Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
NoEinstein
the least until after I had been on a seven plus year odyssey to get
my Einstein disproofs accepted. Mostly, I had been sending my
articles, and other documentation, to 'laymen' level magazines like:
'Discover'; and to 'professional' level magazines like: 'Science', and
'Nature'. Before that, I had contacted university affiliated science
and astronomy publications to try to get my research published. All
to no avail.
I shrugged off the non responsiveness and attributed it mostly to
inertia to change. Not only was I wishing to get my science findings
acknowledged, I was dethroning Einstein--the poster boy of intellect.
If there is one thing America does well, it's protecting its icons.
Beginning in 2007, I began sending my materials to the science or
physics departments at various universities. Simultaneously, I
started contacting major USA newspapers. I was hoping to get a simple
press release published about my having invalidated the 1830 kinetic
energy equation of Coriolis: KE = 1/2 mv^2. But no "liberal arts" types
running most newspapers have ever heard of Coriolis, nor would they
likely realize how crucial that man's formula was to the development
of Einstein's theories of relativity.
I deliberately avoided explaining about there being a connection
between Coriolis and Einstein. Such is because: For some time, I had
suspected that at the mere mention that I have disproved Einstein,
some newspapers were putting my files in the computer trash. What
little they know about science is what "the public perception" knows,
and that is: that Einstein is one of the intellectual elite.
TIME magazine regularly has articles about Einstein. Any acclaim
being given to that man hurts my chances of changing his public
perception. So, I began apprising TIME about my various disproofs,
big time. I also sent them copies of my emails to the various
universities, hoping that TIME would sense my commitment, and begin to
show some objectivity about investigating what I have done.
Until recently, Popular Science was a TIME Warner publication; I've
had a subscription most of my adult life. PS had largely been a
"Popular Technology" magazine, rather than one devoted primarily to
science. But a year or so ago that magazine published an article--
complete with warped space graphics--explaining how man might be able
to travel faster than Einstein's self-imposed universal speed limit,
'c'. That article angered me greatly... It was science fiction, plain
and simple. Yet, it got "published" as "credible thinking" while my
own science truths were being shunned on every front.
Newspapers like the L. A. Times, and the New York Times, like to run
columns about supposed science. They even have staff editors devoted
to the "Sunday" recreational readers about science. Usually their
writers are just that--writers. They have little or no background in
actual science, but make a living by "laymanizing" the two or more
year's old science developments of others. Amazingly, newspapers give
those science writers much leeway regarding the truthfulness of the
explanations given.
After seeing science columnist "K. C." Cole discussing... science
journalism on a TV show, I wrote to her, hoping that 'columnists'
might be the missing link in getting out the story of my Einstein
disproofs. I never heard from the lady.
It wasn't until late 2007 that I read comments on sci.physics
regarding Jewish influences on science. I wondered: Could bias by
Jews be keeping Einstein ensconced at the top of the intellectual
elite? No universities seem to want to revise their teaching and
their texts over what I have done... Aren't most textbooks printed by
Jewish publishers? And aren't most textbooks getting thicker and
thicker, and more and more expensive? Might there be a conflict of
interest among textbook publishers to weed out the... deadwood in their
texts and reference books, and thus to make those books more
affordable?
One such publisher I contacted was Van Nostrand's Scientific
Encyclopedia. But they showed no willingness, whatsoever, to revise
anything. In checking McGraw-Hill's (huge) Encyclopedia of Science
and Technology, there are large listings of the university affiliated
"contributing editors". Is everything in science reference books
controlled by biased universities? Reaching such a conclusion seems
logical, because the more 'difficult seeming' science can be, the
greater will be the number of students who are drawn to universities
to be taught those difficult things--like Einstein's theories of
relativity are... So, what gets taught is mainly an issue of what will
make the most money for teachers and administrators. Sadly, there are
too few of the latter who desire that only the best 'knowledge', pure
and simple, be taught.
If I succeed in having my pure and simple-to-understand Einstein
disproofs accepted, whole courses of study at universities will be
eliminated. In the case of Penn State, their "Gravity Department"
will need to be closed. Last summer I discovered the total corruption
of the National Science Foundation, and their university dominated
controlling board, the National Science Board. For starters, how
about closing the NSF for a year or two till... new management and new
pragmatic philosophies can be put in place!
'Cleaning up Einstein's Mishmash' will begin to streamline education.
If my example is followed, every single discipline taught in every
single university in America, and in preparatory schools, will need to
be streamlined, too. 60% or more of those texts should be weeded out,
never to have all of that... clutter published again! Will the many
Jewish publishers be happy? Hell no! And do I care one IOTA whether
they are happy? Hell no!
There are "HAL" level forces at work in this country that will bring
down the USA unless the 'power cords' are unplugged which allow those
"HALs" to function. Of course the latter refers to: '2001, A Space
Odyssey'. Now, my odyssey, that coincidentally, began in late 2001,
is motivated not only toward getting my conclusive Einstein disproofs
recognized, but toward permanently "unplugging" all of those "HALs" in
our governments; in our systems of education; and in our often Jewish
dominated media!
I have drawn a line in the sand with a stick. Who among you will
cross it, and volunteer to help me save... the USA? -- NoEinstein --
Uncle Al
>
> Albert Einstein was a Jew.
The Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2 than Auschwitz. Washington
wanted victory not goy excuses.
> I didn't consider such fact to matter in
> the least until after I had been on a seven plus year odyssey to get
> my Einstein disproofs accepted.
[snip crap]
Fucking imbecile. Empirical reality has no valid counterargument.
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
Psychotic idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Dirk Van de moortel
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:cb51c398-5dea-4374...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Albert Einstein was a Jew. I didn't consider such fact to matter in
> the least until after I had been on a seven plus year odyssey to get
> my Einstein disproofs accepted.
A seven plus year odyssey.
And we should be able to help you out of your misery in
five minutes? Forget it.
Dirk Vdm
Igor
> __________
Why wait. Why don't you just award yourself a couple of nobel prizes
like one of the other idiots on this ng.
Tom Potter
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:47B1ED51...@hate.spam.net...
> NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>> Albert Einstein was a Jew.
> [snip crap]
>
> The Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2 than Auschwitz.
Correction, most of the high level and critical military work
on the Manhattan Project was done in Chicago, Oak Ridge,
and Hanford, by people like Lawrence and Fermi,
and most of the top secret work on electronic systems
was done at MIT and Midwestern Universities.
Although Roosevelt had sold out to the Jewish Lobby,
America's military leaders did not trust Jews,
( As Jews were instigating the Class Wars of the 1900's.)
and they isolated many Jews
at Los Alamos, a remote New Mexico site,
and assigned them one simple job,
one that was eventually solved by a non-Jewish
explosive technician.
It is interesting to see that as long as Russia,
which was basically controlled by Jews,
had a chance to take over the world,
that many American Jews spied for Russia,
and tried to discourage America
from developing better nuclear weapons than Russia,
but after the Class Wars became discredited,
that the Russian Jews instituted a phony "Free Jews" program
and migrated to Israel and America at the expense of the
American taxpayer, and in their new host nations, they are
making Russia the bad guy, just as they made Germany
the bad guy, and they are all for America using nuclear weapons
on Muslims. No doubt, within a few years, Jews will
try to retake the Russian or German government,
and make America out to be the bad guy.
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
Eric Gisse
> "Uncle Al" <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:47B1ED51...@hate.spam.net...
>
> > NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >> Albert Einstein was a Jew.
> > [snip crap]
>
> > The Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2 than Auschwitz.
>
> Correction, most of the high level and critical military work
> on the Manhattan Project was done in Chicago, Oak Ridge,
> and Hanford, by people like Lawrence and Fermi,
> and most of the top secret work on electronic systems
> was done at MIT and Midwestern Universities.
Uh, no. The majority of the work was done in Nevada.
The other sites were doing less critical work, or work that couldn't
be done at the site. Like creating Plutonium.
[snip remaining bigotry, ignored and unread]
Eric Gisse
> Albert Einstein was a Jew. I didn't consider such fact to matter in
> the least until after I had been on a seven plus year odyssey to get
> my Einstein disproofs accepted.
Except the actual Odyssey was worth reading. Had far better characters
too.
Your "disproofs" are rooted in a sub-highschool level of understanding
that is disproved with highschool level experiments. It hasn't even
been 7 years [though its getting closer] since I graduated
highschool.
> Mostly, I had been sending my
> articles, and other documentation, to 'laymen' level magazines like:
> 'Discover'; and to 'professional' level magazines like: 'Science', and
> 'Nature'.
Hint: Scientists work for Science.
The only way you will get people to publish your stuff is if they
either don't know any better or are paid to publish. I'm sure you
could get the editor in chief of Discover to publish your spew if the
check has enough leading zeros in the amount. Science and Nature too,
but the amount of zeros will be significantly larger.
> Before that, I had contacted university affiliated science
> and astronomy publications to try to get my research published. All
> to no avail.
The glaring technical issues of your crappy work aside, you were
probably arrogant as fuck in your writing and responses to questions.
>
> I shrugged off the non responsiveness and attributed it mostly to
> inertia to change. Not only was I wishing to get my science findings
> acknowledged, I was dethroning Einstein--the poster boy of intellect.
Naturally it's inertia! It /couldn't/ be the fact that your stupid
goddamn ideas show beyond a shadow of a doubt that your are not only a
dishonest little prick but that you are so arrogant that you haven't
even once picked up an air hockey table to test collisions or did a
drop test with a fucking PING PONG BALL and stopwatch.
Even Andre Michund figured out the air hockey table - he sells them!
And he still hates Einstein!
> If there is one thing America does well, it's protecting its icons.
Einstein was a jew who emigrated to the US, you dumb fuck. Einstein is
no more American than Eotvos.
>
> Beginning in 2007, I began sending my materials to the science or
> physics departments at various universities. Simultaneously, I
> started contacting major USA newspapers. I was hoping to get a simple
> press release published about my having invalidated the 1830 kinetic
> energy equation of Coriolis: KE = 1/2 mv^2.
Do yourself the biggest favor you can do, next to opening a book. Buy
an air hockey table and test your ideas.
> But no "liberal arts" types
> running most newspapers have ever heard of Coriolis, nor would they
> likely realize how crucial that man's formula was to the development
> of Einstein's theories of relativity.
Were this the only misunderstanding you had, it'd still be a pretty
big one. Fortunately I have given up on a linear plotting of your
stupidity and settled for a logarithmic scale.
>
> I deliberately avoided explaining about there being a connection
> between Coriolis and Einstein.
Much like I deliberately avoid explaining the connection between my
dick and Angelia Jolie.
> Such is because: For some time, I had
> suspected that at the mere mention that I have disproved Einstein,
> some newspapers were putting my files in the computer trash.
Actually this is exactly what happens. You don't even need to use the
"some" qualifier.
> What
> little they know about science is what "the public perception" knows,
> and that is: that Einstein is one of the intellectual elite.
If they don't have anyone on their staff who does science writing, or
passed anything more than freshman physics, or who did some reading on
the subject, then sure.
>
> TIME magazine regularly has articles about Einstein. Any acclaim
> being given to that man hurts my chances of changing his public
> perception. So, I began apprising TIME about my various disproofs,
> big time. I also sent them copies of my emails to the various
> universities, hoping that TIME would sense my commitment, and begin to
> show some objectivity about investigating what I have done.
Most likely whatever poor son of a bitch that got your emails did was
toss them immediately in the trash and setup a filter such that
everything from you is automatically forwarded into the trash.
>
> Until recently, Popular Science was a TIME Warner publication; I've
> had a subscription most of my adult life. PS had largely been a
> "Popular Technology" magazine, rather than one devoted primarily to
> science. But a year or so ago that magazine published an article--
> complete with warped space graphics--explaining how man might be able
> to travel faster than Einstein's self-imposed universal speed limit,
> 'c'. That article angered me greatly... It was science fiction, plain
> and simple. Yet, it got "published" as "credible thinking" while my
> own science truths were being shunned on every front.
I could take 5 minutes and carefully explain why it was credible, but
what'd be the point? The lead bricks I use in the lab are more
intelligent and useful than you are when it comes to physics. Though
that doesn't mean I'd say "no" if you offer to be my mobile gamma
shield.
