Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Cleaning Away Einstein's Mishmash (is Copyrighted.)

4 views

Skip to first unread message

NoEinstein

unread,

Feb 4, 2008, 6:47:37 PM2/4/08

The WEB based book seller, Alibris, is currently listing
approximately 458 separate books—both new and used—on the subject of
Albert Einstein. That same company lists only 175 books on the
subject of Sir Isaac Newton. From these numbers one could conclude
either that Einstein is the more important figure in science, or he is
the more demanding figure to try to explain. Not surprisingly, it is
the latter reason why so much has been written. It seems that
“understanding Einstein” is the badge-of-glory for the pseudo
intellectuals in science and in academia. But be it known: “As a
rule, the more times that something necessitates being explained, the
less likely it is that the explanations being given are correct.”
Einstein’s special relativity equation, E=mc^2, is known by
millions, but it is understood by perhaps a few thousand in all of its
ramifications. Most people don’t know that the majority of the
“predictions” of Einstein that purport to uphold his intellectual
greatness, result from a factor beta that is a divisor under E=mc^2.
A mentor of Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, and a mathematician named
Fitzgerald, separately, developed the same equation, beta= (1 - v^2 /
c^2) ^1/2. As a divisor, beta is very close to value 1 for all
velocities normally encountered on Earth. When an object’s velocity
approaches the assumed maximum velocity of light, ‘c’, beta becomes
tiny, and approaches zero at velocity ‘c’. Schoolboys know that when
a divisor gets very small, the number that results from the division
gets very large. Those same schoolboys were likely most impressed
that so simple looking an equation as E=mc^2 could contain so many
‘insights’ into how the Universe functions. But they would be less
impressed to learn that Einstein copied E=mc^2 from a man named
Coriolis, and copied the divisor, beta, from Lorentz-Fitzgerald.
Einstein explained simple things in minutiae. By so doing he
seemed to be claiming to be the ‘author’ of observations in nature, as
if those existed just because he decided to explain them in such
elemental ways. Example: When Einstein realized that observers at
different locations witness events differently, he was quick to claim
such natural occurrence as his very own ‘principle of relativity’!
Since people see things differently, then, nothing is truthful apart
from one’s point of view. That one concept liberated Einstein to
concoct his own pet explanations for how nature functions. Now, no
one can question him, because there is no truth but what he says is
the truth!
Einstein was wont to describe ‘relativity’ observations in such
elemental and boring detail that he seemed to have assumed that no one
before him was smart enough to see, to have seen, or to accept the
obvious. Listening to the condescending harangues of such a pedant
would have been an insult to most reasonable men. But those who
wrinkled their brows and scratched their heads in wonder of the man,
and didn’t get up and walk out, became silent assenters to everything
that he said…
One of my employers would sometimes preface his statements with:
“Would you believe… ?” What followed, quickly, were statements of his
experience or of some truth or fiction. But if you didn’t ‘call him’
on what he just said, then, you were giving your tacit agreement to
the truthfulness of his words, or you were showing him that you
weren’t knowledgeable enough to call him to task. When Einstein’s
audiences stayed in their seats and did not (or could not) call him to
task when he said untruths… they, thereby, were convincing him that he
was above intellectual reproach. Now, Einstein could squeeze in more
of his pet untruths, about those other things that he had ‘reasoned’
to be so. The man mixed his truths with untruths so freely, that
minds would reel to begin to know where to challenge the man.
Seldom was Einstein inclined to step back and question his own
assessments, nor, was he inclined to allow others to question them.
The man said most things with a disarming god-like certainty. But no
course in logic or in deductive and inductive reasoning would find him
making a passing grade. Einstein used “his” ‘principle of relativity’
and “his” ever-changing ‘frame of reference’, to help substantiate the
endless stream of his absurd notions and explanations.
Why did Einstein err?

(1.) He reasoned in the language of equations, and seldom if ever
verified anything by actually doing elementary math.

(2.) He embraced some unproven ‘law of the propagation of light’
advanced by Maxwell and others, that seemed to say that the velocity
of light “in vacuo” is unchanging. Such error caused Einstein to
believe wrongly: “Observations of events happening on a railroad
embankment cannot be correctly timed and measured from a moving train
adjacent to that same embankment.”

