NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
NoEinstein
Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
— NoEinstein —
To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
w.
From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
Subject: Re: magnetic potential
On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
is a fallen theory! — NoEinstein —
__________
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
>
> Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
> "approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
> needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
> infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
> is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
> flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
> be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
> particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
> another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
> One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
> by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
> � NoEinstein �
>
> To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>
> Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
> give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>
> A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>
> w.
>
> From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
> Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
> Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>
> On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>
> Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
> easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
> is a fallen theory! � NoEinstein �
You certainly do not understand sarcasm. You have just confirmed that
you are as stupid as we thought.
>
> __________
Nomen Publicus
> NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding ?Magnetic Potential?:
>
> Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
> "approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
> needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
> infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
> is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
> flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
> be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
> particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
> another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
> One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
> by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>
> To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>
> Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
> give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>
> A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
Not orginal. It was once proposed that the reason which all electrons have
identical charges was simple, only one electron exists. The appearence of
many is an illusion caused by the one particle travelling back and forth
through time. This also explained +ve charge - it was just an electron
travelling backwards in time.
>
> w.
>
> From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
> Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
> Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>
> On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>
> Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
> easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
> is a fallen theory! ? NoEinstein ?
>
> __________
--
Evolution is a mathematically based theory. If you don't understand
statistics you will never properly understand evolution.
NoEinstein
>
As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science. You regular
readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
go. He's just a slimy leech. — NoEinstein —
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding “Magnetic Potential”:
>
> > Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
> > "approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
> > needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
> > infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
> > is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
> > flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
> > be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
> > particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
> > another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
> > One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
> > by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>
> > To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>
> > Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
> > give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>
> > A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>
> > w.
>
> > From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> > Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
> > Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
> > Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>
> > On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>
> > Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
> > easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>
> You certainly do not understand sarcasm. You have just confirmed that
> you are as stupid as we thought.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
Dear Nomen: The readers and I would be interested in seeing a list of
your 'new posts' on sci.physics. You seem to be as "lost" as those
who live in "string universes". — NoEinstein —
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science. You regular
> readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
> go. He's just a slimy leech. � NoEinstein �
John hates it when we point out his mistakes. He is still mad at
all the other times he has been shown to be wrong. He thinks
having a tantrum like a four year old makes him look like a
scientist. Maybe that works for claimed to be architects.
>
>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
>>
>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>>>� NoEinstein �
>>
>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>>
>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>>
>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>>
>>>w.
>>
>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>>
>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>>>is a fallen theory! � NoEinstein �
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2:47 am, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Dear Nomen: The readers and I would be interested in seeing a list of
> your 'new posts' on sci.physics. You seem to be as "lost" as those
> who live in "string universes". � NoEinstein �
>
John favors quantity of posts over quality. John have never posted
anything correct about science.
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> > As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science. You regular
> > readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>
> John hates it when we point out his mistakes. He is still mad at
> all the other times he has been shown to be wrong. He thinks
> having a tantrum like a four year old makes him look like a
> scientist. Maybe that works for claimed to be architects.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
> >>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
> >>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
> >>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
> >>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
> >>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
> >>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
> >>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
> >>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
> >>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
> >>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
> >>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>
> >>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>
> >>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
> >>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>
> >>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>
> >>>w.
>
> >>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
> >>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>
> >>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>
> >>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
> >>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>
> >>You certainly do not understand sarcasm. You have just confirmed that
> >>you are as stupid as we thought.
>
> >>>__________- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Doug, the leech, classifies himself as a "we" in pointing out my
"mistakes". Isn't it interesting that he has yet to select any one
point of my new science and then to refute such IN HIS OWN WORDS? He
talks as if "mistakes" have been pointed out, but he hasn't yet done
that assignment! The only "mistake" I can see was when Dougie Boy was
conceived! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> > On Sep 9, 2:47 am, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Dear Nomen: The readers and I would be interested in seeing a list of
> > your 'new posts' on sci.physics. You seem to be as "lost" as those
>
> - Show quoted text -
Doug, the leech, classifies himself as a "we" in pointing out my
Igor
NoEinstein wrote:
> NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding “Magnetic Potential”:
>
> Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
> "approach" 'c'
Relative to what?
>, that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
> needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
> infinite,
Nearly infinite is not infinite. Funny thing about infinity. The
closer you get to it, the further away you actually are. By the way,
infinity is a concept, not a number.
>regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
> is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
> flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
> be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!)
But a finite number times another finite number, however large, still
yields a finite number. You call that gibberish a proof?
>to have gotten those
> particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
> another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
> One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
> by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
Used up? Have you ever heard of conservation of energy? Have you
ever taken even a freshman level physics course? I take it the answer
is "no" to both.
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 10, 11:33 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science. You regular
>>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>>>go. He's just a slimy leech. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>John hates it when we point out his mistakes. He is still mad at
>>all the other times he has been shown to be wrong. He thinks
>>having a tantrum like a four year old makes him look like a
>>scientist. Maybe that works for claimed to be architects.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
>>
>>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
>>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
>>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
>>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
>>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
>>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
>>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
>>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
>>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
>>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
>>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>>>>>� NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>>
>>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
>>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>>
>>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>>
>>>>>w.
>>
>>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
>>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
>>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>>
>>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
>>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>>>>>is a fallen theory! � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>You certainly do not understand sarcasm. You have just confirmed that
>>>>you are as stupid as we thought.
>>
>>>>>__________- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Doug, the leech, classifies himself as a "we" in pointing out my
> "mistakes". Isn't it interesting that he has yet to select any one
> point of my new science and then to refute such IN HIS OWN WORDS? He
> talks as if "mistakes" have been pointed out, but he hasn't yet done
> that assignment! The only "mistake" I can see was when Dougie Boy was
> conceived! � NoEinstein �
John has very poor reading comprehension. His mistakes are so numberous
it takes a long time to list them.
John does not know the difference between force and energy.
John knows nothing of units.
John knows nothing of how to do experiments.
John does not know how interferometers work.
John is ignorant of science history.
John cannot do math.
How many more do you want pointed out?
NoEinstein
>
Dear Igor: Have you been in prison? Or did you just come back from
the dead? Einstein himself said: "It will require more energy than is
in the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
velocity 'c'." Einstein effectively ruled out having 'anything'
reach... 'c'. But the science reports say that x-rays, gamma rays and
neutrinos—ad nauseam—go speeding around at or close to 'c'. If there
are a zillion, zillion x-rays traveling "close' to 'c', then all of
the energy in the Universe would have to had been used up already if
Einstein was... correct (Ha!). You can deny my PROOF if you like.
But you are only pointing out your own, already well-known, mental
shallowness. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
And NoEinstein has put Dougie the Leech to shame for his being unable
to do any of the things I have done! — NoEinstein —
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 11:33 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science. You regular
> >>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>
> >>John hates it when we point out his mistakes. He is still mad at
> >>all the other times he has been shown to be wrong. He thinks
> >>having a tantrum like a four year old makes him look like a
> >>scientist. Maybe that works for claimed to be architects.