>
> Newspapers like the L. A. Times, and the New York Times, like to run
> columns about supposed science. They even have staff editors devoted
> to the "Sunday" recreational readers about science. Usually their
> writers are just that--writers. They have little or no background in
> actual science, but make a living by "laymanizing" the two or more
> year's old science developments of others. Amazingly, newspapers give
> those science writers much leeway regarding the truthfulness of the
> explanations given.
I wonder if you have - even once - asked about the qualifications of
the science writers. Especially the ones working for the larger
newspapers. Not that it actually matters since the newspaper is not
the medium in which science is propagated or discussed. You're just
operating under the belief that Einstein won some kind of popularity
contest and that you could win it too.
>
> After seeing science columnist "K. C." Cole discussing... science
> journalism on a TV show, I wrote to her, hoping that 'columnists'
> might be the missing link in getting out the story of my Einstein
> disproofs. I never heard from the lady.
Are you actually surprised? I'm not.
>
> It wasn't until late 2007 that I read comments on sci.physics
> regarding Jewish influences on science. I wondered: Could bias by
> Jews be keeping Einstein ensconced at the top of the intellectual
> elite?
Be honest - did you always think this, or are you so desperate for
reasons that you latch onto antisemitism?
> No universities seem to want to revise their teaching and
> their texts over what I have done... Aren't most textbooks printed by
> Jewish publishers?
No, and you are really /really/ unfamiliar with how teaching is done
at the university level. But don't let facts get in your way.
> And aren't most textbooks getting thicker and
> thicker, and more and more expensive?
I'll take a minute to explain this one since I think you are only
latching onto the textbook angle because you have nothing left. After
you extinguish this avenue of research, you might want to consider
doing an experiment.
Introductory textbooks are getting thicker and more expensive for a
variety of reasons - none of which have to do with the physics
involved. The textbooks for the advanced courses are not. A fair
portion of mine were written [or had a first edition] written before I
was born.
> Might there be a conflict of
> interest among textbook publishers to weed out the... deadwood in their
> texts and reference books, and thus to make those books more
> affordable?
No. Publishers like the way books are now - the low level books
frequently have attached extras that are frequently required to use
the book in conjunction with a course that cannot be purchased
separately and cannot be re-used. Once the page is written, printing
it fifty thousand times is pretty cheap. Releasing a new editing is
not.
>
> One such publisher I contacted was Van Nostrand's Scientific
> Encyclopedia. But they showed no willingness, whatsoever, to revise
> anything. In checking McGraw-Hill's (huge) Encyclopedia of Science
> and Technology, there are large listings of the university affiliated
> "contributing editors". Is everything in science reference books
> controlled by biased universities?
Since it doesn't matter what the reality or the reasoning is, I'll go
with the simple answer: yes.
> Reaching such a conclusion seems
> logical, because the more 'difficult seeming' science can be, the
> greater will be the number of students who are drawn to universities
> to be taught those difficult things--like Einstein's theories of
> relativity are... So, what gets taught is mainly an issue of what will
> make the most money for teachers and administrators.
How many university level courses in physics have you tried to take,
if any?
I'll fill you in a little bit on the reality of the situation. Special
relativity is taught briefly in the degree program here, with
discussions of it tacked on at the end of the modern physics course as
well as the electromagnetism course. General relativity is not taught
at all.
You fixate on Einstein but you pass by more complicated subjects that
don't have a unique individual behind them. I don't see you ranting
about classical E&M, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory,
classical mechanics, perturbation theory, quantum field theory,
quantum chromodynamics, solid state physics, or any number of fields
based upon those subjects or combinations of those subjects. And I
will tell you right fucking now that classical mechanics is much
harder than special relativity.
> Sadly, there are
> too few of the latter who desire that only the best 'knowledge', pure
> and simple, be taught.
Were this thought uttered in the presence of any university faculty
here, you'd be laughed at. And depending whether or not the other
faculty were present, you'd be called a fucking moron by one or two of
them.
>
> If I succeed in having my pure and simple-to-understand Einstein
> disproofs accepted, whole courses of study at universities will be
> eliminated. In the case of Penn State, their "Gravity Department"
> will need to be closed. Last summer I discovered the total corruption
> of the National Science Foundation, and their university dominated
> controlling board, the National Science Board. For starters, how
> about closing the NSF for a year or two till... new management and new
> pragmatic philosophies can be put in place!
Rather ambitious for someone who has yet to even test his ideas.
>
> 'Cleaning up Einstein's Mishmash' will begin to streamline education.
> If my example is followed, every single discipline taught in every
> single university in America, and in preparatory schools, will need to
> be streamlined, too. 60% or more of those texts should be weeded out,
> never to have all of that... clutter published again! Will the many
> Jewish publishers be happy? Hell no! And do I care one IOTA whether
> they are happy? Hell no!
60% you say?
I wonder where you got that number from since relativity textbooks are
so few in number. I only own one relativity textbook compared to two
dozen non-relativity textbooks.
>
> There are "HAL" level forces at work in this country that will bring
> down the USA unless the 'power cords' are unplugged which allow those
> "HALs" to function. Of course the latter refers to: '2001, A Space
> Odyssey'. Now, my odyssey, that coincidentally, began in late 2001,
...when you hit your head real hard?
...when you were released from care?
...when a physicist stole your girlfriend?
> is motivated not only toward getting my conclusive Einstein disproofs
> recognized, but toward permanently "unplugging" all of those "HALs" in
> our governments; in our systems of education; and in our often Jewish
> dominated media!
You say "our systems of education", yet it seems you never once even
used it.
>
> I have drawn a line in the sand with a stick. Who among you will
> cross it, and volunteer to help me save... the USA? -- NoEinstein --
...now watch as everyone ignored the line for the meaningless gesture
that it is.
Read carefully your progression of attempts here. Note that not once
in seven years did you ever try testing your ideas, or at least admit
to testing them.
1) You spammed a bunch of research publications, and were ignored.
2) You spammed a bunch of newspapers and popular media outlets, and
were ignored.
3) You are now spamming individual universities, and are being
ignored.
4) You are spamming USENET, and you are being laughed at.
Once you give up on 3, will you continue with 4 for the rest of your
life like some folks are destined? Or will you give up?
You got a real hair up your ass to embark on a seven year quest to
mess up something that by all accounts didn't concern you for most of
your entire adult life.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
> __________
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6426670b-9955-4135...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[snip for brevity]
> Read carefully your progression of attempts here. Note that not once
> in seven years did you ever try testing your ideas, or at least admit
> to testing them.
>
> 1) You spammed a bunch of research publications, and were ignored.
> 2) You spammed a bunch of newspapers and popular media outlets, and
> were ignored.
> 3) You are now spamming individual universities, and are being
> ignored.
> 4) You are spamming USENET, and you are being laughed at.
So he finally has found his niche: he is No Longer Ignored.
>
> Once you give up on 3, will you continue with 4 for the rest of your
> life like some folks are destined? Or will you give up?
No-one knows what he will do if he ends up ignored here, but
as long as he is not ignored, he will not give up - that's for sure.
Dirk Vdm
hanson
is loudly insinuated by Alan Schwartz aka Anal Schwartz aka
"Uncle rect-Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> as he farts in
his < news:47B1ED51...@hate.spam.net... >
>
NoEinstein wrote:
Albert Einstein was a Jew.
[snip crap]
>
The Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2 than Auschwitz.
Washington wanted victory not goy excuses.
>
Anal Schwartz's "The Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2
than Auschwitz" holds only true in that it had more Jews/m^2
who were Jewish traitors to the US spying for the Soviets!
>
Anal Schwartz's "Washington wanted victory not goy excuses"
is false, a Jewish lie. The Washington Goys did put General
L Groves, a goyim, in charge of the few Jews who worked
there.... ahahahaha....
>
Anal Schwartz, you are singing "Havana Tequila" again, and
we went over your "Jews/m^2" fixation before. Here it is again:
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/074da3e573556f0d >
wherein it says
::rect-Al:: ... the Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2,...
::hanson:: (1) ALL of whom labored under Gen. L Groves, a goyim...
::rect-Al:: ... the Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2...
::hanson:: (2) who where traitors to the US & spied for the Soviets...
::rect-Al:: ... the Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2...
::hanson:: (3) who wrote loudmouthed, self-aggrandizing reports
::hanson:: based on the creative & innovative work of the US goyim..
::rect-Al::... had more Jews/m^2 than a Nazi concentration camp.
::hanson:: whose inmates where all directly supervised, controlled
::hanson:: and tormented by Kapos who were JEWS, .....
>
Al, I feel kind a sad for you, a geriatric Jew, who cries 'cuz his
time of (collective) Jewish grandeur has slipped away in the
classical fashion: "From rags to riches to rags in 3 generations".
Al, the 1960-1975 days of US-Jewish self-aggrandizment is only
still audible in the cyber chambers of the Usenet.... ahahaha...
But out in the real world, so your B'nai Brith cries, 400'000+ Jews
have left the J-fold since the 1970', in the US alone . --- Most Jews
younger than 40 are not like you old kikes here in these News groups
who want to kill half of the world as as seen in here, (4), you saying:
>
::Al:: DEATH to the entire Third World. Kill them all.
::Al:: An Earth with 3 billion people would be a much nicer place to live.
::Al:: Uncle Al especially enjoys earthquakes that collapse churches
::Al:: filled with worshippers.
>
[& geriatric Ersatz Rabbi Bob Kolker, the Jew who said]
::BK:: on Oct. 18, 04, in news:2tm3f7F...@uni-berlin.de
::BK:: "the obvious [final] solution is to kill them all" ... & urges
::BK:: in news:2rfqqdF...@uni-berlin.de on 09-23-04,
::BK:: "to put all Xians into asylums for their belief in Christianity".
>
On one issue though, as seen in the link below, you are right, Al.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0c6b0d5596d4fd5c
wherein Israel's ex PM Ariel Sharon says:
::Sharon:: We might use nuclear arms. We are **Judeo-Nazis**.
::Sharon:: We might start World War Three.
::Sharon:: ** I will do all I can to increase Anti-Semitism **, and be
::Sharon:: prepared to absorb the Yids I will force to flee to this
::Sharon:: country and teach them to be a light unto the gentiles.
>
See, Al, you are good soldier in Ariel Sharon's Army of Light, by you
creating Anti-Semitism left and right. You have carried out your mission,
successfully. Time for you to go home now, Al... But in a strange way
I hope that you will not do that. --- For if all Jews were to leave the
US,
then the fucking Evangelicals would fill the void and impose their Xian
"values" upon the goy peasantry.... which would create, AFAIAC, a
situation that is akin to the Muslims who are forced to pray and vent
their asses 5 times a day... Bad scene.... ahahaha...
>
So, carry on, Al... you are always good for a chuckle.
Thanks for the laughs., Schmuck.... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
>
<Snipped the rest of Anal Schwartz's farts>
>
>
ref (4)
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/215c7c54e5468d61 >
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/2e1e7098ed705165 >
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/e11eebf4427cbc01 >
< http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.mensa/msg/572674e5060b55a3 >
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/d05517e7f4de883d>
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/657dbe27ce06ca8d >
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/82caaf5ff6e0038c >
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f5856bf38c6fc495 >
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Al: I sense some of your anger. You've replied to my
posts in the past, but I can't pigeon-hole what your position is. I
love Jews as people, not as a group with biases that hurt others. If
any group is hurting other people or groups, don't you think those
issues should be pointed out? The world isn't filled with perfect
people. If the world can be made to be more perfect, even if some
groups must take it on the chin at first, everyone should benefit.
Please try to think positive, and I will. -- NoEinstein --
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Albert Einstein was a Jew.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> The Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2 than Auschwitz. Washington
> wanted victory not goy excuses.
>
> > I didn't consider such fact to matter in
> > the least until after I had been on a seven plus year odyssey to get
> > my Einstein disproofs accepted.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> Fucking imbecile. Empirical reality has no valid counterargument.
>
> <http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments....>
> Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
> Experimental constraints on General Relativity
>
> <http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
> Nature 425 374 (2003)http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
> <http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
>
> <http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
> Nature 425 374 (2003)http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
> <http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
> Relativity in the GPS system
>
> Psychotic idiot.
