Re: Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation

palsing

unread,

Nov 11, 2011, 2:34:24 PM11/11/11

to

On Nov 11, 5:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Nov 7, 3:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> sputtered:
>
> > >...Then you don't know that y = x^2 has 'y' becoming infinite
> > > while the x is still finite.
>
> I would bet that an airhead like your thinks it is possible to get out
> four pounds of hamburger after grinding up only two pounds of steak.
> But nowhere in the UNIVERSE does that happen! In the equation y = x^2,
> values 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for 'x' will yield values for 'y' of: 1, 4, 9 and
> 25. Unless you are BLIND (and dumb) the values of y, or OUT energy,
> are increasing faster than the values of x, or IN energy. Such a
> realization is NOT negated by the fact that there is no ACTUAL
> infinity, but only the APPROACH of infinity. Your attempt to counter
> science truth by arguing the ridiculous, has failed once again. —
> NoEinstein —

Every time you touch your keyboard you show just how much you don't
really understand.

What does y = x^2 have to do with energy? I don't see any units, here,
this is just algebra. You clearly stated earlier that "y = x^2 has 'y'
becoming infinite while the x is still finite."

I pointed out that you are incorrect, but now you say that y only
approaches infinity. You can't have it both ways, one of your
statements is wrong. Which is it?

\Paul A

PD

unread,

Nov 11, 2011, 3:50:06 PM11/11/11

to

On 11/11/2011 1:34 PM, palsing wrote:
> On Nov 11, 5:30 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I would bet that an airhead like your thinks it is possible to get out
>> four pounds of hamburger after grinding up only two pounds of steak.
>> But nowhere in the UNIVERSE does that happen! In the equation y = x^2,
>> values 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for 'x' will yield values for 'y' of: 1, 4, 9 and
>> 25. Unless you are BLIND (and dumb) the values of y, or OUT energy,
>> are increasing faster than the values of x, or IN energy. Such a
>> realization is NOT negated by the fact that there is no ACTUAL
>> infinity, but only the APPROACH of infinity. Your attempt to counter
>> science truth by arguing the ridiculous, has failed once again. —
>> NoEinstein —
>
> Every time you touch your keyboard you show just how much you don't
> really understand.
>
> What does y = x^2 have to do with energy? I don't see any units, here,
> this is just algebra. You clearly stated earlier that "y = x^2 has 'y'
> becoming infinite while the x is still finite."

He's a nincompoop. He sees E=(1/2)mv^2, and he reads this as "The left
hand side E is the energy out, and the right hand side v is the energy
in." Next thing you know, he'll be telling you that the units of v are
pounds, because the units on the left hand side are pounds.

Not worth the time....

Bart Sinclair

unread,

Nov 11, 2011, 5:23:50 PM11/11/11

to

maybe you, saying that waveperiods measures in meters

james thomas

unread,

Nov 11, 2011, 5:48:36 PM11/11/11

to

> maybe you, saying that waveperiods measures in meters- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Waveperiods are in time.

eric gisse

unread,

Nov 11, 2011, 10:08:35 PM11/11/11

to

palsing <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ae89e07b-e5c8-4fb9-85c7-
7f04ab...@l23g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

The correct way to approach this is to ask him what value of finite x makes
an infinite y.

palsing

unread,

Nov 11, 2011, 10:35:54 PM11/11/11

to

On Nov 11, 7:08 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The correct way to approach this is to ask him what value of finite x makes
> an infinite y.

Well, I did exactly that just a few posts ago, on (Nov 7th... and I
told him that he need only supply a single answer, and when he finally
replied earlier today, he twisted and turned and sputtered and
deflected... and basically just shook like a shaved chihuahua...

\Paul A

james thomas

unread,

Nov 12, 2011, 12:20:38 AM11/12/11

to

On Nov 11, 7:08 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> palsing <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ae89e07b-e5c8-4fb9-85c7-
> 7f04abaf2...@l23g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

> an infinite y.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

If you can't calculate to infinity all variables are finite.

Mitchell Raemsch

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 12, 2011, 11:21:11 AM11/12/11

to

Dear Palsing: NO equation has anything to do with anything until the
variables and the intent are explained. My my saying, rightly, that
Einstein's SRT violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass, it
is assumed that his 'v', for velocity, is the only variable.
Einstein, the MORON, explained that the E, for ENERGY, of a speck of
matter will become infinite at velocity 'c'. In actuality, 'v' is
ANALOGOUS to the momentum force, in pounds, that is associated with
that velocity. Pounds of FORCE, IN, = E, energy, in pounds of force
OUT. Understand (Ha!)? y = x^2, is a simple parabola that will reach
infinity for ANY assigned variable definition. You've contributed
nothing to science and that continues to be your fate. — NoEinstein
—

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 12, 2011, 11:28:24 AM11/12/11

to

On Nov 11, 10:08 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> palsing <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ae89e07b-e5c8-4fb9-85c7-
> 7f04abaf2...@l23g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>

> an infinite y.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Eric, the physics flunk-out: There is no "value" for infinity.
Since dividing any quantity by "zero" can't be done, one can only
'divide' by a tiny, tiny number that APPROACHES zero. My New Science
is unscathed by anyone's "trisect an angle" demands. When something
can't be done, that is Nature's way, NOT some fault in my New
Science. It is I who an doing the laughing, here. — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 12, 2011, 11:34:49 AM11/12/11

to

> Mitchell Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Burt: Have you... morphed into a new identity, again? Number
junkies have written pages and pages to suggest the most precise
numerical equivalent of pi. But who gives a damn? Your mind is
wandering everywhere. The odds are that you could luck up and hit
upon some good science strictly by trial and error! — NoEinstein —

james thomas

unread,

Nov 12, 2011, 1:11:19 PM11/12/11

to

> upon some good science strictly by trial and error! — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Iv'e already been tried.

palsing

unread,

Nov 12, 2011, 2:45:29 PM11/12/11

to

The more you explain, the less I understand what you are preaching,
but the more I understand that you know virtually nothing concerning
math or physics.

<http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bBxGnGyxTic/TXJ_13_cc_I/AAAAAAAAAfs/
WjYTY4MGeus/s1600/51YYXFWZRHL.jpg>

palsing

unread,

Nov 12, 2011, 3:21:02 PM11/12/11

to

The more you explain, the less I understand what you are preaching,
but the more I understand that you know virtually nothing concerning
math or physics.

http://tinyurl.com/7p9jpya

PD

unread,

Nov 12, 2011, 7:30:47 PM11/12/11

to

On 11/12/2011 10:21 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2:34 pm, palsing<pnals...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Dear Palsing: NO equation has anything to do with anything until the
> variables and the intent are explained. My my saying, rightly, that
> Einstein's SRT violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass, it
> is assumed that his 'v', for velocity, is the only variable.
> Einstein, the MORON, explained that the E, for ENERGY, of a speck of
> matter will become infinite at velocity 'c'. In actuality, 'v' is
> ANALOGOUS to the momentum force, in pounds, that is associated with
> that velocity.

Well there you go. I told you he would tell you that v is in pounds,
just like energy. Thus, he thinks v is energy in.

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Nov 14, 2011, 1:53:17 AM11/14/11

to

On Nov 11, 11:34 am, palsing <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Every time you touch your keyboard you show just how much you don't
> really understand.

Why do Einstein Dingleberries worship Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar? The biggest misunderstanding comes from the
myth that special relativity (SR) predicts the following energy-mass
relationship.

** E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 – v^2 /c^2)

Well, SR gives no such result if the mathematics that supports the
derivation is done correctly. The mistake come forth by Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar can be found in section 10 of
that mistake-prone 1905 paper.

At first, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able
to derive the acceleration transform form the Lorentz transform. The
x component is:

** dx’^2/dt’^2 = gamma^3 dx^2/dt^2

Where

** gamma = 1 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Following the logic and intention of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar, the work done is:

** W’ = Integral(m dx’^2/dt’^2 dx’)

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to do a
mathemaGic trick similar to the mathemaGical resolution to the twins’
paradox:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/31aa975f93aad2d9

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to write
down the following after a series of mathemaGic tricks which true
scholars of physics would call them mathematical errors. <shrug>

** W = Integral[v, 0](m v dv / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)^(3/2))

These mathematic errors reflect how much lacking in understanding of
the Galilean or the Lorentz transforms among the self-styled
physicists. <shrug>

As He had said, there are only two words to describe the Einstein
Dingleberrries --- “fvcking sad”. <shrug>

Hint: The Lorentz transform should be written in the following form
where there is no confusion able to lend itself upon these
mathemaGical tricks.

** dt_3 = (dt_1 + v_31 dx_12 / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dx_32 = (dx_12 + v_31 dt_1) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy_32 = dy_12, dz_31 = dz_12

Where

** dx_12/dt_1 != v_13

Daryl McCullough

unread,

Nov 14, 2011, 7:36:28 AM11/14/11

to

On Monday, November 14, 2011 1:53:17 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> Why do Einstein Dingleberries worship Einstein

Only crackpots like you and Androcles are obsessed with Einstein. Don't assume
that your obsessions are shared by everyone.

Daryl McCullough

unread,

Nov 14, 2011, 7:51:00 AM11/14/11

to

On Monday, November 14, 2011 1:53:17 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> The biggest misunderstanding comes from the
> myth that special relativity (SR) predicts the following energy-mass
> relationship.
>
> ** E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 – v^2 /c^2)
>
> Well, SR gives no such result if the mathematics that supports the
> derivation is done correctly.

Correctly? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what
you think it means.

If you are getting nonsense, then you are the one who is not doing
it correctly.

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 14, 2011, 8:33:43 PM11/14/11

to

can you explain this alleged result,
what it means for non- or neo-relativity?

I don't see why nienstien999 can't see, why
"appraoching infinity" is a fantastic limit
on "mass trying to move as fast as the speed
-- not velocity --
of lightwaves."

> ** dt_3 = (dt_1 + v_31 dx_12 / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
> ** dx_32 = (dx_12 + v_31 dt_1) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
> ** dy_32 = dy_12, dz_31 = dz_12
>
> Where
>
> ** dx_12/dt_1 != v_13

thus:
I can only use tripolars,
plus a "coordinate" for time, which is easily transformed
into quaternions (time is the "real" scalar;
space is the three "pure imaginaires" .-)

thus:
I have repeatedly related the apparent fact that
both of the largest icesheets on Eaaarth have only risen in heighth,
since the recordings began. so far, all I've gotten is a bland
assertion,
that calving at the edges & receding glaciers are supposed *prima
facie* to mean that Antarctica and Greenland are melting,
which of course is true. won one for the Gipper!??

