Anti-relativist Alliance
MobyDikc
This is for the cranks and crackpots who reject relativity.
Is there anything like an anti-relativity alliance, so even if
anti-relativists disagree with their ideas, they can still collectively
agree that relativity is wrong?
Also, if you could please reply with a reference to your favorite
website or theory here, if there isn't already one, a list of
anti-relativity research can be created.
Sue...
Weber's field equations have relativity quite by accident.
Will there be a branch for intentional relavists and
accidental relavists.
The have separate prenatal classes for girls that get
pregnant by accident and girls that get pregnant on
purpose so I don't see why you can't make that minor
accomodation. I't could save you a big discrimination
lawsuit. :o)
Sue...
Henri Wilson
>Hey all,
>
>This is for the cranks and crackpots who reject relativity.
That is a contradiction of terms.
Anyone who rejects Einstein's nonsense is not a crackpot...apart from Seto and
Androcles of course...
>
>Is there anything like an anti-relativity alliance, so even if
>anti-relativists disagree with their ideas, they can still collectively
>agree that relativity is wrong?
Many anti-relativists are aetherists, which really makes them hypocrites and
relativists in disguise since SR is just an upgraded form of LET.
Others such as myself are true relativists who know that light speed is source
dependent.
>Also, if you could please reply with a reference to your favorite
>website or theory here, if there isn't already one, a list of
>anti-relativity research can be created.
My webpage has about ten programs showing why Einstein's relativity is wrong.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
The old Sorcerer
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137180603....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hey all,
>
> This is for the cranks and crackpots who reject relativity.
Is that Ken Seto and Gerald O'Barre, or sensible cranks?
> Is there anything like an anti-relativity alliance, so even if
> anti-relativists disagree with their ideas, they can still collectively
> agree that relativity is wrong?
Not that I know of, I've been looking for wizards and witches for
hogwarts.physics training but so far have only encountered muggles.
They all want to stand out from the crowd and have their own theory.
Courses include
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
> Also, if you could please reply with a reference to your favorite
> website or theory here, if there isn't already one, a list of
> anti-relativity research can be created.
If you'd like to sign up for membership I can arrange it, but I
need to know if you are a muggle or a zauberlehrling.
Hogwarts.physics officially opened on Google on 1/1/2006.
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
Eric Gisse
MobyDikc wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> This is for the cranks and crackpots who reject relativity.
>
> Is there anything like an anti-relativity alliance, so even if
> anti-relativists disagree with their ideas, they can still collectively
> agree that relativity is wrong?
Ahh yes, the "anti-relativists". The jokers and fuckups who are too
stupid to understand relativity, but have enough of an ego to claim a
century of physics is based on fraud.
>
> Also, if you could please reply with a reference to your favorite
> website or theory here, if there isn't already one, a list of
> anti-relativity research can be created.
Research where the outcome is already decided? There is another name
for that...
Bilge
>
>This is for the cranks and crackpots who reject relativity.
>
>Is there anything like an anti-relativity alliance, so even if
>anti-relativists disagree with their ideas, they can still collectively
>agree that relativity is wrong?
and yours fit like a glove.
dej4
is source
dependent. "
Really? have you heard of Ives and Stilwell?
big magician
MobyDikc wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> This is for the cranks and crackpots who reject relativity.
you are more dick than moby
dej4
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/npahome.html
They masquarade as "anti-dognma", a step up from:
http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/search.php?search_id=newposts
Warning: on the second website your "ideas" will get challenged by a a
lot of relativists that are waiting to kick some ass. Mostly students
that are sharpening their skills bur pretty formidable, so be prepared
to have your ass kicked big time :-)
dej4
"My webpage has about ten programs showing why Einstein's relativity is
wrong."
saw the page, have you considered consulting a psychiatrist? it may
help, even this late in your life
dej4
reviewed so anything goes. There are some good (very few) papers
though, so not everything is "antirelavistic" garbage:
If you are a student and you want to practice KAK ("Kook ASS Kicking"
), this is a good place, they have forums where you can pick apart the
shit.
Dirk Van de moortel
Here's a nice "list of anti-relativity research" [sic]:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
It also has a pointer to the National Psychopathy Alliance:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/Steps.htm
You will feel entirely at home there.
Enjoy!
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
"The old Sorcerer" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
news:RjUxf.2655$lL4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137180603....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Hey all,
> >
> > This is for the cranks and crackpots who reject relativity.
>
> Is that Ken Seto and Gerald O'Barre, or sensible cranks?
I don't reject relativity. I said relativity (SR) is incomplete. My theory
on relativity is called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). IRT includes SRT
as a subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments....including gravity. A description of IRT is in the following
link (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
kenseto
My theory on relativity is called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). IRT
clu...@yahoo.com
"ad-hoc", i.e. they are not derived , they are simply "written down".
kenseto
<clu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137256945.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> OK, so you are not as bad as the others. But your formulas are
> "ad-hoc", i.e. they are not derived , they are simply "written down".
>
No they are not "ad-hoc" They are convert from SR equations.
gamma=Fab/Faa
c=Faa*lambda
v=lambda(Faa-Fab)
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:WNayf.3233$tK4....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Taking into account
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html
and
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSquareRoot.html
?
Dirk Vdm
Brit
hanson
news:1137185842.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> This is for the cranks and crackpots who reject relativity.
>>
news:1137188197.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> you are more dick than moby.
>
[MobyDikc wrote]:
>> Is there anything like an anti-relativity alliance, so even if
>> anti-relativists disagree with their ideas, they can still collectively
>> agree that relativity is wrong?
>
> Ahh yes, the "anti-relativists". The jokers and fuckups who are too
> stupid to understand relativity, but have enough of an ego to claim a
> century of physics is based on fraud.
>
...... ahahaha... "Ahh yes", in contrast to you, Eric, who believes to
understand all that comes out of that century old camp and who walks
in goose step fashion to its tune as in your mind it is apparently not
possible that there exists fraud in physics, especially not in your beloved
Einstein world. Whether there is/was fraud in it or not, is not even the
issue. It's the doubts about it that the "anti-relativists" do express...
and the very FIRST ANTI-RELATIVIST WAS EINSTEIN HIMSELF
as can be seen in his letter to Besso, in 1954, Albert writing to her
remorsefully:
== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Even somewhere in the early 1920s, when Einstein's star was rising,
he said to his disciples something to the effects for them "NOT to
search at the same, now well lit places, where he had been working".
(Does anybody have the exact quote and reference of this?)
>
So Eric, don't be so stupid and and insensitive and call the creator of
your obsession and fetish a "joker and fuckup who is too stupid to
understand relativity".. ahaha..
>
Eric with your utterly fanatical slaveish devotion, you'll make a very good
employee, a great follower of corporate edicts, but you'll never become
an independent biz-man, nor even a researcher. ... You just don't have
that item in you (yet). Now, that you announced to go back to school I
hope you may learn there that thinking means more than just "learning
by heart" and regurgitate what others have created, IOW, to learn how
to push the envelope... Remember that even physics does evolve...
as it is after all, in the finally analysis, just another social enterprise...
JUST AS EINSTEIN HAS SAID above. Good luck to you, Eric.
>>
[MobyDikc wrote]:
>> Also, if you could please reply with a reference to your favorite
>> website or theory here, if there isn't already one, a list of
>> anti-relativity research can be created.
>
A number of posters already did, like ...
Henry Wilson,
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
or Androcles with
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/npahome.html
http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/search.php?search_id=newposts
http://www.wbabin.net/
http://www.mrelativity.net/
>
[Eric]
> Research where the outcome is already decided?
> There is another name for that...
>
ahaha... yes, (1) like the original Einstein Relativity in that it infected
its disciples with Albertitis & Einsteinism & turned them into wasted
intellectual Left-overs and damaged goods out of the once good
people that they were... just like any other organized religion has
done for eons, routinely and sucsessfully..... ahahaha...
>
ahaha... yes, (2) like your camp's song that every test has proven
relativity, but which in fact merely suggests that under very carefully
selected conditions the Einstein gag tells the story of the tests well.
Big deal, but not big enough of a deal, because 100 years later it is
not for no reason that academia and industry is using these days
REL (SR/GR) in the following way and fashion, saying that anybody
who works in
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu & for R-grants......................"does need REL, - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies............... "loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as their cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
Furthermore, it is of no wonder that the Bavarians have made
GR/SR courses NOT mandatory any longer in their Univs physics
curriculum since/in 1996 and just a few months ago I glanced at a
post from a US student who wondered what book to study about
GR since it was no longer offered at his University in the US... !!!!.
Androcles posted on 12-05 that even the conservative Royal Society
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html
has now voted Einstein OUT also... and yet in these NG's there are
these loud fanatical disciples infected with Einsteinitis & some even
claim that "attacks" are motivated by "anti-semitism" and jealously.
The facts are clear: Such hung-up and stuck up disciples are jealous
that the world has moved on since 1905/1916 and that the evolution
of physics, and science in general, does continue...
Eric someone must have told you to fuck yourself... you believed it and
you found pleasure in it... But hey, if mental masturbations are your gig...
then join that ancient club... NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, but let
others march on... LET OTHERS MARCH ON.... They are called:
**** investigators and searcher... researchers.... ****
Reprieve for you, Eric: ...... Everything is relative, ....even Einstein..
ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ahahahanson
clu...@yahoo.com
Eric Gisse
hanson wrote:
[snip]
Hah. It makes me smile to see you expend so much effort.
Nothing you can say or do will do anything to damage relativity's
standing. Outside this newsgroup, your whining and venting mean
nothing.
This is the only place in the world where your ranting is taken
seriously. Be happy - it is much easier than actually doing experiments
and disproving relativity, it is much easier than taking the time to
find a logical contradiction in relativity.
Gregory L. Hansen
MobyDikc <moby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hey all,
>
>This is for the cranks and crackpots who reject relativity.
>
>Is there anything like an anti-relativity alliance, so even if
>anti-relativists disagree with their ideas, they can still collectively
>agree that relativity is wrong?
Isn't sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity what you are looking for?
>
>Also, if you could please reply with a reference to your favorite
>website or theory here, if there isn't already one, a list of
>anti-relativity research can be created.
There's a journal I know of only by reputation, "Galilean
Electrodynamics".
--
"The probability of anything happening is in inverse ratio to its
desirability." -- Gumperson's Law
hanson
news:1137296916....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hah. It makes me smile to see you expend so much effort.
> Nothing you can say or do will do anything to damage relativity's
> Outside this newsgroup, your whining and venting mean
> This is the only place in the world where your ranting is taken
> Be happy - it is much easier than actually doing experiments
> and disproving relativity, it is much easier than taking the time to
> find a logical contradiction in relativity.
>
.... and what experiments have you performed, except the
ones on yourself, "relatively" speaking?....see (4) below....
Here are the issues again for your learning benefits, Eric:
>
[hanson]
...... ahahaha... "Ahh yes", in contrast to you, Eric, who believes to
understand all that comes out of that century old camp and who walks
in goose step fashion to its tune as in your mind it is apparently not
possible that there exists fraud in physics, especially not in your beloved
Einstein world. Whether there is/was fraud in it or not, is not even the
issue. It's the doubts about it that the "anti-relativists" do express...
and the very FIRST ANTI-RELATIVIST WAS EINSTEIN HIMSELF
as can be seen in his letter to Besso, in 1954, Albert writing to her
remorsefully:
== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Even somewhere in the early 1920s, when Einstein's star was rising,
he said to his disciples something to the effects for them "NOT to
search at the same, now well lit places, where he had been working".
(Does anybody have the exact quote and reference of this?)
>
So Eric, don't be so stupid and and insensitive and call the creator of
your obsession and fetish a "joker and fuckup who is too stupid to
understand relativity".. ahaha..
>
employee, a great follower of corporate edicts, but you'll never become
an independent biz-man, nor even a researcher. ... You just don't have
that item in you (yet). Now, that you announced to go back to school I
hope you may learn there that thinking means more than just "learning
by heart" and regurgitate what others have created, IOW, to learn how
to push the envelope... Remember that even physics does evolve...
as it is after all, in the finally analysis, just another social enterprise...
JUST AS EINSTEIN HAS SAID above. Good luck to you, Eric.
>>
>
(4) Eric someone must have told you to fuck yourself... you believed it and
Eric Gisse
hanson wrote:
[snip]
No wonder you are incapable of learning relativity - you can't even
figure out how to format a USENET post without sounding like a raving
lunatic.
hanson
> No wonder you are incapable of learning relativity - you can't even
> figure out how to format a USENET post without sounding like a
> raving lunatic.
>
You are getting emotional and irrational now, Eric. You twist yourself
too quick and too much when you hear things that are not served to
you pre-chewed and platter-served for your regulated beliefs. Bad
scene for you to exhibit such traits of fanaticism, once you are out
in the real world. Here it is again for you to **learn** the facts....
before you finish your school that you have even not gone to yet:
>
[hanson]
Eric Gisse
hanson wrote:
[snip]
Your canned replies need more editing, they are filled with grammatical
and factual errors.
hanson
> Your canned replies need more editing, they are filled with
> grammatical and factual errors.
>
You have calmed down now. That is good, Eric. But reflect,
Eric, the message is important, not the dust on its edges. Only
fanatics and fundamentalists blow things out of proportions.
And it looks like that you are beginning to get gist and see the
core of the issue. Study it again. Here it is again for your benefit:
>
[hanson prior 3]
You are getting emotional and irrational now, Eric. You twist yourself
too quick and too much when you hear things that are not served to
you pre-chewed and platter-served for your regulated beliefs. Bad
scene for you to exhibit such traits of fanaticism, once you are out
in the real world. Here it is again for you to **learn** the facts....
before you finish your school that you have even not gone to yet:
>
Eric, you lie to yourself and you know it. ... see (3 & 4) below)]
>
> Nothing you can say or do will do anything to damage relativity's
> standing. ...... [Eric, I didn't and I don't. He did. See (1954) below]
> Outside this newsgroup, your whining and venting mean
> nothing. ......... [Eric, see (2) below, before you go back to school]
> This is the only place in the world where your ranting is taken
> seriously. ......... [Eric, see (2) below, before you go back to school]
> Be happy - it is much easier than actually doing experiments
> and disproving relativity, it is much easier than taking the time to
> find a logical contradiction in relativity.
>
.... and what experiments have you performed, except the
ones on yourself, "relatively" speaking?....see (4) below....
Here are the issues again for your learning benefits, Eric:
>
Eric Gisse
hanson wrote:
[snip canned response]
Your canned response requires editing, it is full of grammatical and
factual errors.
Henri Wilson
>OK, so you are not as bad as the others. But your formulas are
>"ad-hoc", i.e. they are not derived , they are simply "written down".
What do you men 'not as bad as the others'?
All Seto did was put the 'Einstein' back into aether theories.
..but of course you being a king crackpot probably agree that the MMX apparatus
always moves vertically wrt all light.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
poor boy!!
Never really recovered from failing first semester physics.
I believe he is studying basket weaving now....
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
hanson
> [snip canned response]
>Your canned response requires editing, it is full of grammatical and
> factual errors.
>
Eric, you are getting fanatical and emotional again. You are not
supposed to swallow my hook. Especially with you waiting at
your computer, yearning whether I am casting or not, and then
greedily responding within 120 sec of my posting... ahahaha...
But thanks for the laughs, Eric... ahahaha... I have fun, Eric, but
you apparently do not. You sound lead, angry and self-tormented.
So, here, my friend, for your benefit, do study the issues, for god's
sake, and LEARN from them. Einstein himself, your hero, said that
you should. See (5) below... He, your role model, said so. NOT me.
Heed his, Albert's advice, not mine... ahaha... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
[hanson prior 4]
omit
--- kk57v5 -- tenerife/dep -- 01.14.06.06:35.-- reykjavik/arr 12:35 ----
z'a Polar Bear lodge: late PM local ---- "alpha-charly-tango"
Richard Henry
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:Hqnyf.737$h47.304@trnddc08...
> Androcles posted on 12-05 that even the conservative Royal Society
> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html
> has now voted Einstein OUT also...
The article you cited
(http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html)
does not support the claim you made ("even the conservative Royal Society
has now voted Einstein OUT also").
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2006 23:21:13 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >hanson wrote:
> >
> >[snip canned response]
> >
> >Your canned response requires editing, it is full of grammatical and
> >factual errors.
>
> poor boy!!
>
> Never really recovered from failing first semester physics.
Whine on, Henri. Nobody cares.
Eric Gisse
hanson wrote:
[snip]
No wonder you are unable to learn relativity, you can't even read your
source material!
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html
"Einstein proved Newton wrong and has yet to be proved wrong himself."
Schoenfeld
Eric Gisse wrote:
> hanson wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> No wonder you are unable to learn relativity, you can't even read your
> source material!
I suspect Hanson understands quite a bit more of physics than you do at
this point, especially after you recently contended that
tanh(x)=cosh(x)/sinh(x)..
G. L. Bradford
> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> sang the RELA hymn in his
> news:1137296916....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
> == "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
> == on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
> == case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
> == theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Then Mr. Einstein wrote this potential abandonment far too soon, if indeed
he wrote the above. I've tried to show elsewhere in my own most primitive
way how Relativity's core field concept overlays Quantum Mechanics' core
maxim in the Principle of Uncertainty, providing the equivalent relativistic
picture before QM's base uncertainty picture even was a picture.
"Uncertainty principle: The principle formulated by Heisenberg that one
can never be exactly sure of both the position and the velocity of a
particle. The more accurately one knows the one, the less accurately one can
know the other."
The best coordinate compromise of both particle's position and velocity is
no deformed distortion of the particle itself but is a transformation of the
mess into a highly accurate, highly relativistic, single "field" result the
physicist mechanic can then fit into -- work with in -- other contexts.