(3.) He was gullible to accept the notions of Lorentz-FitzGerald that
all matter, regardless of its composition, contracts identically in
the direction of motion. Einstein and those men—not being engineers—
understood absolutely nothing about the strengths of the materials
that they theorized to be made to contract by velocity. Neither did
they know that strengths of materials depend not just on the material
types, but on the geometries and the qualities of the materials. Nor
did Einstein and those men have the mental wherewithal to realize the
easily observed consequences of there being contractions of matter
caused by velocity alone. To wit: Rocket ships would turn sideways in
space in response to the compression purported to be caused by
velocity. And objects like paper clips lying on your desk would turn
to all angles during the day and night as the Earth’s velocity vector
changes as it rotates on its axis, and orbits the Sun. Einstein knew
so little about nature and engineering, that he thought that matter
would remain contracted at any uniform velocity, without its being
able to rebound elastically, till the velocity is reduced. According
to Einstein: If a compression was caused by velocity, it STAYED
compressed! The man wrote purported laws of nature; but never
observed nature!

(4.) He did not have the basic understanding of light, nor the ability
to analyze spatial relationships [except his own contrived ones] well
enough to understand how the Fizeau interferometer experiment, nor the
Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment functioned. He should have
realized that the results of the latter experiment were
counterintuitive, and discovered the error in its design—as I have
done. Rather, Einstein took it as his mantra that reasoning
counterintuitive things was his calling; and he did that so well!
“Einstein, single handedly, made stupidity a virtue and rational
thought a disease.”

(5.) Einstein’s thoughts were not grounded in truths; rather they
were his imagined truths or delusions. He had schizophrenia. Except
for his outward studiousness, he never should have been listened to,
nor taken seriously in any regard.

(6.) Einstein was dishonest. His “prediction” of the angle of
bending of light in the 1919 solar eclipse did not, and could not have
resulted from his general theory of relativity. He extrapolated
observed optical bending evident in the changed apparent locations of
the moons of Jupiter that re appear sooner. He estimated the larger
angle based on the greater mass and diameter of the Sun. And his
calculations used Newton’s Law of Gravitation, not his own theories.
It was Einstein’s lifelong jealousy of Newton that lead him to try to
redefine gravity in the first place.

(7.) He drew a close parallel between acceleration and the force of
gravity. But neither he, nor Coriolis—from whom he copied his E=mc^2 —
knew the correct definition of the acceleration of gravity, ‘g’, which
is: 32.174 feet per second EACH second. If Einstein had known that
acceleration is a linear, or additive, increase in the velocity of an
object, NOT an exponential increase, then he never would have taught:
“There isn‘t enough energy in the entire Universe to cause even a
speck of matter to travel to the velocity of light”.

(8.) When he couldn’t understand something (which was quite
frequently) Einstein invented something else that approximated
observations. His general theory of relativity defines gravity as
just warped space-time, wherein, objects accelerate along his
concocted world lines. Since the inertial effects of acceleration
feel like gravity, then, Einstein says that acceleration is gravity!
(sic)

(9.) Einstein had a huge misunderstanding of the difference between…
“seems like” and “is”. He often postulated… If so-and-so is true, and
if such-and-such is also true, then, all-in-all must be absolutely
true! But from that point on, when Einstein referred to “all-in-all“,
he never again mentioned that his speculative conclusion derived from
two very iffy and unproven suppositions! That is like saying: The
cause is the result of the observed effects!

(10.) The subjects that Einstein talked about didn’t make one wit of
difference to the ordinary people of his day. If light can’t go
faster than ‘c’, who cared? But I care, today! Einstein has limited
mankind, forever, to be bound to live on just a planet that revolves
around the Sun. But had I been a contemporary of his, he would not
have pulled-the-wool-over-so-many-eyes.