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
NoEinstein
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Dirk: Striving for positive goals isn't misery, it is a
pleasure! And, no, I don't expect "five minute" solutions. If I have
worked for nearly seven years, doesn't that show that I am a person
with a lot of both patience, and commitment? I hope you will think
positive and be one of those who cross my line-in-the-sand to help
improve the world. -- NoEinstein --
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:cb51c398-5dea-4374...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
NoEinstein
> On Feb 12, 11:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
prizes. The World is the "boat" of everyone who is on it. So, it
behooves us to solve world problems, globally, not just relative to
one's nation or group. I hope I can count you on my side! --
NoEinstein --
> like one of the other idiots on this ng.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dirk Van de moortel
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:687070f0-8f06-4d4a...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 2:08 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
[fixing top posting]
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:cb51c398-5dea-4374...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Albert Einstein was a Jew. I didn't consider such fact to matter in
>> > the least until after I had been on a seven plus year odyssey to get
>> > my Einstein disproofs accepted.
>>
>> A seven plus year odyssey.
>> And we should be able to help you out of your misery in
>> five minutes? Forget it.
>>
> Dear Dirk: Striving for positive goals isn't misery, it is a
> pleasure!
The True Village Idiot can find pleasure in everything.
> And, no, I don't expect "five minute" solutions. If I have
> worked for nearly seven years, doesn't that show that I am a person
> with a lot of both patience, and commitment?
It shows that you are a mental case - but you don't have to
take *my* word for it.
> I hope you will think
> positive and be one of those who cross my line-in-the-sand to help
> improve the world. -- NoEinstein --
Helping a mental case like *you* to improve the world?
Forget that as well :-)
Dirk Vdm
NoEinstein
>
Dear Tom: Welcome back! You are widely read, and you have a half-a-
world-away perspective on what is going on in the USA. Jews, bless
their hearts, have caught more than their share of c... Rightly, they
don't want that to keep happening. If they would learn to: "Rise
Below the Opposition" rather than always trying to beat the
opposition, they would be better liked... as a group. Separatism and
isolation can hurt any group. When individuals see groups as... where
the power is, then, the fighting starts, and the underhanded schemes
begin.
My disproving Einstein can be a catalyst to examining out motives, and
our hidden motivators, in many of our institutions. We need to show
flexibility in dealing with others. At a most human level we are more
like family, than like enemies. -- NoEinstein --
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric (by the numbers): (1.) My odyssey isn't motivated to be for
"your enjoyment". But, ideally, you should be happier in a world
that's not tied to the status quo--after the status quo has been proved
wrong.
(2.) If high school (or middle school) level understanding solves the
problems at hand, then where is the justification for 'higher'
education? Obviously, your ego has gotten a huge boost by getting
your BS in Physics. I commend your intellect! But I don't commend
you poo-pooing on my simple disproofs of Einstein, because such don't
elevate the egos of those who lay claim to understanding. It is said:
"Pride goeth before the fall." Show some humility, Eric; you'll have
more allies, then.
(3.) Have your found your first job yet?
(4.) In "NC Governor Should Resign Over Science" are numbers of
copies of my letters to universities, and others. I am neither
arrogant, nor lacking in communications skills. I would have loved to
answer questions! But all of those I have contacted have "zoned out"
to even the possibility that Einstein has been disproved. There are
just too many conflicts of interest out there for people to do the
moral things.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e892e00156d4d92?hl=en#
(5.) Air Hockey isn't my game. But I can beat-the-socks-off-of-you
at Pool! If there is one area of physics at which I excel, it is
dynamics. And I excel at observing the laws of physics that apply in
our everyday lives. Ping-Pong balls aren't very good free drop test
objects because of their low specific gravity. But I have done
repeated stop watch tests of glass marbles dropped onto a (noisy)
metal plate. I was able to find enough drop height in the stairwell
of my home, and still have the adjustable release mechanism screwed to
a wall.
(6.) Nowhere have I ever said that Einstein was born in America. But
to have lived here as long as he did, he picked up "the language" to
only a moron's level.
(7.) What is it about Air Hockey that "proves" Einstein? If there is
such a thing, students who are "goofing off" can claim to be...
verifying Einstein! Can you get college credit for Air Hockey?
(8.) The vertical component of all falling objects in near Earth free
fall plots as a parabola for distance/time. The rate of change of the
slope of a parabola is the rate of change of the velocity, and that is
a straight line! Draw tangents to the parabola at 1, 2, 3, and 4
seconds. During second 2, the velocity corresponding to that at the
end of second 1 will cause a COASTING component within second 2 that
accounts for 32.174 feet of fall distance during second 2. The
remaining fall distance during second 2 is an additional 16.087 feet,
matching the second 1 fall distance.
Do the same thing for seconds 3 and 4, and there will always be
exactly 16.087 feet of additional fall distance above the COASTING
distance that is being carried over from the previous second. If you
deduct all of the COASTING distances, there is an effective uniform
increase in fall distances, exactly corresponding to the uniform
linear increase in the velocity of 32.174 ft. per sec. EACH second.
The latter is the definition of acceleration 'g'.
(9.) If there is such a connection, would you please describe it is
floridly?
(10.) One man's trash is another man's riches! Throwing out things
of value, without consideration of the possible worth, still reflects
poorly on the person or business making that decision.
(11.) One way that I can disprove Einstein requires no formal
education whatsoever! Since SR has an exponential increase in E, with
respect to time--or is more in any second than in the former second--
then such theory is disproved by showing that velocity increases
linearly for near Earth dropped objects, as I've explained above!
Since uniform accelerations have uniform velocity increases, then
uniform accelerations will cause a constant push-you-back-in-your-seat
force when an airliner takes off. For brief periods a person feels
INCREASING pressure on the back, followed by a more or less uniform
pressure. Increasing pressure is acceleration of the acceleration and
plots as some segment of a parabolic curve. If, as Einstein thought
would always be the case, the a. of the a. continued indefinitely, the
person would be flattened like a pancake, and the propulsion power
would exceed that in the universe.
But because it is possible to reach velocity 'c' without resorting to
accelerating the a. except for a few seconds at takeoff, then SR is
disproved!
(12.) Shame on them, if they did!
(13.) The space-time hokum is just an ANALOGY of the attractive
forces between objects. To suppose that a spaceship can move itself
forward just by warping space-time is like Huck Finn trying to propel
his wooden raft by blowing on his sheet sail!
(14.) Rightfully, any news that can profoundly affect the lives of
its readers, is a proper subject for newspapers! Having other outlets
that are corrupted by the selfish influences of universities (money
and vanity) is part of the wild-goose-chase that I have been on.
Sadly, getting out the news has become something that others must do,
first. And that attitude reflects the shameful mass-mindedness of the
media that will kill the USA quicker than our failed governments and
our failed systems of education!
Our founding fathers made "three separate but equal" branches. But
those three aren't worth a damn unless... "what is going on" can get
reported to the people! Our corrupt media is more concerned with
giving this... years-long, play-by-play description of "the game" of
politics, than it is in covering a range of important subjects like:
"Einstein's Theories Disproved!" "The score" in the game of politics
is based on NON democratic polls; staggered, and thus NON democratic
primaries and caucuses; and on the corrupting influences of the biased
commentators, all subtly trying to get "their" candidate elected--
counter to democracy at every turn!
(15.) A columnist whose credentials are... "liberal arts", is credible
only if that person is objective regarding what gets written. K. C.
Cole has managed to get book publishers (Jews) and newspaper editors
(Jews) to pay her good money to write flowery, but errant descriptions
of nature. Of course 'that phony' couldn't be happy that she has been
called to task for what she has been getting paid to write. But her
corruption is her problem. I only discovered it. But it is she who
must atone for it.
(16.) By osmosis, I have learned that Jews, collectively, are
notorious for throwing up this lame defense of their actions: They
claim that anyone who finds fault with them, or their actions, is anti-
Semitic. The most caring people are the ones likely to back off upon
hearing such a charge. Appropriately, others should be as just and as
harsh as necessary to be sure Jews behave civilly. But they often
don't. They believe they have rights which others aren't entitled to...
because of all of the travail in their long history.
(17.) I know that at least four years of most "college graduates"
lives have been wasted in an education process, grade one to finish.
Universities care more about the ant-farm like processes than about
pragmatism. And they care about fielding winning ball teams, and such
necessitates having four years of... development.
(18.) As I am recommending, most textbooks should be cut to 40% of
their size. Of course, there is that "ego factor" of passing a course
with a thick textbook. But we need more people knowledgeable of the
basics, than we need those who have dabbled in the unneeded.
(19.) "Without change there can be no progress." Too often the
second and later editions of texts don't weed out what was there that
was in error. In fact, except for grammatical, or small mathematical
errors, publishers won't change their texts. To do so would be to
say: "Hey! Look at us! What we published last year was wrong!" The
false pride of perfection... is killing education, and it is helping to
kill the USA.
(20.) In this modern age of digital printing, an "edition" could be
changed in a single book, on a single minute of a single day. You are
no expert on printing, but you bluff well.
(21.) The "key word" here is ...biased... universities. Thanks for
agreeing!
(22.) How many courses in architecture (real world physics) have you
tried to take?
(23.) My disproving of... "the simple" as you say, is most damning.
Aren't scientists supposed to know simple things, too?
(24.) It is I who am laughing at the spineless jelly fish in our
universities (22 universities and counting) who don't consider that
Einstein's being disproved justifies having such fact communicated to
students! You have allowed yourself to be snowed by all of the pomp
and circumstance, and the wasteful rituals of book learning. See how
much any of it means to you in a year or so. Oh, you've keep boasting
how much you... "know", but that will only impress the gullible. The
value of a life is in the productivity of its labors. Where is the
productivity in teaching that which will be quickly forgotten?
(25.) Eric lies if it suits him. That's a flaw in his now
questionable character.
(26.) That is 60% of ALL textbooks. Physics is just the tip of the
iceberg!
(27.) For starters, I was always someone who liked to think for
myself. Your desire to understand my motives suggests you don't know
about a thing called: principle. Fighting for principles is something
one does because it is right, not because of any anger over a breakup,
knock on the head, or mental illness. You on the other hand have a
desire to surpass that is motivated by your inferiority complex, being
compensated by projecting an image of superiority. Because I'm
threatening your fragile ego, you, and others see arguing me down as
your calling. Well, my truths are their own best defense. I reply to
you, mainly, because there are naïve readers of the newsgroups who
judge "truths" by a contest of verbal belligerence. Have you won any
such contests with me fellow?
(28.) Abraham Lincoln was considered to be an educated man. In large
measure he was self taught. The best observers of nature are those
not biased by the errant explanations of others. Much of my views on
education come from having had relatives employed by universities. I
commuted to college with a professor who often talked about the highly
politicized cultures where he worked. And, I am a keen observer of
human nature. I put up with education, because that was what I was
expected to prove that I could do. Conservatively, four years of my
journey from grade one could have been weeded out. The productivity
of the USA would improve greatly if "smart people" graduate college at
age 18.
Schooling is mainly a system of babysitting while parents are
working. And it is a public works program for employing teachers. My
disproving Einstein has nothing to do with my disdain for the holier
than thou cultures in education. All things will change, in their own
time.
(29.) Eric, you are a coward. If you had been at the Alamo, you
would not have crossed that line in the sand, nor fought for the
right, till death. Rather, you would have disappeared over the wall;
returned to your warm bed; and forever made fun of those who had
enough conviction to fight for a just cause. You are a huge waste of
a person.
(30.) Like the coward that you are, again you lie, rather than admit
that I have disproved Einstein. Your flawed Jewish ego just won't let
you admit that you have ever been less than perfect. You will go to
your grave, being this boastful, but less than perfect, little man.
(31.) Will God, or someone help pitiful Eric Gisse? He is in his
last days, with... 'Einstein's disease'. -- No Einstein
--
>
> On Feb 12, 7:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Albert Einstein was a Jew. I didn't consider such fact to matter in
> > the least until after I had been on a seven plus year odyssey to get
> > my Einstein disproofs accepted.
>
> Except the actual Odyssey was worth reading. Had far better characters
> too. (1.)
>
> Your "disproofs" are rooted in a sub-highschool level of understanding
> that is disproved with highschool level experiments. It hasn't even
> been 7 years [though its getting closer] since I graduated
> highschool. (2.)
>
> > Mostly, I had been sending my
> > articles, and other documentation, to 'laymen' level magazines like:
> > 'Discover'; and to 'professional' level magazines like: 'Science', and
> > 'Nature'.