I am not, though, asserting that humans are not by-far the greatest
influence on the God-am weather. however,
many of the activities that *create* CO2 (and water vapor,
naturally) are mor important than the #2 glass house gas, itself,
such as deforestation at the bases of glaciers.

6. http://21stcenturysciencetech.com,
by far the best general interest science mag in English, although
not without many faults; after all,
there is a lot of original research, not just graphics-induced pablum
a la Scientific American. (you can find the INQUA article,
there, e.g. .-)

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Nov 15, 2011, 1:21:35 AM11/15/11

to

On Nov 13, 10:53 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Daryl McCullough whined and sobbed:

> > Why do Einstein Dingleberries worship Einstein the nitwit, the

> > plagiarist, and the liar? The biggest misunderstanding comes from the

> > myth that special relativity (SR) predicts the following energy-mass
> > relationship.
>
> > ** E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 – v^2 /c^2)
>
> > Well, SR gives no such result if the mathematics that supports the

> > derivation is done correctly. The mistake come forth by Einstein the
> > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar can be found in section 10 of
> > that mistake-prone 1905 paper.
>
> > At first, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able
> > to derive the acceleration transform form the Lorentz transform. The
> > x component is:
>
> > ** dx’^2/dt’^2 = gamma^3 dx^2/dt^2
>
> > Where
>
> > ** gamma = 1 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
>
> > Following the logic and intention of Einstein the nitwit, the
> > plagiarist, and the liar, the work done is:
>
> > ** W’ = Integral(m dx’^2/dt’^2 dx’)
>
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to do a
> > mathemaGic trick similar to the mathemaGical resolution to the twins’
> > paradox:
>

> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/31aa975f93a...

>
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to write
> > down the following after a series of mathemaGic tricks which true
> > scholars of physics would call them mathematical errors. <shrug>
>
> > ** W = Integral[v, 0](m v dv / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)^(3/2))
>
> > These mathematic errors reflect how much lacking in understanding of
> > the Galilean or the Lorentz transforms among the self-styled
> > physicists. <shrug>
>
> > As He had said, there are only two words to describe the Einstein
> > Dingleberrries --- “fvcking sad”. <shrug>
>
> > Hint: The Lorentz transform should be written in the following form
> > where there is no confusion able to lend itself upon these
> > mathemaGical tricks.
>
> > ** dt_3 = (dt_1 + v_31 dx_12 / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
> > ** dx_32 = (dx_12 + v_31 dt_1) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
> > ** dy_32 = dy_12, dz_31 = dz_12
>
> > Where
>
> > ** dx_12/dt_1 != v_13

> Only crackpots like you...
>
> Correctly? You keep using that word...

>
> If you are getting nonsense, then you are the one who is not doing
> it correctly.

McCullough, the trashcan, can only spew irrelevant garbage. <shrug>

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 15, 2011, 7:50:34 PM11/15/11

to

On Nov 12, 12:20 am, james thomas <tom321ja...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mitchell Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Burt: Of course! The entire Universe is (large but) finite! —
NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 15, 2011, 8:02:33 PM11/15/11

to

> Iv'e already been tried.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 15, 2011, 8:04:50 PM11/15/11

to

> WjYTY4MGeus/s1600/51YYXFWZRHL.jpg>- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

palsing: And your credentials to even touch the hem of my science
garment are what? — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 15, 2011, 8:05:44 PM11/15/11

to

> http://tinyurl.com/7p9jpya- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

palsing: Ditto my previous reply. — NE —

palsing

unread,

Nov 15, 2011, 8:21:53 PM11/15/11

to

Well, in your case, a simple high-school diploma should easily do it...

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 15, 2011, 8:27:06 PM11/15/11

to

On Nov 14, 8:33 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> 6.http://21stcenturysciencetech.com,

> by far the best general interest science mag in English, although
> not without many faults; after all,
> there is a lot of original research, not just graphics-induced pablum
> a la Scientific American. (you can find the INQUA article,
> there, e.g. .-)

1tree: Everytime you mention waves, other than in a fluid, you show
your stupidity. Varying ether flow and density explain the Universe,
and there isn't a single... "wave" needed for everything to work just
fine. — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 15, 2011, 8:22:41 PM11/15/11

to

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/31aa975f93a...

>
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to write
> down the following after a series of mathemaGic tricks which true
> scholars of physics would call them mathematical errors. <shrug>
>
> ** W = Integral[v, 0](m v dv / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)^(3/2))
>
> These mathematic errors reflect how much lacking in understanding of
> the Galilean or the Lorentz transforms among the self-styled
> physicists. <shrug>
>
> As He had said, there are only two words to describe the Einstein
> Dingleberrries --- “fvcking sad”. <shrug>
>
> Hint: The Lorentz transform should be written in the following form
> where there is no confusion able to lend itself upon these
> mathemaGical tricks.
>
> ** dt_3 = (dt_1 + v_31 dx_12 / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
> ** dx_32 = (dx_12 + v_31 dt_1) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
> ** dy_32 = dy_12, dz_31 = dz_12
>
> Where
>
> ** dx_12/dt_1 != v_13

Dear K. W.: Why not just say what I do: "...Einstein, the MORON..."
He chose 'science' as his area of specialization because few people
would know about nor care about anything being discussed. For
Einstein junkies, having science be conceived as... "difficult"
becomes their badge of courage. They wear it proudly, solely to be
identified with that bearded, pipe sucking, mental lightweight, whom
the naive believe was somehow profound. Parents waste tens of
billions of dollars per years sending jr. to colleges to... become...
smart, like Einstein. The Jewish controlled media and most colleges
and Universities hold Einstein high, because he increases student
enrollments, and gets them billions per year in grants from the NSF
that are suggested by the criminally corrupt NSB. The latter is
composed of 'representatives' from major Universities. Those crooks
get percentage kickbacks for getting wasteful grants to their personal
Universities. Since the NSF is financed by government, I say, fire
the lot, and shut down the corruption! Education (HA!) is THE most
time and money wasteful endeavor in the whole world!!! — NoEinstein —
A largely, self-educated man.

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 15, 2011, 8:34:16 PM11/15/11

to

> McCullough, the trashcan, can only spew irrelevant garbage. <shrug>- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear K. W.: For over a century, supposed scientists have been
rationalizing Einstein. Don't you think that if his... "conjectures"
regarding science have any basis in fact, that the world would be in
agreement by now? The fact that the arguments continue amongst the
airheads is proof positive that Einstein was and is 98% wrong. And
that conclusion doesn't even require my New Science to chop off
Einstein's no brain head. — NoEinstein —

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 15, 2011, 9:28:57 PM11/15/11

to

Hazmat outfit?... wait;
is that an *outer* garment?

> And your credentials to even touch the hem of my science
> garment are what?

thus:
there is a similar occurence in the old Shackleton et al data
from sediment cores, that a spike of CO2 precedes glaciation;
although I am unsure if this was from their own analysis,
it is clear from their graphs.

> emissions from seasonal vegetation changes lag the global temperature?

thus:
while I certainly believe that climate is changing with rapidity,
there have been similarly rapid changes both in this interglacial, and
in the prior one (Holocene and Eemian), and
I would never refer to it as "global" warming, nor global "cooling"
for a glacial phase. (there's a tabletop "proof" of this distinction
from '38, one George Simpson .-)

6. http://21stcenturysciencetech.com,

by far the best general interest science mag in English, although

not without faults; after all,

there is a lot of original research, not just graphics-induced

vomitorium

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Nov 16, 2011, 1:11:48 AM11/16/11

to

On Nov 15, 5:34 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

> Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Why do Einstein Dingleberries worship Einstein the nitwit, the
> > plagiarist, and the liar? The biggest misunderstanding comes from the
> > myth that special relativity (SR) predicts the following energy-mass
> > relationship.
>
> > ** E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 – v^2 /c^2)
>
> > Well, SR gives no such result if the mathematics that supports the
> > derivation is done correctly. The mistake come forth by Einstein the
> > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar can be found in section 10 of
> > that mistake-prone 1905 paper.
>
> > At first, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able
> > to derive the acceleration transform form the Lorentz transform. The
> > x component is:
>
> > ** dx’^2/dt’^2 = gamma^3 dx^2/dt^2
>
> > Where
>
> > ** gamma = 1 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
>
> > Following the logic and intention of Einstein the nitwit, the
> > plagiarist, and the liar, the work done is:
>
> > ** W’ = Integral(m dx’^2/dt’^2 dx’)
>
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to do a
> > mathemaGic trick similar to the mathemaGical resolution to the twins’
> > paradox:
>

> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/31aa975f93aad2d9

>
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to write
> > down the following after a series of mathemaGic tricks which true
> > scholars of physics would call them mathematical errors. <shrug>
>
> > ** W = Integral[v, 0](m v dv / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)^(3/2))
>
> > These mathematic errors reflect how much lacking in understanding of
> > the Galilean or the Lorentz transforms among the self-styled
> > physicists. <shrug>
>
> > As He had said, there are only two words to describe the Einstein
> > Dingleberrries --- “fvcking sad”. <shrug>
>
> > Hint: The Lorentz transform should be written in the following form
> > where there is no confusion able to lend itself upon these
> > mathemaGical tricks.
>
> > ** dt_3 = (dt_1 + v_31 dx_12 / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
> > ** dx_32 = (dx_12 + v_31 dt_1) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
> > ** dy_32 = dy_12, dz_31 = dz_12
>
> > Where
>
> > ** dx_12/dt_1 != v_13
>

> Dear K. W.: For over a century, supposed scientists have been
> rationalizing Einstein. Don't you think that if his... "conjectures"
> regarding science have any basis in fact, that the world would be in
> agreement by now?

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody. The
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was a complete nitwit, a complete
plagiarist, and a complete liar. The two assumptions of SR were not
even original. They are indeed the most celebrated assumptions. The
constancy in the speed of light was already proposed by Voigt in 1887,
and the principle of relativity was already stated by Galileo almost 3
centuries ago. <shrug>

Assumptions have to be proven valid. None of these assumptions have
been so experimentally. <shrug>

> The fact that the arguments continue amongst the
> airheads is proof positive that Einstein was and is 98% wrong.

