Great Minds in Einstein Cult

[Pentcho Valev]

Einsteinians are practitioners of doublethink - they both worship and reject some concept so that the gullible world can come to the conclusion that in science concepts and their negations harmoniously coexist. The champion is undoubtedly Steven Jonathan Carlip, professor of physics at the University of California, Davis. Carlip is a practitioner of triple- and even quadruplethink. A synopsis of his teaching: The speed of light is constant by definition. Einstein said the speed of light is variable in a gravitational field - an interpretation which is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense - but later the speed of light in general relativity became constant. So constant that "it does not even make any sense to say that it varies". Finally, in a gravitational field, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary falling matter:

Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition! [...] Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity. [...] Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies." http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter." https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

Carlip's most recent interaction with the gullible world:

Steven Carlip, « Why We Need Quantum Gravity and Why We Don't Have It » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiystrENoeU&t=3175s

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Great minds sing in praise of Einstein's fundamental idiocy - "The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer" (Lisa Randall, mezzo-soprano, sings that the fundamental idiocy is "a monumental shift in how we see the world"):

Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI

Einstein knew that "The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer" is nonsense but introduced it nevertheless:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

Einstein's fundamental idiocy killed physics but brought so much money and glory to Einsteinians that they are not sorry for the death of science.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Great minds reject Einstein's spacetime but worship the underlying premise, Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate. They also worship the ripples in spacetime discovered by LIGO conspirators:

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. It was a speech that changed the way we think of space and time. The year was 1908, and the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski had been trying to make sense of Albert Einstein's hot new idea - what we now know as special relativity - describing how things shrink as they move faster and time becomes distorted. "Henceforth space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade into the mere shadows," Minkowski proclaimed, "and only a union of the two will preserve an independent reality." And so space-time - the malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter - was born. It is a concept that has served us well, but if physicist Petr Horava is right, it may be no more than a mirage. Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity - one the most pressing challenges to modern physics." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721-200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-space-time/

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." https://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe-ebook/dp/B00AEGQPFE

"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. [...] Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/

Pentcho Valev

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Brainless Imbecilities

[JanPB]

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 1:06:02 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einsteinians are practitioners of doublethink -

1. There is no such thing as "Einsteinians".

2. There is no such thing as "Einstein cult".

3. You are an idiot.

--
Jan

[Pentcho Valev]

Great minds teach that that the speed of light need not be constant - even if it is variable, Divine Albert's Divine Theory remains unaffected:

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien..." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf

Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/One_more_derivation.pdf

Sabine Hossenfelder: "If photons had a restmass, special relativity would still be as valid as it's always been. The longer answer is that the invariance of the speed of light features prominently in the popular explanations of special relativity for historic reasons, not for technical reasons. Einstein was lead to special relativity contemplating what it would be like to travel with light, and then tried to find a way to accommodate an observer's motion with the invariance of the speed of light. But the derivation of special relativity is much more general than that, and it is unnecessary to postulate that the speed of light is invariant." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2016/05/dear-dr-b-if-photons-have-mass-would.html

Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2

Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for it in the theory." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1234v1.pdf

Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern physics would not be threatened." http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/44d3ebf3b94d89ad

Mark Buchanan: "...a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html

Pentcho Valev

[Lara Ashline]

4. The above statements evaluates ALL as false.

[Pentcho Valev]

Great minds teach breathtaking logic:

Premise 1: The speed of light is a law of physics (Einstein said so).

Premise 2: The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame (principle of relativity).

Conclusion: The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame (Einstein's 1905 second postulate is a consequence of the first one).

Leonard Susskind (10:26) : "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4

Lubos Motl: "The second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did. In classical Newtonian mechanics, it was not a law of physics." http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/lorentz-violation-and-deformed-special.html

Professor Raymond Flood (5:05): "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed of light in a vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of reference." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjRSYv7u3T4

Dave Slaven: "Einstein's first postulate seems perfectly reasonable. And his second postulate follows very reasonably from his first. How strange that the consequences will seem so unreasonable."
http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Physics/relativity/relativity3.html

Chad Orzel: "The core idea of Einstein's theory of relativity can fit on a bumper sticker: The Laws Of Physics Do Not Depend On How You're Moving. Absolutely everything else follows from the simple realization that physics must appear exactly the same to person in motion as to a person at rest - the constant speed of light, the slowing of time for moving observers, E=mc2, black holes, even the expanding universe (I've written a whole book about this, explained through imaginary conversations with my dog)."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/05/29/four-reasons-to-not-fear-physics/