>
> Hint: Scientists work for Science. (3.)
>
> The only way you will get people to publish your stuff is if they
> either don't know any better or are paid to publish. I'm sure you
> could get the editor in chief of Discover to publish your spew if the
> check has enough leading zeros in the amount. Science and Nature too,
> but the amount of zeros will be significantly larger.
>
> > Before that, I had contacted university affiliated science
> > and astronomy publications to try to get my research published. All
> > to no avail.
>
> The glaring technical issues of your crappy work aside, you were
> probably arrogant as fuck in your writing and responses to questions. (4.)
>
> > I shrugged off the non responsiveness and attributed it mostly to
> > inertia to change. Not only was I wishing to get my science findings
> > acknowledged, I was dethroning Einstein--the poster boy of intellect.
>
> Naturally it's inertia! It /couldn't/ be the fact that your stupid
> goddamn ideas show beyond a shadow of a doubt that your are not only a
> dishonest little prick but that you are so arrogant that you haven't
> even once picked up an air hockey table to test collisions or did a
> drop test with a fucking PING PONG BALL and stopwatch. (5.)
>
> Even Andre Michund figured out the air hockey table - he sells them!
> And he still hates Einstein!
>
> > If there is one thing America does well, it's protecting its icons.
>
> Einstein was a jew who emigrated to the US, you dumb fuck. Einstein is
> no more American than Eotvos. (6.)
>
> > Beginning in 2007, I began sending my materials to the science or
> > physics departments at various universities. Simultaneously, I
> > started contacting major USA newspapers. I was hoping to get a simple
> > press release published about my having invalidated the 1830 kinetic
> > energy equation of Coriolis: KE = 1/2 mv^2.
>
> Do yourself the biggest favor you can do, next to opening a book. Buy
> an air hockey table and test your ideas. (7.)
>
> > But no "liberal arts" types
> > running most newspapers have ever heard of Coriolis, nor would they
> > likely realize how crucial that man's formula was to the development
> > of Einstein's theories of relativity.
>
> Were this the only misunderstanding you had, it'd still be a pretty
> big one. Fortunately I have given up on a linear plotting of your
> stupidity and settled for a logarithmic scale. (8.)
>
>
>
> > I deliberately avoided explaining about there being a connection
> > between Coriolis and Einstein.
>
> Much like I deliberately avoid explaining the connection between my
> dick and Angelia Jolie. (9.)
>
> > Such is because: For some time, I had
> > suspected that at the mere mention that I have disproved Einstein,
> > some newspapers were putting my files in the computer trash.
>
> Actually this is exactly what happens. You don't even need to use the
> "some" qualifier. (10.)
>
> > What
> > little they know about science is what "the public perception" knows,
> > and that is: that Einstein is one of the intellectual elite.
>
> If they don't have anyone on their staff who does science writing, or
> passed anything more than freshman physics, or who did some reading on
> the subject, then sure. (11.)
>
> > TIME magazine regularly has articles about Einstein. Any acclaim
> > being given to that man hurts my chances of changing his public
> > perception. So, I began apprising TIME about my various disproofs,
> > big time. I also sent them copies of my emails to the various
> > universities, hoping that TIME would sense my commitment, and begin to
> > show some objectivity about investigating what I have done.
>
> Most likely whatever poor son of a bitch that got your emails did was
> toss them immediately in the trash and setup a filter such that
> everything from you is automatically forwarded into the trash. (12.)
>
> > Until recently, Popular Science was a TIME Warner publication; I've
> > had a subscription most of my adult life. PS had largely been a
> > "Popular Technology" magazine, rather than one devoted primarily to
> > science. But a year or so ago that magazine published an article--
> > complete with warped space graphics--explaining how man might be able
> > to travel faster than Einstein's self-imposed universal speed limit,
> > 'c'. That article angered me greatly... It was science fiction, plain
> > and simple. Yet, it got "published" as "credible thinking" while my
> > own science truths were being shunned on every front.
>
> I could take 5 minutes and carefully explain why it was credible, but
> what'd be the point? The lead bricks I use in the lab are more
> intelligent and useful than you are when it comes to physics. Though
> that doesn't mean I'd say "no" if you offer to be my mobile gamma
> shield. (13.)
>
> > Newspapers like the L. A. Times, and the New York Times, like to run
> > columns about supposed science. They even have staff editors devoted
> > to the "Sunday" recreational readers about science. Usually their
> > writers are just that--writers. They have little or no background in
> > actual science, but make a living by "laymanizing" the two or more
> > year's old science developments of others. Amazingly, newspapers give
> > those science writers much leeway regarding the truthfulness of the
> > explanations given.
>
> I wonder if you have - even once - asked about the qualifications of
> the science writers. Especially the ones working for the larger
> newspapers. Not that it actually matters since the newspaper is not
> the medium in which science is propagated or discussed. You're just
> operating under the belief that Einstein won some kind of popularity
> contest and that you could win it too. (14.)
>
> > After seeing science columnist "K. C." Cole discussing... science
> > journalism on a TV show, I wrote to her, hoping that 'columnists'
> > might be the missing link in getting out the story of my Einstein
> > disproofs. I never heard from the lady.
>
> Are you actually surprised? I'm not. (15.)
>
>
>
> > It wasn't until late 2007 that I read comments on sci.physics
> > regarding Jewish influences on science. I wondered: Could bias by
> > Jews be keeping Einstein ensconced at the top of the intellectual
> > elite?
>
> Be honest - did you always think this, or are you so desperate for
> reasons that you latch onto antisemitism? (16.)
>
> > No universities seem to want to revise their teaching and
> > their texts over what I have done... Aren't most textbooks printed by
> > Jewish publishers?
>
> No, and you are really /really/ unfamiliar with how teaching is done
> at the university level. But don't let facts get in your way. (17.)
>
> > And aren't most textbooks getting thicker and
> > thicker, and more and more expensive?
>
> I'll take a minute to explain this one since I think you are only
> latching onto the textbook angle because you have nothing left. After
> you extinguish this avenue of research, you might want to consider
> doing an experiment. (18.)
>
> Introductory textbooks are getting thicker and more expensive for a
> variety of reasons - none of which have to do with the physics
> involved. The textbooks for the advanced courses are not. A fair
> portion of mine were written [or had a first edition] written before I
> was born. (19.)
>
> > Might there be a conflict of
> > interest among textbook publishers to weed out the... deadwood in their
> > texts and reference books, and thus to make those books more
> > affordable?
>
> No. Publishers like the way books are now - the low level books
> frequently have attached extras that are frequently required to use
> the book in conjunction with a course that cannot be purchased
> separately and cannot be re-used. Once the page is written, printing
> it fifty thousand times is pretty cheap. Releasing a new editing is
> not. (20.)
>
> > One such publisher I contacted was Van Nostrand's Scientific
> > Encyclopedia. But they showed no willingness, whatsoever, to revise
> > anything. In checking McGraw-Hill's (huge) Encyclopedia of Science
> > and Technology, there are large listings of the university affiliated
> > "contributing editors". Is everything in science reference books
> > controlled by biased universities?
>
> Since it doesn't matter what the reality or the reasoning is, I'll go
> with the simple answer: yes. (21.)
>
> > Reaching such a conclusion seems
> > logical, because the more 'difficult seeming' science can be, the
> > greater will be the number of students who are drawn to universities
> > to be taught those difficult things--like Einstein's theories of
> > relativity are... So, what gets taught is mainly an issue of what will
> > make the most money for teachers and administrators.
>
> How many university level courses in physics have you tried to take,
> if any? (22.)
>
> I'll fill you in a little bit on the reality of the situation. Special
> relativity is taught briefly in the degree program here, with
> discussions of it tacked on at the end of the modern physics course as
> well as the electromagnetism course. General relativity is not taught
> at all.
>
> You fixate on Einstein but you pass by more complicated subjects that
> don't have a unique individual behind them. I don't see you ranting
> about classical E&M, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory,
> classical mechanics, perturbation theory, quantum field theory,
> quantum chromodynamics, solid state physics, or any number of fields
> based upon those subjects or combinations of those subjects. And I
> will tell you right fucking now that classical mechanics is much
> harder than special relativity. (23.)
>
> > Sadly, there are too few of the latter who desire that only the best 'knowledge',
> > pure and simple, be taught.
Were this thought uttered in the presence of any university faculty
here, you'd be laughed at. And depending whether or not the other
faculty were present, you'd be called a fucking moron by one or two
of
them. (24.)
> If I succeed in having my pure and simple-to-understand Einstein
> disproofs accepted, whole courses of study at universities will be
> eliminated. In the case of Penn State, their "Gravity Department"
> will need to be closed. Last summer I discovered the total corruption
> of the National Science Foundation, and their university dominated
> controlling board, the National Science Board. For starters, how
> about closing the NSF for a year or two till... new management and new
> pragmatic philosophies can be put in place!
Rather ambitious for someone who has yet to even test his ideas.
(25.)
> 'Cleaning up Einstein's Mishmash' will begin to streamline education.
> If my example is followed, every single discipline taught in every
> single university in America, and in preparatory schools, will need to
> be streamlined, too. 60% or more of those texts should be weeded out,
> never to have all of that... clutter published again! Will the many
> Jewish publishers be happy? Hell no! And do I care one IOTA whether
> they are happy? Hell no!
60% you say?
I wonder where you got that number from since relativity textbooks
are
so few in number. I only own one relativity textbook compared to two
dozen non-relativity textbooks. (26.)
> There are "HAL" level forces at work in this country that will bring
> down the USA unless the 'power cords' are unplugged which allow those
> "HALs" to function. Of course the latter refers to: '2001, A Space
> Odyssey'. Now, my odyssey, that coincidentally, began in late 2001,
...when you hit your head real hard?
...when you were released from care?
...when a physicist stole your girlfriend? (27.)
> is motivated not only toward getting my conclusive Einstein disproofs
> recognized, but toward permanently "unplugging" all of those "HALs" in
> our governments; in our systems of education; and in our often Jewish
> dominated media!
You say "our systems of education", yet it seems you never once even
used it. (28.)
> I have drawn a line in the sand with a stick. Who among you will
> cross it, and volunteer to help me save... the USA? -- NoEinstein --
...now watch as everyone ignored the line for the meaningless gesture
that it is. (29.)
Read carefully your progression of attempts here. Note that not once
in seven years did you ever try testing your ideas, or at least admit
to testing them. (30.)
1) You spammed a bunch of research publications, and were ignored.
2) You spammed a bunch of newspapers and popular media outlets, and
were ignored.
3) You are now spamming individual universities, and are being
ignored.
4) You are spamming USENET, and you are being laughed at.
Once you give up on 3, will you continue with 4 for the rest of your
life like some folks are destined? Or will you give up?
You got a real hair up your ass to embark on a seven year quest to
mess up something that by all accounts didn't concern you for most of
your entire adult life. (31.)
NoEinstein
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Dirk: I agree with your assessment, if you will just put an
exclamation point or two after your statement of facts!! -- NoEinstein
--
>
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6426670b-9955-4135...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
NoEinstein
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Dirk: Have you ever had a passion for a good thing? Did it work
out? -- NoEinstein --
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:687070f0-8f06-4d4a...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 13, 8:37 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Eric (by the numbers): (1.) My odyssey isn't motivated to be for
> "your enjoyment". But, ideally, you should be happier in a world
> that's not tied to the status quo--after the status quo has been proved
> wrong.
Wanna bet? I am greatly amused by your "seven year odyssey". Plus for
some reason it reminds me of the quotation "fools and kings rush in
where angels dare not tread." Can you name even one accomplishment on
your "seven year odyssey" other than amusing me? If not, then how can
you claim otherwise?
Do keep it up. I'm absolutely secure in the knowledge that you will
never be anything other than a nuisance at worse and a guilty pleasure
entertainment at best in the world of science.
>
> (2.) If high school (or middle school) level understanding solves the
> problems at hand, then where is the justification for 'higher'
> education? Obviously, your ego has gotten a huge boost by getting
> your BS in Physics. I commend your intellect! But I don't commend
> you poo-pooing on my simple disproofs of Einstein, because such don't
> elevate the egos of those who lay claim to understanding. It is said:
> "Pride goeth before the fall." Show some humility, Eric; you'll have
> more allies, then.