Now, all of the “predictions” by Einstein that had purported to
confirm his theories can be correctly explained by the actual
existence of a pervasive energy form called ether! Erroneously, the
existence of ether had been ‘disproved’ by the 1887 Michelson-Morley
interferometer experiment… that Einstein had so blindly accepted as
being conclusive. For a supposed scientist, Einstein knew absolutely
nothing about the Scientific Method… For him, truth was whatever he
could convince you to believe.
Books will continue to be written about Einstein, but I hope some
of them will address the psychology that was used by that man, so that
never again will an entire scientific discipline be so duped away from
the truth.
__________

mitc...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 4, 2008, 6:57:13 PM2/4/08

On Feb 4, 3:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The WEB based book seller, Alibris, is currently listing

> approximately 458 separate books--both new and used--on the subject of

> that he said...

> One of my employers would sometimes preface his statements with:

> "Would you believe... ?" What followed, quickly, were statements of his

> experience or of some truth or fiction. But if you didn't 'call him'
> on what he just said, then, you were giving your tacit agreement to
> the truthfulness of his words, or you were showing him that you
> weren't knowledgeable enough to call him to task. When Einstein's
> audiences stayed in their seats and did not (or could not) call him to

> task when he said untruths... they, thereby, were convincing him that he

> was above intellectual reproach. Now, Einstein could squeeze in more
> of his pet untruths, about those other things that he had 'reasoned'
> to be so. The man mixed his truths with untruths so freely, that
> minds would reel to begin to know where to challenge the man.
> Seldom was Einstein inclined to step back and question his own
> assessments, nor, was he inclined to allow others to question them.
> The man said most things with a disarming god-like certainty. But no
> course in logic or in deductive and inductive reasoning would find him
> making a passing grade. Einstein used "his" 'principle of relativity'
> and "his" ever-changing 'frame of reference', to help substantiate the
> endless stream of his absurd notions and explanations.
> Why did Einstein err?
>
> (1.) He reasoned in the language of equations, and seldom if ever
> verified anything by actually doing elementary math.
>
> (2.) He embraced some unproven 'law of the propagation of light'
> advanced by Maxwell and others, that seemed to say that the velocity
> of light "in vacuo" is unchanging. Such error caused Einstein to
> believe wrongly: "Observations of events happening on a railroad
> embankment cannot be correctly timed and measured from a moving train
> adjacent to that same embankment."
>
> (3.) He was gullible to accept the notions of Lorentz-FitzGerald that
> all matter, regardless of its composition, contracts identically in

> the direction of motion. Einstein and those men--not being engineers--

> understood absolutely nothing about the strengths of the materials
> that they theorized to be made to contract by velocity. Neither did
> they know that strengths of materials depend not just on the material
> types, but on the geometries and the qualities of the materials. Nor
> did Einstein and those men have the mental wherewithal to realize the
> easily observed consequences of there being contractions of matter
> caused by velocity alone. To wit: Rocket ships would turn sideways in
> space in response to the compression purported to be caused by
> velocity. And objects like paper clips lying on your desk would turn
> to all angles during the day and night as the Earth's velocity vector
> changes as it rotates on its axis, and orbits the Sun. Einstein knew
> so little about nature and engineering, that he thought that matter
> would remain contracted at any uniform velocity, without its being
> able to rebound elastically, till the velocity is reduced. According
> to Einstein: If a compression was caused by velocity, it STAYED
> compressed! The man wrote purported laws of nature; but never
> observed nature!
>
> (4.) He did not have the basic understanding of light, nor the ability
> to analyze spatial relationships [except his own contrived ones] well
> enough to understand how the Fizeau interferometer experiment, nor the
> Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment functioned. He should have
> realized that the results of the latter experiment were

> counterintuitive, and discovered the error in its design--as I have

> done. Rather, Einstein took it as his mantra that reasoning
> counterintuitive things was his calling; and he did that so well!
> "Einstein, single handedly, made stupidity a virtue and rational
> thought a disease."
>
> (5.) Einstein's thoughts were not grounded in truths; rather they
> were his imagined truths or delusions. He had schizophrenia. Except
> for his outward studiousness, he never should have been listened to,
> nor taken seriously in any regard.
>
> (6.) Einstein was dishonest. His "prediction" of the angle of
> bending of light in the 1919 solar eclipse did not, and could not have
> resulted from his general theory of relativity. He extrapolated
> observed optical bending evident in the changed apparent locations of
> the moons of Jupiter that re appear sooner. He estimated the larger
> angle based on the greater mass and diameter of the Sun. And his
> calculations used Newton's Law of Gravitation, not his own theories.
> It was Einstein's lifelong jealousy of Newton that lead him to try to
> redefine gravity in the first place.
>
> (7.) He drew a close parallel between acceleration and the force of