>
> >>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
> >>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
> >>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
> >>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
> >>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
> >>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
> >>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
> >>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
> >>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
> >>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
> >>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>
> >>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>
> >>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
> >>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>
> >>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>
> >>>>>w.
>
> >>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
> >>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>
> >>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
> >>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>
> >>>>You certainly do not understand sarcasm. You have just confirmed that
> >>>>you are as stupid as we thought.
>
> >>>>>__________- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Doug, the leech, classifies himself as a "we" in pointing out my
> > "mistakes". Isn't it interesting that he has yet to select any one
> > point of my new science and then to refute such IN HIS OWN WORDS? He
> > talks as if "mistakes" have been pointed out, but he hasn't yet done
> > that assignment! The only "mistake" I can see was when Dougie Boy was
>
> John has very poor reading comprehension. His mistakes are so numberous
> it takes a long time to list them.
> John does not know the difference between force and energy.
> John knows nothing of units.
> John knows nothing of how to do experiments.
> John does not know how interferometers work.
> John is ignorant of science history.
> John cannot do math.
>
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 10, 3:22 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> And NoEinstein has put Dougie the Leech to shame for his being unable
> to do any of the things I have done! � NoEinstein �
No, I have not been able to make as many stupid mistakes as you
have. I have not looked like a fool in public as you have and
so on. Why do you enjoy looking stupid in public?
Oh, and you were unable to defend any of your claims from
the mistakes I listed below. Even you know you are wrong.
>
>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 10, 11:33 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science. You regular
>>>>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>>>>>go. He's just a slimy leech. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>John hates it when we point out his mistakes. He is still mad at
>>>>all the other times he has been shown to be wrong. He thinks
>>>>having a tantrum like a four year old makes him look like a
>>>>scientist. Maybe that works for claimed to be architects.
>>
>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
>>
>>>>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
>>>>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
>>>>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
>>>>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
>>>>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
>>>>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
>>>>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
>>>>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
>>>>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
>>>>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
>>>>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>>>>>>>� NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>>
>>>>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
>>>>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>>
>>>>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>>
>>>>>>>w.
>>
>>>>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
>>>>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
>>>>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>>
>>>>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
>>>>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>>>>>>>is a fallen theory! � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>You certainly do not understand sarcasm. You have just confirmed that
>>>>>>you are as stupid as we thought.
>>
>>>>>>>__________- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>Doug, the leech, classifies himself as a "we" in pointing out my
>>>"mistakes". Isn't it interesting that he has yet to select any one
>>>point of my new science and then to refute such IN HIS OWN WORDS? He
>>>talks as if "mistakes" have been pointed out, but he hasn't yet done
>>>that assignment! The only "mistake" I can see was when Dougie Boy was
>>>conceived! � NoEinstein �
Igor
Your suicide bombings of usenet are not a very healthy way of doing
things. And forget about your 72 virgins. They're all in comp sci.
The only thing correct in any of your pathetic posts is your handle.
Your ignorance speaks volumes about your lack of education. Come back
when you've learned some first grade physics. Till then you'll just
be a stupid troll with nothing new to say.
NoEinstein
>
Dougie Boy, the leech, doesn't know how to talk SCIENCE. He only
knows how to say that everything I ever did is wrong. Tell me,
people, why would someone with such a low opinion of me choose to be
my perennial groupie? It's because I eclipse anything in his pitiful
life! — NoEinstein —
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 3:22 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> > And NoEinstein has put Dougie the Leech to shame for his being unable
>
> No, I have not been able to make as many stupid mistakes as you
> have. I have not looked like a fool in public as you have and
> so on. Why do you enjoy looking stupid in public?
>
> Oh, and you were unable to defend any of your claims from
> the mistakes I listed below. Even you know you are wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>On Sep 10, 11:33 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science. You regular
> >>>>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>
> >>>>John hates it when we point out his mistakes. He is still mad at
> >>>>all the other times he has been shown to be wrong. He thinks
> >>>>having a tantrum like a four year old makes him look like a
> >>>>scientist. Maybe that works for claimed to be architects.
>
> >>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
> >>>>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
> >>>>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
> >>>>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
> >>>>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
> >>>>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
> >>>>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
> >>>>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
> >>>>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
> >>>>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
> >>>>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>
> >>>>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>
> >>>>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
> >>>>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>
> >>>>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>
> >>>>>>>w.
>
> >>>>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >>>>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >>>>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
> >>>>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>
> >>>>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
> >>>>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>
> >>>>>>You certainly do not understand sarcasm. You have just confirmed that
> >>>>>>you are as stupid as we thought.
>
> >>>>>>>__________- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>>Doug, the leech, classifies himself as a "we" in pointing out my
> >>>"mistakes". Isn't it interesting that he has yet to select any one
> >>>point of my new science and then to refute such IN HIS OWN WORDS? He
> >>>talks as if "mistakes" have been pointed out, but he hasn't yet done
> >>>that assignment! The only "mistake" I can see was when Dougie Boy was
>
> >>John has very poor reading comprehension. His mistakes are so numberous
> >>it takes a long time to list them.
> >>John does not know the difference between force and energy.
> >>John knows nothing of units.
> >>John knows nothing of how to do experiments.
> >>John does not know how interferometers work.
> >>John is ignorant of science history.
> >>John cannot do math.
>
> >>How many more do you want pointed out?- Hide quoted text -
>
NoEinstein
>
Like Dougie Boy, Igor can't talk SCIENCE. He character-attacks anyone
who can see through his empty bluster. I invite Igor to provide a
list of his 'new posts' so we can all have a good laugh! — NoEinstein
—
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 10, 7:00 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> Dougie Boy, the leech, doesn't know how to talk SCIENCE. He only
> knows how to say that everything I ever did is wrong.
Well, I demonstrated that everything john said was wrong. There
was him misunderstand the difference between force and energy and
units on equations and how to do experiments etc. His gravity
thing is so laughable that it falls on its face all by itself.
Tell me,
> people, why would someone with such a low opinion of me choose to be
> my perennial groupie? It's because I eclipse anything in his pitiful
> life! � NoEinstein �
See, another demonstration of your stupidity coming from your ego.
>
>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 10, 3:22 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And NoEinstein has put Dougie the Leech to shame for his being unable
>>>to do any of the things I have done! � NoEinstein �
>>
>>No, I have not been able to make as many stupid mistakes as you
>>have. I have not looked like a fool in public as you have and
>>so on. Why do you enjoy looking stupid in public?
>>
>>Oh, and you were unable to defend any of your claims from
>>the mistakes I listed below. Even you know you are wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Sep 10, 11:33 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science. You regular
>>>>>>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>>>>>>>go. He's just a slimy leech. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>John hates it when we point out his mistakes. He is still mad at
>>>>>>all the other times he has been shown to be wrong. He thinks
>>>>>>having a tantrum like a four year old makes him look like a
>>>>>>scientist. Maybe that works for claimed to be architects.