Oh! Super slam! You put quotes around 'higher'! I'm totally convinced
you aren't jealous!
Anyho, it is simply the case that there is more to physics than what
you have been exposed to. For a taste - calculate the spectra of
Hydrogen. Include fine and hyperfine corrections.
>
> (3.) Have your found your first job yet?
Is it 1997 again?
>
> (4.) In "NC Governor Should Resign Over Science" are numbers of
> copies of my letters to universities, and others. I am neither
> arrogant, nor lacking in communications skills. I would have loved to
> answer questions! But all of those I have contacted have "zoned out"
> to even the possibility that Einstein has been disproved. There are
> just too many conflicts of interest out there for people to do the
> moral things.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e892...
Ignorance is not a form of knowing things. You are ignorant of basic
physics - I'm not talking about relativity, I'm talking about the
physics that's taught in highschool. You wouldn't make it past an
entrance exam.
>
> (5.) Air Hockey isn't my game. But I can beat-the-socks-off-of-you
> at Pool! If there is one area of physics at which I excel, it is
> dynamics. And I excel at observing the laws of physics that apply in
> our everyday lives. Ping-Pong balls aren't very good free drop test
> objects because of their low specific gravity. But I have done
> repeated stop watch tests of glass marbles dropped onto a (noisy)
> metal plate. I was able to find enough drop height in the stairwell
> of my home, and still have the adjustable release mechanism screwed to
> a wall.
Christ on a crutch, that's what I get for assuming a modicum of
educatin' at your end. Use the air hockey table to collide stuff with
known masses. It's utterly trivial to test whether the standard
prescription for kinetic energy is valid at that level. Since you
excel at everyday physics, this should be trivial.
You may wish to look up what specific gravity actually means, and then
rephrase your complaint in a manner that makes sense to someone who
knows what those words mean.
>
> (6.) Nowhere have I ever said that Einstein was born in America. But
> to have lived here as long as he did, he picked up "the language" to
> only a moron's level.
Care to share a sample of Einstein's writing that is verifiably his
that is obvious, to you, that he's writing at a "moron's level" ?
Or should I just take your word for it?
>
> (7.) What is it about Air Hockey that "proves" Einstein? If there is
> such a thing, students who are "goofing off" can claim to be...
> verifying Einstein! Can you get college credit for Air Hockey?
What's rather amusing is that Einstein is actually irrelevant to
everything you have complained about so far.
Your beef is with classical mechanics. Which predates Einstein by a
looooong time.
>
> (8.) The vertical component of all falling objects in near Earth free
> fall plots as a parabola for distance/time. The rate of change of the
> slope of a parabola is the rate of change of the velocity, and that is
> a straight line! Draw tangents to the parabola at 1, 2, 3, and 4
> seconds. During second 2, the velocity corresponding to that at the
> end of second 1 will cause a COASTING component within second 2 that
> accounts for 32.174 feet of fall distance during second 2. The
> remaining fall distance during second 2 is an additional 16.087 feet,
> matching the second 1 fall distance.
I did this in high school. Tell me something new.
>
> Do the same thing for seconds 3 and 4, and there will always be
> exactly 16.087 feet of additional fall distance above the COASTING
> distance that is being carried over from the previous second. If you
> deduct all of the COASTING distances, there is an effective uniform
> increase in fall distances, exactly corresponding to the uniform
> linear increase in the velocity of 32.174 ft. per sec. EACH second.
> The latter is the definition of acceleration 'g'.
No, that is not how g is defined. Once again, g is an /acceleration/.
It is defined to be the acceleration a massive body feels at the
surface of the Earth, and it is derived from F = mMG/r^2.
>
> (9.) If there is such a connection, would you please describe it is
> floridly?
>
> (10.) One man's trash is another man's riches! Throwing out things
> of value, without consideration of the possible worth, still reflects
> poorly on the person or business making that decision.
I'm sitting next to a 12 node computer cluster that I built out of
tossed computers.
It's currently crunching Einstein@home. The node that was your
namesake is now known as oscarnode9 since it really, really wasn't
worth the effort to hard-code node hostnames.
>
> (11.) One way that I can disprove Einstein requires no formal
> education whatsoever! Since SR has an exponential increase in E, with
> respect to time--or is more in any second than in the former second--
The word you are looking for is "nonlinear". Until you have studied
calculus, the word "exponential" is verboten.
> then such theory is disproved by showing that velocity increases
> linearly for near Earth dropped objects, as I've explained above!
1) Who cares if it is nonlinear? That isn't a disproof of anything.
2) SR doesn't apply for falling objects.
>
> Since uniform accelerations have uniform velocity increases, then
> uniform accelerations will cause a constant push-you-back-in-your-seat
> force when an airliner takes off. For brief periods a person feels
> INCREASING pressure on the back, followed by a more or less uniform
> pressure. Increasing pressure is acceleration of the acceleration and
> plots as some segment of a parabolic curve. If, as Einstein thought
> would always be the case, the a. of the a. continued indefinitely, the
> person would be flattened like a pancake, and the propulsion power
> would exceed that in the universe.
Neat. It looks like you were taught some very basic physics in
highschool and took that to be the word of god. Try to swallow the
fact that there is more to physics than what you were taught as a
kid.
>
> But because it is possible to reach velocity 'c' without resorting to
> accelerating the a. except for a few seconds at takeoff, then SR is
> disproved!
Nope - it doesn't matter how you accelerate, you can't pass c in SR.
Why is it that folks like you can't be bothered to study the theories
you criticize?
>
> (12.) Shame on them, if they did!
>
> (13.) The space-time hokum is just an ANALOGY of the attractive
> forces between objects. To suppose that a spaceship can move itself
> forward just by warping space-time is like Huck Finn trying to propel
> his wooden raft by blowing on his sheet sail!
The discussion is irrelevant since the Alcubierre warp drive required
the existence of matter that can't exist. Which you would know if you
actually studied instead of whined.
>
> (14.) Rightfully, any news that can profoundly affect the lives of
> its readers, is a proper subject for newspapers! Having other outlets
> that are corrupted by the selfish influences of universities (money
> and vanity) is part of the wild-goose-chase that I have been on.
> Sadly, getting out the news has become something that others must do,
> first. And that attitude reflects the shameful mass-mindedness of the
> media that will kill the USA quicker than our failed governments and
> our failed systems of education!
Einstein could be turned over tomorrow and the general public wouldn't
notice or especially care.
>
> Our founding fathers made "three separate but equal" branches. But
> those three aren't worth a damn unless... "what is going on" can get
> reported to the people! Our corrupt media is more concerned with
> giving this... years-long, play-by-play description of "the game" of
> politics, than it is in covering a range of important subjects like:
> "Einstein's Theories Disproved!" "The score" in the game of politics
> is based on NON democratic polls; staggered, and thus NON democratic
> primaries and caucuses; and on the corrupting influences of the biased
> commentators, all subtly trying to get "their" candidate elected--
> counter to democracy at every turn!
Science isn't a democracy. Deal with it.
>
> (15.) A columnist whose credentials are... "liberal arts", is credible
> only if that person is objective regarding what gets written. K. C.
> Cole has managed to get book publishers (Jews) and newspaper editors
> (Jews) to pay her good money to write flowery, but errant descriptions
> of nature. Of course 'that phony' couldn't be happy that she has been
> called to task for what she has been getting paid to write. But her
> corruption is her problem. I only discovered it. But it is she who
> must atone for it.
Why don't you include a little diatribe about how much you don't like
jews in all your future correspondence? I'm sure that'll make everyone
more receptive to your ideas.
>
> (16.) By osmosis, I have learned that Jews, collectively, are
> notorious for throwing up this lame defense of their actions: They
> claim that anyone who finds fault with them, or their actions, is anti-
> Semitic. The most caring people are the ones likely to back off upon
> hearing such a charge. Appropriately, others should be as just and as
> harsh as necessary to be sure Jews behave civilly. But they often
> don't. They believe they have rights which others aren't entitled to...
> because of all of the travail in their long history.
Osmosis?
Again - I know what these words mean. Try again.
>
> (17.) I know that at least four years of most "college graduates"
> lives have been wasted in an education process, grade one to finish.
> Universities care more about the ant-farm like processes than about
> pragmatism. And they care about fielding winning ball teams, and such
> necessitates having four years of... development.
A strong opinion for someone who has no university level education
experience.
>
> (18.) As I am recommending, most textbooks should be cut to 40% of
> their size. Of course, there is that "ego factor" of passing a course
> with a thick textbook. But we need more people knowledgeable of the
> basics, than we need those who have dabbled in the unneeded.
Oh, so you arbitrarily decided tossing 60% of a book's content is a
good idea regardless of its' content?
How generous of you. Feel free to start your own publishing company -
since your books will be 60% smaller, you can undercut all the other
publishers and make bank. Unless your missing something, like a clue.
>
> (19.) "Without change there can be no progress." Too often the
> second and later editions of texts don't weed out what was there that
> was in error. In fact, except for grammatical, or small mathematical
> errors, publishers won't change their texts. To do so would be to
> say: "Hey! Look at us! What we published last year was wrong!" The
> false pride of perfection... is killing education, and it is helping to
> kill the USA.
What was the last physics textbook with multiple editions that you
studied which qualifies for all this whining?
>
> (20.) In this modern age of digital printing, an "edition" could be
> changed in a single book, on a single minute of a single day. You are
> no expert on printing, but you bluff well.
So when a professor assigns the homework on page <whatever> and the
homework on multiple pages because the book has no version control,
what then? The system is the way it is now for a reason. It doesn't
matter whether you agree with the reason or not because you are not
and never will be in a position to change things.
>
> (21.) The "key word" here is ...biased... universities. Thanks for
> agreeing!
Like I said, it doesn't matter what I say.
>
> (22.) How many courses in architecture (real world physics) have you
> tried to take?
Architecture is not "real world physics".
>
> (23.) My disproving of... "the simple" as you say, is most damning.
> Aren't scientists supposed to know simple things, too?
Yes, and you haven't disproved anything. All you have done is setup an
asinine strawman representing what you /think/ is modern physics. You
beat on it real well, but nobody really cares.
>
> (24.) It is I who am laughing at the spineless jelly fish in our
> universities (22 universities and counting) who don't consider that
> Einstein's being disproved justifies having such fact communicated to
> students! You have allowed yourself to be snowed by all of the pomp
> and circumstance, and the wasteful rituals of book learning. See how
> much any of it means to you in a year or so. Oh, you've keep boasting
> how much you... "know", but that will only impress the gullible. The
> value of a life is in the productivity of its labors. Where is the
> productivity in teaching that which will be quickly forgotten?
Since you have no experience with physics or where physics is used, I
don't see the point in explaining why you are wrong except to say that
you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> (25.) Eric lies if it suits him. That's a flaw in his now
> questionable character.
Lying is a skill like any other. One must practice to keep it in top
form.
>
> (26.) That is 60% of ALL textbooks. Physics is just the tip of the
> iceberg!
What was the last textbook whose exercises you worked?
>
> (27.) For starters, I was always someone who liked to think for
> myself. Your desire to understand my motives suggests you don't know
> about a thing called: principle.
Are you seven years old? No.
Did you not know that physics existed until seven years ago? No.
It's hard to claim principle when you just decided one day that
PHYSICS MUST CHANGE.
> Fighting for principles is something
> one does because it is right, not because of any anger over a breakup,
Thinking it is right doesn't make it right.
> knock on the head, or mental illness. You on the other hand have a
> desire to surpass that is motivated by your inferiority complex, being
> compensated by projecting an image of superiority. Because I'm
> threatening your fragile ego, you, and others see arguing me down as
> your calling. Well, my truths are their own best defense. I reply to
> you, mainly, because there are naïve readers of the newsgroups who
> judge "truths" by a contest of verbal belligerence. Have you won any
> such contests with me fellow?
I wasn't aware this was a contest. What can I win?
>
> (28.) Abraham Lincoln was considered to be an educated man. In large
> measure he was self taught. The best observers of nature are those
> not biased by the errant explanations of others. Much of my views on
> education come from having had relatives employed by universities. I
Oh. So you don't have any /actual/ experience in university. You're
just basing all your rants off of what your relatives tell you.