> gravity. But neither he, nor Coriolis--from whom he copied his E=mc^2 --

> knew the correct definition of the acceleration of gravity, 'g', which
> is: 32.174 feet per second EACH second. If Einstein had known that
> acceleration is a linear, or additive, increase in the velocity of an
> object, NOT an exponential increase, then he never would have taught:
> "There isn't enough energy in the entire Universe to cause even a
> speck of matter to travel to the velocity of light".
>
> (8.) When he couldn't understand something (which was quite
> frequently) Einstein invented something else that approximated
> observations. His general theory of relativity defines gravity as
> just warped space-time, wherein, objects accelerate along his
> concocted world lines. Since the inertial effects of acceleration
> feel like gravity, then, Einstein says that acceleration is gravity!
> (sic)
>

> (9.) Einstein had a huge misunderstanding of the difference between...
> "seems like" and "is". He often postulated... If so-and-so is true, and

> if such-and-such is also true, then, all-in-all must be absolutely
> true! But from that point on, when Einstein referred to "all-in-all",
> he never again mentioned that his speculative conclusion derived from
> two very iffy and unproven suppositions! That is like saying: The
> cause is the result of the observed effects!
>
> (10.) The subjects that Einstein talked about didn't make one wit of
> difference to the ordinary people of his day. If light can't go
> faster than 'c', who cared? But I care, today! Einstein has limited
> mankind, forever, to be bound to live on just a planet that revolves
> around the Sun. But had I been a contemporary of his, he would not
> have pulled-the-wool-over-so-many-eyes.
>
> Now, all of the "predictions" by Einstein that had purported to
> confirm his theories can be correctly explained by the actual
> existence of a pervasive energy form called ether! Erroneously, the
> existence of ether had been 'disproved' by the 1887 Michelson-Morley

> interferometer experiment... that Einstein had so blindly accepted as

> being conclusive. For a supposed scientist, Einstein knew absolutely

> nothing about the Scientific Method... For him, truth was whatever he

> could convince you to believe.
> Books will continue to be written about Einstein, but I hope some
> of them will address the psychology that was used by that man, so that
> never again will an entire scientific discipline be so duped away from
> the truth.
> __________
>
> Other posts of mine beginning in 2007:
>

> Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
> Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...

> An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...

> Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
> Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
> Matter from Thin Airhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe...
> Curing Einstein's Diseasehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e...
> Replicating NoEinstein's Invalidation of M-Mhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en
> NC Buries Head in Sand to Einstein Disproofshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ca773...
> NC Governor Should Resign Over Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e892...
> Replicating NoEinstein's Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...
>
> Respectfully submitted, -- NoEinstein --
> __________

Your beta NoEinstein should be the Gamma factor. Gamma mass or the
dynamic relative mass can replace rest mass in E=MC squared.

MItch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Eric Gisse

unread,

Feb 4, 2008, 7:27:11 PM2/4/08

On Feb 4, 2:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The WEB based book seller, Alibris, is currently listing
> approximately 458 separate books—both new and used—on the subject of
> Albert Einstein. That same company lists only 175 books on the
> subject of Sir Isaac Newton. From these numbers one could conclude
> either that Einstein is the more important figure in science, or he is
> the more demanding figure to try to explain. Not surprisingly, it is
> the latter reason why so much has been written. It seems that
> “understanding Einstein” is the badge-of-glory for the pseudo
> intellectuals in science and in academia. But be it known: “As a
> rule, the more times that something necessitates being explained, the
> less likely it is that the explanations being given are correct.”

By that standard, everything north of elementary algebra is incorrect
since things like calculus [do you even know calculus?] tends to
require multiple explanations before people grasp what's going on.