>>
>>>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
>>
>>>>>>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
>>>>>>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
>>>>>>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
>>>>>>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
>>>>>>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
>>>>>>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
>>>>>>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
>>>>>>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
>>>>>>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
>>>>>>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
>>>>>>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>>>>>>>>>� NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>>
>>>>>>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
>>>>>>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>>
>>>>>>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>>
>>>>>>>>>w.
>>
>>>>>>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
>>>>>>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>>>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
>>>>>>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>>>>>>>>>is a fallen theory! � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>>>You certainly do not understand sarcasm. You have just confirmed that
>>>>>>>>you are as stupid as we thought.
>>
>>>>>>>>>__________- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>Doug, the leech, classifies himself as a "we" in pointing out my
>>>>>"mistakes". Isn't it interesting that he has yet to select any one
>>>>>point of my new science and then to refute such IN HIS OWN WORDS? He
>>>>>talks as if "mistakes" have been pointed out, but he hasn't yet done
>>>>>that assignment! The only "mistake" I can see was when Dougie Boy was
>>>>>conceived! � NoEinstein �
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 11, 11:58 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> Like Dougie Boy, Igor can't talk SCIENCE. He character-attacks anyone
> who can see through his empty bluster. I invite Igor to provide a
> list of his 'new posts' so we can all have a good laugh! � NoEinstein
> �
We all know that john mistakes quantity for quality. Suppose we
start a thread on john's stupid mistakes. That should make him
happy. He likes new threads.
>
>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 10, 1:07 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Igor: Have you been in prison? Or did you just come back from
>>>the dead? Einstein himself said: "It will require more energy than is
>>>in the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
>>>velocity 'c'." Einstein effectively ruled out having 'anything'
>>>reach... 'c'. But the science reports say that x-rays, gamma rays and
>>>neutrinos�ad nauseam�go speeding around at or close to 'c'. If there
>>>are a zillion, zillion x-rays traveling "close' to 'c', then all of
>>>the energy in the Universe would have to had been used up already if
>>>Einstein was... correct (Ha!). You can deny my PROOF if you like.
>>>But you are only pointing out your own, already well-known, mental
>>>shallowness. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
PD
> NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding “Magnetic Potential”:
>
> Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
> "approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
> needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
> infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
> is.
No, not nearly infinite.
The energy to get a proton up to 99.99995% of the speed of light
(which I think you'll agree is pretty darned close to c) is about 1000
GeV, which is about 1.60 ergs. In contrast, the kinetic energy
acquired by a dime falling out of your pocket to the ground is about
250,000 ergs. So you see, it's really not that much energy.
Now, compare that to the energy output of the sun, which is is this
many ergs every single second:
4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ergs.
And you see that the sun all by itself is capable of accelerating
quite a lot of particles up to 99.99995% of the speed of light,
perhaps even a zillion.
It helps to actually know how to do some arithmetic, other than
"really big" and "almost infinite" or "practically nothing". It's
especially important to know the difference between "infinite" and "a
lot".
I would have thought that a licensed architect would have at one point
had to know how to do arithmetic, and should certainly know the
difference between "infinite" and "a lot".
PD
> On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science.
Knowing how to do arithmetic is a point of science, NoEinstein, and I
just showed you how to do some of the arithmetic there. Now, if you'd
like to say that arithmetic has nothing to do with science, please go
ahead and give that a try.
PD
> On Sep 10, 7:00 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> Dougie Boy, the leech, doesn't know how to talk SCIENCE. He only
> knows how to say that everything I ever did is wrong. Tell me,
> people, why would someone with such a low opinion of me choose to be
> my perennial groupie? It's because I eclipse anything in his pitiful
> life! — NoEinstein —
I suppose for the same reason that people go back to the circus every
year to see the clowns.
PD
> On Sep 10, 1:07 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Igor: Have you been in prison? Or did you just come back from
> the dead? Einstein himself said: "It will require more energy than is
> in the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
> velocity 'c'." Einstein effectively ruled out having 'anything'
> reach... 'c'.
Nope, read what he said. It would take that much to get a *speck of
matter* to that speed.
That's not "anything". It's only those things that have matter.
Gamma rays, x-rays do not have any matter to them.
Neutrinos, it turns out, have some matter to them, but they don't go
at c either.
It pays to read sentences carefully. Sometimes re-read them to be sure
you read everything right.
And it makes a huge difference whether you're going AT c or just close
to c. Close to c doesn't require anything close to infinite energy.
It's not a linear relationship between speed and energy. Never has
been.
NoEinstein
>
Dougie Boy, the Leech, has only ONE standard for "correctness": The
status quo JUNK that he and PD were made to accept in college. My New
Science CORRECTS the mistakes of the past, and calls those physics
professors at most colleges and universities throughout the USA
spineless jerks for "teaching" those things which they themselves
"understood" (ha!) so poorly that they couldn't catch any of the
mistakes—especially in mechanics... and relativity. Though Dougie Boy
likes to 'bark', his bite regarding anything to do with actual SCIENCE
has no teeth! — NoEinstein —
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 7:00 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> > Dougie Boy, the leech, doesn't know how to talk SCIENCE. He only
> > knows how to say that everything I ever did is wrong.
>
> Well, I demonstrated that everything john said was wrong. There
> was him misunderstand the difference between force and energy and
> units on equations and how to do experiments etc. His gravity
> thing is so laughable that it falls on its face all by itself.
>
> Tell me,
>
> > people, why would someone with such a low opinion of me choose to be
> > my perennial groupie? It's because I eclipse anything in his pitiful
>
> See, another demonstration of your stupidity coming from your ego.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>On Sep 10, 3:22 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>And NoEinstein has put Dougie the Leech to shame for his being unable
>
> >>No, I have not been able to make as many stupid mistakes as you
> >>have. I have not looked like a fool in public as you have and
> >>so on. Why do you enjoy looking stupid in public?
>
> >>Oh, and you were unable to defend any of your claims from
> >>the mistakes I listed below. Even you know you are wrong.
>
> >>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Sep 10, 11:33 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science. You regular
> >>>>>>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>
> >>>>>>John hates it when we point out his mistakes. He is still mad at
> >>>>>>all the other times he has been shown to be wrong. He thinks
> >>>>>>having a tantrum like a four year old makes him look like a
> >>>>>>scientist. Maybe that works for claimed to be architects.
>
> >>>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
> >>>>>>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
> >>>>>>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
> >>>>>>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
> >>>>>>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
> >>>>>>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
> >>>>>>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
> >>>>>>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
> >>>>>>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
> >>>>>>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
> >>>>>>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>
> >>>>>>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>
> >>>>>>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
> >>>>>>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>
> >>>>>>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>
> >>>>>>>>>w.
