info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What Should Have Stopped Einstein
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Aug 15, 2017, 2:38:50 AM8/15/17
to
Einstein's assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source was false but sounded reasonable - it is valid for all waves other than light so assuming that light makes no exception is justifiable. However, combined with the principle of relativity, the assumption entails an obvious idiocy - the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer as well. Einstein saw the idiocy and should have stopped immediately but didn't. If he had stopped, physics would be still alive today:
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. 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." https://history.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
The independence of the speed of light from the speed of the observer is not just nonsense - it is an obvious idiocy. Any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect shows this:
When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ=f(1+v/c):
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
"The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. [...] Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."
http://docplayer.net/35188128-Modern-physics-notes-spring-2007-paul-fendley-lecture-35.html
"Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."
Does this mean that the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v? Yes. Consider the following setup:
A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the speed of the pulses to be c and the frequency to be f=c/d, where d is the distance between the pulses:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
The observer starts moving with constant speed v towards the light source - the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
The following formula is correct:
f' = c'/d
where c' is the speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer. Clearly,
c' = c + v.
That is, the speed of the pulses varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity:
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vo)/λ."
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. [...] Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:
Stationary receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
Moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [end of quotation]
Let us jump into the moving receiver's frame of reference. The frequency we measure is
f' = (c + (1/3)c)/d
where d is the distance between subsequent pulses. The speed of the pulses relative to us is, accordingly,
c' = df' = (4/3)c = 400000 km/s,
in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Einsteinians may wish to introduce relativistic corrections (time dilation), in an attempt to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory. The effect would be small and, to their surprise, in the unfavorable direction. The speed of the moving receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. Accordingly, the corrected f' is (1.05)*(4/3) s^(-1) and the corrected c' is (1.05)*(400000) km/s. Einstein's relativity is even more violated.
Pentcho Valev
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. 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." https://history.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
The independence of the speed of light from the speed of the observer is not just nonsense - it is an obvious idiocy. Any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect shows this:
When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ=f(1+v/c):
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
"The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. [...] Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."
http://docplayer.net/35188128-Modern-physics-notes-spring-2007-paul-fendley-lecture-35.html
"Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."
Does this mean that the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v? Yes. Consider the following setup:
A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the speed of the pulses to be c and the frequency to be f=c/d, where d is the distance between the pulses:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
The observer starts moving with constant speed v towards the light source - the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
The following formula is correct:
f' = c'/d
where c' is the speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer. Clearly,
c' = c + v.
That is, the speed of the pulses varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity:
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vo)/λ."
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. [...] Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:
Stationary receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
Moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [end of quotation]
Let us jump into the moving receiver's frame of reference. The frequency we measure is
f' = (c + (1/3)c)/d
where d is the distance between subsequent pulses. The speed of the pulses relative to us is, accordingly,
c' = df' = (4/3)c = 400000 km/s,
in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Einsteinians may wish to introduce relativistic corrections (time dilation), in an attempt to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory. The effect would be small and, to their surprise, in the unfavorable direction. The speed of the moving receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. Accordingly, the corrected f' is (1.05)*(4/3) s^(-1) and the corrected c' is (1.05)*(400000) km/s. Einstein's relativity is even more violated.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Aug 15, 2017, 11:41:48 AM8/15/17
to
The period 1905 - 1909 was difficult for Einstein. In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment had refuted the constancy of the speed of light posited by the ether theory, and there was a scientist, Walther Ritz, immeasurably more talented and intelligent than Einstein, who was developing Newton's (variable-speed-of-light) theory while describing the consequences of Einstein's special relativity as absurd:
Banesh Hoffmann: "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." Relativity and Its Roots, p.92
https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Un seul fait donnera une idée de la grandeur de Walther Ritz. Lorsque, en 1909, l'Université de Zurich met au concours le poste de professeur de physique théorique, il y a douze candidats. Parmi eux Einstein et Ritz. C'est Ritz qui est choisi sur la base du rapport du professeur Kleiner, qui a été le directeur de thèse ... d'Einstein et qui écrit de Ritz qu'il possède « un don extraordinaire, se manifestant aux limites de la génialité. » Hélas, Ritz devait décéder quelques mois plus tard des suites de sa tuberculose." http://www.wikivalais.ch/images/c/c2/Communique_de_presse_Ritz.pdf