Did you get Stokes' theorem on the first shot? Wait...do you even know
what Stokes' theorem is?

> Einstein’s special relativity equation, E=mc^2, is known by
> millions, but it is understood by perhaps a few thousand in all of its
> ramifications.

You are an order of magnitude or three shy of being correct. Don't let
that get in your way though.

> Most people don’t know that the majority of the
> “predictions” of Einstein that purport to uphold his intellectual
> greatness, result from a factor beta that is a divisor under E=mc^2.

That'd be because it isn't true.

> A mentor of Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, and a mathematician named
> Fitzgerald, separately, developed the same equation, beta= (1 - v^2 /
> c^2) ^1/2. As a divisor, beta is very close to value 1 for all
> velocities normally encountered on Earth. When an object’s velocity
> approaches the assumed maximum velocity of light, ‘c’, beta becomes
> tiny, and approaches zero at velocity ‘c’. Schoolboys know that when
> a divisor gets very small, the number that results from the division
> gets very large. Those same schoolboys were likely most impressed
> that so simple looking an equation as E=mc^2 could contain so many
> ‘insights’ into how the Universe functions. But they would be less
> impressed to learn that Einstein copied E=mc^2 from a man named
> Coriolis, and copied the divisor, beta, from Lorentz-Fitzgerald.

Except that this too is _not true_, and that when pressed for
references, you always come up short.

> Einstein explained simple things in minutiae. By so doing he
> seemed to be claiming to be the ‘author’ of observations in nature, as
> if those existed just because he decided to explain them in such
> elemental ways. Example: When Einstein realized that observers at
> different locations witness events differently, he was quick to claim
> such natural occurrence as his very own ‘principle of relativity’!

Again, not true. Einstein never claimed the principle of relativity as
his own given that it was a well known principle in classical
mechanics.

> Since people see things differently, then, nothing is truthful apart
> from one’s point of view. That one concept liberated Einstein to
> concoct his own pet explanations for how nature functions. Now, no
> one can question him, because there is no truth but what he says is
> the truth!

You sound bitter. Are you mad that you aren't granted the respect
Einstein was?

> Einstein was wont to describe ‘relativity’ observations in such
> elemental and boring detail that he seemed to have assumed that no one
> before him was smart enough to see, to have seen, or to accept the
> obvious. Listening to the condescending harangues of such a pedant
> would have been an insult to most reasonable men. But those who
> wrinkled their brows and scratched their heads in wonder of the man,
> and didn’t get up and walk out, became silent assenters to everything
> that he said…

Such ignorance!

You'd be well at home in the universe which has science work in the
way you imagine. You don't have to derive anything, make convincing
arguments, or provide supporting evidence. You just decree what is
true, and never look back.

You have obviously not studied the history of physics in any detail
for you to make claims like this.

[snip remaining stupidity, unread]

mitc...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 4, 2008, 7:47:10 PM2/4/08

On Feb 4, 4:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > The WEB based book seller, Alibris, is currently listing

> > approximately 458 separate books--both new and used--on the subject of

> > that he said...

>
> Such ignorance!
>
> You'd be well at home in the universe which has science work in the
> way you imagine. You don't have to derive anything, make convincing
> arguments, or provide supporting evidence. You just decree what is
> true, and never look back.
>
> You have obviously not studied the history of physics in any detail
> for you to make claims like this.
>
> [snip remaining stupidity, unread]

Gamma Mass is the dynamic relativistic extension of rest mass.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Eric Gisse

unread,

Feb 4, 2008, 10:15:57 PM2/4/08

On Feb 4, 3:47 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:

[...]

Someone needs to smack you upside the head and shut you up.

NoEinstein

unread,

Feb 5, 2008, 6:06:45 AM2/5/08

On Feb 4, 6:57 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
Dear Mitch: An all too common "communication error" of physicists is
having two or more different definitions for the same symbolic terms.
That is the reason that I have derided physicists so much for being
poor at expressing, in plain English, what 'they think' they are
saying via equations.