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody, and the
phrase being wrong cannot apply to Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>

SR was a mistake of Poincare, and GR was a mistake of Hilbert. Both
of them walked away from the shit they created and allowed Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit. <shrug>

> And
> that conclusion doesn't even require my New Science to chop off
> Einstein's no brain head.

Again, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was merely a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. One should not exhibit such
obsession to a nitwit, a

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Nov 16, 2011, 1:13:58 AM11/16/11

to

Amen! Brother.

Peter Webb

unread,

Nov 16, 2011, 1:26:59 AM11/16/11

to

Again, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was merely a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. One should not exhibit such
obsession to a nitwit, a

____________________________________
Why are you so obsessed with Einstein, anyway? Sure, you don't understand
his theories, which obviously bugs you, but lots of people don't understand
the theory of relativity but yet don't turn into obsessive cranks.

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 16, 2011, 2:43:27 AM11/16/11

to

... no, wait;
he appears to be wearing, um, wait ...
an asbestos mobbius-toga, although
it's so "shear," it's hard to see anything but glistening.

well, probably doesn't know the difference
between a klein-burkha & a mobius-toga.

yes, correct; it's just how it makes you feel
about your body!

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 16, 2011, 2:25:49 AM11/16/11

to

he has been reduced to ad-hominems for fquite a while. anyway,
it is more accurate to say that E-man was a raconteur, and
a harvester of current science, perfectly justified
by his expeience with his fathers electronics business
-- aomething that was a completely new kind of business, I suppose
-- and his work with patents. the book, _Einstein's Mistakes_,
is a horrifying, blow-by-blow account of his mass of papers and
correspondence, for Einstein-haters.

on the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that
he plagiarized his first wife, Mileva, in that
he gave her no credit, whatsoever.

> Why are you so obsessed with Einstein, anyway?

the real problem is that cosmology is bonkers Einsteinmania, if
it totally ignores plasma physics (since Alfven).

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 16, 2011, 3:00:24 AM11/16/11

to

the number of the beast (my IQ) is not the issue.

as far as i know, you haven't bothered to explain anything
about electromagnetism, or why electrons & nucleii are
not sufficent to propogate it, in the first place. (NB,
for some reason, the "mainstream" also believes that
there are no electrons & nucleii to do that, out there,
to support Newton's nontheory of light corpuscles, and
Einstein's silly interpreteation of his good word,
photon.)

[of course, "air" is perfectly suited to be this medium,
for us on Eaaarth.]

I'm sure that is because of your belief of what mathematics is,
when it is simply four subjects, that happen to "address" the whole
of Universe. (unfortunately, by the time that
most of us get to middleschool, the opportunity to learn it
has been lost to pounding the *trivium* of the three Rs
into us, generally causing all sorts of learning disabilities,
especially if one or both parents didn't go to "old school.")

you have posted your links to your essays, and
I doubt that any one of them coould be profitably read
by anyone, based on you diatribes in these fora.

> Varying ether flow and density explain Universe,
> and there isn't a single "wave" needed

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 16, 2011, 3:06:06 AM11/16/11

to

hey, you got it:
liquids, gasses & plasmas are all considered
to be "fluids." so,
that is "everything there is," commonly known as Universe.

"multiverse," though, is just freaking on the definition
of Life, Universe/everything.

PD

unread,

Nov 16, 2011, 9:28:10 AM11/16/11

to

On 11/15/2011 7:22 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

>
> Dear K. W.: Why not just say what I do: "...Einstein, the MORON..."
> He chose 'science' as his area of specialization because few people
> would know about nor care about anything being discussed. For
> Einstein junkies, having science be conceived as... "difficult"
> becomes their badge of courage. They wear it proudly, solely to be
> identified with that bearded, pipe sucking, mental lightweight, whom
> the naive believe was somehow profound. Parents waste tens of
> billions of dollars per years sending jr. to colleges to... become...
> smart, like Einstein. The Jewish controlled media and most colleges
> and Universities hold Einstein high, because he increases student
> enrollments, and gets them billions per year in grants from the NSF
> that are suggested by the criminally corrupt NSB. The latter is
> composed of 'representatives' from major Universities. Those crooks
> get percentage kickbacks for getting wasteful grants to their personal
> Universities. Since the NSF is financed by government, I say, fire
> the lot, and shut down the corruption! Education (HA!) is THE most
> time and money wasteful endeavor in the whole world!!! — NoEinstein —
> A largely, self-educated man.

Wow, such an exhibition of a rampant, flaming inferiority complex.

PD

unread,

Nov 16, 2011, 9:29:04 AM11/16/11

to

Ah, good, so we know now that Koobee suffers the same mental
instabilities as John Armistead. Wow.

PD

unread,

Nov 16, 2011, 9:42:22 AM11/16/11

to

Most people understand their limitations or understand that their
inexpertise is associated with their lack of investment of effort and
training. For these people, they both get where they are and what they'd
have to do to change it.

There are others, like NoEinstein and Koobee Wublee and Seto, for whom
this is unacceptable. They think of themselves as being sufficiently
intelligent that they should be able to understand anything they desire
to, without more than a hobbyist level of effort. When they run into a
case that defies that expectation, they go full-tilt ballistic. Rather
than accepting this in themselves, they blame the target with a litany
of rationalizations for why they do not understand it.
- It's a scheme to keep the public in the dark.
- It's full of holes and the proponents are in denial about it.
- In fact, nobody who claims to understand it really does understand it.
- It's of no value, and therefore not worth the trouble to understand it.
- Physicists are jerks in general because they make others feel
inferior, and so they should be castigated as a lot. The ones that are
especially lauded are even more guilty and should be especially castigated.
- If it were right, then it would be intuitively correct so that
absolutely everyone gets it with just a few moments' thought; since this
isn't the case, then it's obviously wrong.
- A theory that is difficult to understand should be replaced by one
that is easier to understand. That should be the sole metric for the
correctness of a theory.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 16, 2011, 1:15:09 PM11/16/11

to

NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
ca3bd43a-d8c5-4347...@n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com

> Dear K. W.: Why not just say what I do: "...Einstein, the MORON..."
> He chose 'science' as his area of specialization because few people
> would know about nor care about anything being discussed. For
> Einstein junkies, having science be conceived as... "difficult"
> becomes their badge of courage. They wear it proudly, solely to be
> identified with that bearded, pipe sucking, mental lightweight, whom
> the naive believe was somehow profound. Parents waste tens of
> billions of dollars per years sending jr. to colleges to...
> become... smart, like Einstein. The Jewish controlled media and
> most colleges and Universities hold Einstein high, because he
> increases student enrollments, and gets them billions per year in
> grants from the NSF that are suggested by the criminally corrupt
> NSB. The latter is composed of 'representatives' from major
> Universities. Those crooks get percentage kickbacks for getting
> wasteful grants to their personal Universities. Since the NSF is
> financed by government, I say, fire the lot, and shut down the
> corruption! Education (HA!) is THE most time and money wasteful
> endeavor in the whole world!!! — NoEinstein — A largely,
> self-educated man.

WOW^3
A largely, self-educated man (sic - that comma is priceless by itself).
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LargelySelfEducated.html

Dirk Vdm

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 16, 2011, 9:09:12 PM11/16/11

to

also, for decades I did not believe in the "currents
in the mantle" make-work for plate tectonics,
til I just went to a "distinguished lecture" by a geophyicist,
who perfectly explained it with the use of cracks (and
something else, that I am not going to reveal,
til I might really get a handle on it .-)

so, apparently, it really *is* true, that
the mantle can act like a liquid "on a geological time scale,"
in spite of the seismography ... and middleschool. yeah;
90neinstein is just a middleschool brain in a grown man's body.

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Nov 17, 2011, 1:12:12 AM11/17/11

to

On Nov 16, 6:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah, good, so we know now that Koobee suffers the same mental
> instabilities as John Armistead. Wow.

Gee! He does not see any such mental disability in him. The
accusation came from you, Paul Draper, the ex-college professor of
physics. The question is what took you so long to categorize Him in
the same bin as him. Stupidity and confusion, perhaps? <shrug>

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Nov 17, 2011, 1:08:19 AM11/17/11

to

On Nov 16, 6:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Most people understand their limitations or understand that their
> inexpertise is associated with their lack of investment of effort and
> training. For these people, they both get where they are and what they'd
> have to do to change it.

Yes, examples are plenty including Paul Draper, Paul Andersen, Peter
Webb, Eric Gisse, Dirk Van de moortel, Daryl McCullough, and many
other Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>

> They [Paul Draper, Paul Andersen, Peter Webb, Eric Gisse,
> Dirk Van de moortel, Daryl McCullough, and many other Einstein
> Dingleberries] think of themselves as being sufficiently

> intelligent that they should be able to understand anything they desire
> to, without more than a hobbyist level of effort.

Good one. <shrug>

> When they [Paul Draper, Paul Andersen, Peter Webb, Eric Gisse,
> Dirk Van de moortel, Daryl McCullough, and many other Einstein
> Dingleberries] run into a case that defies that expectation,
> they go full-tilt ballistic.

Interesting way of describing yourself. <shrug>

> Rather
> than accepting this in themselves, they [Paul Draper,
> Paul Andersen, Peter Webb, Eric Gisse,
> Dirk Van de moortel, Daryl McCullough, and many other Einstein
> Dingleberries] blame the target with a litany

> of rationalizations for why they do not understand it.

Admitting your own stupidity. <shrug>

> - It's a scheme to keep the public in the dark.

It is. However, the self-styled physicists are really dumb enough to
worship the garbage credited wrongfully to Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>

> - It's full of holes and the proponents are in denial about it.

One example is the twins’ paradox, yes. <shrug>

> - In fact, nobody who claims to understand it really does understand it.

An example is when Tom Roberts was pitching about how the energy
momentum tensor of GR is superior to Newtonian law of gravity. In the
meantime, we know that the energy momentum tensor for the studies of a
planet orbiting a sun or a binary system must be zero. Clearly, the
self-styled physicist do not know what they are talking about.
<shrug>

> - It's of no value, and therefore not worth the trouble to understand it.

On the contrary, it is a lot of fun to study SR and GR. In doing so,
it is even more fun to point out the fallacies of SR and GR that the
self-styled physicists have over-looked. <shrug>

> - Physicists are jerks in general because they make others feel
> inferior, and so they should be castigated as a lot. The ones that are
> especially lauded are even more guilty and should be especially castigated.