>
> >>>>>>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >>>>>>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >>>>>>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
> >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>
> >>>>>>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
> >>>>>>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>
> >>>>>>>>You certainly do not understand sarcasm. You have just confirmed that
> >>>>>>>>you are as stupid as we thought.
>
> >>>>>>>>>__________- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>Doug, the leech, classifies himself as a "we" in pointing out my
> >>>>>"mistakes". Isn't it interesting that he has yet to select any one
> >>>>>point of my new science and then to refute such IN HIS OWN WORDS? He
> >>>>>talks as if "mistakes" have been pointed out, but he hasn't yet done
> >>>>>that assignment! The only "mistake" I can see was when Dougie Boy was
>
> >>>>John has very poor reading comprehension. His mistakes are so numberous
> >>>>it takes a long time to list them.
> >>>>John does not know the difference between force and energy.
> >>>>John knows nothing of units.
> >>>>John knows nothing of how to do experiments.
> >>>>John does not know how interferometers work.
> >>>>John is ignorant of science history.
> >>>>John cannot do math.
>
> >>>>How many more do you want pointed out?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
NoEinstein
>
Dougie Boy, the Leech, has only ONE standard for "correctness": The
status quo JUNK that he and PD were made to accept in college. My New
Science CORRECTS the mistakes of the past, and calls those physics
professors at most colleges and universities throughout the USA
spineless jerks for "teaching" those things which they themselves
"understood" (ha!) so poorly that they couldn't catch any of the
mistakes—especially in mechanics... and relativity. Though Dougie Boy
likes to 'bark', his bite regarding anything to do with actual SCIENCE
has no teeth! — NoEinstein —
>
> > On Sep 11, 11:58 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Like Dougie Boy, Igor can't talk SCIENCE. He character-attacks anyone
> > who can see through his empty bluster. I invite Igor to provide a
> > —
>
> We all know that john mistakes quantity for quality. Suppose we
> start a thread on john's stupid mistakes. That should make him
> happy. He likes new threads.
>
> >>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>On Sep 10, 1:07 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Dear Igor: Have you been in prison? Or did you just come back from
> >>>the dead? Einstein himself said: "It will require more energy than is
> >>>in the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
> >>>velocity 'c'." Einstein effectively ruled out having 'anything'
> >>>reach... 'c'. But the science reports say that x-rays, gamma rays and
> >>>are a zillion, zillion x-rays traveling "close' to 'c', then all of
> >>>the energy in the Universe would have to had been used up already if
> >>>Einstein was... correct (Ha!). You can deny my PROOF if you like.
> >>>But you are only pointing out your own, already well-known, mental
>
> >>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding “Magnetic Potential”:
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 16, 6:50 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> Dougie Boy, the Leech, has only ONE standard for "correctness":
John is wrong as usual. The standard for correctness is agreement
with experiment. This leaves out all of john's nonsense..
The
> status quo JUNK that he and PD were made to accept in college. My New
> Science CORRECTS the mistakes of the past,
No, it demonstrates your mistakes.
and calls those physics
> professors at most colleges and universities throughout the USA
> spineless jerks for "teaching" those things which they themselves
> "understood" (ha!) so poorly that they couldn't catch any of the
> mistakes�especially in mechanics... and relativity.
So you like looking stupid in public. That is not our problem
but your fragile ego and need for attention.
Though Dougie Boy
> likes to 'bark', his bite regarding anything to do with actual SCIENCE
> has no teeth! � NoEinstein �
>
>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 10, 7:00 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dougie Boy, the leech, doesn't know how to talk SCIENCE. He only
>>>knows how to say that everything I ever did is wrong.
>>
>>Well, I demonstrated that everything john said was wrong. There
>>was him misunderstand the difference between force and energy and
>>units on equations and how to do experiments etc. His gravity
>>thing is so laughable that it falls on its face all by itself.
>>
>> Tell me,
>>
>>
>>>people, why would someone with such a low opinion of me choose to be
>>>my perennial groupie? It's because I eclipse anything in his pitiful
>>>life! � NoEinstein �
>>
>>See, another demonstration of your stupidity coming from your ego.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Sep 10, 3:22 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>And NoEinstein has put Dougie the Leech to shame for his being unable
>>>>>to do any of the things I have done! � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>No, I have not been able to make as many stupid mistakes as you
>>>>have. I have not looked like a fool in public as you have and
>>>>so on. Why do you enjoy looking stupid in public?
>>
>>>>Oh, and you were unable to defend any of your claims from
>>>>the mistakes I listed below. Even you know you are wrong.
>>
>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Sep 10, 11:33 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science. You regular
>>>>>>>>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>>>>>>>>>go. He's just a slimy leech. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>>>John hates it when we point out his mistakes. He is still mad at
>>>>>>>>all the other times he has been shown to be wrong. He thinks
>>>>>>>>having a tantrum like a four year old makes him look like a
>>>>>>>>scientist. Maybe that works for claimed to be architects.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
>>>>>>>>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
>>>>>>>>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
>>>>>>>>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
>>>>>>>>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
>>>>>>>>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
>>>>>>>>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
>>>>>>>>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
>>>>>>>>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
>>>>>>>>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
>>>>>>>>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>>>>>>>>>>>� NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
>>>>>>>>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>w.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>>>>>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
>>>>>>>>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>>>>>>>>>>>is a fallen theory! � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>>>>>You certainly do not understand sarcasm. You have just confirmed that
>>>>>>>>>>you are as stupid as we thought.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>__________- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>Doug, the leech, classifies himself as a "we" in pointing out my
>>>>>>>"mistakes". Isn't it interesting that he has yet to select any one
>>>>>>>point of my new science and then to refute such IN HIS OWN WORDS? He
>>>>>>>talks as if "mistakes" have been pointed out, but he hasn't yet done
>>>>>>>that assignment! The only "mistake" I can see was when Dougie Boy was
>>>>>>>conceived! � NoEinstein �
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 16, 6:51 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> Dougie Boy, the Leech, has only ONE standard for "correctness": The
> status quo JUNK that he and PD were made to accept in college. My New
> Science CORRECTS the mistakes of the past, and calls those physics
> professors at most colleges and universities throughout the USA
> spineless jerks for "teaching" those things which they themselves
> "understood" (ha!) so poorly that they couldn't catch any of the
> mistakes�especially in mechanics... and relativity. Though Dougie Boy
> likes to 'bark', his bite regarding anything to do with actual SCIENCE
> has no teeth! � NoEinstein �
John feels that repeating his nonsense will make it better somehow.
Well, john, you still are completely wrong.
>
>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 11, 11:58 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Like Dougie Boy, Igor can't talk SCIENCE. He character-attacks anyone
>>>who can see through his empty bluster. I invite Igor to provide a
>>>list of his 'new posts' so we can all have a good laugh! � NoEinstein
>>>�
>>
>>We all know that john mistakes quantity for quality. Suppose we
>>start a thread on john's stupid mistakes. That should make him
>>happy. He likes new threads.