My use of the term "beta" refers to the contraction factor of Lorentz
& Fitzgerald that was the divisor under Einstein's E = mc^2. I'm
probably not be as current on the vernacular used in 'explaining'
Einstein as most who venture there. The reason: I have managed to
disprove the man without allowing myself to be brainwashed by the
Einstein garbage that's out there. But don't take that personally,
you must have managed to muddle through all of that man's...
"mishmash".

I appreciate your thoughtful comments! -- NoEinstein --

NoEinstein

unread,

Feb 5, 2008, 6:10:29 AM2/5/08

I wish someone would test to see if a smack to the head would shut YOU
up, Eric! -- NoEinstein --

peikko

unread,

Feb 5, 2008, 2:46:38 PM2/5/08

Gosh is it April first already?

Peikko

NoEinstein

unread,

Feb 6, 2008, 9:23:13 PM2/6/08

On Feb 5, 2:46 pm, peikko <finntr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

>
Dear Peikko: It would be much easier for me to reply to you if you
would comment on points of science in my posts. Your being oblivious
of the... date, suggests you are spending too much time on the groups,
and not getting your 8 hrs. of recommended sleep. -- NoEinstein --

>
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > The WEB based book seller, Alibris, is currently listing

> > approximately 458 separate books--both new and used--on the subject of

> > that he said...

> > One of my employers would sometimes preface his statements with:

> > "Would you believe... ?" What followed, quickly, were statements of his

> > experience or of some truth or fiction. But if you didn't 'call him'
> > on what he just said, then, you were giving your tacit agreement to
> > the truthfulness of his words, or you were showing him that you
> > weren't knowledgeable enough to call him to task. When Einstein's
> > audiences stayed in their seats and did not (or could not) call him to

> > task when he said untruths... they, thereby, were convincing him that he

> > was above intellectual reproach. Now, Einstein could squeeze in more
> > of his pet untruths, about those other things that he had 'reasoned'
> > to be so. The man mixed his truths with untruths so freely, that
> > minds would reel to begin to know where to challenge the man.
> > Seldom was Einstein inclined to step back and question his own
> > assessments, nor, was he inclined to allow others to question them.
> > The man said most things with a disarming god-like certainty. But no
> > course in logic or in deductive and inductive reasoning would find him
> > making a passing grade. Einstein used "his" 'principle of relativity'
> > and "his" ever-changing 'frame of reference', to help substantiate the
> > endless stream of his absurd notions and explanations.
> > Why did Einstein err?
>
> > (1.) He reasoned in the language of equations, and seldom if ever
> > verified anything by actually doing elementary math.
>
> > (2.) He embraced some unproven 'law of the propagation of light'
> > advanced by Maxwell and others, that seemed to say that the velocity
> > of light "in vacuo" is unchanging. Such error caused Einstein to
> > believe wrongly: "Observations of events happening on a railroad
> > embankment cannot be correctly timed and measured from a moving train
> > adjacent to that same embankment."
>
> > (3.) He was gullible to accept the notions of Lorentz-FitzGerald that
> > all matter, regardless of its composition, contracts identically in

> > the direction of motion. Einstein and those men--not being engineers--

> > understood absolutely nothing about the strengths of the materials
> > that they theorized to be made to contract by velocity. Neither did
> > they know that strengths of materials depend not just on the material
> > types, but on the geometries and the qualities of the materials. Nor
> > did Einstein and those men have the mental wherewithal to realize the
> > easily observed consequences of there being contractions of matter
> > caused by velocity alone. To wit: Rocket ships would turn sideways in
> > space in response to the compression purported to be caused by
> > velocity. And objects like paper clips lying on your desk would turn
> > to all angles during the day and night as the Earth's velocity vector
> > changes as it rotates on its axis, and orbits the Sun. Einstein knew
> > so little about nature and engineering, that he thought that matter
> > would remain contracted at any uniform velocity, without its being
> > able to rebound elastically, till the velocity is reduced. According
> > to Einstein: If a compression was caused by velocity, it STAYED
> > compressed! The man wrote purported laws of nature; but never
> > observed nature!
>
> > (4.) He did not have the basic understanding of light, nor the ability
> > to analyze spatial relationships [except his own contrived ones] well
> > enough to understand how the Fizeau interferometer experiment, nor the
> > Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment functioned. He should have
> > realized that the results of the latter experiment were

