too.
Still not a single scientific reason why SR is wrong.. Only your obvious
jealousy of Einstein, most likely due to your over-inflated ego.
> An Einstein biography that I skimmed that afternoon, mentioned that
> Einstein had an astronomer friend who had observed that the moons of
> Jupiter were re emerging from the backside of that planet sooner than
> the orbital periods predicted. I also read that anomalies in the
> orbit of the planet Mercury, inconsistent with Newton�s Law of
> �Universal� (sic) Gravitation, was what inspired Einstein to try to
> refine Newton�s equation to fit the observations for the orbital
> locations of Mercury. Einstein, who was clearly jealous of Newton�s
> status as a scientist, set about with maniacal zeal to write an
> empirical equation(s) to predict the orbit of Mercury at any point
> about the Sun.
You're even projecting your own jealousy onto Einstein.
> Since Einstein knew that some of the moons of Jupiter, that had
> essentially circular orbits, were re emerging (visually) sooner that
> the orbital periods predicted, he (or another�) concluded that the
> �gravity� of Jupiter was somehow bending light like a lens. And he
> (or another�) concluded that the amount of optical bending of light
> would be directly proportional to the mass of the planet (or star).
>
> Other than for his (or another�s) observations on the photovoltaic
> effect; and on Brownian Motion in liquids, Einstein was a lackluster
> scientist. He would stake his entire reputation on being able to
> �predict� the angle of bending of a star�s light in passing from
> behind the Sun during a solar eclipse. A recent TV biography of
> Einstein explained how he had been all set to predict the angle of
> bending for an upcoming solar eclipse, when he realized that his
> equations weren�t correct� A few years would pass before the
> equations could be made to be satisfactory.
>
> By deductive reasoning, Einstein�s GR equations had to have been based
> about equally on Newton�s law and on the precise orbital data
> available for the planet Mercury. That�s because: *** The latter were
> the only �observations� that were available to Einstein, or to anyone,
> for writing a �predicting� equation(s)!*** To maximize the importance
> of his GR equations, Einstein conveniently neglected to tell others
> that Mercury was involved. One of the first �proofs� of GR was to let
> others use his equations to �predict� where Mercury should be. Of
> course they worked�
>
> Just after the outbreak of WW I, Einstein managed to get photographic
> observations of a solar eclipse inside Russia. When the measurements
> of the star plates were taken, they showed the angle of bending to be
> close enough to Einstein�s �predictions�, that the scientific
> community started calling MORON Einstein a genius� I would read,
> later, that Einstein had been cock-sure of his� prediction. But how
> could that be, for a man with a marginal intellect?
>
> Astronomy used to be my hobby. In reading over the years, I learned
> that any low power telescope can have a disk put on the front to blank-
> out the lumen of the Sun�just like the Moon would do during a solar
> eclipse. Stars� light is getting bent by the Sun all the time, but
> the Sun�s brightness prevents the making of any observations. But
> with a correctly sized and placed disk in front of the telescope, the
> virtual eclipse(s) will allow star measurements to be made just about
> any time.
>
> The primary equation variable to (reverse) predict the angle of
> bending would be the mass of the Sun. Newton�s Law of
> �Universal� (sic) Gravitation gave a mass that was different from the
> actual, because Newton�s Law didn�t consider that very hot bodies have
> a higher gravity than a �colder� body would have. Another important
> variable would be the apparent distance of the star(s) from the center
> of the Sun. Unbeknownst to Newton nor Einstein, the maximum gravity
> of the Sun is where the maximum heat and illumination is. Often that
> is at solar flairs on the surface. So, regardless of the equations
> used, any mathematical prediction would likely vary from the observed
> bending at any given time.
>
> By constant hard work (not genius) Einstein formulated GR equations
> which make satisfactory predictions. But Einstein never could figure
> out what the mechanism of gravity is� Since his equations plotted to
> vary according to the inverse square law, Einstein wrongly assumed
> that� space and time� must be warped� close to massive objects. But
> yours truly knows that the mechanism of gravity is simply downward
> flowing ether whose density and velocity vary according to the inverse
> square law. A �double variation� of an inverse square law,
> coincidentally will plot similar to that conceptually errant, but
> mathematically correct� �Lorentz transformation�.
>
> I trust that the above explanation answers PD�s question, though I
> don�t expect that air-head to acknowledge such fact. � NoEinstein
So .. no a single bit of science in all that.
As expected
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce:
Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to
get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made
up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic
projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my
own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce
the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything
about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status
quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any
area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In
your DREAMS, that is! — NoEinstein —
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
... Isn't it amazing how hard Dougie Boy, the leech, keeps trying to
discredit me? The extent of his involvement in... "science' was to
carry sand bags up a ladder and to drop them on structures to see if
and when those things break. Somewhere along the way, someone dropped
a big sandbag on his head. Now, all he can do is to be my groupie.
Sad, very sad. — NoEinstein —> > Dear Readers ‘and’ PD, the Parasite Dunce:
>
> > After years of being pestered by PD, I know that he is genetically and
> > part of his “status quo’ education. But I do credit that rascal with
> > sometimes asking good questions. I will therefore give you, the
> > resulted directly from analysis of the orbital data for the planet
> > Mercury.
