Gravity Effects Across Etherless Regions of Space.

NoEinstein

unread,

Aug 26, 2010, 5:04:30 PM8/26/10

to

The frequently-expressed, but errant, concept that gravity is “waves
in the ether” requires that the ether be uniformly distributed across
the entire Universe. Logic shows that ether is ENERGY. Such energy
must have been used by Nature to build subatomic particles; all of the
resulting matter; and all of the stars and galaxies in the Universe.
Whenever ether is used to construct matter, vast amounts of the
“creation” ether get relocated to be within the energy-dense matter.
Those energy relocation processes are what accounts for the vast
‘Swiss Cheese’ voids which are observed between galaxies.

I discovered, and confirmed by logic, that photon exchange is the
mechanism causing massive bodies in free space to attract. No
“gravitons” need be exchanged. Photons ARE the gravitons! Numbers of
times in replying regarding our “expanding Universe”, I have stated
that the Universe could not possibly be expanding. Black Holes emit
no photons, and thus could not have any way to replenish the ether
flow that is gravity. So, by logic, since Black Holes have no
gravity, there can be no super-massive Black Holes. That‘s why there
is no possibility that gravity can grow strong enough to pull all of
the matter in the Universe into a “singularity”—like the one suggested
to have existed just prior to the Big Bang (which NEVER happened!).
Additionally, because the ether is DISCONTINUOUS over about 50% of the
total space in the Universe, there is no possibility of there being
gravity waves.

In order for gravity waves to be involved in gravitational attraction
over the entire Universe, those waves would have to have a means of
propagation. Suppose a big ocean wave hit the east coast of Florida.
After an appropriate time delay, an aptly-sized wave would need to be
created in the sandy beaches of Florida’s west coast that would
continue, in perfect phase, all across the Gulf of Mexico. That same
wave would then have to magically create a new wave on the west coast
of Mexico, and etc.

The compliment to photon exchange, that becomes gravity, is the
transport of “hobo ether” outward between the photons that are being
exchanged. That ether falls away pretty soon. There is next to zero
“hobo ether” between the photons from distant stars and galaxies.
Photons can freely travel across the Swiss Cheese voids. Photons
from, say, a galaxy on the opposite side of a Swiss Cheese void, would
still hit a galaxy on the opposite side. My “theory” of gravity
requires that photon exchange will instigate gravitational
attraction. Why doesn’t that always happen?

If there were only two galaxies in the Universe, and those were
separated by an etherless zone, gravitational attraction would occur.
That’s because the “loss of ether” which occurs during the normal
emission of photons, that incidentally, keeps the gravity ether
flowing, will be LESS on the facing sides of the galaxies than on the
opposed sides. So, the ether envelopes of both galaxies would have a
greater ether pressure on the opposed sides of the galaxies—forcing
them together, whether or not there is a an etherless zone between
them.

The simple reason all of the Universe doesn’t… “crunch” together, is
because of the averaging effects of the photon-induced tugs that keep
the forces balanced in most directions. That requires that any point
in the Universe be getting close to the same photon energy from all
directions. Obviously, galaxy clusters, without etherless zones
between them, will attract gravitationally. Everything depends on the
quantities of light coming from particular directions. If there is an
imbalance, there will be motion. Similarly, galaxies near the outer
meniscus of the Universe wouldn’t be getting photons from but one
side. So, outside galaxies will keep getting attracted back toward
the center.

One of the main stabilizing influences on gravity could well be the
“shading effects” of all of the intervening matter. Even in galaxy
clusters, the dust and stars in the paths of the light will nullify
much of the gravity potential. Since the forces of gravity are small
over great distances, it’s quite possible that the galaxies get
recycled long before the forces of gravity can draw in much matter.
And of course, when enough Black Holes get formed, those become
limiting factors on the amount of photons available for emission. For
those reasons, the gravity potential will, in most likelihood, remain
finite.

Respectfully submitted,

NoEinstein
AKA John A. Armistead
__________

NoEinstein

unread,

Aug 28, 2010, 12:37:52 AM8/28/10

to

I said in the last paragraph of this new post:

"One of the main stabilizing influences on gravity could well be the
“shading effects” of all of the intervening matter. Even in galaxy
clusters, the dust and stars in the paths of the light will nullify
much of the gravity potential. Since the forces of gravity are small
over great distances, it’s quite possible that the galaxies get
recycled long before the forces of gravity can draw in much matter.
And of course, when enough Black Holes get formed, those become
limiting factors on the amount of photons available for emission.
For
those reasons, the gravity potential will, in most likelihood, remain
finite."