> > counterintuitive, and discovered the error in its design--as I have

> > done. Rather, Einstein took it as his mantra that reasoning
> > counterintuitive things was his calling; and he did that so well!
> > "Einstein, single handedly, made stupidity a virtue and rational
> > thought a disease."
>
> > (5.) Einstein's thoughts were not grounded in truths; rather they
> > were his imagined truths or delusions. He had schizophrenia. Except
> > for his outward studiousness, he never should have been listened to,
> > nor taken seriously in any regard.
>
> > (6.) Einstein was dishonest. His "prediction" of the angle of
> > bending of light in the 1919 solar eclipse did not, and could not have
> > resulted from his general theory of relativity. He extrapolated
> > observed optical bending evident in the changed apparent locations of
> > the moons of Jupiter that re appear sooner. He estimated the larger
> > angle based on the greater mass and diameter of the Sun. And his
> > calculations used Newton's Law of Gravitation, not his own theories.
> > It was Einstein's lifelong jealousy of Newton that lead him to try to
> > redefine gravity in the first place.
>
> > (7.) He drew a close parallel between acceleration and the force of

> > gravity. But neither he, nor Coriolis--from whom he copied his E=mc^2 --

> > knew the correct definition of the acceleration of gravity, 'g', which
> > is: 32.174 feet per second EACH second. If Einstein had known that
> > acceleration is a linear, or additive, increase in the velocity of an
> > object, NOT an exponential increase, then he never would have taught:
> > "There isn't enough energy in the entire Universe to cause even a
> > speck of matter to travel to the velocity of light".
>
> > (8.) When he couldn't understand something (which was quite
> > frequently) Einstein invented something else that approximated
> > observations. His general theory of relativity defines gravity as
> > just warped space-time, wherein, objects accelerate along his
> > concocted world lines. Since the inertial effects of acceleration
> > feel like gravity, then, Einstein says that acceleration is gravity!
> > (sic)
>

> > (9.) Einstein had a huge misunderstanding of the difference between...
> > "seems like" and "is". He often postulated... If so-and-so is true, and

> > if such-and-such is also true, then, all-in-all must be absolutely
> > true! But from that point on, when Einstein referred to "all-in-all",
> > he never again mentioned that his speculative conclusion derived from
> > two very iffy and unproven suppositions! That is like saying: The
> > cause is the result of the observed effects!
>
> > (10.) The subjects that Einstein talked about didn't make one wit of
> > difference to the ordinary people of his day. If light can't go
> > faster than 'c', who cared? But I care, today! Einstein has limited
> > mankind, forever, to be bound to live on just a planet that revolves
> > around the Sun. But had I been a contemporary of his, he would not
> > have pulled-the-wool-over-so-many-eyes.
>
> > Now, all of the "predictions" by Einstein that had purported to
> > confirm his theories can be correctly explained by the actual
> > existence of a pervasive energy form called ether! Erroneously, the
> > existence of ether had been 'disproved' by the 1887 Michelson-Morley

> > interferometer experiment... that Einstein had so blindly accepted as

> > being conclusive. For a supposed scientist, Einstein knew absolutely

> > nothing about the Scientific Method... For him, truth was whatever he

> > could convince you to believe.
> > Books will continue to be written about Einstein, but I hope some
> > of them will address the psychology that was used by that man, so that
> > never again will an entire scientific discipline be so duped away from
> > the truth.
> > __________
>
> > Other posts of mine beginning in 2007:
>
> > Where Angels Fear to Fall
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
> > Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
> > An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
> > Another look at Einstein
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
> > Three Problems for Math and Science

> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
> > Matter from Thin Air
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe...
> > Curing Einstein's Disease
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e...

> > Replicating NoEinstein's Invalidation of M-M
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en
> > NC Buries Head in Sand to Einstein Disproofs

> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ca773...

> > NC Governor Should Resign Over Science

> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e892...

> > Replicating NoEinstein's Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)

> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...
>
> > Respectfully submitted, -- NoEinstein --

0 new messages