>
> > spent an afternoon in my local library.
>
> Wow, you spent an entire afternoon at a library. Well, that must
> mean you are correct.
>
> I had already proven to my
>
> > own satisfaction that the M-M experiment simply lacked a CONTROL, or
> > unchanging light course.
>
> You are very easily satisfied. Scientists hold out for the truth.
>
>
> > results of M-M was to say—more stupidly than any other “scientist”
> > since—that: “All matter, regardless of its composition or geometry—
> > will contract in direct proportion to velocity, and will remain
> > contracted, without the possibility of elastic rebound, until the
>
> You do realize that material contraction is not part of relativity?
>
>
>
> > M, simultaneously shot Lorentz out of his drunken saddle! While
>
> Skimming, yes that is the best detail study method.
>
> I saw that Einstein
>
> > was also including a Lorentz transformation in the equations purported
> > to represent his GR theory. I would eventually learn that GR closely
>
> Well, more like "hoped".
>
> that
>
> > somehow, must be ‘close’ to correct, mathematically—otherwise GR
>
> > One of the first little books I read that afternoon in my public
> > library was a word-for-word translation, from German, giving
> > theory. English is a Germanic language. After reading just a few
> > pages, I was immediately aware that the writer had a very small
> > vocabulary, and that his syntax was below average.
>
> So you decided that the translator was not very good?
>
> After reading
>
> > several, usually short, chapters, I realized that the writing style
> > changed dramatically throughout the book, suggesting to me that
>
> Oh, here it comes, the conspiracy or is it the plagerism charge?
>
> Since I had seen a live TV
>
> > broadcast in which Einstein had been interviewed, I could conclude
> > that Einstein was a slow-talking, verbal MORON and that he was likely
>
> No, just the hatred and prejudice angle.
>
>
>
> > An Einstein biography that I skimmed that afternoon,
>
> More in depth study I see.
>
> mentioned that
>
> > Einstein had an astronomer friend who had observed that the moons of
> > Jupiter were re emerging from the backside of that planet sooner than
> > the orbital periods predicted. I also read that anomalies in the
> > refine Newton’s equation to fit the observations for the orbital
> > locations of Mercury. Einstein, who was clearly jealous of Newton’s
> > status as a scientist,
>
> Yep, here is john's jealousy showing up again.
>
> set about with maniacal zeal to write an
>
> > empirical equation(s) to predict the orbit of Mercury at any point
> > about the Sun.
>
> > Since Einstein knew that some of the moons of Jupiter, that had
> > essentially circular orbits, were re emerging (visually) sooner that
> > (or another…) concluded that the amount of optical bending of light
> > would be directly proportional to the mass of the planet (or star).
>
> > effect; and on Brownian Motion in liquids, Einstein was a lackluster
> > scientist.
>
> So other than the Nobel prize winning work among others, he did
> not do very much.
>
> He would stake his entire reputation on being able to
>
>
>
>
>
> > behind the Sun during a solar eclipse. A recent TV biography of
> > Einstein explained how he had been all set to predict the angle of
> > bending for an upcoming solar eclipse, when he realized that his
> > equations could be made to be satisfactory.
>
> > about equally on Newton’s law and on the precise orbital data
> > available for the planet Mercury. That’s because: *** The latter were
> > the only “observations” that were available to Einstein, or to anyone,
> > for writing a ‘predicting’ equation(s)!*** To maximize the importance
> > of his GR equations, Einstein conveniently neglected to tell others
> > others use his equations to “predict” where Mercury should be. Of
> > course they worked…
>
> > Just after the outbreak of WW I, Einstein managed to get photographic
> > observations of a solar eclipse inside Russia. When the measurements
> > of the star plates were taken, they showed the angle of bending to be
> > community started calling MORON Einstein a genius… I would read,
> > later, that Einstein had been cock-sure of his… prediction. But how
> > could that be, for a man with a marginal intellect?
>
> More of john's hatred and jealousy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Astronomy used to be my hobby. In reading over the years, I learned
> > that any low power telescope can have a disk put on the front to blank-
> > eclipse. Stars’ light is getting bent by the Sun all the time, but
> > the Sun’s brightness prevents the making of any observations. But
> > with a correctly sized and placed disk in front of the telescope, the
> > virtual eclipse(s) will allow star measurements to be made just about
> > any time.
>
> > The primary equation variable to (reverse) predict the angle of
> > “Universal” (sic) Gravitation gave a mass that was different from the
> > actual, because Newton’s Law didn’t consider that very hot bodies have
> > a higher gravity than a ‘colder’ body would have. Another important
> > variable would be the apparent distance of the star(s) from the center
> > of the Sun. Unbeknownst to Newton nor Einstein, the maximum gravity
> > of the Sun is where the maximum heat and illumination is.
>
> My goodness, a new area for john to show his ignorance.
>
> Often that
>
> > is at solar flairs on the surface. So, regardless of the equations
> > used, any mathematical prediction would likely vary from the observed
> > bending at any given time.