I didn't work my way up and out to this realization, I worked my way down
and in to it from the many years of visualizing and doing up my many
representative 'traveler in travel opposed to more than one angled observer'
scenarios. In my visualization of the traveler versus observers distantly
placed fore and aft and to the sides of the traveler in space, I realized
that none of them could ever accurately position or calculate the velocity
accurately of a traveler in constant motion. The hard constant of the speed
of light in vacuum, rather than absolutely or even probably permitting,
would always absolutely PROHIBIT observers -- from their inertial frames
(from their "world views") -- any possibility of anything like accurate
positioning and calculation of velocity regarding [non-orbiting] travelers
(to include "particles") in constant motion. It finally dawned on me that
the only way to compromise the traveler's observations with the various
observers' observations, and the various observers' observations with each
other, was to go elastically [expansionist / contractionist] "relativistic"
regarding the traveler's own inside-out worldview, or frame of coordinate
reference. All of the various observers would have to, for most accurate end
compromise possible, deal in the [final] entire field result rather than
depending upon their own in-line [while-in-progress] (progressive)
observations. That final result would be an observation by all that the
traveler didn't so much quite [travel through] space and time to any arrival
as it, the traveler, rapidly and enormously expands in space and time then
equally, just as rapidly and just as enormously, contracts [toward] the
final arrival point in space and time.
This also solves more simply (even if only to my own satisfaction) the
problematic issues of instantaneity and, even more to the point,
simultaneity within quantum mechanics. It also solves the problematic issue
in the Theory of Relativity of travelers (whatever they may be) leaping
forward and/or backward in time (the reality of which -- unrealized by
most -- is that if one is a violation of causality -- and it is a
violation -- then both equally in actuality have to be violations of
causality. Inseparably both of them! Not just the one and not the other).
Quantum mechanically, there could be no answer. There could be no
compromise solution to the problem other than that of a final, overall
"field" solution. Relativistically, there could be and is a solution....the
only compromise solution possible: that same overall "field" solution. The
only real never to be resolved problem, I found from long experience, is the
problem of interpretation. Since most people, by far most, can only think
and interpret singularly string-like one-dimensional (in no more than just
one dimension at a time of anything) rather than hyper fractal-dimensional
(in many dimensions of many things, self-similarly all at once fundamentally
in complexity one and the same thing).
I figure, in my own primitive way, that most of quantum mechanical
physicists' reaches to higher dimensional things to solve lower dimensional
problems is actually work "on continuous structures" (continuing, increasing
development in and of "field concept(s)") going on; going without saying.
The prohibitions inherent to "uncertainty," especially its inherent
propensity to grow, forbid anything else.
GLB
hanson
victimized himself in message news:9xnyf.9197$jR.7481@fed1read01...
ahahaha.... ahahaha.... it says in there:
"13.8 per cent of Royal Society fellows back Einstein, while the rest
supported Newton. The public also plumped for Newton, giving him" ...
and then it says ... To continue reading this article, subscribe for only $4.95
..... but you were too fucking cheap to cough up five bucks.... ahahaha...
>
Why are you victimizing yourself, Richie? It must be after midnight,
Saturday night, your time... ahahaha... Are you having insomnia problems
that victimize you?... So listen, you sui-victimizer, follow this chain of
custody in your perceived late night condition and then blame the
originator, The Royal Society, but don't question their edict, .. just
like Eric Gisse doesn't question Einstein. After all, both are royal in
their own way, but you are a peasant and a perennial, self-announced,
self-labeled "almost-victim" to boot, who does not understand nor
tolerate the word "opinion"... unless it's your own... ahaha.... ahahanson
>
BTW... do you simply wanna make conversation in the middle of the
night (your time) because you are lonely and feel the horror in your mind
that haunts you that you are an "almost victim" again? ahahahaha... if so,
then you are forgiven, Richie.... I wish you could see those shimmering
cloud formations 10 o'clock down... maybe the remnants of Zeta...
donsto...@hotmail.com
Princess Di???????????
We have one over here in America. It's known as "George W. Bush and
friends".
hanson
ahahaha... ahahahaha ... and then that same source goes on to say:
... "13.8 per cent of Royal Society fellows back Einstein, while the rest
supported Newton. The public also plumped for Newton, giving him" ...
$4.95." ... ..... but you were too fucking cheap to cough up five bucks,
like Henry, the "almost-victim", onto whom you are hanging onto now
as your last straw... Henry, your hope and savior, ... some reference.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e44b58bffe0c8260
ahahaha... Gash Eric, you are getting ever more fanatic here in your
obsession with Albert to the point where you don't read past the first
sentence of a reference... ahahaha... ahaha.... See, I pegged you right
before, Eric, you are a follower, not a seeker and much less a researcher...
But these are important issues for you, Eric. So, let's get you back now
for you to LEARN from the immediate past that is shown right here, below:
BTW, Schoenfeld's message just came aboard, with him being a keen
and knowledgeable observer who, unlike you, is properly insinuating that
you made the right choice when you felt that you had to get back to school
after your alleged assertion that tanh(x)=cosh(x)/sinh(x)... ahahaha....
>
[hanson prior 5]
hanson
at Polar Bear's. I say "maybe"... because there will be
alomost certainly more "physical fun" there then the
cajoling here, at now, still 45K feet, and in cyber space.
Take care. hanson
>
"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:UFoyf.488504$084.284384@attbi_s22...
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:T2kyf.7068$US3.6260@trnddc04...
>> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> sang the RELA hymn in his
>> news:1137296916....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> (snip)
>> == "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
>> == on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
>> == case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
>> == theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
>
kenseto
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:tcvjs1plu761krhod...@4ax.com...
> On 14 Jan 2006 08:42:25 -0800, "clu...@yahoo.com" <clu...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >OK, so you are not as bad as the others. But your formulas are
> >"ad-hoc", i.e. they are not derived , they are simply "written down".
>
> What do you men 'not as bad as the others'?
>
> All Seto did was put the 'Einstein' back into aether theories.
Wrong....IRT is complete whereas SRT is not complete. IRT includes SRT as a
subset. However, the equaltions of IRT are valid in all
environments....including gravity.
BTW do you have an alternate theory for SRT that includes equations? I guess
not.:-)
>
> ..but of course you being a king crackpot probably agree that the MMX
apparatus
> always moves vertically wrt all light.
You are an idiot. The vertical direction of absolute motion is the only
direction that will give the null results for all the orientations of the
horizontal arms. This is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments in
which they found that there is frequency shift in the vertical direction in
any location on earth..
Ken Seto
kenseto
"Brit" <pe...@wild-grant.net> wrote in message
news:1137288131.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Re: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
>
> Rubbish
>
That's becasue you don't have the mental capacity to comprehend.
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:V3tyf.3385$tK4....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
I never could have imagined that even Wilson would manage
to drag this thing out you, Seto...
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreVertical.html
Wilson thrashing Seto, just like Androfart is thrashing
Wilson... Here we see polarisation at the bottom of the
newsgroup hierarchy in full action :-)
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
Hey, Gisse. Did you know that Sir Karl Popper (of falsifiability fame)
called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing ever
happens"? That's right. If you believe in spacetime, you also believe
that there is no change or motion in the universe. Here's an article I
posted recently that shows Einstein for what he realy was, a fucking
crackpot. Read it and weep. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Copied from:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm#Einstein
Here is the reason that Einstein had a poor understanding of his own
theory:
In 1949, Einstein's friend, Kurt Gödel, announced to the world that
the spacetime of general relativity allows time travel via closed
time-like loops. Einstein agreed with Gödel's finding but he was not
very happy about it. He could not fathom how his grand theory would
allow something as ridiculous as time travel. This gives some credence
to accusations by Einstein's critics that he was not the true author
of general relativity and that he was a mediocre plagiarizer at best.
Some say that Einstein's first wife, Mileva Maric Einstein, was the
real author of relativity and that Einstein was forced to give her his
entire Nobel prize money to keep her quiet. Just hearsay but one never
knows.
The problem with Gödel's claim is that nothing can move in spacetime,
i.e., no time travel, no particles moving along their geodesics in
curved spacetime. Heck, no motion at all! IOW, spacetime is a
fictitious construct that does not model anything in reality. It is to
be seen as a mere graph, an abstract historical collection of 3-D
spaces. But why did Einstein act as if he was unaware of this? The
fact that nothing can move in spacetime was mentioned by several
prominent thinkers (including Sir Karl Popper) during Einstein's
lifetime. It is almost as if he was already publicly committed to his
geometrical stance on the cause of gravity and could no longer retrace
his steps less he loses some of his notoriety and credibility. But
then again, it could be that he did not understand the implications of
an unchanging spacetime and that it contradicted Gödel's crackpot
announcement. At any rate, Einstein's "unchanging block universe" made
him twentieth century's Parmenides but, somehow, that did not prevent
him from agreeing with Gödel. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
Now, years after the fact, a whole new generation of notorious and
uninformed crackpots in high places have jumped in lunatic Gödel's
time travel bandwagon. Examples are Kip "wormhole" Thorne, Stephen
"black hole" Hawking, Brian "superstring" Greene, Michio Kaku (Mucho
Kuckoo), David "multiple universe" Deutsch, etc... It is enough to
make a grown man cry.
Physics is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Richard Henry
> The self-declared "Almost-Victim" "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com>
> victimized himself in message news:9xnyf.9197$jR.7481@fed1read01...
> >
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> > news:Hqnyf.737$h47.304@trnddc08...
> >> Androcles posted on 12-05 that even the conservative Royal Society
> >> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html
> >> has now voted Einstein OUT also...
> >
> > The article you cited
> > (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html)
> > does not support the claim you made ("even the conservative Royal
> > Society has now voted Einstein OUT also").