> commuted to college with a professor who often talked about the highly
> politicized cultures where he worked. And, I am a keen observer of
> human nature. I put up with education, because that was what I was
> expected to prove that I could do. Conservatively, four years of my
> journey from grade one could have been weeded out. The productivity
> of the USA would improve greatly if "smart people" graduate college at
> age 18.
It'd help if you knew what higher education actually taught.
>
> Schooling is mainly a system of babysitting while parents are
> working. And it is a public works program for employing teachers. My
> disproving Einstein has nothing to do with my disdain for the holier
> than thou cultures in education. All things will change, in their own
> time.
Sure, but not by any effort of yours.
>
> (29.) Eric, you are a coward. If you had been at the Alamo, you
> would not have crossed that line in the sand, nor fought for the
> right, till death. Rather, you would have disappeared over the wall;
> returned to your warm bed; and forever made fun of those who had
> enough conviction to fight for a just cause. You are a huge waste of
> a person.
You don't know me yet you seem rather sure of not only what I'd do,
but what I'd say afterwards. Interesting.
>
> (30.) Like the coward that you are, again you lie, rather than admit
> that I have disproved Einstein. Your flawed Jewish ego just won't let
> you admit that you have ever been less than perfect. You will go to
> your grave, being this boastful, but less than perfect, little man.
Is "Jewish" code for "atheist" ?
[....]
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Fessy
> __________
Dear NoEinsten Loser, why have you not jumped into a black hole yet?.
Please can you also ask the whole universe to vote on changing the
laws of physics so you move faster than light on you return journey.
If you do this I personally will never doubt you again and take
everything you say seriously.
But for now just say - I am not a charity spammer, just a mis-
understood Einsten lover and the GR ans SR are not a matter for
democratic voting right. Thank you.
hanson
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5514-47B...@storefull-3332.bay.webtv.net... for
some mysteriuos reason to Eric Gisse: "Ask Hitler." --- Bert
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha.... Hey, Hebie Herbie: ** HAPPY BIRTHDAY!**
you passionate Olde Kacker on Viagra! --- Congratulations
to you for you having completed your 80th circle on 02-09-08
on this here celestial merry-go-round/carousel. == Most of us
get a ticket upon arrival for less then 80 rounds , but your
Yahweh must have decided to let you suffer a bit longer for
the sins of your fathers... ahahaha... Hey, I didn't do it, Herbie
So, don't get mad at me....== Happy Birthday again, Herbie,
and give special hug to your sweet old yenta Ruthy .
hanson
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:sJ3tj.576$dh.133@trnddc01...
Yah gotta be careful with the b-day orbit shit.
If you use GR to calculate the time on Earth vs the time on the
Moon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
tf = 1,000 years
gravitational constant G = 6.673E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
Mass of Earth = 5.9736E+24 kg
r = 385000 km (distance to Moon)
c = 299792.458 km/sec
t0 = 994 years.
An observer on Earth measures the Moon making ~6 more
orbits around the Sun in a thousand years, as prophesied
by Einstein. You'd think someone would notice by now.
Of course my arithmetic might be wrong, maybe some relativist
can tell me just how far off in its orbit the Moon really is right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
"Background knowledge the reader may need to learn: What is a gravitational
field? What is time dilation? What is spacetime?" What is a fuckhead?
NoEinstein
>
The following letter was written as the result of my seeing "K. C."
Cole--a syndicated columnist who specializes in science--describing one
of her "science" books. The site for the TV broadcast was one of
those (likely) Jewish bookstores. At the time K. C. was working out
of the L. A. Times newspaper office. Such newspaper is (likely)
managed by Jews. And it is (likely) that "K. C." Cole herself is a
Jew. Those 'likelihoods' wouldn't matter in the least if K. C.
retained her objectivity in science. She has made tons of money
explaining science to others. If glaring mistakes are pointed out to
her, and she ignores "the messenger", then she is committing criminal
fraud to continue to promote her books as truthful explanations of
Nature. And to the extent that they know, the Jewish publishers of
her various books are, similarly, committing criminal fraud.
There are also issues of my First Amendment rights having been
violated. If K. C. knowingly suppresses my new truths in science to
favor her being able to continue to profit from falsehoods, she is
violating my First Amendment rights. To wit: Screaming "fire" in a
crowded theater, when there is no fire, isn't protected free speech.
Nor does K. C. Cole have free speech rights to write falsehoods about
"space-time", when such denigrates my new science truths--and to the
detriment of the citizens of the whole world. My free speech rights
are guaranteed by the US Constitution. To violate such rights, for
selfish monetary gain, and for the monetary gain of those she is
biased towards, are crimes--not mere 'civil' offenses. K. C. Cole, et
al, are subverting the US Constitution, and should be prosecuted to
the fullest extent of the law. The friendly, yet edifying, nature of
my long letter are most telling of Ms. Cole's duplicity, in light of
her nil response.
-- NoEinstein --
__________
1/12/07
Dear K. C.,
I am an architect by profession. The range of my interests has always
been huge. I considered majoring in physics. But I'm glad that I
didn't, because a lot of what has been, or is being taught by the PhDs
of physics is wrong.
There are those who recreationally read about physics, and some, like
you, who also write about physics. I fit another category--I am a
lifelong deep thinker on science. To think clearly and objectively,
one must assume that what has been explained and re explained may not
always be true. As a rule: "The more times that something
necessitates being explained, the less likely it is that the
explanations being given are correct." You can quote me on that!
I enjoyed seeing you on a recent TV show that was recorded a few years
ago. You discussed (I paraphrase) "How to Talk with Authority on
Uncertainty." I talk fluently because my parents never made a
grammatical error in speaking. But my clearest communication is
through writing. Since it takes two to communicate, I am pleased by
the prospect of having you read the things I will be telling you, and
perhaps even understanding them!
In your work you've had to interface with editors. You've said that
editors like to "understand" things. You've also said that editors
like to think they know everything, and get defensive when they are
tested to the limits of their incompetence (paraphrase). Science is
much too broad a subject area for any one person (especially editors)
to grasp fully. Even those with PhDs are taken aback when their own
pigeon holes of expertise are proved to be inadequately small. Years
ago I saw a cartoon depicting the notorious career of Picasso. It
showed four stages. The first was a detailed modern painting with a
small autograph. But as his career progressed, the name Picasso
became so important, that people would RAVE, seeing just a few
squiggly lines, but with the very big name: Picasso! Science is like
that, too. Rather than having to appreciate the "Big" picture, too
many times people are content just to look at the name of the author,
or at the academic hash marks after the name, to decide the merits of
what is written.
Most who hear the name Einstein are in awe. Anyone claiming to
understand that man is thereby elevating himself or herself to a
higher intellectual plane. But I KNOW that they profess foolishly--
like an off-tuned drum, tainting the symphony of the Universe.
Say: "Einstein" and many will think E = mc^2. That 'c' is a velocity
squared. Einstein believed that energy and mass are interchangeable.
Apply energy to something, and he believed that the mass increased.
Increase, say, the kinetic energy of an object, via increasing the
velocity, and he believed that the mass increased. After all, hasn't
Einstein taught: "There isn't enough energy in all of the Universe to
cause any mass to reach the velocity of light, 'c'?" (sic) By that
one proclamation, Einstein has ruled out travel to Earth by extra-
terrestrials, and he has ruled out man's chances of ever colonizing
planets around any other star than the Sun...
Those with a mathematical bent will realize that Einstein's equation,
above, has energy increasing parabolically for a unit mass, one.
Indeed, plots of parabolas will show the squared values approaching
infinity, rapidly. But what if it can be PROVED that the E or the KE
of accelerating objects DOESN'T increase parabolically?
Why did Einstein make his 'c' (or the approaching velocity values)
squared? Nearly two hundred years ago a man named Coriolis wrote an
equation: KE = 1/2 mv^2. It seems that when lead shots were dropped
into soft clay, they penetrated four times further when dropped with
twice the velocity. And everyone "knows" that an increasing
penetration into soft clay is directly proportional to the kinetic
energy (sic).
More than a century earlier, Sir Isaac Newton wrote the "Universal"
Law of Gravitation that has the force of gravity varying inversely as
the square of the distance between the centers of mass. It would seem
that explaining things by writing equations that had anything
"squared" tended to elevate the writer(s) to... greatness. Supposedly,
Coriolis's KE equation will predict the impacting forces into clay, or
etc. He, and the generations of scientists since, have been
attributing those penetrations (or deflections, strains or
destruction) ENTIRELY to the velocity. But what if those penetration
distances are caused as much by the changing resistances of the clay,
or other object being suddenly impacted, as by any increase in the
velocity itself?
In the age before rocket ships, investigations of impacting forces
involved dropping things. And the kinetic energy of dropped objects
comes from the action of gravity on the objects. Coriolis's equation
is semi-parabolic. A falling object will exhibit a greater amount of
KE gain during second 3 than during the preceding second 2. In fact,
the KE gain all the way to infinity has the KE gain being greater each
and every second than the previous second.
Einstein apparently believed that the only way to "try" to reach
velocity 'c' would be to accelerate (true). But Einstein mistakenly
thought that acceleration required the energy needed each second to be
increased parabolically. He believed that the energy required would
quickly approach infinity (sic). Einstein's E = mc^2 has the velocity
squared so that the value is exactly proportional to the total
distance traveled at any point. "Everyone knows" that falling objects
keep falling greater distances each successive second.
A heretofore unknown scientist named NoEinstein knows that KE comes
from somewhere. It is IMPARTED either by gravity or by a rocket
propulsion or other forces. But can gravity pick out faster falling
objects from the slower ones (those falling for less time) and always
keep applying more and more energy to the fastest objects? No way!
Gravity is applying a uniform downward force that is equal to the
object's static weight for all near Earth drops of objects!
The Law of the Conservation of Energy disproves Coriolis and thus
disproves Einstein. Both mathematically and experimentally I have
proved that the KE of dropped objects accrues LINEARLY, rather than
parabolically. I have written more than a dozen technical papers to
explain everything. By my deeds, Einstein's explanation of gravity as
being "warped time and space" is shot down. But you may be thinking:
Didn't Einstein successfully predict in 1919 that a star would emerge
from behind the eclipsed Sun so many seconds earlier, because of the
"gravity lens" caused by the Sun's high gravity? Yes, but what few
knew was that Einstein had learned of a similar effect when the
satellites of Jupiter emerge. Einstein extrapolated the Jupiter
observations for the extra massiveness of the Sun and he lucked up.
That solar eclipse catapulted Einstein into undeserved greatness...
Haven't muons been observed to have their "half lives" extended due to
their very high velocity--as Einstein predicts? No. The reason is:
Speeding objects will impact the omnipresent ether (that energy
"stuff" supposedly proved not to exist by the 1887 Michelson-Morley
interferometer experiment). Objects, such as atomic clocks orbiting
the Earth will be slowed by these same ether effects, NOT because of
Einstein's "warped time and space."
Alright then... explain why the elliptical orbit of the planet Mercury
gradually rotates its long axis counterclockwise (as viewed from the
Sun's north pole). Once again, the ether causes it! The ether
density near the Sun increases in a clockwise spiral around the Sun.
The whip effect of the moving ether distorts Mercury's orbit, NOT the
"warped time and space" that Einstein CONCOCTED to explain those
things that he wasn't qualified to explain!
The Michelson-Morley experiment was the greatest science screw-up of
all time! It purported to use interference to compare light traveling
in orthogonal directions. But to get those two light beams to a
common target, 45 degree mirrors were inserted. NOW the light isn't
just orthogonal, it is two tee shaped light courses that have an
identical number of reflections. Michelson-Morley erred in not
realizing that induced velocity changes in the light by ether, if such
occurred, would manifest themselves at the instant of emission of the
light or at the reflections of the light. The NoEinstein X-Y-Z
interferometer gets around this problem by rotating my device about
one axis of a light course that has no 45 degree mirrors. By doing
such, that down and back light course (with just one reflection from a
perpendicular beam splitter) can serve as a CONTROL so that the
speeding up (or slowing down) light course, that DOES reflect from a
45 degree mirror, can interfere with the control beam at the target.
The NoEinstein X-Y-Z interferometer proves the existence of the ether,
and it proves that the velocity of light isn't constant!