>
> > By constant hard work (not genius) Einstein formulated GR equations
> > which make satisfactory predictions.
>
> Yes, so GR works very well. You should be happy about that. What
> is your complaint?
>
> But Einstein never could figure
>
> > vary according to the inverse square law, Einstein wrongly assumed
> > yours truly knows that the mechanism of gravity is simply downward
> > flowing ether whose density and velocity vary according to the inverse
> > square law.
>
> Now here come john's complete delusions and ignorance. He likes
> to make unsupported assertions instead of learning anything.
>
>
> > coincidentally will plot similar to that conceptually errant, but
>
> > I trust that the above explanation answers PD’s question, though I
> > —
>
> Well it answered the question about john being too stupid to
> ever come back.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>On Sep 4, 4:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>On Aug 9, 3:07 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>PD, the Parasite Dunce, is hereby requested to state, and then refute,
> >>>a single one of my purported "string of lies". But he can't, because
>
> >>Sure, let's start with one. You stated that Einstein's GR is an
> >>*empirical* equation written to explain the anomalies of planet
> >>Mercury's orbit about the Sun.
>
> >>Empirical equations have at least one free-fit parameter. Always.
> >>Einstein's field equation contains NO free-fit parameters, and no data
> >>from Mercury's orbit was used to set any constant in the equation.
> >>What you said is a bald-faced LIE.
>
> >>Now, would you like to move onto the NEXT lie?
>
> >>>>On Aug 9, 11:06 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Aug 8, 12:02 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Folks: You should know by now that I won't "converse"
>
> >>>>Of course you won't. I just pointed out a string of your lies. What
> >>>>would you have to say about that? Nothing.
>
> >>>>>with the likes
> >>>>>of PD, the Parasite Dunce. He wants the words of others to make his
> >>>>>points. He can't elucidate about
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
Dear Inertial: Since you have never posted anything new on
sci.physics, you aren't qualified to add or detract from my posts.
Being an immovable object (inert) offers nothing to science. —
NoEinstein —
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:182f1925-18c6-4ee8...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 11, 11:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > After years of being pestered by PD, I know that he is genetically and
> > part of his “status quo’ education. But I do credit that rascal with
> > sometimes asking good questions. I will therefore give you, the
> > resulted directly from analysis of the orbital data for the planet
> > Mercury.
>
>
> Why do you feel that is something you need to do?
>
>
>
>
>
> > I
> > spent an afternoon in my local library. I had already proven to my
> > own satisfaction that the M-M experiment simply lacked a CONTROL, or
> > results of M-M was to say—more stupidly than any other “scientist”
> > since—that: “All matter, regardless of its composition or geometry—
> > will contract in direct proportion to velocity, and will remain
> > contracted, without the possibility of elastic rebound, until the
>
> > My providing the correct explanation, as above, for the ’failure’ of M-
> > M, simultaneously shot Lorentz out of his drunken saddle! While
> > was also including a Lorentz transformation in the equations purported
> > to represent his GR theory. I would eventually learn that GR closely
> > Lorentz transformations were wrong as a “concept”,
>
> Why?
>
> > such equation,
> > somehow, must be ‘close’ to correct, mathematically—otherwise GR
>
> Indeed. So this is all based on gut feeling rather than science
>
> > One of the first little books I read that afternoon in my public
> > library was a word-for-word translation, from German, giving
> > theory. English is a Germanic language. After reading just a few
> > pages, I was immediately aware that the writer had a very small
> > vocabulary, and that his syntax was below average.
>
> So your basis for SR being wrong is Einteins vocabulary, rather than
> science.
>
> Why is that even relevant?
>
> > After reading
> > several, usually short, chapters, I realized that the writing style
> > changed dramatically throughout the book, suggesting to me that
>
> Oh gawd .. here we go .. conspiracy theories and attacks on einsteins
> charaxctersas the basis for claiming Sr is wrong
>
> > Since I had seen a live TV
> > broadcast in which Einstein had been interviewed, I could conclude
> > that Einstein was a slow-talking, verbal MORON and that he was likely
>
> Still not a single scientific reason why SR is wrong.. Only your obvious
> jealousy of Einstein, most likely due to your over-inflated ego.
>
> > An Einstein biography that I skimmed that afternoon, mentioned that
> > Einstein had an astronomer friend who had observed that the moons of
> > Jupiter were re emerging from the backside of that planet sooner than
> > the orbital periods predicted. I also read that anomalies in the
> > refine Newton’s equation to fit the observations for the orbital
> > locations of Mercury. Einstein, who was clearly jealous of Newton’s
> > status as a scientist, set about with maniacal zeal to write an
> > empirical equation(s) to predict the orbit of Mercury at any point
> > about the Sun.
>
> You're even projecting your own jealousy onto Einstein.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Since Einstein knew that some of the moons of Jupiter, that had
> > essentially circular orbits, were re emerging (visually) sooner that
> > (or another…) concluded that the amount of optical bending of light
> > would be directly proportional to the mass of the planet (or star).