Michael Fowler: "Therefore, demanding that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames implies that the speed of any light wave, measured in any inertial frame, must be 186,300 miles per second. This then is the entire content of the Theory of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 186,300 miles per second." http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/spec_rel.html

Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of modern physics is the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein regarded it as one of the two postulates on which special relativity is based. So far, however, little attention has been paid to the status of this postulate when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of the relativity principle, not an independent postulate. To see this let us consider the two postulates of special relativity as formulated by Einstein in his 1905 paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies": "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of the motion of the emitting body". As the principle of relativity states that "the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames" and the constancy of the speed of light means that "the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames (regardless of the motion of the source or the observer)" it follow that the second postulate is indeed a consequence of the first - the law describing the propagation of light is the same for all inertial observers." http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909081

Pentcho Valev

[JanPB]

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 2:09:01 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Great minds teach that that the speed of light need not be constant - even if it is variable, Divine Albert's Divine Theory

Haha, it really bugs you, doesn't it.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

1.Yes, there are
2.Yes, there is
3.You're an idiot

[Lara Ashline]

Your friend is a math modelling ignorant. I told him one he has to exclude
the black hole subdomain from his model or simulation. He asked me what it
was, and that I was bluffing using "private terminology". Completely moon
landing, this individual.

[Pentcho Valev]

Great mind Kip Thorne, Nobel prize winner in the post-truth world, teaches that Newton's theory predicts no deflection as starlight passes near the sun. Only Divine Albert's Divine Theory predicts deflection, and in 1919 Sir Arthur brilliantly (and honestly of course) confirmed that prediction:

Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings

Pentcho Valev

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Sunday, 10 December 2017 13:16:41 UTC+1, Lara Ashline wrote:
> mlwozniak wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 9 December 2017 22:04:54 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 1:06:02 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> > Einsteinians are practitioners of doublethink -
> >>
> >> 1. There is no such thing as "Einsteinians".
> >>
> >> 2. There is no such thing as "Einstein cult".
> >>
> >> 3. You are an idiot.
> >
> > 1.Yes, there are 2.Yes, there is 3.You're an idiot
>
> Your friend is a math modelling ignorant.

He is not my friend, but, of course, he is ignorant.

[Odd Bodkin]

You could do so much more as a professional heckler. You could get thrown
out of sporting events, thrown out of comedian shows, thrown out of music
venues. Where’s your ambition?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Sure; why do I deal with a bunch of impotent
halfbrains able only to wave arms and spit.

[Pentcho Valev]

The genius's genius in Einstein cult:

"Among the brilliant theorists cloistered in the quiet woodside campus of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, Edward Witten stands out as a kind of high priest. The sole physicist ever to win the Fields Medal, mathematics' premier prize, Witten is also known for discovering M-theory, the leading candidate for a unified physical "theory of everything." A genius's genius, Witten is tall and rectangular, with hazy eyes and an air of being only one-quarter tuned in to reality until someone draws him back from more abstract thoughts." https://www.quantamagazine.org/edward-witten-ponders-the-nature-of-reality-20171128/

The genius's genius is unable to understand the Michelson-Morley experiment (or is a blatant liar). In the video below, at 1:17, he teaches that the experiment confirmed the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light posited by the ether theory, and disproved the variable (dependent on the speed of the source) speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory:

Edward Witten on modern physics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnzLpyDsn3M

The Wikipedia author is much cleverer than Witten:

Wikipedia: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

The analysis of the above information unavoidably leads to the following conclusion:

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variable speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate.

Banesh Hoffmann, perhaps the most intelligent Einsteinian, says essentially the same:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Here is the short truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment:

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Pentcho Valev

[JanPB]

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 4:16:41 AM UTC-8, Lara Ashline wrote:
> mlwozniak wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 9 December 2017 22:04:54 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 1:06:02 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> > Einsteinians are practitioners of doublethink -
> >>
> >> 1. There is no such thing as "Einsteinians".
> >>
> >> 2. There is no such thing as "Einstein cult".
> >>
> >> 3. You are an idiot.
> >
> > 1.Yes, there are 2.Yes, there is 3.You're an idiot
>
> Your friend is a math modelling ignorant. I told him one he has to exclude
> the black hole subdomain from his model or simulation. He asked me what it
> was,

You are LYING. I never "asked what it was", I TOLD you that there was NO SUCH THING
in the trade as "the black hole subdomain". I TOLD you that you'd made up this term
just to bluff and feign knowledge you did not possess.