This is just not true. Self-styled physicists are just plain-old
dumb. They could not even apply the Lorentz transform correctly.
<shrug>

> - If it were right, then it would be intuitively correct so that
> absolutely everyone gets it with just a few moments' thought; since this
> isn't the case, then it's obviously wrong.

This is once again not true. Only self-styled physicists and Einstein
Dingleberries believe in this nonsense. <shrug>

> - A theory that is difficult to understand should be replaced by one
> that is easier to understand. That should be the sole metric for the
> correctness of a theory.

Once again, this is not true. If a conjecture is full of self-
inconsistencies such as SR and GR, it must be discarded. It turns out
both SR and GR are just too fvcking simple. They are just way too
simple to model the real world we live in. It is of no wonder that
they all have many self-inconsistencies. <shrug>

PD

unread,

Nov 17, 2011, 9:04:37 AM11/17/11

to

On 11/17/2011 12:12 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Nov 16, 6:29 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, good, so we know now that Koobee suffers the same mental
>> instabilities as John Armistead. Wow.
>
> Gee! He does not see any such mental disability in him.

LOL. Of course you don't. How quaint.

> The
> accusation came from you, Paul Draper, the ex-college professor of
> physics. The question is what took you so long to categorize Him in
> the same bin as him. Stupidity and confusion, perhaps?<shrug>

I'm so glad you categorize John Armistead in the same class as those who
refer to themselves in the third person with capitalized pronouns.

You're a hoot!

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 17, 2011, 9:01:18 PM11/17/11

to

I shrug with thee. just use quaternions a la Lanczos, and
toss the spacetime/lightconehead formalisms; thank you.

> It turns out both SR and GR are just too simple, too

Daryl McCullough

unread,

Nov 18, 2011, 1:28:45 PM11/18/11

to

On Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:08:19 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> On Nov 16, 6:42 am, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Most people understand their limitations or understand that their
> > inexpertise is associated with their lack of investment of effort and
> > training. For these people, they both get where they are and what they'd
> > have to do to change it.
>
> Yes, examples are plenty including Paul Draper, Paul Andersen, Peter
> Webb, Eric Gisse, Dirk Van de moortel, Daryl McCullough, and many
> other Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>

The totally incompetent are not competent to recognize their own
incompetence, which is beautifully illustrated by Koobee here.

Yeah, yeah, I know you will do an "I'm rubber, you're glue" type
thing and say that it applies to me, but that's just not true.
I COMPLETELY recognize my incompetence in many areas:
* I don't really understand string theory.
* Some of the philosophical aspects of quantum mechanics
are beyond my ability to grasp.
* I really am not capable of understanding renormalization in
field theory, and particularly how to compute running coupling
constants.
* In General Relativity, I've never been able to do all the steps
in deriving the Schwarzschild solution from first principles.
* I don't understand Hawking's argument that black holes must
radiate.
* etc.

The list of topics that I am incompetent to speak about
knowledgeably is quite large, and I KNOW that I'm not
competent in those areas. I don't pretend to understand
them better than the experts.

This is the big contrast with you, Koobee. You have no
idea that you are incompetent at Special and General
Relativity.

Daryl McCullough

unread,

Nov 18, 2011, 1:32:30 PM11/18/11

to

On Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:01:18 PM UTC-5, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
> I shrug with thee. just use quaternions a la Lanczos, and
> toss the spacetime/lightconehead formalisms; thank you.

Hmm. Quaternions are an alternative formalism for describing vectors. Some
things (Lorentz transformations and rotations) are easier to compute using
quaternions than with traditional vectors. But changing the formalism doesn't
change the physical content.

If you want to do SR with quaternions, you can certainly do so, but that
doesn't mean that you are doing anything of substance different from the
usual approach.

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Nov 19, 2011, 2:04:47 AM11/19/11

to

On Nov 18, 10:28 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:

> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Yes, examples are plenty including Paul Draper, Paul Andersen, Peter
> > Webb, Eric Gisse, Dirk Van de moortel, Daryl McCullough, and many
> > other Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>
>
> The totally incompetent are not competent to recognize their own
> incompetence, which is beautifully illustrated by Koobee here.

For the first, He agrees with you. Yes, the incompetents such as Paul

Draper, Paul Andersen, Peter Webb, Eric Gisse, Dirk Van de moortel,

Daryl McCullough, and many other Einstein Dingleberries just do not
know their own incompetence. While Eric Gisse is busy trying to stick
his dick into anything that resembles a hole (good luck with that
grotesque physical statue), Paul Andersen’s silence is rather
unusual. This incompetent just won’t give up for an easy kill.
<shrug>

> Yeah, yeah, I know you will do an "I'm rubber, you're glue" type
> thing and say that it applies to me, but that's just not true.

Uh, what? Is McCullough attempting to steer the discussion into what
is called the X-rated domain in the film industry? <shrug>

> I COMPLETELY recognize my incompetence in many areas:
> * I don't really understand string theory.
> * Some of the philosophical aspects of quantum mechanics
> are beyond my ability to grasp.
> * I really am not capable of understanding renormalization in
> field theory, and particularly how to compute running coupling
> constants.
> * In General Relativity, I've never been able to do all the steps
> in deriving the Schwarzschild solution from first principles.
> * I don't understand Hawking's argument that black holes must
> radiate.
> * etc.

McCullough is admitting his stupidity, but one thing that stands out
is the fact that he does not even understand GR, and yet this gross
incompetent person would argue to no end on why the Schwarzschild
metric is the only solution that is static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat to the field equations. <shrug>

> The list of topics that I am incompetent to speak about
> knowledgeably is quite large, and I KNOW that I'm not
> competent in those areas. I don't pretend to understand
> them better than the experts.

McCullough is explaining why he is so incompetent again. Gee! Would
you at least allow Him to find a handkerchief to wipe away the tears?
<shrug>

> This is the big contrast with you, Koobee. You have no
> idea that you are incompetent at Special and General
> Relativity.

So, you don’t even know how the Schwarzschild metric is derived. If
you show gratitude and respect, He can show you can:

** Derive the geodesic equations.

** Identify the Christoffel symbols of the second kind.

** Manually construct the covariant derivatives.

** Derive the Riemann curvature tensor.

** Fudge the Ricci curvature tensor and the Ricci scalar.

** Alchemically stew up the field equations.

** Solve the field equations and find the infinite solutions that are
static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat.

McCullough, you are a fvcking bigot who like to argue about something
that you don’t have any clues about. Get the fvck lost. <shrug>

Androcles

unread,

Nov 19, 2011, 2:13:18 AM11/19/11

to

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5ffeb12-4d62-40a6...@i12g2000prl.googlegroups.com...

====================================================
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Q. What's the aether for?
A. It's obvious, it must be.

Wublee, you are a fvcking bigot who like to argue about something

Peter Webb

unread,

Nov 19, 2011, 2:14:52 AM11/19/11

to

Are you a sock puppet for Androcles?

It is exactly the same modus operandi. You start off trying to sound
reasonable, then when your personal theories are shown to be ridiculous, you
issue a torrent of abuse and the pretence of being anything other than a
vulgar and ingorant crank disappears and is replaced by your homosexual
fantasies.

There are other similarities as well - both of you quickly degenerate into
anti-semitic abuse when trying to discuss Relativity.

It seem too much of a coincidence. Are you actually also Androcles?

Androcles

unread,

Nov 19, 2011, 2:33:01 AM11/19/11

to

"Peter Webb" <webbf...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote in message
news:4ec75800$0$22470$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

Are you a sick puppet for Paul Diaper (aka Phuckwit Duck)?
Kinky Wobbly is a crank aetherialist. That fact alone demonstrates
you are a clueless cunt with your head up your own arse.
It seem too much of a coincidence. Are you actually also the
"ingorant" illiterate crank Diaper?

Daryl McCullough

unread,

Nov 19, 2011, 8:12:09 AM11/19/11

to

On Saturday, November 19, 2011 2:04:47 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > The totally incompetent are not competent to recognize their own
> > incompetence, which is beautifully illustrated by Koobee here.
>
> For the first, He agrees with you. Yes, the incompetents such as Paul
> Draper, Paul Andersen, Peter Webb, Eric Gisse, Dirk Van de moortel,
> Daryl McCullough, and many other Einstein Dingleberries just do not
> know their own incompetence.

I've proved you false. I gave a list of topics that I know myself
to be incompetent at in physics. In contrast, you have no idea that
you are incompetent at SR.

Daryl McCullough

unread,

Nov 19, 2011, 8:20:34 AM11/19/11

to

Koobee Wublee wrote:

You don't even recognize when you've contradicted yourself.

You wrote:

> For the first, He agrees with you. Yes, the incompetents such as Paul
> Draper, Paul Andersen, Peter Webb, Eric Gisse, Dirk Van de moortel,
> Daryl McCullough, and many other Einstein Dingleberries just do not
> know their own incompetence.

So you're saying here that I don't recognize when I am incompetent.

> McCullough is explaining why he is so incompetent again.

Here, you're saying the opposite. You are contradicting yourself
within a single post.

You brag about your prowess at GR, but I've SEEN you at work.
That was actually the moment I realized that you were a loon.
The discussion was the Schwarschild solution, and you showed
that you don't even realize that a change of coordinates results
in the SAME spacetime.

PD

unread,

Nov 19, 2011, 9:47:22 AM11/19/11

to

On 11/19/2011 1:04 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> While Eric Gisse is busy trying to stick
> his dick into anything that resembles a hole (good luck with that
> grotesque physical statue), Paul Andersen’s silence is rather
> unusual. This incompetent just won’t give up for an easy kill.
> <shrug>
>

Trolling for attention, Koobee? Lonely? Wonder why?

Daryl McCullough

unread,

Nov 19, 2011, 11:17:46 AM11/19/11

to

Just as a reminder, here is a thread in which Koobee demonstrated how
LITTLE he understands the basics of geometry, much less General Relativity.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/sci.physics.relativity/schwarzschild$20koobee$20area/sci.physics.relativity/D1xaixqagC0/fLcVt7mA03QJ

The question was:

Given the metric

ds^2 = dr^2 + (r+a)^2 [dtheta^2 + sin^2(theta) dphi^2]

compute the area of the sphere of constant r. Koobee's answer:
4pi r^2

BZZZT. Wrong answer. To see that it is wrong, you need to
recognize that the above metric is the metric to use for
Earth-centric coordinates, in which:

a = the radius of the Earth
r = altitude (height above sea-level)
theta = pi/180 * (latitude - 90)
phi = pi/180 * longitude

Clearly, the sphere that we get by letting r=0 is just
the surface of the Earth. So its area is 4pi a^2.