>
> > effect; and on Brownian Motion in liquids, Einstein was a lackluster
> > scientist. He would stake his entire reputation on being able to
> > behind the Sun during a solar eclipse. A recent TV biography of
> > Einstein explained how he had been all set to predict the angle of
> > bending for an upcoming solar eclipse, when he realized that his
> > equations could be made to be satisfactory.
>
> > about equally on Newton’s law and on the precise orbital data
> > available for the planet Mercury. That’s because: *** The latter were
> > the only “observations” that were available to Einstein, or to anyone,
> > for writing a ‘predicting’ equation(s)!*** To maximize the importance
> > of his GR equations, Einstein conveniently neglected to tell others
> > others use his equations to “predict” where Mercury should be. Of
> > course they worked…
>
> > Just after the outbreak of WW I, Einstein managed to get photographic
> > observations of a solar eclipse inside Russia. When the measurements
> > of the star plates were taken, they showed the angle of bending to be
> > community started calling MORON Einstein a genius… I would read,
> > later, that Einstein had been cock-sure of his… prediction. But how
> > could that be, for a man with a marginal intellect?
>
> > Astronomy used to be my hobby. In reading over the years, I learned
> > that any low power telescope can have a disk put on the front to blank-
> > eclipse. Stars’ light is getting bent by the Sun all the time, but
> > the Sun’s brightness prevents the making of any observations. But
> > with a correctly sized and placed disk in front of the telescope, the
> > virtual eclipse(s) will allow star measurements to be made just about
> > any time.
>
> > The primary equation variable to (reverse) predict the angle of
> > “Universal” (sic) Gravitation gave a mass that was different from the
> > actual, because Newton’s Law didn’t consider that very hot bodies have
> > a higher gravity than a ‘colder’ body would have. Another important
> > variable would be the apparent distance of the star(s) from the center
> > of the Sun. Unbeknownst to Newton nor Einstein, the maximum gravity
> > of the Sun is where the maximum heat and illumination is. Often that
> > is at solar flairs on the surface. So, regardless of the equations
> > used, any mathematical prediction would likely vary from the observed
> > bending at any given time.
>
> > By constant hard work (not genius) Einstein formulated GR equations
> > which make satisfactory predictions. But Einstein never could figure
> > vary according to the inverse square law, Einstein wrongly assumed
> > yours truly knows that the mechanism of gravity is simply downward
> > flowing ether whose density and velocity vary according to the inverse
> > coincidentally will plot similar to that conceptually errant, but
>
> > I trust that the above explanation answers PD’s question, though I
>
> So .. no a single bit of science in all that.
>
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce:
>
> Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to
> get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'.
Well, this shows your ignorance but is not a problem with science.
What you call "made
> up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic
> projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen).
Your ego is certainly unsupported by your meager abilities. You
do have big delusions though.
I have put into my
> own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce
> the true, new science for the Universe.
The true crank strutting his stupidity in public.
Have YOU ever put anything
> about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status
> quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any
> area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived.
This is so funny. If you had any idea how you looked with your
grade school taunts, you would be embarrassed.
In
> your DREAMS, that is! � NoEinstein �
>
>>On Sep 14, 4:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sep 11, 11:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Readers �and� PD, the Parasite Dunce:
>>
>>>After years of being pestered by PD, I know that he is genetically and
>>>pathologically incapable of being convinced of anything that�s not
>>>part of his �status quo� education. But I do credit that rascal with
>>>sometimes asking good questions. I will therefore give you, the
>>>Readers (not PD), part of my rationale for saying that Einstein�s GR
>>>resulted directly from analysis of the orbital data for the planet
>>>Mercury.
>>
>>>Very early in my odyssey to conclusively disprove Einstein�s SR, I
>>>spent an afternoon in my local library. I had already proven to my
>>>own satisfaction that the M-M experiment simply lacked a CONTROL, or
>>>unchanging light course. Lorentz�s lame attempt to explain the nil
>>>results of M-M was to say�more stupidly than any other �scientist�
>>>since�that: �All matter, regardless of its composition or geometry�
>>>will contract in direct proportion to velocity, and will remain
>>>contracted, without the possibility of elastic rebound, until the
>>>velocity is reduced.� Some of you know the latter as the �rubber
>>>ruler� effect, also called the �Lorentz transformation�.
>>
>>>My providing the correct explanation, as above, for the �failure� of M-
>>>M, simultaneously shot Lorentz out of his drunken saddle! While
>>>skimming McGraw-Hill�s Scientific Encyclopedia, I saw that Einstein
>>>was also including a Lorentz transformation in the equations purported
>>>to represent his GR theory. I would eventually learn that GR closely
>>>�predicts� numbers of astronomical occurrences. Since I knew that
>>>Lorentz transformations were wrong as a �concept�, such equation,
>>>somehow, must be �close� to correct, mathematically�otherwise GR
>>>wouldn�t �predict� anything.