>>
>>
>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Sep 10, 1:07 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Dear Igor: Have you been in prison? Or did you just come back from
>>>>>the dead? Einstein himself said: "It will require more energy than is
>>>>>in the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
>>>>>velocity 'c'." Einstein effectively ruled out having 'anything'
>>>>>reach... 'c'. But the science reports say that x-rays, gamma rays and
>>>>>neutrinos�ad nauseam�go speeding around at or close to 'c'. If there
>>>>>are a zillion, zillion x-rays traveling "close' to 'c', then all of
>>>>>the energy in the Universe would have to had been used up already if
>>>>>Einstein was... correct (Ha!). You can deny my PROOF if you like.
>>>>>But you are only pointing out your own, already well-known, mental
>>>>>shallowness. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD: "Nature" manages to accelerate a zillion, zillion particles
to (what is called 'c') 'c' within just a fraction of a nano-second.
The acceleration needed for doing so far exceeds the "just get it
done" acceleration that Einstein's SR implies will surpass all of the
energy in the Universe. If "nature" can do such things so easily, why
is it that Einsteiniacs are so willing to agree to the absurd, that no
particle can ever get to 'c'? If the latter was actually true, then
there could be no extraterrestrials being sighted flying all over the
globe.
It has been said that "Any competent scientist can take any set of
facts and use such to support their personal hypothesis." To which
another scientist added: "... and the scientists don't even have to BE
competent!" — NoEinstein —
PS: Nice "escape" into math, PD. However, you continue to fail on
OBJECTIVE REASONING ABILITY in science.
> > __________- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Einstein wrote SR without doing any
actual math. I have disproved SR by: (1.) Showing that M-M didn't
have a control; (2.) Proving that Coriolis's KE = 1/2mc^2 is flawed
(velocity and KE increase UNIFORMLY, or linearly, in all near-Earth
falling objects); (3.) Showing that SR violates the Law of the
Conservation of Energy; and (4.) Showing that Mother Nature has no
trouble at all accelerating particles of any kind to 'c'. And your
counter-argument is math? Ha, ha, ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
What kind of makeup do you wear, PD? — NE —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Define matter, PD. The number of neutrinos assumed to be... "out
there" might provide the missing mass (sic) to cause the Universe to
stop expanding. How did those particles get up-to-speed with so
little energy in the Universe?
You keep pointing out that I am an architect who, therefore, should
know little about science. But I have gleaned more about science as
an architect than you ever "understood" while blindly taking any
course in physics offered at any university. What are YOUR
accomplishments in physics, PD? Making one "new post" in over two
years doesn't quite qualify. — NoEinstein —
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 16, 6:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Einstein wrote SR without doing any
> actual math.
Wrong as usual, john.
I have disproved SR by: (1.) Showing that M-M didn't
> have a control;
This nonsense has been shown to be just a figment of your
delusions and ignorance. Your incompetence in doing your
claimed experiment is also noted. Humorously enough, a video
on youtube from someone claiming the same thing as yours
has shown up. However, in that experiment, there were a
few fringes while rotating and you claimed hundreds. It
certainly proves your experiment wrong.
(2.) Proving that Coriolis's KE = 1/2mc^2 is flawed
> (velocity and KE increase UNIFORMLY, or linearly, in all near-Earth
> falling objects);
This is so stupid as to not even be worth laughing at. You
are ignorant of hundreds of years of science.
(3.) Showing that SR violates the Law of the
> Conservation of Energy;
Not even in your dreams. You cannot be stupid enough
to believe you have done anything.
and (4.) Showing that Mother Nature has no
> trouble at all accelerating particles of any kind to 'c'.
You keep extending your areas of ignorance.
And your
> counter-argument is math? Ha, ha, ha, ha, HA!
And you have no knowledge of math either.
� NoEinstein �
>
>>On Sep 10, 9:12 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science.
>>
>>Knowing how to do arithmetic is a point of science, NoEinstein, and I
>>just showed you how to do some of the arithmetic there. Now, if you'd
>>like to say that arithmetic has nothing to do with science, please go
>>ahead and give that a try.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> You regular
>>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>>>go. He's just a slimy leech. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
>>
>>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
>>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
>>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
>>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
>>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
>>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
>>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
>>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
>>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
>>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
>>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>>>>>� NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>>
>>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
>>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>>
>>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>>
>>>>>w.
>>
>>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
>>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
>>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>>
>>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
>>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>>>>>is a fallen theory! � NoEinstein �
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 16, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD: "Nature" manages to accelerate a zillion, zillion particles
> to (what is called 'c') 'c' within just a fraction of a nano-second.
> The acceleration needed for doing so far exceeds the "just get it
> done" acceleration that Einstein's SR implies will surpass all of the
> energy in the Universe. If "nature" can do such things so easily, why
> is it that Einsteiniacs are so willing to agree to the absurd, that no
> particle can ever get to 'c'? If the latter was actually true, then
> there could be no extraterrestrials being sighted flying all over the
> globe.
>
> It has been said that "Any competent scientist can take any set of
> facts and use such to support their personal hypothesis." To which
> another scientist added: "... and the scientists don't even have to BE
> competent!" � NoEinstein �
>
> PS: Nice "escape" into math, PD. However, you continue to fail on
> OBJECTIVE REASONING ABILITY in science.
>
In other words, john does not want to hear facts. John wants to
wave about his opinions.
>>On Sep 8, 6:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
>>>� NoEinstein �
>>
>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>>
>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>>
>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>>
>>>w.
>>
>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>>
>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>>>is a fallen theory! � NoEinstein �
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 16, 6:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 10, 3:55 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sep 10, 1:07 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Igor: Have you been in prison? Or did you just come back from
>>>the dead? Einstein himself said: "It will require more energy than is
>>>in the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
>>>velocity 'c'." Einstein effectively ruled out having 'anything'
>>>reach... 'c'.
>>
>>Nope, read what he said. It would take that much to get a *speck of
>>matter* to that speed.
>>That's not "anything". It's only those things that have matter.
>>Gamma rays, x-rays do not have any matter to them.
>>Neutrinos, it turns out, have some matter to them, but they don't go
>>at c either.
>>
>>It pays to read sentences carefully. Sometimes re-read them to be sure
>>you read everything right.
>>
>>And it makes a huge difference whether you're going AT c or just close
>>to c. Close to c doesn't require anything close to infinite energy.
>>It's not a linear relationship between speed and energy. Never has
>>been.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> But the science reports say that x-rays, gamma rays and
>>>neutrinos�ad nauseam�go speeding around at or close to 'c'. If there
>>>are a zillion, zillion x-rays traveling "close' to 'c', then all of
>>>the energy in the Universe would have to had been used up already if
>>>Einstein was... correct (Ha!). You can deny my PROOF if you like.