"In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences..." [...] Two months after Ritz's death, in September 1909, his exchange with Einstein barely echoed at a meeting of the Deutsche Naturforscher und Ärtze in Salzburg, where Einstein delivered a lecture elaborating his views on the radiation problem but made no explicit reference to Ritz's views. Two years later, however, in November 1911, Paul Ehrenfest wrote a paper comparing Einstein's views on light propagation with those of Ritz. Ehrenfest noted that although both approaches involved a particulate description of light, Ritz's theory constituted a "real" emission theory (in the Newtonian sense), while Einstein's was more akin to the ether conception since it postulated that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. [...] Ritz's emission theory garnered hardly any supporters, at least none who would develop it or express support for it in print. As noted above, in 1911, two years after Ritz's death, Ehrenfest wrote a paper contrasting Ritz's and Einstein's theories, to which Einstein responded in several letters, trying in vain to convince him that the emission hypothesis should be rejected. Then Ehrenfest became Lorentz's successor at Leiden, and in his inaugural lecture in December 1912, he argued dramatically for the need to decide between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories, on the one hand, and Ritz's on the other. After 1913, however, Ehrenfest no longer advocated Ritz's theory. Ehrenfest and Ritz had been close friends since their student days, Ehrenfest having admired Ritz immensely as his superior in physics and mathematics; but following Ritz's death, Einstein came to play that role, as he and Ehrenfest became close friends." http://ritz-btr.narod.ru/martinez2004pip6.pdf
Walther Ritz died prematurely and the fraudster (Einstein) found it safe to inform the gullible world that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved the constancy of the speed of light (today's Einsteinians almost universally teach the same blatant lie):
The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
Pentcho Valev
Banesh Hoffmann: "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." Relativity and Its Roots, p.92
https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Un seul fait donnera une idée de la grandeur de Walther Ritz. Lorsque, en 1909, l'Université de Zurich met au concours le poste de professeur de physique théorique, il y a douze candidats. Parmi eux Einstein et Ritz. C'est Ritz qui est choisi sur la base du rapport du professeur Kleiner, qui a été le directeur de thèse ... d'Einstein et qui écrit de Ritz qu'il possède « un don extraordinaire, se manifestant aux limites de la génialité. » Hélas, Ritz devait décéder quelques mois plus tard des suites de sa tuberculose." http://www.wikivalais.ch/images/c/c2/Communique_de_presse_Ritz.pdf
"In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences..." [...] Two months after Ritz's death, in September 1909, his exchange with Einstein barely echoed at a meeting of the Deutsche Naturforscher und Ärtze in Salzburg, where Einstein delivered a lecture elaborating his views on the radiation problem but made no explicit reference to Ritz's views. Two years later, however, in November 1911, Paul Ehrenfest wrote a paper comparing Einstein's views on light propagation with those of Ritz. Ehrenfest noted that although both approaches involved a particulate description of light, Ritz's theory constituted a "real" emission theory (in the Newtonian sense), while Einstein's was more akin to the ether conception since it postulated that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. [...] Ritz's emission theory garnered hardly any supporters, at least none who would develop it or express support for it in print. As noted above, in 1911, two years after Ritz's death, Ehrenfest wrote a paper contrasting Ritz's and Einstein's theories, to which Einstein responded in several letters, trying in vain to convince him that the emission hypothesis should be rejected. Then Ehrenfest became Lorentz's successor at Leiden, and in his inaugural lecture in December 1912, he argued dramatically for the need to decide between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories, on the one hand, and Ritz's on the other. After 1913, however, Ehrenfest no longer advocated Ritz's theory. Ehrenfest and Ritz had been close friends since their student days, Ehrenfest having admired Ritz immensely as his superior in physics and mathematics; but following Ritz's death, Einstein came to play that role, as he and Ehrenfest became close friends." http://ritz-btr.narod.ru/martinez2004pip6.pdf
Walther Ritz died prematurely and the fraudster (Einstein) found it safe to inform the gullible world that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved the constancy of the speed of light (today's Einsteinians almost universally teach the same blatant lie):
The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
Pentcho Valev
reber G=emc^2
Aug 15, 2017, 5:38:15 PM8/15/17
to
hanson
Aug 15, 2017, 5:51:19 PM8/15/17
to
Addressing Valev, "reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip idiotic Glazierola>
>
So, <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>,
you brag to be _ Glazier, the Turd-man of Anaheim_
and the Un-American Marxist Mooch, Face Shitter &
<http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>,
>
how desperately do you hope that the poster you harass
now, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com>, with
your idiotic Gutter physics & your filthy Glazierola,
will actually be so stupid and respond to you and join
the 3 imbeciles below, who falsely believe that they
could educate you, them knowing that you, Bert was
kicked out of school in the 4th grade!.... LOL
>
These splendid, Glazier-intellect-alike submissives now
join Bert's crowd in his stable of 8 other Bert-shit eaters
& they are:
>
Double-A" AA, <doub...@hush.com>, aka "Abner Afterduft"
"Serg io" <inv...@invalid.com> the KGB/SFB-apprenctice,
"john" <johnse...@gmail.com>, the veggytating-moron.
>
Apparently, these aberrants and perverts do yearn & can not
wait for you, Cretin Glazier, to tell them the same thing that
you told...
>
(1)
On 9Aug2017 to Paul Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com>
Paul, you are too low witted to understand what I post.Its way
over your head.Your sitting on your brain.Sad but true TreBert
>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, to "benj" <nob...@gmail.com>:
Reality is you, Benj always post under me for you are an ass
kisser. For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert.... & addinng
>
On 03Aug2017:
benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears.