I've realized that the shading effects of matter anywhere in the
Universe can be approximately quantified to be 50% or so of the total
emitted photons. That would mean that those masses which do intercept
light would be available for being attracted, IF there is a
directional imbalance in the quantity of photons received. In most
cases the photons received from the background of stars and galaxies
is more or less equal from all directions, because the universe is
essentially homogenous. However, any excess of light from one
direction, if received, will cause an attraction. But with only about
50% of most star light sources actually getting photons through space,
the "unbalanced" gravity from the total universe could be as low as a
fraction of a percent of the "all knowing" total-mass gravity
predictions using Newton's errant Law of Universal Gravitation.

By "all knowing", I mean this: Newton's gravity is mass
proportional. But how can distant stars and galaxies "know" the
masses in those places? Not by gravitons. Those could not possibly
exist, because subatomic particles can certainly be attracted. If
every tiny particle emitted its "one" graviton, such wouldn't
contribute to attracting another small particle unless, at a trillion
to one odds, the graviton actually hit another mass. After that one
emission, there would be zero chance the particle would eventually
coalesce into, say, a star.

Here is what happens with photons being the attractive mechanism: A
single subatomic particle at, say, absolute zero would not be capable
of being attracted until such got some infrared energy from a luminous
object. Once warmed, the spec of matter would emit some of the warmth
as infrared radiation which carries away "hobo ether" between the
emitted photons and allows the particle to keep being attracted so
long as there is light to keep the ether exchange going. Photons
allow having a continuous gravity potential, whereas, gravitons do
not. Even so, the likelihood of any gravitational attraction much
outside of the confines of galaxy clusters is very small, indeed. —
NoEinstein —

spudnik

unread,

Aug 28, 2010, 3:16:37 PM8/28/10

to

I doubt that you have any evidence that there are "etherless regions,"
insofar that there is no such a thing as "Pascal's Perfect Plenum,"
or absolute vacuum. (I mean, at least, Pascal discovered it,
experimentally .-)

your hobby is just words; zero mathematical physics.

thus:
nah, not a fascist; as you should be able to tell from the referent
to alchemy, he's just a member of the Second Church of England,
Sir Isaac's. "Look -- there's 'dxdy,' the little rectangle
in The Principles!..." er, dot-x dot-y?

thus: he is not in the spirit of Fermat's work, as far
as I can see (but, to me, that's to find his "elementary" and/
or miraculous proof, per the evidence .-)
Fermat's "last" theorem isn't
dimensionless *per se*, in the least, which is easily ascertainable
from his elementary constructions in numbertheory (see sig ...
I mean, gi'me a break; the dude *created* the science .-)

--les ducs d'Enron!
http://taprley.net

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html

bert

unread,

Aug 28, 2010, 9:15:01 PM8/28/10

to

If gravity worked like light,magnet we would have found a field,wave
or both. Nay not so,after 100s of millions of bucks spent. We know
inertia and gravity are the same. We know acceleration fits with
gravitation. We feel gravities force as it presses us against the
Earth. It kills us in many ways. It even slows time.,or does away with
it by a factor of 100% Yet where is its source? How does it do its
attraction over distance? Why is it that it can't be blocked? GR
Einstein gives space a concave curve for attraction Glazier space
curve is convex for repulsion. Einstein did not get the Nobel for GR
nor will I TreBert

NoEinstein

unread,

Aug 29, 2010, 1:07:52 AM8/29/10

to

On Aug 28, 3:16 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

Dear spudnik: Usually, you talk to yourself. But since you are the
first to reply to my New Post, thanks. You, and for that matter most
physicists, don't understand the power of clear logic. Einstein, the
MORON, said or plagiarized: "Mass is energy and energy is mass." He
even made a lame attempt to quantify the amount of energy in a 'unit'
of mass. He supposed that mystical light played a part, and light
speed, somehow, determined the energy concentration within matter.
Because Coriolis and Newton erred in their KE and 'g' equations,
respectively, Einstein wrongly assumed that his SR equation must go to
infinity at the actually finite velocity of 'c'. If Einstein had
understood basic math, he would have realized that the only indicator
of the energy INTO his equation was VELOCITY; and the only energy OUT
of his equation was just the total (big) E which becomes infinite at
the finite velocity of 'c'. But, mathematically, that can't happen,
because it VIOLATES the Law of the Conservation of Energy!

