AN EINSTEIN DISPROOF FOR DUMMIES (is Copyrighted)
NoEinstein
Einstein. But he can be disproved on issues simple enough to be
understood by any sharp middle-school student. Indeed, finding the
most simple, and thus elegant, ways of supporting one's contentions
about physics should be an objective for more scientists. The
prevailing misconception: "Complexity trumps simplicity. And... Higher
education trumps reason, and the common sense of the common man."
A precept of Einstein that causes me to reel is: "There isn't enough
energy in the entire universe to cause even a speck of matter to
travel to velocity c." Special Relativity expresses Einstein's idea
of the energy progression associated with increasing velocity to c
as: E = mc^2 / Beta, where Beta is: (1-v^2/c^2)^½. The SOLE variable
in his SR equation is an object's velocity. If a middle school
student uses his or her calculator and substitutes velocity amounts
into that SR equation, the graph will plot like a waterfall curve-with
the maximum "Fall" occurring at velocities greater than 90% of c.
By studying the profile of the latter graph, it is obvious that
"Einstein's energy" increases faster and faster the closer the
velocity of an object gets to velocity c. And only because of such
super fast increases does he say that the universe doesn't contain
enough energy to allow any object to reach velocity c.
Einstein acknowledges basing his E = mc^2 on: KE = ½ mv^2 - the 1830
equation of Coriolis. Einstein believed that his total SR equation
represented the SCALER energy increase of an object-presumably being
manifested by increase in the actual mass of the object as such
increases in velocity toward c. And Einstein believed that Coriolis's
formula represented the VECTOR kinetic energy increase.
If a sharp middle school student plots a graph of Coriolis's KE
formula, the profile will be semi-parabolic. But it still indicates
an exponential rate of KE increase with respect to time. What that
means is: the rate of increase in KE in any second exceeds the
increase in the previous second.
Another similar curve (at least in profile) is Galileo's formula for
the fall distances of objects near the Earth: d = t^2. The unit of d
is the distance of fall in the first second of free drop; t is the
time in seconds. The curve is a pure parabola. Such should be
plotted turned down so as to correspond to increasing distances of
fall with respect to time.
Though the Coriolis curve and the Galileo curve are for different
quantities-KE and distance-they both increase exponentially with
respect to time; i.e., the quantities increase more in any second than
was the increase in the previous second. Because time and velocity
share the x-x axis, KE must increase with respect to time, too. So,
Coriolis says that his KE, also, increases with the distance of fall.
Let me repeat: Coriolis says: KE increases with the distance of fall.
(sic!)
Easily, I can prove that the kinetic energy in any falling object DOES
NOT INCREASE IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THE DISTANCE OF FALL! NOTE: A
"direct proportion" increase for distance would be a semi-parabolic
increase for KE. The ACTUAL kinetic energy increase obeys my formula:
KE = (a/g) m + (v / 32.174) m. The latter plots as a STRAIGHT LINE!
Such means that the kinetic energy increases LINEARLY!
To disprove Einstein-for all time-all that I, or anyone, must prove
is that KE does NOT accrue exponentially! The first question on my
recently posted "Pop Quiz for Science Buffs" was:
1. A 150 pound policeperson wishes to knock open a door by hitting
the door with his or her shoulder. Getting a running start from 10
feet away, the policeperson hits the door traveling 8 feet per
second. But the door doesn't bulge. A policeman suggests that the
150 pounder try again-this time taking a longer running start. The
policeperson moves away 100 feet, runs at the door and hits it
traveling 8 feet per second. In the second try the door was hit with
a force... A. Ten times greater. B. Exactly the same. C. I don't
know, I need to ask somebody (or IDKINTAS).
Several of you "advanced thinkers" have acknowledged that the correct
answer is B. When you agreed to such answer, did any of you smart
people realize that by so doing you, also, are upholding my disproof
of Einstein?
Here is the REASON that the correct answer to Question 1 is B: The
forces of impact of a unit mass are directly proportional to
velocity! So, if there is no velocity increase, then there is no
increased force! The classic definition of MOMENTUM (It's just a
FORCE delivery potential.) is: F = mv. NOTE: It doesn't say: F = md,
mass times distance.
Why don't impact forces increase in direct proportion to the distance
of fall? Because... The majority of the fall distances of any object
are the result of COASTING carryover from previous seconds! In one
second's time an object will fall 16.087 feet. Agreed? In second
number two it will fall 3d x 16.087 feet, or 48.261 feet (for 4d
accrued distance). Agreed? The distance covered in second number two
is EXACTLY 32.174 feet MORE than the total fall distance in the first
second.
So, deep thinkers, that 32.174 feet is exactly how far the object
COASTS, because the velocity at the end of the first second is 32.174
feet per second! The latter velocity is the essence of the definition
of the acceleration of gravity, g! If an object begins second number
two of fall at the latter velocity, and if "the force of gravity"
could somehow be cut off, then that object would COAST 32.174 feet
(excluding air friction of course).
Objects that are falling are both accelerating AND coasting at the
same time! Accelerations are: Uniform increases in velocity. And such
are LINEAR plots of velocity increase. Linear increases in velocity
have a corresponding KE value that is LINEAR, too!