In general, the area of a sphere of constant r, with these
coordinates is:

4pi (r+a)^2.

Koobee flubbed this trivial test. That's nothing to be embarrassed
about, because most people don't know much about differential
geometry--I certainly don't know very much, except that I do
know how to calculate areas in curvilinear coordinates. But
rather than recognizing that he made an error, Koobee doubled
down and claimed that everyone ELSE was making an error. That's
just a reprehensible combination of ignorance and arrogance.
He doesn't know what he is talking about, and he has the arrogance
to claim to be an expert.

What a sad, pathetic case.

Daryl McCullough

unread,

Nov 19, 2011, 11:20:00 AM11/19/11

to

No. Androcles and Koobee are indeed the same sort of crackpot, a
combination of profound ignorance, amazing arrogance and propensity
for profanity. But they actually hate each other. They have opposite
opinions about aether theory. (I can't remember who believes what)

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 19, 2011, 6:03:24 PM11/19/11

to

I did not read teh quaternionic solution, first,
in Lanczos' _Variational Mechanics_ -- and I did not really
understand his math, and he may have been using
the usual ligthcone/phase-space blather. BUT,
I had already read teh commonsense solution, or picture,
in a very short article in JAMTTYC,
the Journal of America Mathematics Teachers at Two-Year Colleges.

Okay, get back to your petty shiping, folks.

james thomas

unread,

Nov 19, 2011, 7:32:20 PM11/19/11

to

On Nov 15, 5:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 1:11 pm, james thomas <tom321ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 8:34 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 12:20 am, james thomas <tom321ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 11, 7:08 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > palsing <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ae89e07b-e5c8-4fb9-85c7-
> > > > > 7f04abaf2...@l23g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 11, 5:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> > On Nov 7, 3:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> sputtered:
>
> > > > > >> > >...Then you don't know that y = x^2 has 'y' becoming infinite
> > > > > >> > > while the x is still finite.
>
> > > > > >> I would bet that an airhead like your thinks it is possible to get out
> > > > > >> four pounds of hamburger after grinding up only two pounds of steak.
> > > > > >> But nowhere in the UNIVERSE does that happen! In the equation y = x^2,
> > > > > >> values 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for 'x' will yield values for 'y' of: 1, 4, 9 and
> > > > > >> 25. Unless you are BLIND (and dumb) the values of y, or OUT energy,
> > > > > >> are increasing faster than the values of x, or IN energy. Such a
> > > > > >> realization is NOT negated by the fact that there is no ACTUAL
> > > > > >> infinity, but only the APPROACH of infinity. Your attempt to counter
> > > > > >> science truth by arguing the ridiculous, has failed once again. —
> > > > > >> NoEinstein —
>
> > > > > > Every time you touch your keyboard you show just how much you don't
> > > > > > really understand.
>
> > > > > > What does y = x^2 have to do with energy? I don't see any units, here,
> > > > > > this is just algebra. You clearly stated earlier that "y = x^2 has 'y'
> > > > > > becoming infinite while the x is still finite."
>
> > > > > > I pointed out that you are incorrect, but now you say that y only
> > > > > > approaches infinity. You can't have it both ways, one of your
> > > > > > statements is wrong. Which is it?
>
> > > > > > \Paul A
>
> > > > > The correct way to approach this is to ask him what value of finite x makes
> > > > > an infinite y.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > If you can't calculate to infinity all variables are finite.
>
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Dear Burt: Have you... morphed into a new identity, again? Number
> > > junkies have written pages and pages to suggest the most precise
> > > numerical equivalent of pi. But who gives a damn? Your mind is
> > > wandering everywhere. The odds are that you could luck up and hit
> > > upon some good science strictly by trial and error! — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Iv'e already been tried.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Burt: Long ago, you mentioned having a run-in with the FEDS. But what
> does that "trial" have to do with science? About 10% of your science
> wanderings have some truths. Your failure is in not realizing that
> NOTHING about status quo (Einstein) physics needs to be... salvaged.
> Forget SR, and don't try to make it... "logical" by adding your own
> wrinkles. Since status quo physics constantly required suspension of
> disbelief, I didn't believe! Those who "believe" relativity view
> Einstein in a spiritual way. A knowledgeable scientist, like me,
> doesn't "believe", I KNOW! — NoEinstein —
>

You are stupid enough to not admit that science tries you?
In science it is par for the course.
I have been tried and found not wanting.

Mitch Raemsch

G. L. Bradford

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 5:16:08 AM11/20/11

to

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6966001.943.1321640926023.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqjc16...

=======================

For what its worth, my estimation of you just rose several orders of
magnitude. You certainly do have perception, so those limitations you list
as hardwired may actually -in the long run- be only temporary. I remind here
that, as the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

GLB

"If I had eight hours to cut down a tree, I'd spend seven sharpening my
ax." -- attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

=======================

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 8:47:58 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 12, 3:21 pm, palsing <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 8:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 2:34 pm, palsing <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 11, 5:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 7, 3:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> sputtered:
>
> > > > > >...Then you don't know that y = x^2 has 'y' becoming infinite
> > > > > > while the x is still finite.
>
> > > > I would bet that an airhead like your thinks it is possible to get out
> > > > four pounds of hamburger after grinding up only two pounds of steak.
> > > > But nowhere in the UNIVERSE does that happen! In the equation y = x^2,
> > > > values 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for 'x' will yield values for 'y' of: 1, 4, 9 and
> > > > 25. Unless you are BLIND (and dumb) the values of y, or OUT energy,
> > > > are increasing faster than the values of x, or IN energy. Such a
> > > > realization is NOT negated by the fact that there is no ACTUAL
> > > > infinity, but only the APPROACH of infinity. Your attempt to counter
> > > > science truth by arguing the ridiculous, has failed once again. —
> > > > NoEinstein —
>
> > > Every time you touch your keyboard you show just how much you don't
> > > really understand.
>
> > > What does y = x^2 have to do with energy? I don't see any units, here,
> > > this is just algebra. You clearly stated earlier that "y = x^2 has 'y'
> > > becoming infinite while the x is still finite."
>
> > > I pointed out that you are incorrect, but now you say that y only
> > > approaches infinity. You can't have it both ways, one of your
> > > statements is wrong. Which is it?
>
> > > \Paul A
>

> > Dear Palsing: NO equation has anything to do with anything until the
> > variables and the intent are explained. My my saying, rightly, that
> > Einstein's SRT violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass, it
> > is assumed that his 'v', for velocity, is the only variable.
> > Einstein, the MORON, explained that the E, for ENERGY, of a speck of
> > matter will become infinite at velocity 'c'. In actuality, 'v' is
> > ANALOGOUS to the momentum force, in pounds, that is associated with
> > that velocity. Pounds of FORCE, IN, = E, energy, in pounds of force
> > OUT. Understand (Ha!)? y = x^2, is a simple parabola that will reach
> > infinity for ANY assigned variable definition. You've contributed
> > nothing to science and that continues to be your fate. — NoEinstein
> > —
>
> The more you explain, the less I understand what you are preaching,
> but the more I understand that you know virtually nothing concerning
> math or physics.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7p9jpya- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

palsing: It takes two to communicate. Your "lack of understanding"
is a failed ploy in support of the now disproved status quo physics.
When are you going to list your non-existent contributions to
science? Ha, ha, HA! — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 8:52:37 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 15, 8:21 pm, palsing <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 5:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bBxGnGyxTic/TXJ_13_cc_I/AAAAAAAAAfs/
> > > WjYTY4MGeus/s1600/51YYXFWZRHL.jpg>- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>

> > palsing: And your credentials to even touch the hem of my science
> > garment are what? — NoEinstein —
>
> Well, in your case, a simple high-school diploma should easily do it...- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

What about in YOUR case palsing? Attacking the messenger is not the
same as refuting even one IOTA of my New Science. But shallows like
you will keep sidestepping as if anyone on Earth gives a damn about
your... 'dance'. — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 9:17:24 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 16, 1:11 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 5:34 pm, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why do Einstein Dingleberries worship Einstein the nitwit, the
> > > plagiarist, and the liar? The biggest misunderstanding comes from the
> > > myth that special relativity (SR) predicts the following energy-mass
> > > relationship.
>
> > > ** E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 – v^2 /c^2)
>
> > > Well, SR gives no such result if the mathematics that supports the
> > > derivation is done correctly. The mistake come forth by Einstein the
> > > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar can be found in section 10 of
> > > that mistake-prone 1905 paper.
>
> > > At first, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able
> > > to derive the acceleration transform form the Lorentz transform. The
> > > x component is:
>
> > > ** dx’^2/dt’^2 = gamma^3 dx^2/dt^2
>
> > > Where
>
> > > ** gamma = 1 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
>
> > > Following the logic and intention of Einstein the nitwit, the
> > > plagiarist, and the liar, the work done is:
>
> > > ** W’ = Integral(m dx’^2/dt’^2 dx’)
>
> > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to do a
> > > mathemaGic trick similar to the mathemaGical resolution to the twins’
> > > paradox:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/31aa975f93a...
>
> > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to write
> > > down the following after a series of mathemaGic tricks which true
> > > scholars of physics would call them mathematical errors. <shrug>
>
> > > ** W = Integral[v, 0](m v dv / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)^(3/2))
>
> > > These mathematic errors reflect how much lacking in understanding of
> > > the Galilean or the Lorentz transforms among the self-styled
> > > physicists. <shrug>
>
> > > As He had said, there are only two words to describe the Einstein
> > > Dingleberrries --- “fvcking sad”. <shrug>
>
> > > Hint: The Lorentz transform should be written in the following form
> > > where there is no confusion able to lend itself upon these
> > > mathemaGical tricks.
>
> > > ** dt_3 = (dt_1 + v_31 dx_12 / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
> > > ** dx_32 = (dx_12 + v_31 dt_1) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
> > > ** dy_32 = dy_12, dz_31 = dz_12
>
> > > Where
>
> > > ** dx_12/dt_1 != v_13
>
> > Dear K. W.: For over a century, supposed scientists have been
> > rationalizing Einstein. Don't you think that if his... "conjectures"
> > regarding science have any basis in fact, that the world would be in
> > agreement by now?
>
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody. The
> nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was a complete nitwit, a complete
> plagiarist, and a complete liar. The two assumptions of SR were not
> even original. They are indeed the most celebrated assumptions. The
> constancy in the speed of light was already proposed by Voigt in 1887,
> and the principle of relativity was already stated by Galileo almost 3
> centuries ago. <shrug>
>
> Assumptions have to be proven valid. None of these assumptions have
> been so experimentally. <shrug>
>
> > The fact that the arguments continue amongst the
> > airheads is proof positive that Einstein was and is 98% wrong.
>
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody, and the
> phrase being wrong cannot apply to Einstein the nitwit, the

> plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
>

> SR was a mistake of Poincare, and GR was a mistake of Hilbert. Both
> of them walked away from the shit they created and allowed Einstein
> the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit. <shrug>
>
> > And
> > that conclusion doesn't even require my New Science to chop off
> > Einstein's no brain head.