Since matter is just concentrated energy, then by logic, the building
block of all matter is energy. And, by logic, areas of high mass,
such as galaxies, must be where the most energy is; and the not too
far away Swiss Cheese voids must be where the ether to construct the
high mass came from. Clear? I don't have to PROVE every single
aspect of my New Science, because I waited decades of just observing
the information about the Universe before I started making the logical
assumptions which explain the entire formation processes of the
Universe! I am the first and only person to realize that GRAVITY is
dependent on temperature and on photon emissions, not the object's
mass.

Einstein, unlike me, didn't know that the force of gravity is mass
proportional because of flowing ether. The flow can continue as long
as there is "hobo ether" being transported back into space bythe
photons that are exchanged between the attracting bodies.

Tell me spudnik, other than your long and usually plagiarized jabber
about science, what have you, personally, ever contributed to
science? In over a year of having you reply to me, you've never
answered that question. — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Aug 29, 2010, 1:21:39 AM8/29/10

to

On Aug 28, 9:15 pm, bert <herbertglazie...@msn.com> wrote:
>
Dear Bert: A big part of the proof that gravity is proportional to
photon emissions can be seen in the star distribution data for the
center of the Andromeda galaxy. There is a narrow band near the
center which has no stars. That's where the close-to-destruction
stars flew out on their tangents when the giant star at the center
turned into a black hole. My "assumption" that ether flow is required
to have gravity got verified very fast! Since black holes emit no
light, then there can be no hobo ether being transported outward to
replenish the had-been gravity flow down.

Ether flow can physically slow time-measuring-devices, but TIME isn't
changed by anything that happens, or where! — NoEinstein —

> nor will I TreBert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

spudnik

unread,

Aug 30, 2010, 12:38:02 PM8/30/10

to

I'm not replying to you, to talk about me, dood.

why do you believe in "black holes," a product of GR?...
are you saying that your putative aether also cannot
escape the gravitation of a black hole?

oh, but you actually say that gravity is really "photons,"
as mediated by "aether," using two unneccesary concepts!

well, there, I actually agree, insofar following Alfven; y'know,
the only human to have a kind of EMism named,
after himself, "Alfven waves."

where did you get your overweaning pride, Neinstien?

thus:
like, when they launched the TOMS polar-orbiter,
and made the first pictures
of the (dawn-time) southern polar vortex,
viz the ozonosphere, and said,
"the sky is glowing!?"

> The sky is the limit.

thus: the hockey sticks were very useful in the "Pleistocene,"
for defense against wooly mammoths.
> temperature proxies — the National Research Council report recommends
> that “strip-bark” samples be avoided for temperature
> reconstructions[9] – but the same "hockey stick" graph is found in
> studies which do not use tree ring proxies.[6]

thus: per the original, what is the aspect ratio
of a trigon (or, for that matter, of a tire) ??
it seems that the movie-screen sort would just
be an extended ratio; with n entries?

--les ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com

PD

unread,

Aug 30, 2010, 1:09:46 PM8/30/10

to

On Aug 29, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 9:15 pm, bert <herbertglazie...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Bert: A big part of the proof that gravity is proportional to
> photon emissions can be seen in the star distribution data for the
> center of the Andromeda galaxy. There is a narrow band near the
> center which has no stars. That's where the close-to-destruction
> stars flew out on their tangents when the giant star at the center
> turned into a black hole.

Black holes can be derived from general relativity. *Derived from*
means *necessary consequence*, with the proof bearing mathematical
rigor.

Can black holes be derived from your flowing ether guess?

spudnik

unread,

Aug 30, 2010, 6:55:40 PM8/30/10

to

sorry, a technicality:
you saying that aout the Hobo Aether, and
do you mean by "hobo," what most Americans mean?

thus:
like, when they launched the TOMS polar-orbiter,
and made the first pictures
of the (dawn-time) southern polar vortex,

viz the ozonosphere, and said, "eegadzooks --

the sky is glowing!?"
> The sky is the limit.

thus: the hockey sticks were very useful in the "Pleistocene,"

for defense against wooly mammoths ... iff they had any,
after the prior interglaical..

> temperature proxies — the National Research Council report recommends
> that “strip-bark” samples be avoided for temperature
> reconstructions[9] – but the same "hockey stick" graph is found in
> studies which do not use tree ring proxies.[6]

--les ducs d'Enron!