>>>But you are only pointing out your own, already well-known, mental
>>>shallowness. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
You prove that PD is correct everytime you open your mouth.
But I have gleaned more about science as
> an architect than you ever "understood" while blindly taking any
> course in physics offered at any university.
Well, you have inflated your ego but that is different than
learning any science. You have shown yourself to not even have
a high school level knowledge of science and you have shown you
have no interest in learning anything.
What are YOUR
> accomplishments in physics, PD? Making one "new post" in over two
> years doesn't quite qualify.
John is so ignorant of science that he does not know that
this newsgroup is not where science is done. It is for us
to laugh at cranks like john who come and show their ignorance.
� NoEinstein �
PD
> On Sep 16, 6:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Einstein wrote SR without doing any
> actual math.
You just made that up. Please read the 1905 papers.
> I have disproved SR by: (1.) Showing that M-M didn't
> have a control;
SR isn't based on M-M. SR was based on Maxwell's equations and the
principle of equivalence. SR would be alive and well today if M-M
never happened.
> (2.) Proving that Coriolis's KE = 1/2mc^2 is flawed
> (velocity and KE increase UNIFORMLY, or linearly, in all near-Earth
> falling objects);
Velocity does, but not kinetic energy. You are using a crappily
designed experiment.
> (3.) Showing that SR violates the Law of the
> Conservation of Energy;
You haven't done that either. All you've shown is that you don't
understand the conservation of energy (to you, it's impossible for a
car to speed up, because its energy is higher than what it started
with), and that you don't understand the difference between a large
number and infinity.
> and (4.) Showing that Mother Nature has no
> trouble at all accelerating particles of any kind to 'c'.
And actually, with some simple arithmetic, I showed you that this
clearly isn't the case. It's a pretty small amount of energy to
accelerate particles up to close to c. And Mother Nature doesn't
accelerate *any* particles of matter up to c.
> And your
> counter-argument is math? Ha, ha, ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
Basic arithmetic, yes.
PD
I already showed you that the energy required to get a proton, which
weighs a billion times more than a neutrino, close to c is very small,
and even one lowly star (our sun) has enough energy to accelerate a
zillion protons every second. And I did this with basic arithmetic.
So it's NOT "so little energy" in the universe. It's more than enough.
>
> You keep pointing out that I am an architect who, therefore, should
> know little about science.
No, actually, I said you should know a lot more about science than you
do, because architects have to pass some basic courses in physics and
actually use those principles in their work. You on the other hand are
incompetent with even the simplest physics, as has been illustrated.
So I don't know how you ever got certified as a competent architect,
either.
> But I have gleaned more about science as
> an architect than you ever "understood" while blindly taking any
> course in physics offered at any university. What are YOUR
> accomplishments in physics, PD? Making one "new post" in over two
> years doesn't quite qualify. — NoEinstein —
First of all, making new posts to a public, open-access newsgroup is
not any kind of scientific accomplishment.
PD
Matter occupies space and has mass. Matter is made of bound states of
fermions. X-rays and gamma rays exhibit none of these traits.
PD
> On Sep 16, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD: "Nature" manages to accelerate a zillion, zillion particles
> to (what is called 'c') 'c' within just a fraction of a nano-second.
No sir. No particle is accelerated to c in a fraction of a nanosecond
in nature.
If you think otherwise, cite the particle and cite your reference that
say that nature accelerates them at all.
> The acceleration needed for doing so far exceeds the "just get it
> done" acceleration that Einstein's SR implies will surpass all of the
> energy in the Universe.
Gobbledygook. Try that again in English, please.
> If "nature" can do such things so easily, why
> is it that Einsteiniacs are so willing to agree to the absurd, that no
> particle can ever get to 'c'?
Nobody ever said no particle can ever get to c.
What's true is that no *massive* particle ever gets to c. Massive
particles, like pions, protons, muons, neutrinos, electrons, and gold
ions, get quite close to c, though, and it doesn't take a whole lot of
energy to do it.
There are a few other particles, like X-rays and gamma rays that do
travel at c, but they are not accelerated (because they don't ever
exist at anything other than c), and it doesn't take an infinite
amount of energy to have them travel at c. The energy is actually
quite small.
You managed to take a single sentence that Einstein wrote and couldn't
even properly read that one sentence correctly.
> If the latter was actually true, then
> there could be no extraterrestrials being sighted flying all over the
> globe.
Oh, you crazy coot, you.
>
> It has been said that "Any competent scientist can take any set of
> facts and use such to support their personal hypothesis."
It may have been said by you, but no self-respecting scientist would
dream of saying that.
> To which
> another scientist added: "... and the scientists don't even have to BE
> competent!" — NoEinstein —
That would be you again.
>
> PS: Nice "escape" into math, PD. However, you continue to fail on
> OBJECTIVE REASONING ABILITY in science.
You mean the objective reasoning ability that says there's not enough
energy in the universe to accelerate a proton to near c, without doing
any of the arithmetic to see if that's really true?
Michael Moroney
>On Sep 18, 12:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Define matter, PD. The number of neutrinos assumed to be... "out
>> there" might provide the missing mass (sic) to cause the Universe to
>> stop expanding. How did those particles get up-to-speed with so
>> little energy in the Universe?
>I already showed you that the energy required to get a proton, which
>weighs a billion times more than a neutrino, close to c is very small,
>and even one lowly star (our sun) has enough energy to accelerate a
>zillion protons every second. And I did this with basic arithmetic.
>So it's NOT "so little energy" in the universe. It's more than enough.
The so-called "Oh my God" particle (see
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/) had an energy of
3.2*10^20 eV, or about 51 joules, and would have been moving at v =
0.9999999999999999999999951 c according to that webpage. Or, it would be
trailing a photon emitted at the same time and direction by all of 0.15
femtoseconds after travelling a light year. Despite this, that minuscule
increase of 0.0000000000000000000000049 c (3*10^-15 mph, or a millionth of
an inch per year, if I did my math correctly) would require an infinite
amount of energy.
NoEinstein
>
Dougie Boy, the Leech: ... and your contributions to science are?
For someone who has never made a 'new post' and has never discussed
(only disparaged) actual science, you are as useless as they come. —
NE —
>
>
>
>
>
> >>On Sep 10, 9:12 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science.
>
> >>Knowing how to do arithmetic is a point of science, NoEinstein, and I
> >>just showed you how to do some of the arithmetic there. Now, if you'd
> >>like to say that arithmetic has nothing to do with science, please go
> >>ahead and give that a try.
>
> >>> You regular
> >>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>
> >>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding “Magnetic Potential”:
>
> >>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
> >>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
> >>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
> >>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
> >>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
> >>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
> >>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
> >>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
> >>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
> >>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
> >>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>
> >>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>
> >>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
> >>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>
> >>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>
> >>>>>w.
>
> >>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
> >>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>
> >>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
> >>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
NoEinstein
>
WRONG! The only requirement to be matter is being attractable by
gravity. At some high energy levels, gamma rays are bent by gravity.