>
> Again, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was merely a
> nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. One should not exhibit such

> obsession to a nitwit, a- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear K. W: The ultimate gage of power is to have others, by one's
word, believe lies. Muslim 'leaders' wish to have total power over
others as is manifested by forcing their followers to do wasteful and
pointless things like bowing to Mecca numerous times a day.
Conforming to ANY rituals is simply proving to the leaders that the
leaders have total control. Those in academia, including the Jewish
publishers of textbooks, want total control. And they convince
themselves they have it simply because naive parents keep sending
their little darlings to colleges and universities to get "edgecated"
in mostly lies. Einstein, the MORON, is just the TIP of a very ugly
iceberg. — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 9:19:44 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 16, 1:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 5:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > Dear K. W.: Why not just say what I do: "...Einstein, the MORON..."
> > He chose 'science' as his area of specialization because few people
> > would know about nor care about anything being discussed. For
> > Einstein junkies, having science be conceived as... "difficult"
> > becomes their badge of courage. They wear it proudly, solely to be
> > identified with that bearded, pipe sucking, mental lightweight, whom
> > the naive believe was somehow profound. Parents waste tens of
> > billions of dollars per years sending jr. to colleges to... become...
> > smart, like Einstein. The Jewish controlled media and most colleges
> > and Universities hold Einstein high, because he increases student
> > enrollments, and gets them billions per year in grants from the NSF
> > that are suggested by the criminally corrupt NSB. The latter is
> > composed of 'representatives' from major Universities. Those crooks
> > get percentage kickbacks for getting wasteful grants to their personal
> > Universities. Since the NSF is financed by government, I say, fire
> > the lot, and shut down the corruption! Education (HA!) is THE most
> > time and money wasteful endeavor in the whole world!!!
>

> Amen! Brother.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear K. W.: About five years ago, I could tell from your replies that
we are on the same team. Amen, brother! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 9:28:10 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 16, 1:26 am, "Peter Webb"

<webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> Again, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was merely a
> nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. One should not exhibit such

> obsession to a nitwit, a
>
> ____________________________________
> Why are you so obsessed with Einstein, anyway? Sure, you don't understand
> his theories, which obviously bugs you, but lots of people don't understand
> the theory of relativity but yet don't turn into obsessive cranks.

Dear Peter: The essence of Einstein's... "power" is that his theories
defy logic, and thus seem, to simple mentalities, to be very
"advanced" and profound. The high IQ that nature allowed me to have
caused me to be amazed that anything done by a MORON like Einstein
would be considered intelligent. If my continuing to explain science
truths to the readers makes me a... "crank", what does your supporting
the ramblings of a MORON make you? Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 9:36:51 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 16, 2:25 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> he has been reduced to ad-hominems for fquite a while. anyway,
> it is more accurate to say that E-man was a raconteur, and
> a harvester of current science, perfectly justified
> by his expeience with his fathers electronics business
> -- aomething that was a completely new kind of business, I suppose
> -- and his work with patents. the book, _Einstein's Mistakes_,
> is a horrifying, blow-by-blow account of his mass of papers and
> correspondence, for Einstein-haters.
>
> on the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that
> he plagiarized his first wife, Mileva, in that
> he gave her no credit, whatsoever.

>
> > Why are you so obsessed with Einstein, anyway?
>

> the real problem is that cosmology is bonkers Einsteinmania, if
> it totally ignores plasma physics (since Alfven).

1tree: It is bonkers for accepting that all the energy and matter in
the Universe could ever be compressed, by gravity, into a
singularity. And it is bonkers to "accept" that Newton's supposed Law
of "Universal" Gravitation is correct (sic!) simply because it was
written by... Sir Isaac and contained the unsubstantiated word...
"Universal". My New Science disproves 90% of what cosmology claims is
true in explaining the Universe. Hawking, are you listening? Ha, ha,
HA! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 9:41:11 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 16, 3:00 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> the number of the beast (my IQ) is not the issue.
>
> as far as i know, you haven't bothered to explain anything
> about electromagnetism, or why electrons & nucleii are
> not sufficent to propogate it, in the first place. (NB,
> for some reason, the "mainstream" also believes that
> there are no electrons & nucleii to do that, out there,
> to support Newton's nontheory of light corpuscles, and
> Einstein's silly interpreteation of his good word,
> photon.)
>
> [of course, "air" is perfectly suited to be this medium,
> for us on Eaaarth.]
>
> I'm sure that is because of your belief of what mathematics is,
> when it is simply four subjects, that happen to "address" the whole
> of Universe. (unfortunately, by the time that
> most of us get to middleschool, the opportunity to learn it
> has been lost to pounding the *trivium* of the three Rs
> into us, generally causing all sorts of learning disabilities,
> especially if one or both parents didn't go to "old school.")
>
> you have posted your links to your essays, and
> I doubt that any one of them coould be profitably read
> by anyone, based on you diatribes in these fora.
>
>
>
> > Varying ether flow and density explain Universe,
> > and there isn't a single "wave" needed- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

1tree: Compared to status quo physics, my New Science is quite easy
to explain and to understand. Varying ether flow and density
determine every force and every material interaction in the Universe!
Is that too much of a diatribe for you? Ha, ha, HA! — NE —

Daryl McCullough

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 9:32:37 AM11/20/11

to

On Sunday, November 20, 2011 9:28:10 AM UTC-5, NoEinstein wrote:

> Dear Peter: The essence of Einstein's... "power" is that his theories
> defy logic, and thus seem, to simple mentalities, to be very
> "advanced" and profound.

To those who actually are able to use elementary mathematics,
Einstein's theories are no more advanced nor profound than
Euclidean geometry. Which makes it much more amazing that there
are huge numbers of people who have so much trouble with them and
believe that they "defy logic".

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 9:52:33 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 16, 3:06 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> hey, you got it:
> liquids, gasses & plasmas are all considered
> to be "fluids." so,
> that is "everything there is," commonly known as Universe.
>
> "multiverse," though, is just freaking on the definition
> of Life, Universe/everything.
>
>
>
> > Everytime you mention waves, other than in a fluid,- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

1tree: So now are you claiming that all of space is filled with
plasma? To have plasma, there must first be charged particles that
are so disturbed by the intense IOTA infusion, that the atoms can't
stay defined. My New Science has about 40% of the "space" of the
Universe, as it is, now, filled with ether energy. At the beginning,
the ether occupied 100% of the space, but in the process of the
formation of masses and stars, much of the ether got incorporated into
the matter. The Swiss cheese voids between galaxies are meniscus-bound
regions without any ether at all. Those voids are the super highways
of intergalactic travel, because there is zero ether drag on the
spaceships. — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 9:56:35 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 16, 1:15 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> ca3bd43a-d8c5-4347-8c8d-5be2d5cf3...@n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com

>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear K. W.: Why not just say what I do: "...Einstein, the MORON..."
> > He chose 'science' as his area of specialization because few people
> > would know about nor care about anything being discussed. For
> > Einstein junkies, having science be conceived as... "difficult"
> > becomes their badge of courage. They wear it proudly, solely to be
> > identified with that bearded, pipe sucking, mental lightweight, whom
> > the naive believe was somehow profound. Parents waste tens of
> > billions of dollars per years sending jr. to colleges to...
> > become... smart, like Einstein. The Jewish controlled media and
> > most colleges and Universities hold Einstein high, because he
> > increases student enrollments, and gets them billions per year in
> > grants from the NSF that are suggested by the criminally corrupt
> > NSB. The latter is composed of 'representatives' from major
> > Universities. Those crooks get percentage kickbacks for getting
> > wasteful grants to their personal Universities. Since the NSF is
> > financed by government, I say, fire the lot, and shut down the
> > corruption! Education (HA!) is THE most time and money wasteful

> > endeavor in the whole world!!! — NoEinstein — A largely,
> > self-educated man.
>
> WOW^3
> A largely, self-educated man (sic - that comma is priceless by itself).
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LargelySelfEdu...
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Dirk: You can contest my "pause" in speaking, but you can never
successfully contest one IOTA of my New Science! — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 10:00:11 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 16, 9:09 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> also, for decades I did not believe in the "currents
> in the mantle" make-work for plate tectonics,
> til I just went to a "distinguished lecture" by a geophyicist,
> who perfectly explained it with the use of cracks (and
> something else, that I am not going to reveal,
> til I might really get a handle on it .-)
>
> so, apparently, it really *is* true, that
> the mantle can act like a liquid "on a geological time scale,"
> in spite of the seismography ... and middleschool. yeah;
> 90neinstein is just a middleschool brain in a grown man's body.
>
>
>
> > liquids, gasses & plasmas are all considered to be "fluids."- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

1tree: There is a tie between body excellence and mind excellence.
Both of those, for me, are both well and mature. — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 10:02:03 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 17, 1:12 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 6:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, good, so we know now that Koobee suffers the same mental
> > instabilities as John Armistead. Wow.
>
> Gee! He does not see any such mental disability in him. The
> accusation came from you, Paul Draper, the ex-college professor of
> physics. The question is what took you so long to categorize Him in
> the same bin as him. Stupidity and confusion, perhaps? <shrug>

K. W.: Wow! Have I got a champion? — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 10:03:38 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 17, 1:08 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 16, 6:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Most people understand their limitations or understand that their
> > inexpertise is associated with their lack of investment of effort and
> > training. For these people, they both get where they are and what they'd
> > have to do to change it.
>
> Yes, examples are plenty including Paul Draper, Paul Andersen, Peter
> Webb, Eric Gisse, Dirk Van de moortel, Daryl McCullough, and many
> other Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>
>