> and that I was bluffing using "private terminology".

Because that's what it was: a terminology you made up. There is no such thing as
"the black hole subdomain" known in all of physics.

> Completely moon landing, this individual.

Just look at yourself!

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 8:49:32 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The genius's genius in Einstein cult:

There is no such thing as "Einstein cult". It's a strawman (or, in the more modern terminology,
"fake news").

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

A lie, as expected from an Einstein cultist.

[Lara Ashline]

JanPB wrote:

>> Your friend is a math modelling ignorant. I told him one he has to
>> exclude the black hole subdomain from his model or simulation. He asked
>> me what it was,
>
> You are LYING. I never "asked what it was", I TOLD you that there was NO
> SUCH THING in the trade as "the black hole subdomain". I TOLD you that
> you'd made up this term just to bluff and feign knowledge you did not
> possess.
>
>> and that I was bluffing using "private terminology".
>
> Because that's what it was: a terminology you made up. There is no such
> thing as "the black hole subdomain" known in all of physics.

You are a lying bitch, what a shame, from a one pretending being a
mathematician. Sub-domains are familiar used terminology in math modelling
and physics. I gave you google links, don't be an idiot.

Moreover, even without those "sub-domains" you seemingly have serious
trouble with, just by thinking that you can model black hole singularities
into a computer, is craziness. Therefore you have to exclude that
subdomain, idiot!

[JanPB]

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:15:43 AM UTC-8, Lara Ashline wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> Your friend is a math modelling ignorant. I told him one he has to
> >> exclude the black hole subdomain from his model or simulation. He asked
> >> me what it was,
> >
> > You are LYING. I never "asked what it was", I TOLD you that there was NO
> > SUCH THING in the trade as "the black hole subdomain". I TOLD you that
> > you'd made up this term just to bluff and feign knowledge you did not
> > possess.
> >
> >> and that I was bluffing using "private terminology".
> >
> > Because that's what it was: a terminology you made up. There is no such
> > thing as "the black hole subdomain" known in all of physics.
>
> You are a lying bitch, what a shame, from a one pretending being a
> mathematician. Sub-domains are familiar used terminology in math modelling
> and physics. I gave you google links, don't be an idiot.

Oh stop this nonsense. There is simply no such thing as "the black hole
subdomain", end of conversation. The fact that the WORD "subdomain" exists as
a generic term is irrelevant.

> Moreover, even without those "sub-domains" you seemingly have serious
> trouble with, just by thinking that you can model black hole singularities
> into a computer, is craziness. Therefore you have to exclude that
> subdomain, idiot!

Irrelevant. You are changing the subject. The discussion was NOT about
programming computers for this stuff. It was about your use of nonexistent
terminology.

I don't think it makes any sense to continue.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Remember, fool: only a puffed relativistic moron has the
right to decide what discussion is about and what it is not.

[Lara Ashline]

JanPB wrote:

>> You are a lying bitch, what a shame, from a one pretending being a
>> mathematician. Sub-domains are familiar used terminology in math
>> modelling and physics. I gave you google links, don't be an idiot.
>
> Oh stop this nonsense. There is simply no such thing as "the black hole
> subdomain", end of conversation. The fact that the WORD "subdomain"
exists
> as a generic term is irrelevant.

What you think is conversation is conflict, not conversation. Are you
going to model that blackhole in Physics, or are you not?

Admit your incompetency and defeat, and this is it. When you math model
that thing, you have to put it into a subdomain. You are so stupid saying
the terminology both is existent and not.

[JanPB]

Don't waste time trying to change the topic away from your not knowing that the
term "the black hole subdomain" demonstrated your incompetence.

--
Jan

[Lara Ashline]

JanPB wrote:

>> What you think is conversation is conflict, not conversation. Are you
>> going to model that blackhole in Physics, or are you not?
>>
>> Admit your incompetency and defeat, and this is it. When you math model
>> that thing, you have to put it into a subdomain. You are so stupid
>> saying the terminology both is existent and not.
>
> There is simply no such thing as "the black hole subdomain", end of
> conversation.
> Don't waste time trying to change the topic away from your not knowing
> that the term "the black hole subdomain" demonstrated your incompetence.