— NE — P.S.: The bending of light rays in passing behind massive
objects is NOT a gravity effect, but a caught-in-the-flow effect.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 18, 3:01 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> Dougie Boy, the Leech: ... and your contributions to science are?
> For someone who has never made a 'new post' and has never discussed
> (only disparaged) actual science, you are as useless as they come. �
> NE �
Well the contribution I made here was to point out your mistakes
and outright lies. You cannot support any of your delusions
so you try to run and hide from the truth.
>> � NoEinstein �
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>On Sep 10, 9:12 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science.
>>
>>>>Knowing how to do arithmetic is a point of science, NoEinstein, and I
>>>>just showed you how to do some of the arithmetic there. Now, if you'd
>>>>like to say that arithmetic has nothing to do with science, please go
>>>>ahead and give that a try.
>>
>>>>>You regular
>>>>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>>>>>go. He's just a slimy leech. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
>>
>>>>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
>>>>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
>>>>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
>>>>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
>>>>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
>>>>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
>>>>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
>>>>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
>>>>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
>>>>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
>>>>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>>>>>>>� NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>>
>>>>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
>>>>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>>
>>>>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>>
>>>>>>>w.
>>
>>>>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
>>>>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
>>>>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>>
>>>>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
>>>>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>>>>>>>is a fallen theory! � NoEinstein �
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> WRONG! The only requirement to be matter is being attractable by
> gravity.
Sorry but if you had studied any science, you would know that
this is wrong.
At some high energy levels, gamma rays are bent by gravity.
> � NE � P.S.: The bending of light rays in passing behind massive
> objects is NOT a gravity effect, but a caught-in-the-flow effect.
Oh good, add more wrong things just in case anyone is left who
is not positive that you are totally ignorant of physics.
>
>>On Sep 18, 12:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sep 16, 6:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Sep 10, 3:55 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Sep 10, 1:07 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Dear Igor: Have you been in prison? Or did you just come back from
>>>>>the dead? Einstein himself said: "It will require more energy than is
>>>>>in the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
>>>>>velocity 'c'." Einstein effectively ruled out having 'anything'
>>>>>reach... 'c'.
>>
>>>>Nope, read what he said. It would take that much to get a *speck of
>>>>matter* to that speed.
>>>>That's not "anything". It's only those things that have matter.
>>>>Gamma rays, x-rays do not have any matter to them.
>>>>Neutrinos, it turns out, have some matter to them, but they don't go
>>>>at c either.
>>
>>>>It pays to read sentences carefully. Sometimes re-read them to be sure
>>>>you read everything right.
>>
>>>>And it makes a huge difference whether you're going AT c or just close
>>>>to c. Close to c doesn't require anything close to infinite energy.
>>>>It's not a linear relationship between speed and energy. Never has
>>>>been.
>>
>>>>> But the science reports say that x-rays, gamma rays and
>>>>>neutrinos�ad nauseam�go speeding around at or close to 'c'. If there
>>>>>are a zillion, zillion x-rays traveling "close' to 'c', then all of
>>>>>the energy in the Universe would have to had been used up already if
>>>>>Einstein was... correct (Ha!). You can deny my PROOF if you like.
>>>>>But you are only pointing out your own, already well-known, mental
>>>>>shallowness. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
>>>years doesn't quite qualify. � NoEinstein �- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On Sep 18, 2:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> WRONG! The only requirement to be matter is being attractable by
> gravity.
This isn't right. Where did you get this foolish idea?
> At some high energy levels, gamma rays are bent by gravity.
> — NE — P.S.: The bending of light rays in passing behind massive
> objects is NOT a gravity effect, but a caught-in-the-flow effect.
OK, so let's summarize. You say my definition of matter is wrong, so
you give another, and then you say that one's wrong too.
Hmmmmm....
NoEinstein
>
Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You are an example of a severely mentally
ill low-life whose "accomplishments" are limited to disparaging those
who actually HAVE accomplishments. You are a blood-sucking groupie of
the worst kind. Calling you a leech is most apt. — NE —
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 3:01 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> > Dougie Boy, the Leech: ... and your contributions to science are?
> > For someone who has never made a 'new post' and has never discussed
> > NE —
>
> >>>>On Sep 10, 9:12 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science.
>
> >>>>Knowing how to do arithmetic is a point of science, NoEinstein, and I
> >>>>just showed you how to do some of the arithmetic there. Now, if you'd
> >>>>like to say that arithmetic has nothing to do with science, please go
> >>>>ahead and give that a try.
>
> >>>>>You regular
> >>>>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>
> >>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding “Magnetic Potential”:
>
> >>>>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
> >>>>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
> >>>>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
> >>>>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
> >>>>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
> >>>>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
> >>>>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
> >>>>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
> >>>>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
> >>>>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
> >>>>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>
> >>>>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>
> >>>>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
> >>>>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>
> >>>>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>
> >>>>>>>w.
>
> >>>>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >>>>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >>>>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
> >>>>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>
> >>>>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
> >>>>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
NoEinstein
>
Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You are an example of a severely mentally
ill low-life whose "accomplishments" are limited to disparaging those
who actually HAVE accomplishments. You are a blood-sucking groupie of
the worst kind. Calling you a leech is most apt. — NE —
>
> > On Sep 18, 2:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > WRONG! The only requirement to be matter is being attractable by
> > gravity.
>
> Sorry but if you had studied any science, you would know that
> this is wrong.
>
> At some high energy levels, gamma rays are bent by gravity.
>
> >>>>>are a zillion, zillion x-rays traveling "close' to 'c', then all of
> >>>>>the energy in the Universe would have to had been used up already if
> >>>>>Einstein was... correct (Ha!). You can deny my PROOF if you like.
> >>>>>But you are only pointing out your own, already well-known, mental
>
> >>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding “Magnetic Potential”:
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The arguments over whether or not gamma
rays have mass is on-going. For someone who has made only one
plagiarized + new post in over two years, you sure think you are an
authority on science. However, you ignorance precedes you. — NE —
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 20, 1:37 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You are an example of a severely mentally
> ill low-life whose "accomplishments" are limited to disparaging those
> who actually HAVE accomplishments. You are a blood-sucking groupie of
> the worst kind. Calling you a leech is most apt. � NE �
So you cannot even try to defend your nonsense and you just try
to run and hide in your cowardace.
>
>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 18, 3:01 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dougie Boy, the Leech: ... and your contributions to science are?
>>>For someone who has never made a 'new post' and has never discussed
>>>(only disparaged) actual science, you are as useless as they come. �
>>>NE �
>>>> � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>On Sep 10, 9:12 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science.
>>
>>>>>>Knowing how to do arithmetic is a point of science, NoEinstein, and I
>>>>>>just showed you how to do some of the arithmetic there. Now, if you'd
>>>>>>like to say that arithmetic has nothing to do with science, please go
>>>>>>ahead and give that a try.