> >
> [hanson]
> ahahaha.... ahahaha.... it says in there:
> "13.8 per cent of Royal Society fellows back Einstein, while the rest
> supported Newton. The public also plumped for Newton, giving him" ...
Hanson apparently still doesn't understand the article, or wishes to present
a peculiar spin of it.
> and then it says ... To continue reading this article, subscribe for only
$4.95
> ..... but you were too fucking cheap to cough up five bucks.... ahahaha...
> >
> Why are you victimizing yourself, Richie? It must be after midnight,
> Saturday night, your time... ahahaha... Are you having insomnia problems
> that victimize you?... So listen, you sui-victimizer, follow this chain of
> custody in your perceived late night condition and then blame the
> originator, The Royal Society, but don't question their edict, .. just
> like Eric Gisse doesn't question Einstein. After all, both are royal in
> their own way, but you are a peasant and a perennial, self-announced,
> self-labeled "almost-victim" to boot, who does not understand nor
> tolerate the word "opinion"... unless it's your own... ahaha.... ahahanson
> >
> BTW... do you simply wanna make conversation in the middle of the
> night (your time) because you are lonely and feel the horror in your mind
> that haunts you that you are an "almost victim" again? ahahahaha... if so,
> then you are forgiven, Richie.... I wish you could see those shimmering
> cloud formations 10 o'clock down... maybe the remnants of Zeta...
Hanson's attempt at ad-hominem attack (such as it is) is illuminating.
The old Sorcerer
news:42ve0uF...@individual.net...
Yes, I though he showed the real you in his illumination rather well too.
--
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RR_C7/RelativityRevealed.htm
Eric Gisse
hanson wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137314811.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > No wonder you are unable to learn relativity, you can't even read your
> > source material!
> > http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html
> > "Einstein proved Newton wrong and has yet to be proved wrong himself."
> >
> [hanson]
> ahahaha... ahahahaha ... and then that same source goes on to say:
> ... "13.8 per cent of Royal Society fellows back Einstein, while the rest
> supported Newton. The public also plumped for Newton, giving him" ...
> & then it says ... "To continue reading this article, subscribe for only
> $4.95." ... ..... but you were too fucking cheap to cough up five bucks,
> like Henry, the "almost-victim", onto whom you are hanging onto now
> as your last straw...
[snip lunatic ravings]
Physics isn't a popularity contest. It is just that are you so
desperate for anything anti-einstein that you will settle for what
amounts to a popularity contest among the public.
"Einstein proved Newton wrong and has yet to be proved wrong himself."
That is all that matters.
Eric Gisse
Traveler wrote:
[snip]
Do you have anything other than libel?
All I see is someone who is so desperate to knock einstein down a notch
that they will write things that can't be proven or are not relevant.
Richard Henry
"The old Sorcerer" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
news:XNxyf.12188$lL4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
I didn't notice. From reading what he wrote, what do you imagine the real
me to be?
The old Sorcerer
"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:UFoyf.488504$084.284384@attbi_s22...
>
> news:T2kyf.7068$US3.6260@trnddc04...
>> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> sang the RELA hymn in his
>> news:1137296916....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> (snip)
>
>> == "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
>> == on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
>> == case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
>> == theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
>
> Then Mr. Einstein wrote this potential abandonment far too soon, if
> indeed he wrote the above. I've tried to show elsewhere in my own most
> primitive way how Relativity's core field concept overlays Quantum
> Mechanics' core maxim in the Principle of Uncertainty, providing the
> equivalent relativistic picture before QM's base uncertainty picture even
> was a picture.
Who cares? He was an idiot anyway.
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:tcvjs1plu761krhod...@4ax.com...
>> On 14 Jan 2006 08:42:25 -0800, "clu...@yahoo.com" <clu...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >OK, so you are not as bad as the others. But your formulas are
>> >"ad-hoc", i.e. they are not derived , they are simply "written down".
>>
>> What do you men 'not as bad as the others'?
>>
>> All Seto did was put the 'Einstein' back into aether theories.
>
>Wrong....IRT is complete whereas SRT is not complete. IRT includes SRT as a
>subset. However, the equaltions of IRT are valid in all
>environments....including gravity.
>BTW do you have an alternate theory for SRT that includes equations? I guess
>not.:-)
Yes. One-way light speed = c+v.
>> ..but of course you being a king crackpot probably agree that the MMX
>apparatus
>> always moves vertically wrt all light.
>
>You are an idiot. The vertical direction of absolute motion is the only
>direction that will give the null results for all the orientations of the
>horizontal arms. This is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments in
>which they found that there is frequency shift in the vertical direction in
>any location on earth..
The MMX was doomed from the start and a total waste of time and money. It would
always give a null result because light speed is source dependent.
Pound-Rebka showed that light increases speed when falling just like anything
else. GR and the BaTh give exactly the same blueshift.
>Ken Seto
>
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Hexenmeister
it was most illuminating. Now you say you didn't notice his attack was
illuminating. Isn't that self-contradictory? I guess that is what I imagine
the real you to be.
Richard Henry
"Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
news:fNAyf.137413$D47....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
I didn't notice he showed the real me. Unless you think the real me is a
calm, thoughtful poster who doesn't react strongly to pointless personal
attacks.
Hexenmeister
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4305imF...@individual.net...
I thought personal attacks were the point of these newsgroups. It
certainly seems to be 98% of all that is written. Let's face it, you
haven't discussed any of the web pages I've presented, you've
snipped them and defended your god, so you don't seem to me
to be interested in physics.
Perhapss I'm prejudiced, but Einstein does not influence my
thinking in any way, the guy was a huckster and a charlatan
if he wasn't an idiot.
Richard Henry
"Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
> > I didn't notice he showed the real me. Unless you think the real me is
a
> > calm, thoughtful poster who doesn't react strongly to pointless personal
> > attacks.
> >
>
> I thought personal attacks were the point of these newsgroups. It
> certainly seems to be 98% of all that is written. Let's face it, you
> haven't discussed any of the web pages I've presented, you've
> snipped them and defended your god, so you don't seem to me
> to be interested in physics.
> Perhapss I'm prejudiced, but Einstein does not influence my
> thinking in any way, the guy was a huckster and a charlatan
> if he wasn't an idiot.
Oh.
I thought we were having a rational discussion.
My apologies.
Traveler
>
>Traveler wrote:
>
>[snip]
I know. You can't take it. It's like holy water on a fucking vampire.
ahahaha...
>Do you have anything other than libel?
>
>All I see is someone who is so desperate to knock einstein down a notch
>that they will write things that can't be proven or are not relevant.
ahahaha... It's all proven alright. And it's certainly very relevant
because relativists have been preaching that geometry is the mechanism
of gravity for close to a century. And don't you fucking deny it,
asshole. It's in all the relativity text books. But guess what? It's
all bullshit. And you know it. ahahaha...
I have very little against relativity other than the fact that it's a
chicken shit theory a la Newton. That is, it explains nothing just
like Newtonian gravity did not explain the mechanism of gravitational
attraction. My problem is with relativists who have made a bunch of
crackpot claims WRT a theory that they don't really understand,
especially when they insist that they do. Now we see all the
superstring crackpots climbing over themselves to see who can be the
next Einstein. How pathetic! ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
donsto...@hotmail.com
chicken shit theory a la Newton. That is, it explains nothing just
like Newtonian gravity did not explain the mechanism of gravitational
attraction. My problem is with relativists who have made a bunch of
crackpot claims WRT a theory that they don't really understand,
especially when they insist that they do. Now we see all the
superstring crackpots climbing over themselves to see who can be the
next Einstein. How pathetic! ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
******************************
I have to agree. Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Poincare, Sagan,
on and on, on and on......all mere nodes in the neural net. The great
equalizer.
Eric Gisse
Traveler wrote:
[snip]
How about a literature citation that disproves relativity instead of
your unceasing whining?
Hexenmeister
Accepted. Have a nice day, cretin. <Rational conclusion to ratioan
discussion>
Richard Henry
"Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
Your reduction to ad hominem attack is illuminating.
G. L. Bradford
<donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137382167.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"You have very little against relativity other than...." You have a lot
against it.
As to gravity, it is probably space itself just seen differently. Just
something else of the Universe / Multiverse that has duality or multiplicity
of dimensional character. There is no such thing as any 'aether' and we know
from routinely experiencing them environmentally gravity [and/or] space
exists. The sole "texture" to space we know of is gravity. We find gravity
to be everywhere there is space whatsoever. Wherever we discover one to be,
we will discover the other to be as well. Therefore, one and the same.
Its "mechanism" is probably specifically general rather than object
specific; such as 'infinite' and 'infinitesimal': the massively energetic
tug of war eternally, constantly, in progress within the realm, or arena, of
infinite versus infinitesimal. Something like cosmic background gravity (the
parcel) versus all the infinities of individualized centers of gravity (the
parts). Do away with the differing Big Bang Theories as theorized by Big
Bang Creationists, you have present in that eternal tug of war (between
falling out to the infinite in one direction of it and falling in to the
infinitesimal in the other direction of it) the existence of, and one
definition for, space itself (at the same time the plurality, spaces).
Therefore, if the invariable qualifying mechanism did turn out to be the
quite relativistic "elasticity" of the remote ([infinite / infinitesimal]),
then.....