Ms. Cole... IF you are still reading, imagine that you are me having
just disproved Einstein. The don't-like-to-be-shown-to-be-mentally-
challenged editorial and academic elite would rather bury-their-heads-
in-the-sand, than to admit that the entire intellectual hierarchy of
the science establishment has just gotten their symbolic apple cart
over-turned! Amazingly, writers like you get a good bit of leeway in
covering what is the "truth" of science. You, and editors, because of
your knowledge or your non knowledge get to act as the clearing houses
of scientific truth. Woe is he (or me) who can point out the EGG on
the faces of the science establishment!
At this moment I am planning to disseminate my articles over the
Internet. But I need just a modicum of help from the science media.
I will be most grateful to you for any suggestions about how best to
P. R. these MAJOR developments. For now, this is your "scoop". I can
mail you any specific supporting information that you might require.
K. C., thank you for your time and thoughts in reading this.
Very truly yours,
-- NoEinstein -- Independent Researcher (actual name used here and
above)
__________
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
> __________
NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric: My long reply to you yesterday must have fed your ego. I
won't make that same contribution today. -- NoEinstein --
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
> Ask Hitler Bert
Dear Bert: There is a huge difference between trying to correct the
bias of Jews for other Jews, and hating them so much that one thinks
like Hitler. 90% or more of the world's problems are group identity
related. Wars are never the correct solution. Trying to get the
biased ones to start loving others as they love themselves, could be.
-- NoEinstein --
junoexpress
> love Jews as people, not as a group with biases that hurt others. If
> any group is hurting other people or groups, don't you think those
> issues should be pointed out? The world isn't filled with perfect
> people. If the world can be made to be more perfect, even if some
> groups must take it on the chin at first, everyone should benefit.
> Please try to think positive, and I will. -- NoEinstein --
>
have seen that any rejections you received were in any way due to a
bias towards Jews. An equally (probably more likely ) explanation, as
you yourself mentioned at the start of your post, is most people's
refusal to believe that a non-expert in a highly technical field would
be able to find an acknowledged expert in his field, like Einstein, to
be wrong.
I think until you have some proof to the contrary, you're better off
not making accusations that have no basis in fact.
M
NoEinstein
the annual ratings published by 'U. S. News and World Report'.
Schools that rate high can see enrollment increases, along with the
money that those schools need to survive. States like North Carolina
use high ratings as lures for new industries. The rationale of NC
Governor Mike Easley is that more and more students should attend
college. As I've explained on my post: 'NC Governor Should Resign
Over Science', education is valid only if truths are being learned.
My having disproved Einstein's theories of relativity would seem to
qualify as a 'possibility' worthy of being verified. But none of six
NC universities have had the correct objectivity. More and more I am
coming to see that the corrupting influence in our universities is the
Jewish dominance in the publishing of science texts and reference
books. Delete Einstein, and the books get thinner; the unending
stream of "Einstein made easy" books will be taken off the shelves;
and the trust of the public in the "quality of the texts" will be shot
all to hell. Those things weren't my objectives, but they are the
likely effects.
Take for example, my recommendation that all of the dead wood in texts
be eliminated, and that the new size of texts be no more than 40% as
thick. And consider what will happen if the citizens wake up to that
mass-minded idea that "average" students should attend college so that
they can get higher paying jobs. College enrollment should be cut in
half, and our nation's productivity will skyrocket!
In the above scenarios, the sellers of textbooks will see their
incomes drop by 80%. Do as I recommend and reduce public education to
age 16 only, and the income from selling textbooks will keep
dropping. In a short time period there will be no need for hugely
expensive new schools to be built. The upside? The high taxes being
paid by the public can be lowered! And those laid off teachers can
start contributing to the gross national product rather than
detracting from it.
The present post has explain how TIME magazine doesn't consider
Einstein's being disproved as newsworthy. So, I shifted my attention
to 'U. S. News and World Report'. The following letter to Mort
Zuckerman was written before I knew that he is a Jew. In a most
constructive way, I urged that that magazine publish my Letter to the
Editor, wherein, I recommend that a new criteria be added to next
year's methods of evaluating our colleges and universities. The first
such letter wasn't published...
But recently, I have learned that a U. S. News BLOG site, moderated my
Robert Morse, might be a way to get out my recommendations for
improving the ratings methods. My "comment" was passed. However, my
subsequent follow-up comment that pointed more blame at U. S. News
wasn't printed. Be it known: Jews won't allow ANY negative things to
be printed about anyone or anything Jewish. The implications of that
are most damning...
I urge readers of this to reply--pro or con. My odyssey to get my
Einstein disproofs acknowledged has expanded to: Trying to correct
those institutions that are threatening the very existence of the
USA. If you love America, please let your voices be heard! --
NoEinstein --
__________
10/12/07
Mr. Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief
U. S. News & World Report, Inc.
450 W. 33rd Street; 11th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Dear Mr. Zuckerman:
Not a day goes by that I don't learn something! The notion that
newspapers have reporters sitting around with a yellow pencil over one
ear, just waiting to pounce-on the next likely news story, is total
fiction. The threshold of "what is news"--from any medium's perspective
--is so high as to be downright snooty. The media HATES new news,
because that means someone has to do some actual work...
The most important news story "idea" ever to cross your desk
hasn't reached the threshold of being worthy to assign a writer or
reporter, and to actually pay the cost of a few phone calls. You,
like the majority of successful people, are perfectly comfortable
doing what you know best. You absolutely loath venturing outside of
your comfort bubble.
My job--as that nobody-you-know fellow who has disproved
Einstein's theories of relativity--is to get ordinary people to be able
to realize that their cognitive level is high enough to counter the
false, intellectual elite-hood of even PhDs in physics. Imagine how
daunting a task it is for me to try to edify 'the President of the
United States' about the failings of Einstein, so that the President
will at least veto the appropriations bill containing funding for the
National Science Foundation. Equally daunting is my task to get YOU
to realize that the top news story of the last 100 years (if I say: "...
of the century, is that just seven years?") has just been laid-in-your-
lap. TIME has been kept "current" on all of my doings. But you know
that TIME isn't a 'news magazine', it's a news elucidation magazine.
Is US News & World Report a news magazine? Or is it just a: "We
report what we are comfortable with and feel like reporting."
magazine? If that shoe fits, wear it, Mr. Zuckerman...
The enclosed files should enable you to say: "Hey, I understand
that acceleration is what pushes me back in my seat at the start of
airplane flights, or in fast cars. And I understand that COASTING in
a car means that the speed or velocity stays the same (on level
ground). I also understand that if I crash into something while
COASTING at a uniform speed, that I will HIT with the same amount of
destructive force whether I have COASTED 100 feet or 100 miles at that
same speed. So... COASTING, and the associated distance of travel while
COASTING, don't increase the kinetic energy, or the momentum--only
velocity INCREASES can do that!"
Einstein, and 100 years of his closed-minded, going-on-faith,
believers, have thought: "Falling objects will impact with a force
that is in direct proportion to how far an object falls." (sic) No
one, till yours truly, has realized that falling objects have a huge
COASTING component (!)--as is shown on the left side of the enclosed
page of graphs. If one deducts the effective COASTING distances each
second, then, the velocity increases exactly 32.174 feet per second,
or an additional fall distance of 16.087 feet each and every second--
all the way to infinity! The well-known 1830 equation of Coriolis, KE
= 1/2mv2--on which Einstein based his E = mc2--is exponential, i.e., the
kinetic energy increases more in any second than was the increase in
the previous second. My showing that the velocity of falling objects
increases uniformly, or linearly, rather than exponentially, disproves
Einstein's theories--Q. E. D.!
If, after you have convinced yourself that Einstein is wrong, and
that you understand such fact, please start the wheels-in-motion to
break this little news "idea" of mine to your readers. Such a 'cover
story' should put smiles on many faces, other than physicists--whom I
have demoted to dunce status... and with great personal satisfaction!
Very truly yours,
-- NoEinstein -- (actual name was used)
__________
12/01/07
[Proposed Letter to the Editor]
As U. S. News & World Report collects data for next year's issue
proclaiming America's best colleges and universities, state leaders
and Chambers of Commerce are busy trying to put the best spin of why
new businesses or industries should select their particular state into
which to expand or relocate. Getting one or more of a state's
colleges or universities to place high on the list can be a lever for
growth, and new jobs. So, the economic effects of this magazine's
rankings can be huge.
Sadly, quality of education is only inferred by statistics based on
such things as class sizes and expenditures per student. In
actuality, quality relates more to the excellence of the texts and
reference materials, and to how open-minded the teachers are to new
developments. But because "new developments" usually mean that what
got taught "yesterday" was at least partially wrong, teachers are most
reluctant to acknowledge new things--any new things. Yet the public
trusts that education is current and truthful...
To begin to correct the embarrassing resentment of new developments by
our nation's colleges and universities, I recommend that another
category of evaluation be included next year: Excellence in Revising
Texts and Teaching. Any school doing the latter, well, should feel
pride, not embarrassment. "For without change, there can be no
progress!" -- NoEinstein --
__________
12/12/07
Dear Mr. Zuckerman:
I am a "Do it now!" person. You, and the culture at 'U. S. News &
World Report', are more... wait and see. Until me, no one has told you
that your 'rankings of colleges and universities' is actually hurting
the quality of education in this country! Why? Because you make
judgments based on statistics that only 'might' indicate quality.
Enclosed, below is a proposed Letter to the Editor that, if published,
and if carried through by your magazine, would have the effect of
beginning to correct your magazine's negative effects on our schools.
But if you are unwilling to take-to-heart my deeply-thought-through
constructive criticisms of the processes being used by your magazine
to make school rankings, then, you and U. S. News & World Report
should be held accountable for your, to date, none action to correct
those most serious problems.
You may think that you are above reproach, and are thus unassailable
for any wrong that you do. But think again! Via the NET, my Einstein
disproofs are becoming "the buzz" all over the USA, and likely the
World. Search: "NoEinstein", my computer name, and see what I mean.
Beginning today, I am shifting my emphasis away from "explaining" that
moron Einstein's failings, and beginning to talk about the failing
grades of our universities. I came to such a realization due to the
total and complete unwillingness of any of the fourteen major
universities I have contacted this year to care that: EINSTEIN'S
THEORIES OF RELATIVITY DISPROVED! If universities don't care to
correct something of 'that' importance, that they purport to teach,
then such fact is symptomatic of a huge, and more general problem in
the cultures of universities. Most notably: Their failure to revise
texts and teaching in any area. The reason? Revising something
detracts from the phony sense of "perfection" with which our
universities dupe our trusting governments and media. But education,
collectively, is just a selfish and misguided powerhouse that wastes
trillions in dollars every year! And it wastes years of the lives of
those trusting students who are being forced through the education
MILLS in this country. But the students keep coming--often with the
mistaken belief that they will emerge better qualified for... anything...
If you would rather not have your magazine denigrated for wrongly
rating things--education in particular--I urge you to publish my Letter
to the Editor, below. Please notify me, soon, that such will be done,
and that my simple, constructive suggestion will be followed.
Very truly yours,
-- NoEinstein -- (actual name was used)
__________
[Was emailed: 12/01/07]
[Proposed Letter to the Editor]
As U. S. News & World Report collects data for next year's issue
proclaiming America's best colleges and universities, state leaders
and Chambers of Commerce are busy trying to put the best spin of why
new businesses or industries should select their particular state into
which to expand or relocate. Getting one or more of a state's
colleges or universities to place high on the list can be a lever for
growth, and new jobs. So, the economic effects of this magazine's
rankings can be huge.
Sadly, quality of education is only inferred by statistics based on
such things as class sizes and expenditures per student. In
actuality, quality relates more to the excellence of the texts and
reference materials, and to how open-minded the teachers are to new
developments. But because "new developments" usually mean that what
got taught "yesterday" was at least partially wrong, teachers are most
reluctant to acknowledge new things--any new things. Yet the public
trusts that education is current and truthful...
To begin to correct the embarrassing resentment of new developments by
our nation's colleges and universities, I recommend that another
category of evaluation be included next year: Excellence in Revising
Texts and Teaching. Any school doing the latter, well, should feel
pride, not embarrassment. "For without change, there can be no
progress!" -- NoEinstein --
__________
01/01/08
[Proposed Letter to the Editor]
Last month U. S. News & World Report continued its trend of rating our
institutions of learning--by now ranking High Schools. Obviously, our
nation benefits by having the brightest and most motivated young
people become as well educated as they can be. But I have discovered
a most disturbing and widespread flaw in academic cultures--to wit: The
latter have become bastions of unrealized perfection, more bent on
protecting status quo ideas, than in serving the best interests of the
trusting students who are just entering the mills of higher education.