>>
>>>One of the first little books I read that afternoon in my public
>>>library was a word-for-word translation, from German, giving
>>>Einstein�s �simple� explanation for both his SR theory and his GR
>>>theory. English is a Germanic language. After reading just a few
>>>pages, I was immediately aware that the writer had a very small
>>>vocabulary, and that his syntax was below average. After reading
>>>several, usually short, chapters, I realized that the writing style
>>>changed dramatically throughout the book, suggesting to me that
>>>portions of book were the words of others� Since I had seen a live TV
>>>broadcast in which Einstein had been interviewed, I could conclude
>>>that Einstein was a slow-talking, verbal MORON and that he was likely
>>>a �science� moron, too.
>>
>>>An Einstein biography that I skimmed that afternoon, mentioned that
>>>Einstein had an astronomer friend who had observed that the moons of
>>>Jupiter were re emerging from the backside of that planet sooner than
>>>the orbital periods predicted. I also read that anomalies in the
>>>orbit of the planet Mercury, inconsistent with Newton�s Law of
>>>�Universal� (sic) Gravitation, was what inspired Einstein to try to
>>>refine Newton�s equation to fit the observations for the orbital
>>>locations of Mercury. Einstein, who was clearly jealous of Newton�s
>>>status as a scientist, set about with maniacal zeal to write an
>>>empirical equation(s) to predict the orbit of Mercury at any point
>>>about the Sun.
>>
>>>Since Einstein knew that some of the moons of Jupiter, that had
>>>essentially circular orbits, were re emerging (visually) sooner that
>>>the orbital periods predicted, he (or another�) concluded that the
>>>�gravity� of Jupiter was somehow bending light like a lens. And he
>>>(or another�) concluded that the amount of optical bending of light
>>>would be directly proportional to the mass of the planet (or star).
>>
>>>Other than for his (or another�s) observations on the photovoltaic
>>>effect; and on Brownian Motion in liquids, Einstein was a lackluster
>>>scientist. He would stake his entire reputation on being able to
>>>�predict� the angle of bending of a star�s light in passing from
>>>behind the Sun during a solar eclipse. A recent TV biography of
>>>Einstein explained how he had been all set to predict the angle of
>>>bending for an upcoming solar eclipse, when he realized that his
>>>equations weren�t correct� A few years would pass before the
>>>equations could be made to be satisfactory.
>>
>>>By deductive reasoning, Einstein�s GR equations had to have been based
>>>about equally on Newton�s law and on the precise orbital data
>>>available for the planet Mercury. That�s because: *** The latter were
>>>the only �observations� that were available to Einstein, or to anyone,
>>>for writing a �predicting� equation(s)!*** To maximize the importance
>>>of his GR equations, Einstein conveniently neglected to tell others
>>>that Mercury was involved. One of the first �proofs� of GR was to let
>>>others use his equations to �predict� where Mercury should be. Of
>>>course they worked�
>>
>>>Just after the outbreak of WW I, Einstein managed to get photographic
>>>observations of a solar eclipse inside Russia. When the measurements
>>>of the star plates were taken, they showed the angle of bending to be
>>>close enough to Einstein�s �predictions�, that the scientific
>>>community started calling MORON Einstein a genius� I would read,
>>>later, that Einstein had been cock-sure of his� prediction. But how
>>>could that be, for a man with a marginal intellect?
>>
>>>Astronomy used to be my hobby. In reading over the years, I learned
>>>that any low power telescope can have a disk put on the front to blank-
>>>out the lumen of the Sun�just like the Moon would do during a solar
>>>eclipse. Stars� light is getting bent by the Sun all the time, but
>>>the Sun�s brightness prevents the making of any observations. But
>>>with a correctly sized and placed disk in front of the telescope, the
>>>virtual eclipse(s) will allow star measurements to be made just about
>>>any time.
>>
>>>The primary equation variable to (reverse) predict the angle of
>>>bending would be the mass of the Sun. Newton�s Law of
>>>�Universal� (sic) Gravitation gave a mass that was different from the
>>>actual, because Newton�s Law didn�t consider that very hot bodies have
>>>a higher gravity than a �colder� body would have. Another important
>>>variable would be the apparent distance of the star(s) from the center
>>>of the Sun. Unbeknownst to Newton nor Einstein, the maximum gravity
>>>of the Sun is where the maximum heat and illumination is. Often that
>>>is at solar flairs on the surface. So, regardless of the equations
>>>used, any mathematical prediction would likely vary from the observed
>>>bending at any given time.
>>
>>>By constant hard work (not genius) Einstein formulated GR equations
>>>which make satisfactory predictions. But Einstein never could figure
>>>out what the mechanism of gravity is� Since his equations plotted to
>>>vary according to the inverse square law, Einstein wrongly assumed
>>>that� space and time� must be warped� close to massive objects. But
>>>yours truly knows that the mechanism of gravity is simply downward
>>>flowing ether whose density and velocity vary according to the inverse
>>>square law. A �double variation� of an inverse square law,
>>>coincidentally will plot similar to that conceptually errant, but
>>>mathematically correct� �Lorentz transformation�.