GLB
Hexenmeister
*plonk*
Richard Henry
"Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
Q.E.D.
kenseto
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:34:29 GMT, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> >news:tcvjs1plu761krhod...@4ax.com...
> >> On 14 Jan 2006 08:42:25 -0800, "clu...@yahoo.com" <clu...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >OK, so you are not as bad as the others. But your formulas are
> >> >"ad-hoc", i.e. they are not derived , they are simply "written down".
> >>
> >> What do you men 'not as bad as the others'?
> >>
> >> All Seto did was put the 'Einstein' back into aether theories.
> >
> >Wrong....IRT is complete whereas SRT is not complete. IRT includes SRT as
a
> >subset. However, the equaltions of IRT are valid in all
> >environments....including gravity.
> >BTW do you have an alternate theory for SRT that includes equations? I
guess
> >not.:-)
>
> Yes. One-way light speed = c+v.
So where are your equations for this new interpretation. By equations I mean
all the equations that SR uses to predict the correct experimental results.
Ken Seto
Traveler
ahahaha... The eternal refuge of the fanatical, shit-for-brains
Einstein groupie. I certainly have no inclination of disproving
relativity. My beef has never been with relativity but with brain-dead
Einsteinites like you. You assholes (including Einstein himself) have
made a huge number of crackpot claims WRT relativity such as, gravity
is explained by geometry; time travel via time-like loops; motion in
spacetime; changing time; the list goes on... All the ass kissers
(mostly a bunch of old farts) deserve to be tarred and feathered and
paraded through the street for all to see. That should serve as a
deterrent to the younger generation. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
MobyDikc
> Nothing you can say or do will do anything to damage relativity's
> standing.
That's not very scientific.
> This is the only place in the world where your ranting is taken
> seriously. Be happy - it is much easier than actually doing experiments
> and disproving relativity, it is much easier than taking the time to
> find a logical contradiction in relativity.
There is a logical contradiction in gr + qm.
That means there is a big stinking problem in gr and/or qm.
The issue here is not whether SR or GR is inconsistent, nor whether we
have a mathematical model that makes better predictions than SR.
The question is what new type of thinking allows us to fix the problem
in gr + qm.
To say "nothing you can say will damage relativity's standing", is not
the new thinking. In fact, it is largely intended to discourage new
thinking.
Prick face.
MobyDikc
> [MobyDikc wrote]:
> >> Also, if you could please reply with a reference to your favorite
> >> website or theory here, if there isn't already one, a list of
> >> anti-relativity research can be created.
> >
> [hanson]
> A number of posters already did, like ...
> Henry Wilson,
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> or Androcles with
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
> or "dej4" <clu...@yahoo.com with
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/npahome.html
> http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/search.php?search_id=newposts
> http://www.wbabin.net/
> http://www.mrelativity.net/
<snip>
Hey Hanson,
Thanks.
Would anyone be interested in typing up an anti-relativity article for
the wikipedia?
Randy Poe
MobyDikc wrote:
> Eric Gisse,
>
> > Nothing you can say or do will do anything to damage relativity's
> > standing.
>
>
> That's not very scientific.
>
>
>
> > This is the only place in the world where your ranting is taken
> > seriously. Be happy - it is much easier than actually doing experiments
> > and disproving relativity, it is much easier than taking the time to
> > find a logical contradiction in relativity.
>
>
> There is a logical contradiction in gr + qm.
As we don't have a "theory of everything" yet, physical
theories have domains of applicability. Newtonian gravity
still has a domain of applicability, despite the fact that
Newton and SR have a "logical contradiction". Classical
mechanics still has a domain of applicability despite
its contradictions with QM.
> That means there is a big stinking problem in gr and/or qm.
No it means we don't have a TOE. Each works fine
in its own domain.
- Randy
MobyDikc
> MobyDikc wrote:
> > That means there is a big stinking problem in gr and/or qm.
>
> No it means we don't have a TOE. Each works fine
> in its own domain.
True. As long as neither is presented as a theory of the universe, and
only approximations of the universe, then there is no problem.
kenseto
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137430681.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Any theory that has a domain of applicability is incomplete.. You admitted
that we don't have a TOE and yet you reject IRT which has an umlimited
domain of applicability. Why????
Ken Seto
kenseto
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:34:29 GMT, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> >OK, so you are not as bad as the others. But your formulas are
> >> >"ad-hoc", i.e. they are not derived , they are simply "written down".
> >>
> >> What do you men 'not as bad as the others'?
> >>
> >> All Seto did was put the 'Einstein' back into aether theories.
> >
> >Wrong....IRT is complete whereas SRT is not complete. IRT includes SRT as
a
> >subset. However, the equaltions of IRT are valid in all
> >environments....including gravity.
> >BTW do you have an alternate theory for SRT that includes equations? I
guess
> >not.:-)
>
> Yes. One-way light speed = c+v.
OK assuming that you are correct. Please explain the following: We have
three observers A,B and C moving relative to a source "S" at Va, Vb and Vc.
Are you saying that the source "S" emits light at (c+Va), (c+Vb) and
(c+Vc)???
Ken Seto
Hexenmeister
news:1137432046.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Blind Poe is a drooling idiot. See addendum at
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
--
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RR_C7/RelativityRevealed.htm
(more to follow)
Eric Gisse
MobyDikc wrote:
> Eric Gisse,
>
> > Nothing you can say or do will do anything to damage relativity's
> > standing.
>
>
> That's not very scientific.
It is, however, true. Right now you appear to have no desire to
actually learn the the mathematics and the physics of relativity. All
you seem to be interested in is making armchair philosophy.
>
>
>
> > This is the only place in the world where your ranting is taken
> > seriously. Be happy - it is much easier than actually doing experiments
> > and disproving relativity, it is much easier than taking the time to
> > find a logical contradiction in relativity.
>
>
> There is a logical contradiction in gr + qm.
>
> That means there is a big stinking problem in gr and/or qm.
With eachother but not within. They are correct in their respective
domains as far as we can see, which is a problem.
>
> The issue here is not whether SR or GR is inconsistent, nor whether we
> have a mathematical model that makes better predictions than SR.
>
> The question is what new type of thinking allows us to fix the problem
> in gr + qm.
>
> To say "nothing you can say will damage relativity's standing", is not
> the new thinking. In fact, it is largely intended to discourage new
> thinking.
Wrong.
I say that because *you* have shown no desire to learn either
mathematics or physics. Untill you graduate beyond armchair philosophy,
all you will be doing is stating the obvious or useless.
>
> Prick face.
Eric Gisse
Traveler wrote:
[snip bitter diatribe]
It is obvious you have a psychological problem. Seek help.
Traveler
ahahaha... Well, at least, I'm not an ass kisser. ahahaha...
Eric Gisse
Traveler wrote:
[snip]
Traveler
>I have to agree. Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Poincare, Sagan,
>on and on, on and on......all mere nodes in the neural net. The great
>equalizer.
Not sure I know what you mean but I like the way it sounds. ahahaha...
Traveler
Gregory L. Hansen
MobyDikc <moby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Eric Gisse,
>
>> Nothing you can say or do will do anything to damage relativity's
>> standing.
>
>
>That's not very scientific.
>
>To say "nothing you can say will damage relativity's standing", is not
>the new thinking. In fact, it is largely intended to discourage new
>thinking.
I think he means you, personally. Trusting in the progress of science and
that we don't know everything yet, one day relativity will be damaged by
people that produce quantitative theories and perform measurements, and
publish them in the professional literature. Usenet, and all the
discussions here, and web pages produced by people that can't get
themselves published in the standard venues, will be inconsequential.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Dirk Van de moortel
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:dqh6hk$pmf$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <1137429269....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> MobyDikc <moby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Eric Gisse,
> >
> >> Nothing you can say or do will do anything to damage relativity's
> >> standing.
> >
> >
> >That's not very scientific.
> ...
> >
> >To say "nothing you can say will damage relativity's standing", is not
> >the new thinking. In fact, it is largely intended to discourage new
> >thinking.
>
> I think he means you, personally. Trusting in the progress of science and
> that we don't know everything yet, one day relativity will be damaged by
> people that produce quantitative theories and perform measurements, and
> publish them in the professional literature. Usenet, and all the
> discussions here, and web pages produced by people that can't get
> themselves published in the standard venues, will be inconsequential.
Don't underestimate Ken Seto ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
"Wisdom is not gained by pooling ignorance." -- Ayn Rand
There is no instance in the history of physics of anyone ever making a
significant contribution to the field who was not familiar with the
then-current theories and experiments. This means that any
"anti-relativist" who seriously wants to make a contribution to physics
had better learn all he/she can about SR and GR and the current
experiments. Anything less is just foolin' around.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
clu...@yahoo.com
"antis" 9and kooks)
Hexenmeister
news:dqh68g$6...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
had better learn all he/she can about mathematics and Roberts' bigotry.
Anything less is just foolin' around as Roberts does.
"Wisdom is not gained by pooling ignorance." -- Ayn Rand
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RR_C7/RelativityRevealed.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/EnergySquare.htm
kenseto
SR is safe. Why? According to Roberts all the experiments that could
potentially refute SR is not worth doing. For example:
1. A direct OWLS measurement.
2. Experiments in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
3. Do an MMX measurement with the plane of the light rays aligned
vertically.