Naively, I suspect, your magazine continues to rank schools by using
statistical analysis that only "might" indicate excellence in
education. The missing factor that is more important than all of the
others combined is: The correctness and the quality of the texts and
reference books, and the willingness of teachers and school
administrators to see to it the what gets "taught" is as current as
possible. To accomplish such, teachers need to be willing students
themselves. But I have found that teachers get placed on pedestals as
these icons-of-knowledge who, unbeknownst to most, are generally
unwilling to revise what they teach...
I realized the above failures in education as the result of my trying
to get a number of universities to acknowledge, and get reference book
publishers to correct, a three hundred year flaw in the simple looking
definition of... the acceleration due to gravity, 'g'. The errant
definition: g = 32.2 feet per second^2. The correct definition: ...
32.174 feet per second EACH second. That not-so-subtle-looking
difference affects academia tremendously, because it is part of my
three-pronged disproof of Einstein's theories of relativity. When
universities aren't objective about something of such importance, then
it isn't hard to generalize that they aren't current on much of the
ever thickening texts and reference books...
Happily, I am outside of the hierarchy of those in the now teetering
Ivory Towers. But our governments still trust universities to be "the
final word" on what gets taught. People, like me, with important new
information, must go hat-in-hand to get confirmation from those in
academia--who haven't been insightful enough to realize, and to correct
misinformation that they have been teaching for decades, or perhaps
centuries.
So, when this magazine evaluates High Schools, largely based on the
percentage of students committed to going to college, I ask: To learn
what? By your annual rankings of universities, you are encouraging
those to continue to make-the-grade in your eyes. The public trusts
that your rankings are significant. But unless, and until, "a
willingness to revise texts and teaching" is part of your criteria,
your rankings do more harm than good. Very truly yours, -- NoEinstein
-- (actual name was used)
NoEinstein
Dear Mr. Zuckerman (President 'U. S. News and World Report'):
I enjoyed seeing you, yesterday, as a guest commentator on CNN
regarding the presidential contest. Now, the tragedy at Northern
Illinois University is dictating what the cover story for the next
issue of your magazine should be. But the presidential contest, and
the all too common outbursts of violence in this country, pale in
comparison to the "news story" that I began apprising you about last
year.
At NIU, innocent lives have been lost. But unless my story gets its
due coverage, the future of our beloved USA could well hang in the
balance. Just yesterday, I learned that you are a Jew. Unlike many,
I have always avoided pigeon-holing any person or group as 'bad', just
because of their association with a particular group or philosophy.
As a teen, I was privileged to have known the marvelous Jewish family
of Ross Fedder. Most of my everyday attire was purchased at
'Fedder's', a small clothing store in my hometown. That family had
the warmest attitude and manners in dealing with the general public.
Visiting their store was a joy--whether for exchanging pleasantries, or
to make a small purchase.
Recently, I have stepped up my efforts to get out my story regarding
my having disproved Einstein's theories of relativity. As you should
know from my earlier letters and emails, I did such quite easily back
in late 2001. That's when I found a fatal flaw in the 'design' of the
1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. Such experiment formed the basis
for that man's theories--or, rather, the explanation for the failed
results of that experiment did.
It wasn't until last summer when TIME ran a story regarding a new
biography on Einstein, that I realized that he was a Jew. Even then,
that 'bit of trivia' made no difference to me. It wasn't until last
fall when I read some comments on sci.physics saying that Jewish bias
tends to favor other Jews, that I began to see a possible explanation
for 'why' it has taken me so long to get my simple new science truths
acknowledged.
More important than my "headline" news story about disproving
Einstein, is my discovery that 'the cultures' in place in our
country's universities won't allow them to acknowledge even such an
important new science fact as mine is. This isn't just an
'understandable' incredulousness toward my surprising 'claim'. It is
an out-and-out lack of professionalism to... "shoot me down or uphold
me". I have used those exact words in the majority of my
communications with universities. Yet, none of the 22 universities I
have contacted during the last year, except for a brief 'token' reply
from Erskin Bowles, President of UNC, has acknowledged the receipt of
my many supporting files.
The 'killer' to those universities' image of objectivity is the
refusal of about half of them--that are within a day's driving distance--
to allow me to demonstrate my correctly designed X-Y-Z
interferometer. I have offered to do so at those universities, and at
their convenience. How much 'motivation' should it take to have one
or more university 'experts' witness, in a few minutes time, the
experiment that disproves Einstein's theories of relativity?
Failure to accept my offer, as above--especially by those five
universities and one college in North Carolina--is tantamount to
fraud. That's because colleges and universities have a 'fiduciary
responsibility' to teach only state-of-the-art truths. If new
information invalidates what had been the status quo of teaching, such
new information must, expeditiously, be incorporated into the teaching--
or those schools willfully violate the TRUST of the students, and
their parents, who pay the tuitions. And they defraud the taxpayers
who trust that universities are highly motivated, moral places worthy
of their support.
NC Governor Mike Easley believes that it's quite OK to defraud
anyone. In fact, he revels in the high ratings that 'U. S. News and
World Report' gives NC colleges and universities. He knows that those
ratings are a magnet for new industries and jobs for NC. As a result,
NC has one of the fastest rates of population increase in the USA.
Money is flowing into Mike Easley's state. Apparently, that fact
transcends a 'trivial thing' like... teaching only truths in schools.
Governor Easley's conscience doesn't hurt him too much, however. He
realizes that the 90% of NC newspapers which I have contacted--twice--
about Easley's crimes... aren't willing to hold their governor, and
their state government, accountable for defrauding NC's students;
parents; and taxpayers. The mass-minded media considers itself, first
and foremost, to be de facto Chambers of Commerce. And the goals of
those are to increase the profits and prosperity of their state--and
thus to increase the profits of the NC media... Criminality is just
fine, if the media can keep the crimes hushed-up from those students,
parents and taxpayers.
For about a year, TIME Magazine has been privy to my 'news' concerning
my disproving Einstein. Even after they knew about my story, they
chose to honor Dr. Lisa Randall, Physicist, as one of the most
influential 'scientists' in America. Einstein's theories are pivotal
to her "brane" concepts, but TIME doesn't care, because... Randall is a
Jew. And the consensus among Jews is: other Jews can do no wrong.
The three institutions that I have determined to be complete and total
failures in this country are: education; governments; and the media.
I'm confident that the first two are fixable, and in pretty short
order. But such 'fix' can only happen if the naïve and trusting
voting public can be made aware--and in the least politicized manner
possible--what the problems are, and how crucial it is that they be
fixed, quickly.
Right now, Jews are controlling the media. Such control is far
ranging, in large measure because of the hugely successful campaign to
"give Jews their space"; or not to dare offend any Jews. And much of
the success of that campaign is due to the horrific losses and
suffering by Jews caused by Adolph Hitler. But do past losses and
suffering justify... bring down the greatest country in the world? It
would 'seem' that such is justified. That conclusion can be reached
judging from how so many Jewish controlled news media are unwilling to
allow the public to learn about my science 'news'. Shouldn't the
public be allowed to learn that science and technology will likely
burgeon, and thus benefit the entire world--rich and poor, and
regardless of one's nationality or religious affiliation?
As you continue to write your excellent page at the back of 'U. S.
News and World Report', please consider that you, Mort Zuckerman,
could be that rare open-minded Jew who has for too long been lacking
in the media mix. You could be the much needed catalyst to correct
the three 'will-be-fatal' flaws that I've found in this Good Old US of
A.
The 'three problems' are now identified, as above. With your help,
Mr. Zuckerman, may workable solutions be forthcoming.
Very truly yours,
-- NoEinstein --
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
Michael Moroney
>Yah gotta be careful with the b-day orbit shit.
>If you use GR to calculate the time on Earth vs the time on the
>Moon:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
> tf = 1,000 years
> gravitational constant G = 6.673E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
> Mass of Earth = 5.9736E+24 kg
> r = 385000 km (distance to Moon)
> c = 299792.458 km/sec
> t0 = 994 years.
>Of course my arithmetic might be wrong,
It is.
t0 = tf * sqrt(1-r0/r)
r0 = 2GM/c^2 = (2 * 6.673E-11 * 5.9736E+24)/(2.99792458E+8)^2 = 8.87E-3 m.
t0 = 1000 years * sqrt(1-(8.87E-3/3.85E+8)) = 1000 * sqrt(1-2.304E-11) =
1000 * sqrt(0.999999999977) = 1000 * 0.999999999988 = 999.999999988 years.
If I haven't screwed up and this calculator program has enough precision,
that works out to be about 364 milliseconds less than 1000 years.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:fp4rag$7dn$1...@pcls4.std.com...
See also
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f092070ef3a66e29
:-)
Dirk Vdm
Fessy
>
> read more »
>>>Beginning today, I am shifting my emphasis away from "explaining" that
>>>moron Einstein's failings, and ...
Ahhhhhh .... hip...hip.... hoary!.....hoary!.....hoary! At last some
serious physics at last.
Thank you very much NoEinstein......NoSpammingEinstein at last.
What a relief... this is a day to remember.
Thanks very much for your deligent SPAMS, I would like you to know has
not very been appretiated at all by anyone.
Bye Dude, good and enjoy your retiredment. Bye, we wil miss you. Bye.
Bye.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Fessy: It never ceases to amaze me how some individuals, such as
yourself, think they can speak for 'all' who read my various posts.
Actually, you "might" speak for those Einsteiniacs who see my new
science truths as an assault on their fraudulently acquired
intellectual elitehood. "Claim to understand Einstein" and those
shallow minded people who do, can hold most laymen in awe with their
"deep thinking". Such things have gone on for a century. So, you
aren't the first.
I must disappoint you if you think I am going away! When over six
hundred people a week are reading just my sci.physics post, and nearly
1,300 people per week are reading my replies on 35 different groups,
your "negativity" doesn't cause me much concern. My goal is to get
out my message of not only having disproved Einstein, but having
discovered fatal flaws in: Education; governments; and the media.
Unless the latter can be corrected, and soon, the USA will fall. But
if even one legitimate medium will stand up and be counted, other
media will follow. So, pressing that point home is more important
than Einstein!
Are you a Jew? If so, is that why you wish my Einstein assaults would
stop? Rather than talking in subjective generalities, why don't you
comment on the social or scientific issues needing correcting. Pick
any point in science and refute my position... if you can. Unless you
can do so, then your reply is just so much smoke and mirrors to
protect your fragile ego. I would like to hear from your objective
side, since I've already heard from your subjective. And I would
really like to hear from those 95% of people who read my posts and my
replies, but who don't take the time to leave a simple comment.
Understanding Einstein isn't a requirement. The flaws I've found in
the mentioned institutions should hit close to home to the majority of
"casual" readers of this. Please reply... everyone! -- NoEinstein --
Tom Potter
> On Feb 13, 3:22 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Uncle Al" <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:47B1ED51...@hate.spam.net...
>>
>> > NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>
>> > The Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2 than Auschwitz.
>>
>> Correction, most of the high level and critical military work
>> on the Manhattan Project was done in Chicago, Oak Ridge,
>> and Hanford, by people like Lawrence and Fermi,
>> and most of the top secret work on electronic systems
>> was done at MIT and Midwestern Universities.
>
>
> The other sites were doing less critical work, or work that couldn't
> be done at the site. Like creating Plutonium.
It is interesting to see that "Eric Gisse"
is ignorant of Manhattan Project,
and what work was done in "Manhattan", Chicago,
Hanford, Oak Ridge, New Mexico, Nevada, etc.
Considering that Gisse asserts that:
"The majority of the work was done in Nevada."
hopefully he will tell the readers just what "work"
"was done in Nevada."
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
Jeff▲Relf
“ Nature ( e.g. us humans ) is very good at locating exploitable energy;
but ( as it turns out ) nuclear energy wasn't very exploitable. ”.
The deeper you dig the hotter and denser it gets ( more exploitable );
so why isn't there an inner-space race to match the outer-space one ?