> > They [Paul Draper, Paul Andersen, Peter Webb, Eric Gisse,

> > Dirk Van de moortel, Daryl McCullough, and many other Einstein

> > Dingleberries] think of themselves as being sufficiently
> > intelligent that they should be able to understand anything they desire
> > to, without more than a hobbyist level of effort.
>
> Good one. <shrug>
>
> > When they [Paul Draper, Paul Andersen, Peter Webb, Eric Gisse,

> > Dirk Van de moortel, Daryl McCullough, and many other Einstein

> > Dingleberries] run into a case that defies that expectation,
> > they go full-tilt ballistic.
>
> Interesting way of describing yourself. <shrug>
>
> > Rather
> > than accepting this in themselves, they [Paul Draper,

> > Paul Andersen, Peter Webb, Eric Gisse,
> > Dirk Van de moortel, Daryl McCullough, and many other Einstein

> > Dingleberries] blame the target with a litany
> > of rationalizations for why they do not understand it.
>
> Admitting your own stupidity. <shrug>
>
> > - It's a scheme to keep the public in the dark.
>
> It is. However, the self-styled physicists are really dumb enough to
> worship the garbage credited wrongfully to Einstein the nitwit, the
> plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
>
> > - It's full of holes and the proponents are in denial about it.
>
> One example is the twins’ paradox, yes. <shrug>
>
> > - In fact, nobody who claims to understand it really does understand it.
>
> An example is when Tom Roberts was pitching about how the energy
> momentum tensor of GR is superior to Newtonian law of gravity. In the
> meantime, we know that the energy momentum tensor for the studies of a
> planet orbiting a sun or a binary system must be zero. Clearly, the
> self-styled physicist do not know what they are talking about.
> <shrug>
>
> > - It's of no value, and therefore not worth the trouble to understand it.
>
> On the contrary, it is a lot of fun to study SR and GR. In doing so,
> it is even more fun to point out the fallacies of SR and GR that the
> self-styled physicists have over-looked. <shrug>
>
> > - Physicists are jerks in general because they make others feel
> > inferior, and so they should be castigated as a lot. The ones that are
> > especially lauded are even more guilty and should be especially castigated.
>
> This is just not true. Self-styled physicists are just plain-old
> dumb. They could not even apply the Lorentz transform correctly.
> <shrug>
>
> > - If it were right, then it would be intuitively correct so that
> > absolutely everyone gets it with just a few moments' thought; since this
> > isn't the case, then it's obviously wrong.
>
> This is once again not true. Only self-styled physicists and Einstein
> Dingleberries believe in this nonsense. <shrug>
>
> > - A theory that is difficult to understand should be replaced by one
> > that is easier to understand. That should be the sole metric for the
> > correctness of a theory.
>
> Once again, this is not true. If a conjecture is full of self-
> inconsistencies such as SR and GR, it must be discarded. It turns out
> both SR and GR are just too fvcking simple. They are just way too
> simple to model the real world we live in. It is of no wonder that
> they all have many self-inconsistencies. <shrug>

K. W.: "Simple" is in the eye of the beholder. — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 9:03:37 AM11/20/11

to

On Nov 15, 9:28 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Hazmat outfit?... wait;
> is that an *outer* garment?

>
> > And your credentials to even touch the hem of my science
> > garment are what?
>

> thus:
> there is a similar occurence in the old Shackleton et al data
> from sediment cores, that a spike of CO2 precedes glaciation;
> although I am unsure if this was from their own analysis,
> it is clear from their graphs.
>
> > emissions from seasonal vegetation changes lag the global temperature?
>
> thus:
> while I certainly believe that climate is changing with rapidity,
> there have been similarly rapid changes both in this interglacial, and
> in the prior one (Holocene and Eemian), and
> I would never refer to it as "global" warming, nor global "cooling"
> for a glacial phase. (there's a tabletop "proof" of this distinction
> from '38, one George Simpson .-)
>
> 6.http://21stcenturysciencetech.com,
> by far the best general interest science mag in English, although
> not without faults; after all,
> there is a lot of original research, not just graphics-induced
> vomitorium
> a la Scientific American. (you can find the INQUA article, there,
> e.g. .-)

1ree: Most "learned" science publications, like Scientific American
and Nature, have boards of editors affiliated with universities. None
of those will allow any NEW science to be published that refutes
status quo physics, for to do so would rightly destroy the credibility
of all of academia. Quit reading the garbage claiming to be science!
What it contains is just fringe research that doesn't jeopardize those
who are trembling in their Ivory Towers waiting for things to collapse
around them. — NoEinstein —

palsing

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 1:20:09 PM11/20/11

to

On Nov 20, 5:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> palsing: It takes two to communicate. Your "lack of understanding"
> is a failed ploy in support of the now disproved status quo physics.
> When are you going to list your non-existent contributions to
> science? Ha, ha, HA! — NE —

It is difficult to discuss points of math with someone who has such
weak basic math skills. If you really think you can disprove status
quo physics, then get yourself published, otherwise you haven't a leg
to stand on.

james thomas

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 5:31:25 PM11/20/11

to

> around them. — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

And they will collapse for something better in the next generations.

PD

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 6:36:17 PM11/20/11

to

On 11/20/2011 8:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

> Dear K. W.: About five years ago, I could tell from your replies that
> we are on the same team. Amen, brother! — NoEinstein —

Certainly on the same medications.

PD

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 6:41:35 PM11/20/11

to

On 11/19/2011 10:17 AM, Daryl McCullough wrote:

>
> Koobee flubbed this trivial test. That's nothing to be embarrassed
> about, because most people don't know much about differential
> geometry--I certainly don't know very much, except that I do
> know how to calculate areas in curvilinear coordinates. But
> rather than recognizing that he made an error, Koobee doubled
> down and claimed that everyone ELSE was making an error. That's
> just a reprehensible combination of ignorance and arrogance.
> He doesn't know what he is talking about, and he has the arrogance
> to claim to be an expert.
>
> What a sad, pathetic case.

And this is the bottom line. KW *hates* *hates* *hates* the idea of
being found wrong by a physicist because it stokes deep-seated feelings
of inferiority, no doubt in a long work history.

And so if some simple problem like this trips him up, he goes into
full-tilt, bat-crap separation from reality, wherein he says that in
fact "He" is the only one in the world perhaps who can see the correct
answer and that everyone else is wrong, *especially* physicists.

Sad and pathetic, true.

PD

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 6:49:30 PM11/20/11

to

On 11/20/2011 9:03 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

>
> K. W.: "Simple" is in the eye of the beholder. — NE —

But relativity IS simple, John. Thousands of undergrad students get to
understand it with no difficulty whatsoever.

PD

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 6:50:47 PM11/20/11

to

On 11/20/2011 8:28 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> On Nov 16, 1:26 am, "Peter Webb"
> <webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
>> Again, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was merely a
>> nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. One should not exhibit such
>> obsession to a nitwit, a
>>
>> ____________________________________
>> Why are you so obsessed with Einstein, anyway? Sure, you don't understand
>> his theories, which obviously bugs you, but lots of people don't understand
>> the theory of relativity but yet don't turn into obsessive cranks.
>
> Dear Peter: The essence of Einstein's... "power" is that his theories
> defy logic,

No, they don't. They're actually quite straightforward.

> and thus seem, to simple mentalities, to be very
> "advanced" and profound.

I don't know why you'd say that. Thousands of undergrad students figure
it out without much difficulty. What's YOUR problem with it?

PD

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 6:52:19 PM11/20/11

to

And is a loon for a champion something to be valued?
Try writing Charles Manson. He might root for you too.

G=EMC^2

unread,

Nov 20, 2011, 7:06:20 PM11/20/11

to

You do not have to know how to do the mathematics of warped space to
understand Riemann's geometry. This curving of space idea was all
Einstein really needed to show it aligns perfectly with the physics of
gravity.Ideas come before the math. Fact is Einstein could not do the
math for GR. To sum it up would go like this "The curvature of
spacetime embodies the gravitational force. Thus the opposite curve
gives the pushing away of galaxies(my idea) TreBert

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 21, 2011, 11:25:24 PM11/21/11

to

the Big Bang interpretation of the redshifting
of the spectra from stars,
is not required by the "standard model," or
anything else that I've heard about.

you might say that it was just science fiction, or
just crazy, but your hamfisted arguments
about F = ma = mv = KE are not going
to go anywhere,
whether or not Newton was a Big Phoney.
(see http://21stcenturysciencetech.com,
if you should wish really to know .-)

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 21, 2011, 11:21:05 PM11/21/11

to

so, if you are so hot,
why cannot you say how it is that
electrons orbitting nucleii are not adequate
for "waves of eletromagnetism" in solids,
liquids, gasses & plasmas?

why, instead, do you tell our tiny group,
how you are a perfected being?

I mean, I wish I were you, but
that doesn't answer my question, or
get across your alleged science.

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 22, 2011, 1:42:57 PM11/22/11

to

thus quoth:
The first English translation of a 1922 article describing several
lectures by Albert Einstein during his visit to Paris that year.

Translator’s Note

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 22, 2011, 9:36:21 PM11/22/11

to

Gauss measured the curvature of space
-- which can only be measured o'er time --
in surveying the boundaries of Alsace-Lorainne
for the French government. "curvature
of spacetime" is an absurdity, set in stone
by the silly slogans of Minkowski,
then he died at the age of 43.

just use quaternions a la Lanczos for the equations;
not so very difficult, considering "ict"
in the usual kerfluffle o'er a mere phase-space.