Ken Seto
Henri Wilson
The source emits light at c relative to itself. The light is therefore
traveling at (c+Va), (c+Vb) and (c+Vc) wrt the other bodies.
Simple isn't it...and it matches all experimental data.
>Ken Seto
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
hanson
message news:TkNyf.9425$jR.8322@fed1read01... to
> "Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> who administered
to Richard with his kind and grand wisdom in his message
> news:NqLyf.142905$D47....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >> >> >
[Richie]
>> >> >> > I didn't notice he showed the real me.
>> >> >> > Unless you think the real me is a calm, thoughtful
>> >> >> > poster who doesn't react strongly to pointless
>> >> >> > personal attacks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I thought personal attacks were the point of these newsgroups. It
>> >> >> certainly seems to be 98% of all that is written. Let's face it, you
>> >> >> haven't discussed any of the web pages I've presented, you've
>> >> >> snipped them and defended your god, so you don't seem to me
>> >> >> to be interested in physics.
>> >> >> Perhapss I'm prejudiced, but Einstein does not influence my
>> >> >> thinking in any way, the guy was a huckster and a charlatan
>> >> >> if he wasn't an idiot.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh.
>> >> > I thought we were having a rational discussion.
>> >> > My apologies.
>> >>
>> >> Accepted. Have a nice day, cretin. <Rational conclusion to ratioan
>> >> discussion>
>> >
>> > Your reduction to ad hominem attack is illuminating.
>> >
>> Have a nice day, cretin. <Rational CONCLUSION to rational discussion>
>> *plonk*
>
> Q.E.D.
>
[hanson]
Henry, c'mon, be open about it & state that you meant to say:
"I, Henry, did Q_uit, E_scape, D_efeated".... which is nothing
more then your standard move anyway , the machination of
you being an "Almost victim" to prevent from you becoming a
full-fletched one.... ahahaha... So Richie, see you are at least
smart to the extend that you know that your arms are too short
to box with a sorcerer...
Hence for you to Quit, Escape and admit Defeat... that is a
good survival strategy for you to fight on another day... ahahaha..
Thanks for the laughs, guys
ahahaha... ahahanson
hanson
news:1137356562.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
news:1137314811.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > No wonder you are unable to learn relativity, you can't even read your
>> > source material!
>> > http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html
>> > "Einstein proved Newton wrong and has yet to be proved wrong himself."
>> >
>> [hanson]
>> ahahaha... ahahahaha ... and then that same source goes on to say:
>> ... "13.8 per cent of Royal Society fellows back Einstein, while the rest
>> supported Newton. The public also plumped for Newton, giving him" ...
>> & then it says ... "To continue reading this article, subscribe for only
>> $4.95." ... ..... but you were too fucking cheap to cough up five bucks,
>> like Henry, the "almost-victim", onto whom you are hanging onto now
>> as your last straw...
>
[Eric]
> [snip lunatic ravings].... [which appeared to you, Eric, to be this way
> .... [because it was actually full-moon time
> .... [when you did your relativistics dancing
> .... [and singing your Wagnerian opera .
> .... ["I, Gisse, love Einstein" ... ahahaha..
>
[Eric
> Physics isn't a popularity contest. [1] It is just that are you so
> desperate for anything anti-einstein that you will settle for what
> amounts to a popularity contest among the public.
>
[hanson]
[1]... so what do you call then that almost annual popularity contest
they make in Stockholm about physics?.... When you go back to
school, Eric, or are finally done with being between jobs, then your
new real world bosses will straighten your Weltbild out over this issue
and your pathological love for Albi... lest you cherish to be between
jobs and not in school,..... perennially... ahahahaha....
>
[Eric]
> "Einstein proved Newton wrong and has yet to be proved wrong himself."
> That is all that matters.
>
[hanson]
... ahahahaha... I would fully agree with you, Eric, if & only IF you
would have finished your last sentence above and had said:
"That is all that matters ... to me, Eric Gisse, in my all consuming
and blinding love for Albert Einstein"... .... ahahaha... AHAHA....
That would actually be a great Wagnerian cape-waving exit you
would have crafted and performed here... ahaha... were you not so
completely blinded in your teenage-like emphatuation with your role
model Albert,... that you could not see that the FIRST mention that
"Einstein was wrong" came from non other than Einstein HIMSELF...
ahahaha.... [See (1954) below].... ahahahaha....
>
Eric, you have produced the distinct impression that you are in the
same august class of fanatical believers as are those Islamist
fundamentalists who rioted when they heard the rumor that their
Koran was flushed down the toilet... Great company you are in!!
Read it again and perhaps you'll finally will get it, git... git it, git it, git it,
Gisse. Here it is one more time for your benefit:
>
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137314811.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> No wonder you are unable to learn relativity, you can't even read your
> source material!
> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html
> "Einstein proved Newton wrong and has yet to be proved wrong himself."
>
[hanson prior 6]
ahahaha... ahahahaha ... and then that same source goes on to say:
... "13.8 per cent of Royal Society fellows back Einstein, while the rest
supported Newton. The public also plumped for Newton, giving him" ...
& then it says ... "To continue reading this article, subscribe for only
$4.95." ... ..... but you were too fucking cheap to cough up five bucks,
like Henry, the "almost-victim", onto whom you are hanging onto now
as your last straw... Henry, your hope and savior, ... some reference.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e44b58bffe0c8260
ahahaha... Gash Eric, you are getting ever more fanatic here in your
obsession with Albert to the point where you don't read past the first
sentence of a reference... ahahaha... ahaha.... See, I pegged you right
before, Eric, you are a follower, not a seeker and much less a researcher...
But these are important issues for you, Eric. So, let's get you back now
for you to LEARN from the immediate past that is shown right here, below:
BTW, Schoenfeld's message just came aboard, with him being a keen
and knowledgeable observer who, unlike you, is properly insinuating that
you made the right choice when you felt that you had to get back to school
after your alleged assertion that tanh(x)=cosh(x)/sinh(x)... ahahaha....
>
[hanson prior 5]
Eric, you are getting fanatical and emotional again. You are not
supposed to swallow my hook. Especially with you waiting at
your computer, yearning whether I am casting or not, and then
greedily responding within 120 sec of my posting... ahahaha...
But thanks for the laughs, Eric... ahahaha... I have fun, Eric, but
you apparently do not. You sound lead, angry and self-tormented.
So, here, my friend, for your benefit, do study the issues, for god's
sake, and LEARN from them. Einstein himself, your hero, said that
you should. See (5) below... He, your role model, said so. NOT me.
Heed his, Albert's advice, not mine... ahaha... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
[hanson prior 4]
You have calmed down now. That is good, Eric. But reflect,
Eric, the message is important, not the dust on its edges. Only
fanatics and fundamentalists blow things out of proportions.
And it looks like that you are beginning to get gist and see the
core of the issue. Study it again. Here it is again for your benefit:
>
[hanson prior 3]
You are getting emotional and irrational now, Eric. You twist yourself
too quick and too much when you hear things that are not served to
you pre-chewed and platter-served for your regulated beliefs. Bad
scene for you to exhibit such traits of fanaticism, once you are out
in the real world. Here it is again for you to **learn** the facts....
before you finish your school that you have even not gone to yet:
>
[hanson prior 2]
Eric, you lie to yourself and you know it. ... see (3 & 4) below)]
>
[Eric]
> Nothing you can say or do will do anything to damage relativity's
> standing. ...... [Eric, I didn't and I don't. He did. See (1954) below]
> Outside this newsgroup, your whining and venting mean
> nothing. ......... [Eric, see (2) below, before you go back to school]
> This is the only place in the world where your ranting is taken
> seriously. ......... [Eric, see (2) below, before you go back to school]
> Be happy - it is much easier than actually doing experiments
> and disproving relativity, it is much easier than taking the time to
> find a logical contradiction in relativity.
>
[hanson prior 1]
.... and what experiments have you performed, except the
ones on yourself, "relatively" speaking?....see (4) below....
Here are the issues again for your learning benefits, Eric:
>
[hanson orig.]
...... ahahaha... "Ahh yes", in contrast to you, Eric, who believes to
understand all that comes out of that century old camp and who walks
in goose step fashion to its tune as in your mind it is apparently not
possible that there exists fraud in physics, especially not in your beloved
Einstein world. Whether there is/was fraud in it or not, is not even the
issue. It's the doubts about it that the "anti-relativists" do express...
and the very FIRST ANTI-RELATIVIST WAS EINSTEIN HIMSELF
as can be seen in his letter to Besso, in 1954, Albert writing to her
remorsefully:
== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Even somewhere in the early 1920s, when Einstein's star was rising,
he said to his disciples something to the effects for them "NOT to (5)
search at the same, now well lit places, where he had been working".
(Does anybody have the exact quote and reference of this?)
>
So Eric, don't be so stupid and and insensitive and call the creator of
your obsession and fetish a "joker and fuckup who is too stupid to
understand relativity".. ahaha..