NoEinstein

unread,

Aug 30, 2010, 10:45:04 PM8/30/10

to

On Aug 30, 12:38 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear spudnik: Almost daily, I clearly express what gravity is and the
role photon exchange plays in determining the magnitude of gravity. I
don't "believe" in black holes, I know they exist. But I'm also the
first person to realize that gravity shuts off when a large star goes
black. No photons out, means no ether flow in. Black holes do not
attract ether! Ether flows because of simple pressure differentials,
as for weather systems on Earth.

I've never said that gravity "is" photons. Photon exchange is the
mechanism for transporting "hobo ether" back into space while the
"gravity ether" flow, down, is taking place at the same time, but in
the opposite direction. I've likened that to shooting bullets
(photons) up into a snow storm that's coming down. The snow (ether)
is the cause of gravity. The bullets (photons) are the means for
transporting ether back into space so the ether flow "cycle" can
continue. — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Aug 30, 2010, 11:01:46 PM8/30/10

to

On Aug 30, 1:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear PD, the Dunce: On the one hand, you compliment me by asking a
question. Then, you insult me by claiming that my New Science is a
guess. You are obviously hung up on calculations. I've REASONED the
nature of the universe without having to make many calculations. The
logic is most powerful, because it can be understood without needing
equations. Most equations ever written start with a verbally
expressed theory. If I had been living in 1830, I could have pointed
out to Coriolis that his KE = 1/2mv^2 violates the Law of the
Conservation of Energy. The correct "existing equation" relating to
"energy" is the one for MOMENTUM: F (force in lbs.) = mv. That
equation necessitates that the mass be expressed in slugs, or as I
prefer, express the velocity as a multiple of the standard 'g'
velocity of 32.174 ft. per sec.

I was the first to realize that all objects at rest near the Earth are
being subjected to a downward force = their static weight. So, my
"revised" kinetic energy equation is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m).
Please note that KE will increase LINEARLY with respect to a LINEAR
increase in velocity. Neither Coriolis's KE equation, nor Einstein's
SR equation are LINEAR with a linear increase in velocity. So, both
of the latter are patently WRONG! — NE —

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

NoEinstein

unread,

Aug 30, 2010, 11:10:04 PM8/30/10

to

On Aug 30, 6:55 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear spudnik: A hobo is someone riding on a train without permission.
Hobos are extras being transported. Hobo ether is ether caught in the
rapid photon exchange by chance and shot into space. Most of that
ether falls away quickly, and thus keeps the ether pressure maximum
near to massive objects. That's not unlike the water cycle on Earth.
The water evaporates and is carried up, where it will condense and
fall down again. Many things in nature go in cycles. — NoEinstein —

PD

unread,

Aug 31, 2010, 5:40:36 AM8/31/10

to

On Aug 30, 10:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 1:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Dunce: On the one hand, you compliment me by asking a
> question.

Nonsense. A street corner fool gets attention. Don't confuse attention
with a compliment.

> Then, you insult me by claiming that my New Science is a
> guess. You are obviously hung up on calculations. I've REASONED the
> nature of the universe without having to make many calculations.

Then you aren't doing science. Sorry, but that's the case. No
calculations, no science.

What you are doing is a child's game called Pretend.

NoEinstein

unread,

Aug 31, 2010, 12:54:49 PM8/31/10

to

On Aug 31, 5:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If you have such low regard for my
contributions to science, why do you "bother" to fault me? You have
made ZERO contributions to science and ZERO '+new posts'. Detracting
from the successful is your only... "expertise". That's why you are a
PARASITE. You need the blood of others to survive. You are a mental
case PD. There is nothing positive about you. — NE —

spudnik

unread,

Aug 31, 2010, 1:10:33 PM8/31/10

to

not much of a dialog;
how do you "know that black holes exist," if
they are a product of interpretations of GR?

your ad hoc & handwavy explanations are really,
really like Descartes silly metaphors for refraction,
even though he was technically correct per Fermat, and
per Snell's prior write-up.

so, that's two things -- in addition to aether -- that
Einstien invented or "reified," that you need
for your so-called theory:
"photons" and the curvature around "black holes."

thus:
What would you expect the result of "Al-bombplane
plus Fe-superstructure" to be, than what it was?

isn't all of Nature, essentially, nanotech?