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 25, 2011, 7:04:55 PM11/25/11

to

On Nov 20, 1:20 pm, palsing <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear palsing, the status quo puppet: I know more about "math" than
Newton, Einstein and Michelson, to name just a few. I know that
without any addition, subtraction, multiplication or division being
needed, that the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass requires that
the energy-mass IN must equal the energy-mass OUT. That simple fact
negates allowing ANY energy equation to be exponential, such as are E
= mc^2 / [1 - v^2/c^2]^1/2, and KE = 1/2 mv^2 square. I also know
that the UNITS of Newton's acceleration due to gravity can't
include... "per second square", because such would be exponential.
Newton understood so little math that he said: F = ma while accepting
that momentum (or increase in hitting force due to an object's
increasing velocity) is: Momentum (or F)= m (mass) v. Newton's
shallow mindedness would require one to believe that velocity and
acceleration are the same thing (sic!). Set the two equations for a
given "F", and you get: ma = mv (sic!). So, palsing, if you suppose
my "math" is lacking, start detailing your counter arguments.
Attacking the messenger, by one with near zero IQ, just won't cut it.
Put up or shut up! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 25, 2011, 7:09:43 PM11/25/11

to

> And they will collapse for something better in the next generations.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear James Thomas: There is no need to wait "generations" for better
science. My correct and substantiated New Science is here and NOW! —
NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 25, 2011, 7:16:12 PM11/25/11

to

Dear TreBert: There is ZERO need to write "warped" space equations,
because I have invalidated the 1887 M-M experiment (has no CONTROL, or
unchanging light course) and thus proved that SR is the ridiculous
contrivance of a MORON, Einstein. There is NOTHING about status quo
physics, especially as relates to astronomy and cosmology, that needs
to be... "saved". Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 25, 2011, 7:52:49 PM11/25/11

to

On Nov 21, 11:25 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> the Big Bang interpretation of the redshifting
> of the spectra from stars,
> is not required by the "standard model," or
> anything else that I've heard about.
>
> you might say that it was just science fiction, or
> just crazy, but your hamfisted arguments
> about F = ma = mv = KE are not going
> to go anywhere,
> whether or not Newton was a Big Phoney.

> (seehttp://21stcenturysciencetech.com,

> if you should wish really to know .-)

Dear 1tree: The "Big Bang" (Ha!) requires that gravity, somehow,
managed to compress all of the Universe into a singularity, or to a
molecule size, at best. The assemetries of anything bigger would
have... "distorted" the expansion. But there's ZERO need to
rationalize the God Damned B. B. because such never happened! There
is no mechanism for continuing to compress energy that is pushing,
equally, back out! All materials have elastic rebounds, meaning:
They "resist" the compression force, equally. When I invalidated the M-
M experiment, I disproved SR (which 'also' violates the L. of the C.
of Energy-Mass). No one born on planet Earth, before yours truly, has
known that the mechanism of gravity is varying ether flow and density,
replinished by the "Hobo ether" transported back into space between
the trains of photons exchanged between the attracting masses. Long
before "all of the mass in the Universe" could compress into a
singularity, there would be "a" gravity greater than allows photon
emission. We know such as the misunderstood Black Hole. As soon as
the light flow OUT stops, the ether flow IN——that IS gravity——would
shut off. Within one week of my realizing the latter fact, I chanced
to see in a book on astronomy the "star distribution data for the
center of the Andromeda galaxy." There is an "unexplained" starless
band near the center, which naive mentalities have supposed "might" be
caused by, say, double black holes at the center. Know this, Folks:
That starless band is where the stars that were next in line to be
gobbled-up by the super-massive STAR at the center, flew out on their
TANGENTS when that star's gravity shut off! Black Holes have ZERO
gravity!! My New Science NEGATES the need for most of the wasted talk
on these groups. Call me a party-pooper if you want, but I am the
greatest scientific mind ever born and raised on planet Earth! —
NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 25, 2011, 7:59:22 PM11/25/11

to

On Nov 21, 11:21 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

1tree: Ether is everywhere inside of masses. Saying that
"electromagnetism" causes this or that does NOT explain how
electromagnetism works! The polar IOTAs inside of the "space" in
atoms, power the electrons to keep moving. At no point in my New
Science is a wave (other than in recognized fluids) required for the
correctly explanation of any phenomenon. — NoEinstein —

micro...@hotmail.com

unread,

Nov 25, 2011, 9:01:58 PM11/25/11

to

Then what is time for?

> science. My correct and substantiated New Science is here and NOW! —

> NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Maybe in a million years.
You say yours is substantial?
Then what is the substance of your new science?
I don't study anybody's work so I wouldn't know
what substance you are working with.

Mitch Raemsch; the prize

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 28, 2011, 8:32:51 PM11/28/11

to

no; that's what I've already said, twice:
the four phases of matter are all fluidic,
if you inlcude the newer comprehension
of "the fluid mantle over geological time," since
the mecahnism is not really tha6t slow, per se.

of course, electromagnetism is very well explained
by electrons and nucleii;
you allegedly ultimate causes don't seem to bear any connection
to those efects, nor do they seem to mean anything,
at all.

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 28, 2011, 8:37:25 PM11/28/11

to

that's what I said;
I do not buy into the Big Bang. the best reference,
that I know of, is by a student of Alfven,
the plasma physicist,
_The Big Bang Never Happened_ by Eric Lerner.

> Call me a party-pooper if you want

well, Okay. anyway, as far as I know,
there's no way to see any alleged black hole
at the center of Galaxy, because it is so bright
with stars; so, I have no idea,
where you get this "starless band" ****.

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 28, 2011, 8:41:03 PM11/28/11

to

Gauss measured the curvature of space
-- which can only be measured o'er time --
in surveying the boundaries of Alsace-Lorainne
for the French government. "curvature
of spacetime" is an absurdity, set in stone
by the silly slogans of Minkowski,
then he died at the age of 43.

but, Minkowski was a good "N-dimensional" geometer, and
that is why it has since been unquestioned
by the "mainstream" cosmologists.

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 28, 2011, 8:52:23 PM11/28/11

to

possibly, you are star-struck by Einstein's newtonian ideal
of a "zero-dimensional rock of light," although
every single porperty of light is wavey. and,
waves are omnidirectional propogations,
not the simple vectors of Hamilton's geometrical optics
(but, I'd thought that it was Newton's .-)

Peter Webb

unread,

Nov 28, 2011, 11:10:14 PM11/28/11

to

McCullough is admitting his stupidity, but one thing that stands out
is the fact that he does not even understand GR, and yet this gross
incompetent person would argue to no end on why the Schwarzschild
metric is the only solution that is static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat to the field equations. <shrug>

________________________________________________________
I would be surprised if he said that. A "metric" is not a "solution", it is
a definition. I expect McCollough would know that that the statement above
is nonsense, because he understands the meanings of the words. You, on the
other hand, clearly have no idea of what the words mean, because you
consistently misuse them. I therefore expect that this is you misquoting him
because you didn't understand whaty he said. Have you got his exact words?

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 29, 2011, 11:48:16 PM11/29/11

to

no need for GR; what Koobee-doo has uncovered is that
teh Doppler shifts viz Lorentz really *do* give rise
to an apparently symmetrical aging of the twins,
regardless of which is accelerating & decelerating and
returning to Eaaarth.

so, if it is quite clear that SR has been validated
for decades, waht is wrong with the typical analysis?

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Nov 30, 2011, 2:46:14 AM11/30/11

to

this seems to be a common problem with "English
as a second language" users, although I am ashamed
to be horribly monolingual.

you exaggerate, however. the best evocation of this,
was the "famous" exercise of Korbyzinski,
called E-prime, where he disallowed teh use of the verb,
to be, in any conjugation. I mean, really,
it's just a joke!

Daryl McCullough

unread,

Nov 30, 2011, 8:40:45 AM11/30/11

to

On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:48:16 PM UTC-5, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
> no need for GR; what Koobee-doo has uncovered is that
> teh Doppler shifts viz Lorentz really *do* give rise
> to an apparently symmetrical aging of the twins,
> regardless of which is accelerating & decelerating and
> returning to Eaaarth.

The Doppler analysis of the twins isn't symmetric.
There are four events that are important for the
Doppler analysis: (1) the event when the twins depart,
(2) the event when the traveling twin turns around,
(3) the event where the light from event (2) reaches
the stay-at-home twin, and (4) the event when the
two twins get back together.

The traveling twin sees the images of the stay-at-home twin
Doppler-shifted to a lower rate between events (1) and (2),
and Doppler-shifted to a higher rate between (2) and (4).

The stay-at-home twin sees the images of the traveling
twin Dopper shifted to a lower rate between events (1) and
(3), and Doppler-shifted to a higher rate between (3) and
(4).

So the traveling twin sees equal times of lower rates (between (1) and
(2)) and higher rates (between (2) and (4)), while the stay-at-home
twin sees a longer period of lower rates (between (1) and (3)) and
a shorter period of higher rates (between (3) and (4)).

Daryl McCullough

unread,

Nov 30, 2011, 8:48:54 AM11/30/11

to

On Monday, November 28, 2011 11:10:14 PM UTC-5, Peter Webb wrote:

> I would be surprised if he said that. A "metric" is not a "solution", it is
> a definition. I expect McCollough would know that that the statement above
> is nonsense, because he understands the meanings of the words. You, on the
> other hand, clearly have no idea of what the words mean, because you
> consistently misuse them. I therefore expect that this is you misquoting him
> because you didn't understand whaty he said. Have you got his exact words?

I don't think I was the one to tell Koobee that the Schwarzschild solution is
unique, but the sense in which it is unique is that a coordinate change does
not have any physical meaning.

For example, in the 2D Euclidean plane, you can describe things using
good old Cartesian coordinates (x,y) or you can describe things using
polar coordinates (r, theta). The first gives rise to the line element

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2

while the second gives rise to the line element

ds^2 = dr^2 + r^2 dtheta^2

These two forms for the line element (sometimes called the metric)
are describing the *same* situation, which is flat, two-dimensional
Euclidean space.

NoEinstein

unread,

Nov 30, 2011, 12:45:49 PM11/30/11

to

On Nov 20, 7:06 pm, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear TreBert: You are about 50% right. Einstein's GR resulted from
his decade-long odyssey to write an equation that would replicate
(predict) the orbit of the planet Mercury about the Sun. Since
"equations" representing forces of attraction can be... "graphed", the
stronger forces would have the "field" lines be closer together the
closer-in the body orbits. Since MORON Einstein had no Earthly idea
what the mechanism of gravity is, he just dreamed up the laughable
notion that objects will follow along their "world" lines, in space
and time, and allow the orbiting object to occur WHERE his EMPIRICAL
equations have such appearing. He conveniently neglected to tell
anyone that he "derived" GR by randomly playing with the astronomical
data obtained by an astronomer friend. He was lucky that his
empirical, additive equations would also "predict" the bending of
light around the Sun as seen during a total solar eclipse. Einstein
was "cocky" about his prediction, because that astronomer friend had
"simulated eclipses" by having an opaque disk, placed at the front of
a telescope, block out the lumen of the Sun. Such disk allowed making
direct measurements of the "angle of bending" of a star's light in
passing behind the Sun, years before an actual solar eclipse got
similar results. Einstein, the Jewish MORON, was and is the greatest
FRAUD in the history of science! My... how the stupid rally behind
someone with such a low IQ! — NoEinstein —