>>
>>>I trust that the above explanation answers PD�s question, though I
>>>don�t expect that air-head to acknowledge such fact. � NoEinstein
>>
>>So let's summarize. You supported a shorter version of something you
>>made up out of thin air, with a much more verbose version of something
>>you made up out of thin air.
>>
>>You are a hoot, that's what you are. Crazy as a caged wombat, but a
>>hoot.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>�
>>
>>>>On Sep 4, 4:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Aug 9, 3:07 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>PD, the Parasite Dunce, is hereby requested to state, and then refute,
>>>>>a single one of my purported "string of lies". But he can't, because
>>>>>PD doesn't understand how to discuss SCIENCE. � NE �
>>
>>>>Sure, let's start with one. You stated that Einstein's GR is an
>>>>*empirical* equation written to explain the anomalies of planet
>>>>Mercury's orbit about the Sun.
>>
>>>>Empirical equations have at least one free-fit parameter. Always.
>>>>Einstein's field equation contains NO free-fit parameters, and no data
>>>>from Mercury's orbit was used to set any constant in the equation.
>>>>What you said is a bald-faced LIE.
>>
>>>>Now, would you like to move onto the NEXT lie?
>>
>>>>>>On Aug 9, 11:06 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Aug 8, 12:02 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Folks: You should know by now that I won't "converse"
>>
>>>>>>Of course you won't. I just pointed out a string of your lies. What
>>>>>>would you have to say about that? Nothing.
>>
>>>>>>>with the likes
>>>>>>>of PD, the Parasite Dunce. He wants the words of others to make his
>>>>>>>points. He can't elucidate about science, and faults those who expect
>>>>>>>the "arguments" expressed to be... in their own words. PD has made
>>>>>>>like one 'new post' in all the years he has been pestering me. He has
>>>>>>>nothing to offer science, but keeps trying to suck-into-his-quagmire
>>>>>>>smart people whom he hopes will elevate his status above: A single
>>>>>>>neuron, air-head, Parasite Dunce. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>>>On Aug 7, 7:41 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>On Aug 1, 9:10 pm, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>>...
>>
>>read more �- Hide quoted text -
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 14, 6:39 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> ... Isn't it amazing how hard Dougie Boy, the leech, keeps trying to
> discredit me?
Been there, done that (many times).
The extent of his involvement in... "science' was to
> carry sand bags up a ladder and to drop them on structures to see if
> and when those things break.
John likes to lie a lot.
Somewhere along the way, someone dropped
> a big sandbag on his head. Now, all he can do is to be my groupie.
Actually john is our puppet. Watch him dance.
> Sad, very sad. � NoEinstein �
>
>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 11, 11:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Readers �and� PD, the Parasite Dunce:
>>
>>>After years of being pestered by PD, I know that he is genetically and
>>>pathologically incapable of being convinced of anything that�s not
>>>part of his �status quo� education. But I do credit that rascal with
>>>sometimes asking good questions. I will therefore give you, the
>>>Readers (not PD), part of my rationale for saying that Einstein�s GR
>>>resulted directly from analysis of the orbital data for the planet
>>>Mercury.
>>
>>>Very early in my odyssey to conclusively disprove Einstein�s SR, I
>>>spent an afternoon in my local library.
>>
>>Wow, you spent an entire afternoon at a library. Well, that must
>>mean you are correct.
>>
>> I had already proven to my
>>
>>
>>>own satisfaction that the M-M experiment simply lacked a CONTROL, or
>>>unchanging light course.
>>
>>You are very easily satisfied. Scientists hold out for the truth.
>>
>> Lorentz�s lame attempt to explain the nil
>>
>>
>>>results of M-M was to say�more stupidly than any other �scientist�
>>>since�that: �All matter, regardless of its composition or geometry�
>>>will contract in direct proportion to velocity, and will remain
>>>contracted, without the possibility of elastic rebound, until the
>>>velocity is reduced.� Some of you know the latter as the �rubber
>>>ruler� effect, also called the �Lorentz transformation�.
>>
>>You do realize that material contraction is not part of relativity?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>My providing the correct explanation, as above, for the �failure� of M-
>>>M, simultaneously shot Lorentz out of his drunken saddle! While
>>>skimming McGraw-Hill�s Scientific Encyclopedia,
>>
>>Skimming, yes that is the best detail study method.
>>
>> I saw that Einstein
>>
>>
>>>was also including a Lorentz transformation in the equations purported
>>>to represent his GR theory. I would eventually learn that GR closely
>>>�predicts� numbers of astronomical occurrences. Since I knew
>>
>>Well, more like "hoped".
>>
>> that
>>
>>
>>>Lorentz transformations were wrong as a �concept�, such equation,
>>>somehow, must be �close� to correct, mathematically�otherwise GR
>>>wouldn�t �predict� anything.
>>
>>>One of the first little books I read that afternoon in my public
>>>library was a word-for-word translation, from German, giving
>>>Einstein�s �simple� explanation for both his SR theory and his GR
>>>theory. English is a Germanic language. After reading just a few
>>>pages, I was immediately aware that the writer had a very small
>>>vocabulary, and that his syntax was below average.
>>
>>So you decided that the translator was not very good?