>
(3) Eric with your utterly fanatical slaveish devotion, you'll make a very good
employee, a great follower of corporate edicts, but you'll never become
an independent biz-man, nor even a researcher. ... You just don't have
that item in you (yet). Now, that you announced to go back to school I
hope you may learn there that thinking means more than just "learning
by heart" and regurgitate what others have created, IOW, to learn how
to push the envelope... Remember that even physics does evolve...
as it is after all, in the finally analysis, just another social enterprise...
JUST AS EINSTEIN HAS SAID above. Good luck to you, Eric.
>>
[Eric]
> Research where the outcome is already decided?
> There is another name for that...
>
[hanson]
ahaha... yes, (1) like the original Einstein Relativity in that it infected
its disciples with Albertitis & Einsteinism & turned them into wasted
intellectual Left-overs and damaged goods out of the once good
people that they were... just like any other organized religion has
done for eons, routinely and sucsessfully..... ahahaha...
>
ahaha... yes, (2) like your camp's song that every test has proven
relativity, but which in fact merely suggests that under very carefully
selected conditions the Einstein gag tells the story of the tests well.
Big deal, but not big enough of a deal, because 100 years later it is
not for no reason that academia and industry is using these days
REL (SR/GR) in the following way and fashion, saying that anybody
who works in
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu & for R-grants......................"does need REL, - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies............... "loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as their cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
Furthermore, it is of no wonder that the Bavarians have made
GR/SR courses NOT mandatory any longer in their Univs physics
curriculum since/in 1996 and just a few months ago I glanced at a
post from a US student who wondered what book to study about
GR since it was no longer offered at his University in the US... !!!!.
Androcles posted on 12-05 that even the conservative Royal Society
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html
has now voted Einstein OUT also... and yet in these NG's there are
these loud fanatical disciples infected with Einsteinitis & some even
claim that "attacks" are motivated by "anti-semitism" and jealously.
The facts are clear: Such hung-up and stuck up disciples are jealous
that the world has moved on since 1905/1916 and that the evolution
of physics, and science in general, does continue...
(4) Eric someone must have told you to fuck yourself... you believed it and
you found pleasure in it... But hey, if mental masturbations are your gig...
then join that ancient club... NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, but let
others march on... LET OTHERS MARCH ON.... They are called:
**** investigators and searcher... researchers.... ****
Reprieve for you, Eric: ...... Everything is relative, ....even Einstein..
ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ahahahanson
>
hanson
news:XNxyf.12188$lL4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> The self-declared "Almost-Victim""Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com>
WHINED in message news:42ve0uF...@individual.net...
>> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>> news:_Voyf.8450$US3.5786@trnddc04...
>>> The self-declared "Almost-Victim" "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com>
>>> victimized himself in message news:9xnyf.9197$jR.7481@fed1read01...
>>> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>>> > news:Hqnyf.737$h47.304@trnddc08...
>>> >> Androcles posted on 12-05 that even the conservative Royal Society
>>> >> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html
>>> >> has now voted Einstein OUT also...
>>> >
>>> > The article you cited
>>> > (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html)
>>> > does not support the claim you made ("even the conservative Royal
>>> > Society has now voted Einstein OUT also").
>>> >
>>> [hanson]
>>> ahahaha.... ahahaha.... it says in there:
>>> "13.8 per cent of Royal Society fellows back Einstein, while the rest
>>> supported Newton. The public also plumped for Newton, giving him" ...
>>> .....
>>
["Almost-Victim" "Richard Henry"]
>> Hanson apparently still doesn't understand the article, or wishes to
>> present a peculiar spin of it.
>>
[hanson]
.... ahahaha... Richie, Richie, Richie, as usual... you have maneuvered
yourself into a position, once more and again to be an "Almost-Victim".
Look it said in [*1*] below already that : "[you] who does not understand
nor tolerate the word "opinion"... unless it's your own, [Henry's]... ahahaha
Besides, Henry, you are being a $4.95 cheap-shit, for a sum that is beyond
the call of the duty for a normal tight-wad to shore up your convictions...
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
>>
>>> [hanson prior ]
>>> "13.8 per cent of Royal Society fellows back Einstein, while the rest
>>> supported Newton. The public also plumped for Newton, giving him" ...
>>> $4.95"..... but you, Henry, you were too fucking cheap to cough up five
>>> bucks.... ahahaha...
>>> Why are you victimizing yourself, Richie? It must be after midnight,
>>> Saturday night, your time... ahahaha... Are you having insomnia problems
>>> that victimize you?... So listen, you sui-victimizer, follow this chain of
>>> custody in your perceived late night condition and then blame the
>>> originator, The Royal Society, but don't question their edict, .. just
>>> like Eric Gisse doesn't question Einstein. After all, both are royal in
>>> their own way, but you are a peasant and a perennial, self-announced,
>>> self-labeled "almost-victim" to boot, [*1*] [you] who does not understand
>>> nor tolerate the word "opinion"... unless it's your own...
>>> >
>>> BTW... do you simply wanna make conversation in the middle of the
>>> night (your time) because you are lonely and feel the horror in your mind
>>> that haunts you that you are an "almost victim" again? ahahahaha... if so, then
>>> you are forgiven, Richie.... I wish you could see those shimmering cloud
>>> formations 10 o'clock down... maybe the remnants of Zeta...
>>
["Almost-Victim" "Richard Henry" is whining]
>> Hanson's attempt at ad-hominem attack (such as it is) is illuminating.
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHA... ...ahahaha... Richie, Richie, bitchy, Richie....
you are running to the sorcerer illuminating your complaints, in that
a) you always strain to look for new ways to be an "Almost-Victim" .
b) you always come running after me, showing me over and over again
that you are a dingle-berry and yearning for me to confirm that you
are an "Almost-Victim" ... But, hey, what ever turns you on, Richie.
I have obliged, did you the favor, me, the great humanitarian and
Samaritan, whom you have elected to heal your mental wounds from
you being a perennial "Almost-Victim".... So, Richie, some sign of
gratitude from you would be in order, Richie-pooh...
>
["The old Sorcerer to Henry"]
> Yes, I thought hanson showed the real you in his illumination rather
> well too.
>
[hanson]
.... Andro, that is an awesome compliment, Herr Zauberer. No! Wait a
a minute, I should not use that word. It sounds too Jewish... ahahaha...
Hexer or Hexenmeister is more appropriate/kosher. IIRC from my many
years in the metropoli and backwoods on the continent I contend that...
... a Hexer is a mighty, mystical warlord advisor, an alchemist, a grand
conjuror and a great sorcerer, whereas...
... a Hexenmeister happened to be the owner and master of a prehistoric
whorehouse, a House of Joy, the Freudenhaus, the House of Freude, a
House with Frau where now-none frowned, where he, the master of the
lovely band of broads who called themselves die Hexen, die Huren, the
huris, the Fraun', the coveneuses, the pornoises, or the ladies of the night...
who needed a Hexermeister as their master for protection and to be their
executive conductor for their craft of behexing the peasant customers who
didn't get any in or thru the normal state of affairs, like Henry or Gisse,
relatively speaking.... ahahaha... and who were waiting at the gates playing
with themselves because they were too chintzy to cough up $4.95 for the
offered service.... ahahahaha... ahahaha...
>
So, Andro old friend, we must live with the heritage that the lingo craft of
yore is verhext and forlorn in the grey mist of prehistory, but to this very day
the certainty survives that there was and still is die Hexe and her Hexer....
or the Hexer and his Hexe, his battle axe in relativistic terms,... to whom in
one peculiar instance for said relativistic reasons Hexenmeister Albert had
to *** fork over ALL of his Nobel Preis Geld to his Hexe as hush money ***
ahahaha... Absolutely, I'd say relatively speaking... as can be seen in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b
>
[Andro]
> Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
> Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
> school for zauberlehrlings.
> "One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RR_C7/RelativityRevealed.htm
>
Andro, your website/blogging here above his is an EXCELLENT counter
balance to the pedestrian efforts of the Belgian, Dirk Fumbler, who in his
spermless filthy van dirt motel proudly functions as the "Third Kacksaker"
and wherein he indeed only kacksackers & regurgitates what other people
have opined on. He apparently hopes to prevent that cruel, hard & difficult
task to push the envelope of human knowledge by/with his personal,
recalcitrant and retarded kacksackering fetish... in his pitiful belief that the
evolution of physics had stopped in 1905... ahahaha... So, carry on Hexer!...
Your http://androcles01.... websites are cool, highly instructive and funny!
Kudos to you, dude. Carry on!
hanson
hanson
>> [MobyDikc wrote to someone]:
>> >> Also, if you could please reply with a reference to your favorite
>> >> website or theory here, if there isn't already one, a list of
>> >> anti-relativity research can be created.
>> >
[hanson]
>> A number of posters already did, like ...
>> Henry Wilson,
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>> or Androcles with
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
>> or "dej4" <clu...@yahoo.com with
>> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/npahome.html
>> http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/search.php?search_id=newposts
>> http://www.wbabin.net/
>> http://www.mrelativity.net/
> <snip>
>
> Hey Hanson,
> Thanks.
> Would anyone be interested in typing up an anti-relativity article for
> the wikipedia?
>
.... ahahaha... maybe Eric Gisse, the Judas of Relativity, will do so.
But if not, Moby, then there is plenty of scripting in google already,
producing the following over-view of website entry numbers:
3,060,000 for relativity not good.
1,970,000 for relativity lie.