I oppose this vehemently. You have to use a sub-domain, my good old
friend. Without which you have no model to INVESTIGATE. You build models
in Physics in order to INVESTIGATE, pull DATA and observe BEHAVIOURAL. You
probably neither know this thing, which is unfortunate.

[Paparios]

This must be a record...The nimshifting ignoramus troll keeping his ridiculous "name" for more than a day!!!

[Edwin Huckabee]

Not sure that she does, but from what I read you are supporting JanPB,
which is weak in physics modelled mathematically. You put your money on
the bad horse, which makes you an ignorant particularly in this domain.
Dr. Lara knows what she is talking about, unlike you (paparios??) and
YanPB.

[Paparios]

A new name for the ridiculous troll.
Way to go!!!

[Edwin Huckabee]

Paparios wrote:

>> >> I oppose this vehemently. You have to use a sub-domain, my good old
>> >> friend. Without which you have no model to INVESTIGATE. You build
>> >> models in Physics in order to INVESTIGATE, pull DATA and observe
>> >> BEHAVIOURAL. You probably neither know this thing, which is
>> >> unfortunate.
>> >
>> > This must be a record...The nimshifting ignoramus troll keeping his
>> > ridiculous "name" for more than a day!!!
>>
>> Not sure that she does, but from what I read you are supporting JanPB,
>> which is weak in physics modelled mathematically. You put your money on
>> the bad horse, which makes you an ignorant particularly in this domain.
>> Dr. Lara knows what she is talking about, unlike you (paparios??) and
>> YanPB.
>
> A new name for the ridiculous troll.
> Way to go!!!

You must be angry because I believe Dr. Lara proved you uneducated in many
areas while ago. To me, you are looking both directly stupid, not only
uneducated. It must have something your country and your culture.

[Edwin Huckabee]

Actually "to do with", as I can see you can't even read short languages.

[Paparios]

Priceless stupid troll!!! You are so mind divergent

[Carl Susumu]

RE: CERN


In the CERN (2017) particle physics experiment, two hadron beams are collided to form subatomic particles but a proton has a mass 1,888 time larger than an electron and have a charge. The positive charges of the protons of the hadron beam would limit the concentration of protons in the hadron beam since like charge protons would repeal. It is unlikely that a high enough concentration of protons can produce a proton beam that could result in the collision of accelerated proton of the hadron beam. A collision implies a particle beam interacting with a metal structure. There is no physical example of an electron, nuclear or proton beam that interaction produces a collision of the entities within the beams when the beams are combined. When two particle beams are combine at perpendicular angles there is never an interaction that depicts a collision of the particles within the beams is occurring. In addition, it does not appear realistic that high energy protons of the hadron beam can be both accelerated and made to propagate on a exact circular path of the 27 km CERN vacuum tube since as the protons propagate through the vacuum tube the velocity of the protons increase which would require magnets that increasing magnetic fields are pointing towards the center of the circular 27 km vacuum tube. The size of the magnets would increase alone the path of the 27 km CERN vacuum tube to produce the increasing magnetic fields required to kept the protons contain in the 27 km circumference path of the CERN vacuum tube but the magnets along the vacuum tube appear to have the same size. Also, when the protons interact during the collision it is more likely that the protons would repel rather then collide and form subatomic particles. The high energy protons of the proton beam are propagating at the velocity of .999c that energy can cut steel which would make it very difficult to contain the CERN hadron beam within the 27 km circular vacuum tube without the protons contacting the outer surface of the vacuum tube enclosure producing a hole in the vacuum tube and eliminating the vacuum. The high energy protons that are propagating through the circular accelerator vacuum tube would have the energy to cut steel which can be tested by placing a .1 thick steel plate in that path of the accelerated proton beam. The accelerated protons at the end of the path through the vacuum tube would produces a hole in the steel test plate is placed in the path of the proton beam when the hadron beam accelerator is activated for approximately 20 seconds a hole would be formed in the steel test plate. Also, when the two hadron beams are combine a 300 $ (used) Geiger counter could be used to determine if the CERN experiment is accurately producing subatomic particles. The ATLAS experiment and Compact Muon Solenoid are the detectors that are used to detect the subatomic particles of the CERN accelerator collision. Also, the Compact Muon Solenoid is a metal structure that weighs 14,000 lb that resemble the Muon detector used the Soudan mine Muon experiment.

[Edwin Huckabee]

You are spamming, you severely stupid and uneducated ignorant troll.

[Paparios]

It is time to change again your name moronic troll. You are so easy to detect...