> http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11demolitionexplained.html
> http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in...

thus: what a boatload. as can be seen from the constructions
of the Greeks, somewhat obscured by the encyclopedist,
Euclid, there is nothing remotely dimensionless
about numbers. hpwever, the fact remains that
numbers as used for accounting & mensurement are inherently
and totally dimensionless -- so that you can use (or
abuse) what ever units are required in the wordproblemma;
then, expertise often drops the units in shorthand.
the rest of your stuff is indeed too vague, and
apparently New Agey, to bother with; I mean,
2012 is just the end of one calendric cycle;
so, What?
> http://www.earthmatrix.com/extract83.html
> http://www.earthmatrix.com/ancient/pi.htm
> see:http://cjc123.com/
> http://wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf

thus: interesting; what is Poincare's misequivocation
of Lorenz and Larmor?... as for Newton,
he stole that from Hooke, then burnt all
of his portraits -- "ahahaha,
on the shoulders of that clever little dwarf!" (viz,
Sir I., the plagiarist, Freemason, alchemist-
who-burnt-his-"Principles"-in-an-accident-and-
had-it-"reconstructed"-by-the-RS-with-the-dydx-rectangle
etc. ad vomitorium .-)

thus: wright-on; Euclid's proof is so simple, that
it takes a truly linguistically challenged individual
to dyss it; after all, all
of math problems are, really, wordproblemmas!

thus: Melder-Mead peters-out around 20 dimensions?
as for ordinary spatial finite elements,
you really need tetrahedronometry; eh?

thus: if you can configure polysignosis,
you will ipso facto have found the cure --
dood can type!
> enough to jot down here.

--les ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html

NoEinstein

unread,

Aug 31, 2010, 1:45:44 PM8/31/10

to

On Aug 31, 1:10 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear spudnik: Your "ploy" is to locate science discussions that are
drawing a lot of readers, and then to expound on your largely mixed-up
theories. Most of your copied and pasted garbage is SPAM, nothing
more.

The best proof that black holes exist is the narrow, starless band
next to the center of the Andromeda Galaxy. When the giant star at
the center turned into a Black Hole, the gravity shut off and the
closest-in stars flew out on their tangents (until stopped by the
collective gravity of the entire galaxy). That cold and very hard
black hole is slowly sublimating. Its main threat would be if there
was an accidental collision with a really large "wandering" star. The
possible explosion could be a galaxy buster. — NoEinstein —

> --les ducs d'Enron!http://tarpley.net
>

> --Light, A History!http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html

spudnik

unread,

Aug 31, 2010, 2:09:24 PM8/31/10

to

it is just my own quoting of myself;
just as you don't seem to get anyone else's explanations,
I at least acknowledge them.

your theory is really far-out, at least, if
a-mathematical & a physical.

thus:
oil is biomass, that comes out of the ground by itself,
under pressure, viz the Redondo Seep (off Los Angeles)
and "Organic Seeps of Oil in the Gulf of Mexioc,"
an old Sci.Am. article.

so, how much biomass does Earth produce per annum, and
where does it all, go?

every technology has its problems, and
the "renewable" ones problems will soon be known -- although
it wouldn't hurt to go to a U. in the Netherlands,
to learn the downsides of tilting with windmills, in advance!

thus: the Skeptics were a Delphic cult under the Roman Pantheon,
til Xianity became the state church a l'Angleterre (and
its Harry Potter PS#1, Oxford .-)
the court is of little scientific concern, although
Congress is under enormous creditor pressure to pass
the cap&trade "free-er trade" nostrum, in order
to vastly cut the amount of oil bought form abroad; so,
what happened with Waxman's original cap&trade,
'91's bill on NOX and SO2 per acid rain?
of course, there is a reason,
why the conspiracy to kill JFK, happened
to involve the patsy, working at the Texas Textbook Suppository!

thus: so, tell us, again, why oilcos are against cap&trade,
UNIPCC etc., please, Erwin. and, how's the funny cat?
> > "It's hard to see how the UN can both follow the advice of this committee
> > and keep Rajendra Pachauri on board as head," said Roger Pielke Jr., a
> > professor at the University of Colorado.