1,810,000 for relativity is bad
1,770,000 for relativity religion.
1,650,000 for relativity wrong
1,450,000 for anti relativ
1,020,000 for relativity challenge.
959,000 for relativity lies.
780,000 for relativity false
400,000 for relativity stupid.
173,000 for relativity idiot
119,000 for relativity sucks.
69,700 for relativity fanatics.
66,800 for relativity disproved
65,800 for relativity falsified
33,100 for relativity is misused.
33,000 for relativity morons
30,100 for relativity disproven
9,160 for relativity is misapplied.
9,140 for anti-relativity
So, 3 million folks believe that relativity is not good but less
than 10K are actually anti-relativity. Now, what you have
suspected to be an "Alliance" maybe far fetched but
its undelaying current is vast and permeating indeed.
The reason why Gisse must be suspected as the Judas
of relativity is because he is "in between jobs" and he got
caught by Schoenfeld in a lie when Gisse tried to spread
the falsity that Einstein relativity uses a geometry that, in Eric
Gisses's own words, says: tanh(x)=cosh(x)/sinh(x). See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5a013e6a599b7de3
Gisse is quite possibly a mole, a double tonguer, who loudly
defends Einsteinism with an extreme fundamentalist fanaticism
but he, Eric, really does know and believe quite the opposite.
Gisse applies and operates on the same principle that the
vociferous green shits do/use, who cajole loudly, like Gisse does,
for the environmental/relativity cause, until they get hired by
industry as consultants, for a fat buck, .... to shut them up....
So, Gisse is trying to do his best to land such a job... and has no
qualms in betraying his Lord and master Einstein for it in this
process: *** Eric Gisse, the Judas of Relativity ***....
... but in a strange twist of fate Gisse does help to fulfill Einstein's
own premonition which Albert had conveyed to Besso back in
1954 when writing to her in a letter that:
== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>
.. ahhahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, you guys!.... ahahahha...
ahahaha.... ahahanson
Eric Gisse
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <1137429269....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> MobyDikc <moby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Eric Gisse,
> >
> >> Nothing you can say or do will do anything to damage relativity's
> >> standing.
> >
> >
> >That's not very scientific.
> ...
> >
> >To say "nothing you can say will damage relativity's standing", is not
> >the new thinking. In fact, it is largely intended to discourage new
> >thinking.
>
> I think he means you, personally. Trusting in the progress of science and
> that we don't know everything yet, one day relativity will be damaged by
> people that produce quantitative theories and perform measurements, and
> publish them in the professional literature. Usenet, and all the
> discussions here, and web pages produced by people that can't get
> themselves published in the standard venues, will be inconsequential.
Actually I did mean him - personally.
I would never say what I just said to someone I saw post for the first
time, but Mike Helland has been posting pseudo-intellectual bullshit
about philosophy and SR for at least a year now, with no sign of being
willing to learn SR [or GR, for that matter. He gave up on that long
ago apparently] so he could place his theories in context.
Unless he actually decides to learn the theories he talks about, he
won't make any contribution to the downfall of relativity. This goes
the same for the other idiotic folks on this newsgroup.
Bleating on usenet will get *nothing* done...just ask Dumb Donny how
his crusade against the metric system is going.
Eric Gisse
hanson wrote:
[snip idiocy]
>
> The reason why Gisse must be suspected as the Judas
> of relativity is because he is "in between jobs" and he got
> caught by Schoenfeld in a lie when Gisse tried to spread
> the falsity that Einstein relativity uses a geometry that, in Eric
> Gisses's own words, says: tanh(x)=cosh(x)/sinh(x). See:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5a013e6a599b7de3
I never said that.
[snip idiocy]
Hexenmeister
You are welcome. Typical smartarse thought he could bait me.
Little does he realize I always throw the little fish back, they don't
wriggle enough to amuse me.
--
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RR_C7/RelativityRevealed.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/EnergySquare.htm
Hexenmeister
Danke freundlich. Physics must proceed. Think GEM.
The key to finding a TOE is to realize Mass and Potential
Energy are one and the same, c^2 is merely the constant of
proportionality. There are no "atoms" made of flubber, only
little springs tied up with string, and even that is a bad analogy.
Mass we measure by force between little tied up springs.
One clump is the Moon, another clump is the Earth, another
is the Sun. There are fields between them. Only when we
stop thinking of "stuff", "matter", "material", "mass"
can we begin the think of fields.
There are three, all at right angles to each other.
http://www.sciencejoywagon.com/physicszone/lesson/otherpub/wfendt/lorentzforce.htm
Any two create the third.
Gravitism, Electrickery,Magnecity.
Generator, Electrick motor, Motion.
There are spheres out there because all the bits want
to get as close as they can to each other.
You can't build a TOE by starting with mass/charge/pole.
Ya gotta start with fields and then see how they manifest themselves
as masses and charges and poles.
Yer average Joe wants to begin with what he thinks he knows and invent
black holes. All we really know are GEM, and they are not independent.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GEM.JPG
Think GEM.
--
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RR_C7/RelativityRevealed.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/EnergySquare.htm
Eric Gisse
Schoenfeld wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > hanson wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > No wonder you are unable to learn relativity, you can't even read your
> > source material!
>
> this point, especially after you recently contended that
> tanh(x)=cosh(x)/sinh(x)..
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4b3545fc242e59bb?dmode=source
Eric Gisse
hanson wrote:
[snip]
>
> BTW, Schoenfeld's message just came aboard, with him being a keen
> and knowledgeable observer who, unlike you, is properly insinuating that
> you made the right choice when you felt that you had to get back to school
> after your alleged assertion that tanh(x)=cosh(x)/sinh(x)... ahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4b3545fc242e59bb?dmode=source
I like it how you repeat my "alleged assertion" over and over as if it
were true without even making the effort to check to see if it were
true. But then again, I guess you are used to looking like a moron if
the quality of your posting is any indication.
[snip]
hanson
news:c73os194mq4lpt1v1...@4ax.com...
> On 15 Jan 2006 19:29:27 -0800, donsto...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Poincare, Sagan, on and on, on and on......
>> all mere nodes in the neural net. The great equalizer.
>
> Not sure I know what you mean but I like the way it sounds. ahahaha...
> Louis Savain
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>
Yes. I wish that Stocky or someone would elaborate on the
neural-net of/in his "Global Brain" theory that arises out of a
discrete nature/universe and is chiefly governed on
self-similarity and scaling laws. This cosmology reaches
deep and questions even whether "every reaction causes an
equal/opposite reaction" whether its is true beyond simple
mechanics. For instance it is cleanly seen that it does not
hold in complex systems, and furthermore would it hold true
globally on every level of complexity then life and even
evolution of the cosmos itself could/would not be possible.
So Stocky, sing some more about the under-pinnings of
what's cited in your often referred to webpage at:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
>
To put the many relativity fanatics at ease, their pet theory
may remain as one of the subsets in that framework of
global self-similarity... but Einstein had doubts....ahahaha...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4dbff61dbe4c4659
ahahaha... ahahanson
kenseto
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
ROTFLOL......you are an idiot. BTW where the equations of your theory?
Ken Seto
Richard Henry
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:_4_yf.23791$Q11....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
The heck with that. When did he make the measurements?
hanson
[snip]
news:1137465395.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> [snip]
>> R^2 = (r/2GM - 1)exp(r/2GM)cosh(t/4gm)
> [snip]
> Should be cosh^2.
>
[hanson]
ahaha... so, you correct yourself rather often, don't you... ahaha..
like here, where I reminded you of this:
>> The reason why Gisse must be suspected as the Judas
>> of relativity is because he is "in between jobs" and he got
>> caught by Schoenfeld in a lie when Gisse tried to spread
>> the falsity that Einstein relativity uses a geometry that, in Eric
>> Gisses's own words, says: tanh(x)=cosh(x)/sinh(x). See:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5a013e6a599b7de3
>
> I never said that.
>
[hanson]
..... hahahaha.... Eric, but Schoenfeld said you did so, and
so you should take that up with him instead of whining to me.
... But then again, I guess you [said in a moment of lucidity
that you] are used to looking like a moron if the quality of your
posting is any indication.... ahahaha... ahahaha.....
... because Eric. the issue, and the only one that is of issue,
is that the love of your life, Einstein, said in 1954 to Besso
already long before you existed and played your Judas game:
== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
>
So, Eric, you should have arrived now at the threshold where you
should begin to ask yourself some questions pertaining the
real world, not relativistically but absolutely from your pov,
the chief one being "when will you learn how to get a job?"...
I wish you luck in your endeavor to become a gainfully employed
and happy citizen, instead of a constantly "learning" and unhappy
one, telling others what's right an what's wrong yet you having
less money in your pocket then they do..... ahahaha...
Don't waste what's between your ears on flights of fancy on/with
things that were in vogue a century ago.... Listen to your idol
Albert's admonition when said in the 1920s that you "shouldn't
search at the same, now well lit places, where he had been working".
>
BTW what have you done here, Eric:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b0694a085308dee0
is that another one of your "I never said that".... ahahaha
clu...@yahoo.com
Your equations make no sense, you are simply piling up more "ad-hoc"
stuff on top of already existing "ad-hoc" stuff. You are not going to
get the Nobel prize this way :-)