The above proves that Coriolis's semi-parabolic rate for the KE
increase of falling objects is WRONG! Because Einstein based his SR
equation on Coriolis's equation, and because Einstein got his WRONG
idea from Coriolis: Masses accelerating to c increase in energy
exponentially. Then, by my disproving Coriolis, I simultaneously
disprove Einstein... the moron.
Please limit replies to the stated disproof, above, NOT to a
continuation of moot discussions between group members. Thanks! -
NoEinstein -
Don Stockbauer
NoEinstein wrote:
> Till now I have lumped together my shoot-the-man-down disproofs of
> Einstein. But he can be disproved on issues simple enough to be
> understood by any sharp middle-school student. Indeed, finding the
Let's all sing together:
"Green-eyed lady, lovely lady...."
Sam Wormley
> Till now I have lumped together my shoot-the-man-down disproofs of
> Einstein. But he can be disproved on issues simple enough to be
> understood by any sharp middle-school student.
I'll bet you forgot that there has never been an observation that
has contradicted a prediction of special relativity... or general
relativity... or QED.
Dono
[snip crap]
you have posted this idiocy before
va...@cox.net
Well you've mangaed to prove that you are a complete bonehead. Good
for you.
Milhouse
Hey "NoEinstein" - go download AOL's innernet
onto your printer floppy! 64k!
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1191536952....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
"Till now I have lumped muh brane"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Eric Gisse
[...]
Oh look, another anonymous idiot who thinks he can "fix" physics from
what he learned in high school.
JanPB
They are always anonymous.
--
Jan Bielawski
Koobee Wublee
> On Oct 4, 7:21 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Oh look, another anonymous idiot who thinks he can "fix" physics from
> > what he learned in high school.
>
> They are always anonymous.
Stop being so hypocritical if you cannot indulge your social security
number and credit card numbers.
Androcles
<va...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1191544692.4...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Well you've managed to prove that you are a flaming fuckhead. Bad for
everyone else.
Uncle Al
>
> Till now I have lumped together my shoot-the-man-down disproofs of
> Einstein. But he can be disproved on issues simple enough to be
> understood by any sharp middle-school student. Indeed, finding the
> most simple, and thus elegant, ways of supporting one's contentions
> about physics should be an objective for more scientists.
1) You are an idiot.
2) Empirical reality casts the only vote the matters.
3) No matter how stooopid and loud you are, the universe ignores
you (aside from passive evolution in action).
4) You are an empirical idiot.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
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 (weak field)
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-7/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf
16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance PSR J0737-3039A/B
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries (strong field)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
NoEinstein
And you have replied, equally so, before. You are a fruit-fly, not
the fruit. - NoEinstein -
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
And you have set yourself up to have "egg on your face" when this
makes the headlines. If you aren't a bonehead (It takes one to know
one.) why don't you plot the curves I suggest, and comment on that?
As things stand, you have zero to contribute, because you are just
plain lazy! - NoEinstein -
NoEinstein
Dear Eric: I have given you the advantage of the doubt concerning how
well-meaning you are as a future 'scientist'. Twice, I have invited
you to describe your Cavendish experiment problems so I can offer
constructive advice. But, apparently, you enjoy attacking those who
offer to help. You are spending far too much time in the groups and
not enough time on your studies.
Your enjoyment of the "put down" doesn't bode well for your
desirability as a future teacher, or as a researcher in industry. You
have an identity problem that should benefit from "couch time". Some
see a flower as a weed; others are uplifted by its perfume! -
NoEinstein -
NoEinstein
Dear Jan: The anonymous ones are the "Jim Smiths". I am the ONLY
NoEinstein! I chose such name because it is easy to remember, and
because it states my position: NO Einstein! You, on the other hand
are on the fence regarding your gender. If you have substantive
things to comment-on topic-by all means do! If not, take your shallow
spout-offs elsewhere. - NoEinstein -
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Androcles: You give as good as you get. Thanks! - NoEinstein -
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Till now I have lumped together my shoot-the-man-down disproofs of
> > Einstein. But he can be disproved on issues simple enough to be
> > understood by any sharp middle-school student. Indeed, finding the
> > most simple, and thus elegant, ways of supporting one's contentions
> > about physics should be an objective for more scientists.
>
> 1) You are an idiot.
> 2) Empirical reality casts the only vote the matters.
> 3) No matter how stooopid and loud you are, the universe ignores
> you (aside from passive evolution in action).
> 4) You are an empirical idiot.
>
> <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>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 (weak field)
>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-7/index.html>
> <http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf
> 16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance PSR J0737-3039A/B
> Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries (strong field)
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Dear Uncle Al: When the next chapter of the history of science is
written, it is YOU who will be calling me 'Uncle'. Not a single first-
day reply to my post showed the objectivity of a good scientist to be
open-minded and apply the Scientific Method. If what someone (me or
otherwise) says is confirmable, do so. If it isn't, describe your
points of disagreement. Get out your graph paper and plot a parabola
and a semi-parabola as I clearly instruct. You will be less likely to
cast aspersions if you talk less, and think more. - NoEinstein -
Androcles
You are wasting your time with that bigot, he can only see his own shit
and calls everybody else "Idiot".