>>
>> After reading
>>
>>
>>>several, usually short, chapters, I realized that the writing style
>>>changed dramatically throughout the book, suggesting to me that
>>>portions of book were the words of others�
>>
>>Oh, here it comes, the conspiracy or is it the plagerism charge?
>>
>> Since I had seen a live TV
>>
>>
>>>broadcast in which Einstein had been interviewed, I could conclude
>>>that Einstein was a slow-talking, verbal MORON and that he was likely
>>>a �science� moron, too.
>>
>>No, just the hatred and prejudice angle.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>An Einstein biography that I skimmed that afternoon,
>>
>>More in depth study I see.
>>
>>mentioned that
>>
>>
>>>Einstein had an astronomer friend who had observed that the moons of
>>>Jupiter were re emerging from the backside of that planet sooner than
>>>the orbital periods predicted. I also read that anomalies in the
>>>orbit of the planet Mercury, inconsistent with Newton�s Law of
>>>�Universal� (sic) Gravitation, was what inspired Einstein to try to
>>>refine Newton�s equation to fit the observations for the orbital
>>>locations of Mercury. Einstein, who was clearly jealous of Newton�s
>>>status as a scientist,
>>
>>Yep, here is john's jealousy showing up again.
>>
>>set about with maniacal zeal to write an
>>
>>
>>>empirical equation(s) to predict the orbit of Mercury at any point
>>>about the Sun.
>>
>>>Since Einstein knew that some of the moons of Jupiter, that had
>>>essentially circular orbits, were re emerging (visually) sooner that
>>>the orbital periods predicted, he (or another�) concluded that the
>>>�gravity� of Jupiter was somehow bending light like a lens. And he
>>>(or another�) concluded that the amount of optical bending of light
>>>would be directly proportional to the mass of the planet (or star).
>>
>>>Other than for his (or another�s) observations on the photovoltaic
>>>effect; and on Brownian Motion in liquids, Einstein was a lackluster
>>>scientist.
>>
>>So other than the Nobel prize winning work among others, he did
>>not do very much.
>>
>> He would stake his entire reputation on being able to
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>�predict� the angle of bending of a star�s light in passing from
>>>behind the Sun during a solar eclipse. A recent TV biography of
>>>Einstein explained how he had been all set to predict the angle of
>>>bending for an upcoming solar eclipse, when he realized that his
>>>equations weren�t correct� A few years would pass before the
>>>equations could be made to be satisfactory.
>>
>>>By deductive reasoning, Einstein�s GR equations had to have been based
>>>about equally on Newton�s law and on the precise orbital data
>>>available for the planet Mercury. That�s because: *** The latter were
>>>the only �observations� that were available to Einstein, or to anyone,
>>>for writing a �predicting� equation(s)!*** To maximize the importance
>>>of his GR equations, Einstein conveniently neglected to tell others
>>>that Mercury was involved. One of the first �proofs� of GR was to let
>>>others use his equations to �predict� where Mercury should be. Of
>>>course they worked�
>>
>>>Just after the outbreak of WW I, Einstein managed to get photographic
>>>observations of a solar eclipse inside Russia. When the measurements
>>>of the star plates were taken, they showed the angle of bending to be
>>>close enough to Einstein�s �predictions�, that the scientific
>>>community started calling MORON Einstein a genius� I would read,
>>>later, that Einstein had been cock-sure of his� prediction. But how
>>>could that be, for a man with a marginal intellect?
>>
>>More of john's hatred and jealousy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Astronomy used to be my hobby. In reading over the years, I learned
>>>that any low power telescope can have a disk put on the front to blank-
>>>out the lumen of the Sun�just like the Moon would do during a solar
>>>eclipse. Stars� light is getting bent by the Sun all the time, but
>>>the Sun�s brightness prevents the making of any observations. But
>>>with a correctly sized and placed disk in front of the telescope, the
>>>virtual eclipse(s) will allow star measurements to be made just about
>>>any time.
>>
>>>The primary equation variable to (reverse) predict the angle of
>>>bending would be the mass of the Sun. Newton�s Law of
>>>�Universal� (sic) Gravitation gave a mass that was different from the
>>>actual, because Newton�s Law didn�t consider that very hot bodies have
>>>a higher gravity than a �colder� body would have. Another important
>>>variable would be the apparent distance of the star(s) from the center
>>>of the Sun. Unbeknownst to Newton nor Einstein, the maximum gravity
>>>of the Sun is where the maximum heat and illumination is.
>>
>>My goodness, a new area for john to show his ignorance.
>>
>> Often that
>>
>>
>>>is at solar flairs on the surface. So, regardless of the equations
>>>used, any mathematical prediction would likely vary from the observed
>>>bending at any given time.
>>
>>>By constant hard work (not genius) Einstein formulated GR equations
>>>which make satisfactory predictions.
>>
>>Yes, so GR works very well. You should be happy about that. What
>>is your complaint?