thus: Bjorn's change-of-heart could have been predicted, since
he espoused his views in the Holy Economist guest editorial
-- the only thing that is ever signed by an author in it. so,
naturally, he is a proponent of bpTM's old KyotoTM cap&tradeTM,
and my Rep. Waxman's and my California Assemblywoman's
(now Senator) cap& trade variants, a.k.a. "free-er trade
on the free market -- free beer &or freedom!"
and, of course, one of Bjorn's telltales is that
cold generally leads to more deaths than heat,
per annum.

thus: so, What, if the results are "about the same as
if RH were constant, everywhere?"

thus: you're just saying that, and not providing the telltale,
that would show that fanatical muslims could not
also have done it. as I stated to Griffin at his thing
at the church in downtown L.A.,
the boxcutters were not illegal, and
they didn't have to take-off & land (and,
he removed these "conspiracies" from his next iteration
of his God-am book -- the Claremont prof. o'theology !-)
> Nobody else had those to remotely the
> same degree as Bush and Cheney.
> " there was a far more powerful and highly connected system of intelligence and financial

thus: how do you "know that black holes exist," if

they are a product of interpretations of GR?
your ad hoc & handwavy explanations are really,
really like Descartes silly metaphors for refraction,
even though he was technically correct per Fermat, and
per Snell's prior write-up.
so, that's two things -- in addition to aether -- that

Einstein invented or "reified," that you need

--les ducs d'Enron!

PD

unread,

Aug 31, 2010, 3:59:46 PM8/31/10

to

On Aug 31, 11:54 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 5:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If you have such low regard for my
> contributions to science, why do you "bother" to fault me?

You make a fundamental mistake.
You believe that if you were wrong, you'd be ignored.
You believe that if people bother to respond to you, then you must
have a point.

It does not occur to you that people react to clowns, drooling idiots,
and street whackos.

Do not confuse attention with a compliment.
Your sole purpose on this newsgroup is as a source of entertainment.

Androcles

unread,

Aug 31, 2010, 4:03:37 PM8/31/10

to

"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7933d067-d023-4f42...@q2g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 31, 11:54 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 5:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If you have such low regard for my
> contributions to science, why do you "bother" to fault me?

You make a fundamental mistake.
You believe that if you were wrong, you'd be ignored.
You believe that if people bother to respond to you, then you must
have a point.

It does not occur to you that people react to clowns, drooling idiots,
and street whackos.

===============================================
Well done, Phuckwit Duck. Now you know why I react to you.

spudnik

unread,

Sep 1, 2010, 1:32:55 PM9/1/10

to

just say, Duh, Andromorph!

> Now you know why I react to you.

thus:
there's nothing difficult about special rel.,
except for the useless formalism of Minkowski's spacetime
(phase space) ... well, also,
the useless concept of Newton's "theory" of the photon,
reified by Einstein and the Nobel Prize Cmte., but
already completely destroyed by Young,
withhis two-pinhole experiment (2PX .-)

thus: of course, the towers weren't destroyed by the impacts,
but that was not known, til after the fact. the "point"
that you don't recognize, is that there was "orders o'tude"
of energy in d planes, Boss, compared to that required
for a so-called controlled demolition.
it is really too bad, that the insurance cos. got rid
of the use of asbestos cladding of the main structural elements;
isn't it?
> The towers were demolished by explosives,
> not the impacts of the aircrafts.

thus: but what do *you*, monsieur Profile, think,
is the denotation of nanotech, that does not apply
to almost everything in Nature?
for instance, how much of these "nanothermiteTM,"
which could be similar to the stuff that SAIC etc. have owrked with,
are actually spent, and how much is not -- that is,
how much has not gone through the exothermic reaction
of Al + Fe = whatever?
> http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in...

thus: "nanothermiteTM" and "pelvic bones" are to be expected,
in a catastophic collapse of the "tensegrityTM"
of Earth's tallest structures, into a gigantic subway
that served the whole Center, with collateral/infrastructural damage
a la WTC7. y'know,
ol' custodian Rodriguez toured the planet, espousing
his interpretation of what he heard:
"explosions in the basement; seven seconds later,
de plane hit, Boss!"
the only really substantive conspiracy, yet proferred
by the Truthers, is that Trickier Dick Cheeny
(from Nixon admin.) apparently stopped the interceptors
from intercepting a God--am thing.

thus: I have mentioned the 2.5-page proof
in *Mathematics Magazine* of the isomorphism
between direct & indirect proof;
I want to see someone convert one of these theorems
to the other form.

thus: Bjorn's change-of-heart could've been predicted, since
1st espoused his views in a Holy Economist guest editorial