The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg
"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.
Androcles
Only way to go with the stupid mob.
Jeery (a devout Einstein dingleberry) has produced an excellent model of
Sagnac which, the idiot claims, doesn't produce any fringe shift.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm
(takes a moment to load)
Here's the fringe shift:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/JerrySagnac.GIF
Uncle Al
1) You are an idiot.
2) Empirical reality casts the only vote the matters.
3) No matter how stooopid and loud you are, the universe ignores
you (aside from passive evolution in action).
4) You are an empirical idiot.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Uncle Al
Uncle Al
1) You are an idiot.
Eric Gisse
<noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Oct 4, 10:21 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 2:29 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Oh look, another anonymous idiot who thinks he can "fix" physics from
>> what he learned in high school.
>
>Dear Eric: I have given you the advantage of the doubt concerning how
>well-meaning you are as a future 'scientist'. Twice, I have invited
>you to describe your Cavendish experiment problems so I can offer
>constructive advice. But, apparently, you enjoy attacking those who
>offer to help. You are spending far too much time in the groups and
>not enough time on your studies.
I asked you to detail your qualifications in physics. Why waste my
time soliciting suggestions from the clueless if you have no
qualifications?
>
>Your enjoyment of the "put down" doesn't bode well for your
>desirability as a future teacher, or as a researcher in industry. You
>have an identity problem that should benefit from "couch time". Some
>see a flower as a weed; others are uplifted by its perfume! -
>NoEinstein -
I'm a poor teacher when I'm teaching an arrogant and stupid student.
My classmates can personally attest to this.
NoEinstein
wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:55:02 -0700, NoEinstein
>
Eric: Do the students a favor and find another profession. -
NoEinstein -
Eric Gisse
Oh look, "NoEinstein" once again refuses to discuss his qualifications
in physics.
Since this is the third or fourth time now, this suggests he has none.
hanson
his fec-Al message news:47067ECD...@hate.spam.net...
>>
NoEinstein wrote:
Till now I have lumped together my shoot-the-man-down disproofs of
Einstein. But he can be disproved on issues simple enough to be
understood by any sharp middle-school student. Indeed, finding the
most simple, and thus elegant, ways of supporting one's contentions
about physics should be an objective for more scientists.
>
1) You are an idiot.
2) Empirical reality casts the only vote the matters.
3) No matter how stooopid and loud you are, the universe ignores
you (aside from passive evolution in action).
4) You are an empirical idiot.
>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
:: the old "G" from NEWTON
>
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
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>
:: is vanishingly weak really.. a feeble school teacher fable,
:: actually. GPS works WITHOUT Rel, and never needed it,
:: not for its design, nor production nor operation... EXCEPT
:: as a sales-pitch to sell to sell you GPS gismos at inflated
:: prices]
>
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-7/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf
16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance PSR J0737-3039A/B
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries (strong field)
:: what you BELIEVE to have seen with/in ocular gismos.
> --
> rect-Al Uncle
>
[hanson]
.... ahahaha.... and so, the **pay-off** for all your recit-Al-s,
loudmouthing & cussing was NOT enough to even elevate
you ever into any management position & was just enough
for you to own now, at the age of ~ 60, a 1989 Volkswagen
Golf which you have to drive for another 11 years... so you
said... You are the classic-Al, rect-Al and fec-Al example
of ==== "Do as I say, not as I do and did" ==== ahahaha...
All youngster & students ought to take you as an example
of how not to be... But, thanks for the laughs, Schwartz...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
FoolFinder
wrote:
>On Oct 5, 10:58 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com>
This fool epitomises everything that's wrong with the modern education system.
Just about anyone can get into a science degree course simply by memorising a
lot of the good work done by real physicists in the past. As you know, Erica
Gisse has never contributed anything scientific to this NG and obviously
doesn't have the faintest idea what any of it means.
Androcles
"FoolFinder" <F@...> wrote in message
news:0vkqg3hdgqhvu0gvd...@4ax.com...
: On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:01:27 -0700, NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net>
Why would you bother with the idiot?
It's troll, all troll and nothing but the troll.
Nail it to the wall on a point, any point, and it'll
ask "Why should I give a shit?"
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Eric: What are your qualifications beyond "blow-hard" to become
a noteworthy professor? My qualifications are my critical thinking,
not my blind "textbooks-are-Bibles" religion that you spout-off about
as... the Gospel. - NoEinstein -
Eric Gisse
<noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...]
>Dear Eric: What are your qualifications beyond "blow-hard" to become
>a noteworthy professor? My qualifications are my critical thinking,
>not my blind "textbooks-are-Bibles" religion that you spout-off about
>as... the Gospel. - NoEinstein -
Yep - another arrogant idiot who dismisses everything written in every
textbook ever.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric: Your problem is: That you fear that I can solve your
Cavendish ocellations in a simple way that has so far elluded you.
Having someone else solve something that you can't is intollerable to
you. Loose some ego, and get some couch time. - NoEinstein -