>>
>>>>>>>You regular
>>>>>>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>>>>>>>go. He's just a slimy leech. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
>>
>>>>>>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
>>>>>>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
>>>>>>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
>>>>>>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
>>>>>>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
>>>>>>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
>>>>>>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
>>>>>>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
>>>>>>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
>>>>>>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
>>>>>>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>>>>>>>>>� NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>>
>>>>>>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
>>>>>>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>>
>>>>>>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>>
>>>>>>>>>w.
>>
>>>>>>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
>>>>>>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>>>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
>>>>>>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
>>>>>>>>>is a fallen theory! � NoEinstein �
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Sep 20, 1:38 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You are an example of a severely mentally
> ill low-life whose "accomplishments" are limited to disparaging those
> who actually HAVE accomplishments. You are a blood-sucking groupie of
> the worst kind. Calling you a leech is most apt. � NE �
Notice that john has no ability to even try to defend his nonsense.
John has an ego that he trips over while looking stupid to entertain us.
>
>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 18, 2:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>WRONG! The only requirement to be matter is being attractable by
>>>gravity.
>>
>>Sorry but if you had studied any science, you would know that
>>this is wrong.
>>
>> At some high energy levels, gamma rays are bent by gravity.
>>
>>
>>>� NE � P.S.: The bending of light rays in passing behind massive
>>>>>>>neutrinos�ad nauseam�go speeding around at or close to 'c'. If there
>>>>>>>are a zillion, zillion x-rays traveling "close' to 'c', then all of
>>>>>>>the energy in the Universe would have to had been used up already if
>>>>>>>Einstein was... correct (Ha!). You can deny my PROOF if you like.
>>>>>>>But you are only pointing out your own, already well-known, mental
>>>>>>>shallowness. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding �Magnetic Potential�:
>>>>>years doesn't quite qualify. � NoEinstein �- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On Sep 20, 3:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The arguments over whether or not gamma
> rays have mass is on-going.
Really? Where? In your head?
It's really not a question about arguments. It's a question about
*measurement*. There is not a lick of experimental evidence, despite
literally hundreds of increasingly sensitive measurements, that gamma
rays have any nonzero mass.
> For someone who has made only one
> plagiarized + new post in over two years,
You are mistaken, John. You're only aware of the one I spoonfed you.
You are incapable of finding any of the others.
> you sure think you are an
> authority on science.
It doesn't take much authority to learn that gamma rays don't have any
matter, John. You just have to try reading something rather than just
plumbing your own imagination. Please consider checking facts before
just saying things. You'll find that it's a more constructive practice
in general.
NoEinstein
>
Dougie Boy, the leech, has never made a substantiated statement
regarding actual science. He is just my perennial groupie hoping to
glean acclaim from his constant association with me. Pity that low-
life. — NE —
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 1:37 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You are an example of a severely mentally
> > ill low-life whose "accomplishments" are limited to disparaging those
> > who actually HAVE accomplishments. You are a blood-sucking groupie of
>
> So you cannot even try to defend your nonsense and you just try
> to run and hide in your cowardace.
>
> >>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>On Sep 18, 3:01 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Dougie Boy, the Leech: ... and your contributions to science are?
> >>>For someone who has never made a 'new post' and has never discussed
> >>>NE —
>
> >>>>>>On Sep 10, 9:12 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>On Sep 8, 8:53 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>As usual, Dougie Boy won't discuss points of science.
>
> >>>>>>Knowing how to do arithmetic is a point of science, NoEinstein, and I
> >>>>>>just showed you how to do some of the arithmetic there. Now, if you'd
> >>>>>>like to say that arithmetic has nothing to do with science, please go
> >>>>>>ahead and give that a try.
>
> >>>>>>>You regular
> >>>>>>>readers should know that he tags along and tries to detract wherever I
>
> >>>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding “Magnetic Potential”:
>
> >>>>>>>>>Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses
> >>>>>>>>>"approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was
> >>>>>>>>>needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly
> >>>>>>>>>infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle
> >>>>>>>>>is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are
> >>>>>>>>>flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to
> >>>>>>>>>be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those
> >>>>>>>>>particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet
> >>>>>>>>>another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!!
> >>>>>>>>>One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up
> >>>>>>>>>by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)!
>
> >>>>>>>>>To which Helmut Wabnig replied, Sept. 2, 2009:
>
> >>>>>>>>>Theoretically 1 (one) particle is sufficient for your theory, just
> >>>>>>>>>give it a zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion times...
>
> >>>>>>>>>A very patent thing ya got there: The Nostone 1 particle universe!
>
> >>>>>>>>>w.
>
> >>>>>>>>>From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >>>>>>>>>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >>>>>>>>>Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 4:51 pm
> >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: magnetic potential
>
> >>>>>>>>>On Sep 2, 3:00 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can
> >>>>>>>>>easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR
NoEinstein
>
Dougie Boy, the leech, has never made a substantiated statement
regarding actual science. He is just my perennial groupie hoping to
glean acclaim from his constant association with me. Pity that low-
life. — NE —
>
> > On Sep 20, 1:38 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You are an example of a severely mentally
> > ill low-life whose "accomplishments" are limited to disparaging those
> > who actually HAVE accomplishments. You are a blood-sucking groupie of
>
> Notice that john has no ability to even try to defend his nonsense.
> John has an ego that he trips over while looking stupid to entertain us.
>
> >>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>On Sep 18, 2:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>WRONG! The only requirement to be matter is being attractable by
> >>>gravity.
>
> >>Sorry but if you had studied any science, you would know that
> >>this is wrong.
>
> >> At some high energy levels, gamma rays are bent by gravity.
>
> >>>>>>>are a zillion, zillion x-rays traveling "close' to 'c', then all of
> >>>>>>>the energy in the Universe would have to had been used up already if
> >>>>>>>Einstein was... correct (Ha!). You can deny my PROOF if you like.
> >>>>>>>But you are only pointing out your own, already well-known, mental
>
> >>>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>NoEinstein Wrote on Sep 2, 2:30 pm regarding “Magnetic Potential”:
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Leech: The energy of gamma rays varies. I've
heard arguments that the upper energies of gamma rays might be part of
the "missing mass" in the Universe. Gamma rays are bent less by
gravity than other light. That suggests an inertial effect, since as
Einstein stipulated, all light travels at 'c' (sic.). — NE —
PD
> On Sep 24, 8:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Leech: The energy of gamma rays varies.
Yes, indeed, but none of them contain matter.
> I've
> heard arguments that the upper energies of gamma rays might be part of
> the "missing mass" in the Universe.
Maybe from school crossing guards or accountants or insurance
salesmen, not from physicists.
> Gamma rays are bent less by
> gravity than other light.
No, they're not. Wherever did you get that stupid idea?
> That suggests an inertial effect, since as
> Einstein stipulated, all light travels at 'c' (sic.). — NE —
As do gamma rays.