>>
>> But Einstein never could figure
>>
>>
>>>out what the mechanism of gravity is� Since his equations plotted to
>>>vary according to the inverse square law, Einstein wrongly assumed
>>>that� space and time� must be warped� close to massive objects. But
>>>yours truly knows that the mechanism of gravity is simply downward
>>>flowing ether whose density and velocity vary according to the inverse
>>>square law.
>>
>>Now here come john's complete delusions and ignorance. He likes
>>to make unsupported assertions instead of learning anything.
>>
>> A �double variation� of an inverse square law,
>>
>>
>>>coincidentally will plot similar to that conceptually errant, but
>>>mathematically correct� �Lorentz transformation�.
>>
>>>I trust that the above explanation answers PD�s question, though I
>>>don�t expect that air-head to acknowledge such fact. � NoEinstein
>>>�
>>
>>Well it answered the question about john being too stupid to
>>ever come back.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>On Sep 4, 4:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Aug 9, 3:07 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>PD, the Parasite Dunce, is hereby requested to state, and then refute,
>>>>>a single one of my purported "string of lies". But he can't, because
>>>>>PD doesn't understand how to discuss SCIENCE. � NE �
>>
>>>>Sure, let's start with one. You stated that Einstein's GR is an
>>>>*empirical* equation written to explain the anomalies of planet
>>>>Mercury's orbit about the Sun.
>>
>>>>Empirical equations have at least one free-fit parameter. Always.
>>>>Einstein's field equation contains NO free-fit parameters, and no data
>>>
>>>>from Mercury's orbit was used to set any constant in the equation.
>>>
>>>>What you said is a bald-faced LIE.
>>
>>>>Now, would you like to move onto the NEXT lie?
>>
>>>>>>On Aug 9, 11:06 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Aug 8, 12:02 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Folks: You should know by now that I won't "converse"
>>
>>>>>>Of course you won't. I just pointed out a string of your lies. What
>>>>>>would you have to say about that? Nothing.
>>
>>>>>>>with the likes
>>>>>>>of PD, the Parasite Dunce. He wants the words of others to make his
>>>>>>>points. He can't elucidate about
>>
>>...
>>
>>read more �- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce:
>
> Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to
> get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made
> up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic
> projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my
> own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce
> the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything
> about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status
> quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any
> area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In
> your DREAMS, that is! — NoEinstein —
I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in
your own words".
You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the
bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a
blurred distinction?
> ...
>
> read more »
Inertial
> On Sep 14, 8:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
> Dear Inertial: Since you have never posted anything new on
> sci.physics,
I don't participate in that newsgroup. You are cross-posting your bigoted
crap, so my replies go there as well.
> you aren't qualified to add or detract from my posts.
Nonsense. I can reply to whatever I want.
So go fvck yourself
NoEinstein
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION
aisles! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Inertial: I assume the latter is something you know about,
personally. — NoEinstein —
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
PD
> On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce:
>
> > > Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to
> > > get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made
> > > up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic
> > > projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my
> > > own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce
> > > the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything
> > > about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status
> > > quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any
> > > area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In
> > > your DREAMS, that is! — NoEinstein —
>
> > I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in
> > your own words".
> > You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the
> > bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a
> > blurred distinction?
>
>
> aisles! — NoEinstein —
All of them. Imagine!
Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry
is based on physics.
And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of
biology is based on chemistry.
Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be
believed!
All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is
probably wrong, too.
doug
PD wrote:
> On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce:
>>
>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to
>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made
>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic
>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my
>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce
>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything
>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status
>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any
>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In
>>>>your DREAMS, that is! � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in
>>>your own words".
>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the
>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a
>>>blurred distinction?
>>
>>
>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION
>>aisles! � NoEinstein �
>
>
> All of them. Imagine!
> Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry
> is based on physics.
> And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of
> biology is based on chemistry.
> Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be
> believed!
> All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is
> probably wrong, too.
This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they
rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own
criteria.
>
PD
> PD wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce:
>
> >>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to
> >>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made
> >>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic
> >>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my
> >>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce
> >>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything
> >>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status
> >>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any
> >>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In
>
> >>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in
> >>>your own words".
> >>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the
> >>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a
> >>>blurred distinction?
>
> >>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION
>
> > All of them. Imagine!
> > Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry
> > is based on physics.
> > And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of
> > biology is based on chemistry.
> > Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be
> > believed!
> > All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is
> > probably wrong, too.
>
> This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they
> rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own
> criteria.
John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the
licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but
seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural
principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get
the license.
doug
PD wrote:
> On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>PD wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce:
>>
>>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to
>>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made
>>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic
>>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my
>>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce
>>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything
>>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status
>>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any
>>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In
>>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in
>>>>>your own words".
>>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the
>>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a
>>>>>blurred distinction?
>>
>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION
>>>>aisles! � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>All of them. Imagine!
>>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry
>>>is based on physics.
>>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of
>>>biology is based on chemistry.
>>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be
>>>believed!
>>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is
>>>probably wrong, too.
>>
>>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they
>>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own
>>criteria.
>
>
> John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the
> licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but
> seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural
> principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get
> the license.
And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are
from the architects who did read the books?