-- the only thing that is ever signed by an author in it. so,
naturally, he is a proponent of bpTM's old KyotoTM cap&tradeTM,
and my Rep. Waxman's and my California Assemblywoman's

(now Senator) cap&trade derivatives, a.k.a. "free-er trade

on the free market -- free beer &or freedom!"

and, of course, one of Bjorn's telltales is that
cold generally leads to more deaths than heat,
per annum.

thus: he stole that from Hooke, then burnt all

of his portraits -- "ahahaha,
on the shoulders of that clever little dwarf!" (viz,
Sir I., the plagiarist, Freemason, alchemist-
who-burnt-his-"Principles"-in-an-accident-and-
had-it-"reconstructed"-by-the-RS-with-the-dydx-rectangle
etc. ad vomitorium .-)

thus: Euclid's proof is so simple, that

it takes a truly linguistically challenged individual
to dyss it; after all, all
of math problems are, really, wordproblemmas!

thus: as for ordinary spatial finite elements,

you really need tetrahedronometry; eh?

--les ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net

NoEinstein

unread,

Sep 2, 2010, 9:56:33 PM9/2/10

to

On Aug 31, 3:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I can assure you that your attitudes
toward me in no way influence the level of my confidence in my New
Science. Every word I express shows the perfection of my theories and
my justification for being proud. — NE —

PD

unread,

Sep 3, 2010, 8:45:07 AM9/3/10

to

On Sep 2, 8:56 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 3:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I can assure you that your attitudes
> toward me in no way influence the level of my confidence in my New
> Science.

Of course not. Egomaniacs often suffer from delusions of
infallibility.
But that's why they're called *delusions* -- because the sufferers
can't be convinced that they are wrong, no matter how much reason is
applied.
It is an *irrational* but unshakable belief.
There's no way anyone is going to convince you that your New Science
is worthless, because you are not rational about that.

Androcles

unread,

Sep 3, 2010, 8:59:31 AM9/3/10

to

"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9716aa74-b80b-47b8...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 2, 8:56 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 3:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I can assure you that your attitudes
> toward me in no way influence the level of my confidence in my New
> Science.

Of course not. Egomaniacs often suffer from delusions of
infallibility.

=================================
That describes you to a tee, fallible uninteresting Duck.

spudnik

unread,

Sep 3, 2010, 3:15:14 PM9/3/10

to

** yours, Meistros!... ah, what a relief. so,
Neinstein, why are you so cock-sure
about your zero-level of math?

thus:
no; they simply *were* bombs, and everyone who has
seen the footage of the 2nd impact, sees that.

you claim that the manufacturer's mere claim,
that the buildings were able to withstand such bombs,
is an adequate warranty, but apparently
there was no such warranty & no pay-out from insurance, or
indemnity, or what ever.

where is there *any* such claim -- in the 9/11 Comm. Report, or
in the MIT Welder's report?

> That's no matter if the planes were rigged as bombs or not.
> http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm

thus:
anyway, the symmetry of the algebraic integers is the symmetry
of the complex plain, "key" to the Riemann H. etc.

thus:
what is the canonical digital representation of "ten" in base-one?

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarplet.net

NoEinstein

unread,

Sep 3, 2010, 4:39:34 PM9/3/10

to

On Sep 3, 8:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Dunce: Do you consider the following '+new posts' of mine to be
delusions? If so, then it is YOU who are being delusional! —
NoEinstein —

>

spudnik

unread,

Sep 4, 2010, 6:32:37 PM9/4/10

to

this, we know:
your own **** doesn't stink!

thus:
if these things are undisputed, why do you have
to hit that macro of litany, over & over?

the testimonies are of what people thought,
what they heard, sounded like, in a heretofore-
never-attained catastrophic collapse of a skyscraper,
not necessarily due to a trashfire.

don't you think that the massive unwelding of a welded building,
would be accompanied by "funny noises?" as well,
this might be a commonplace in "demos."

just like waht Custodian Rodrguez & colleagues thought,
they heard (bombs--7seconds--plane); well, we hear ya!

> Those on the scene reported multiple
> explosions throughout the buildings.
> http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html

thus:
yeah, but what causes the force -- isn't that the question?...
and don't say, the curvature of space, which is a)
probably a result of gravity, and b)
very well measured (as opposed to the "curvature
of spacetime," which is a bit of an absurdity).

> it makes gravity equivalent to what it is, a force.

--les ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net