>
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, Jew Pig Glazier wrote:
Harlow Campbell HVAC, Mr....@gmail.com,
Saul Levy <saul...@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nob...@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your faces to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
>
Glazier, you filthy, hate-mongering Swine, your "nice" posts
do not belong into s.p. Post your foul Glazierola into your
<http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017>, until
you accept <http://tinyurl.com/Herbert-Glazier-s-Reprieve>,
as you wait for <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker>.
who has a gruesome end in store for you, Glazier. "It's a pity"
<snip idiotic Glazierola>
>
So, <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>,
you brag to be _ Glazier, the Turd-man of Anaheim_
and the Un-American Marxist Mooch, Face Shitter &
<http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>,
>
how desperately do you hope that the poster you harass
now, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com>, with
your idiotic Gutter physics & your filthy Glazierola,
will actually be so stupid and respond to you and join
the 3 imbeciles below, who falsely believe that they
could educate you, them knowing that you, Bert was
kicked out of school in the 4th grade!.... LOL
>
These splendid, Glazier-intellect-alike submissives now
join Bert's crowd in his stable of 8 other Bert-shit eaters
& they are:
>
Double-A" AA, <doub...@hush.com>, aka "Abner Afterduft"
"Serg io" <inv...@invalid.com> the KGB/SFB-apprenctice,
"john" <johnse...@gmail.com>, the veggytating-moron.
>
Apparently, these aberrants and perverts do yearn & can not
wait for you, Cretin Glazier, to tell them the same thing that
you told...
>
(1)
On 9Aug2017 to Paul Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com>
Paul, you are too low witted to understand what I post.Its way
over your head.Your sitting on your brain.Sad but true TreBert
>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, to "benj" <nob...@gmail.com>:
Reality is you, Benj always post under me for you are an ass
kisser. For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert.... & addinng
>
On 03Aug2017:
benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears.
>
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, Jew Pig Glazier wrote:
Harlow Campbell HVAC, Mr....@gmail.com,
Saul Levy <saul...@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nob...@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your faces to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
>
Glazier, you filthy, hate-mongering Swine, your "nice" posts
do not belong into s.p. Post your foul Glazierola into your
<http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017>, until
you accept <http://tinyurl.com/Herbert-Glazier-s-Reprieve>,
as you wait for <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker>.
who has a gruesome end in store for you, Glazier. "It's a pity"
Double-A
Aug 17, 2017, 6:16:10 PM8/17/17
to
Double-A
benj
Aug 17, 2017, 7:34:29 PM8/17/17
to
their "super-race" programs to produce Aryans by breeding and by the
elimination of "undesirables", defectives and "deplorables". Contrary to
Jewish propaganda, the gas chambers with the fake showerheads and all
actually existed but for the purpose of "eugenic cleansing" of mentally
ill, handicaped, gay and other "defectives". Hitler continued this up
until German public had enough an brought enough pressure to stop the
killings. AFter the war Jews thought the gas chamber stories had more
clout than simply telling that the Jews were simply worked to death as
slaves so they adopted them.
But we can thank America for Eugenics and you can be sure once Left is
back in power and the cleansing begins again, this time it won't be
stopped by public pressure.
But to give credit where credit is due, I can point out that it was the
Brits and not the Americans who invented the concentration camp. Great
inventions come from many countries.
hanson
Aug 17, 2017, 10:46:52 PM8/17/17
to
"benj" <be...@nobody.net> wrote :
>
<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>
aka <herbert...@0gmail.com>, who anagrams to
>>
>>
Double-A" AA, <doub...@hush.com>, alias Mr. "Abner Afterduft"
( = Yiddish for "Asshole Aroma") is an "Alcoholic Addict", and not
only Glazier's "Ass Angel", but also Bert's "Asshole Ambassador",
"Anal Advocate" & "Aberrant Analyst" as the "Double-Asshole"
who yearns to be like Full Swine Glazier, & also wanted hanson
to stop posting & be dead, like Hate monger Glazier does, to whom
Abner daily sucks up to, since there is a scatological homoerotic
attraction factor involved between Bert & Abner, ever since Glazier
promised to bequeath Glazier's stinky Van and that Pail that,
>
Bert shits into, to Abner, who in his DT flash-backs observes the
motions of a Dingleberry swinging between Abner's legs, as he
hallucinates to be "right on the money", of which Abner has none,
but sustains himself on his dumpster-diver-diet, or crumbs that
Abner mooches and gets from begging geriatric Bag-ladies...
>
yet, Abner sees himself as a Jewish Supremacist & as a Marxist
Communist Bolshevik Anarchist & said "Better Red the dead" in
>
<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>
aka <herbert...@0gmail.com>, who anagrams to
>
______"reber A. Hitler, z0g@ gmail.com" ______ wrote:
If Einstein lived in Florida with the biggoty in America in
this day and age he would be treated as he lived in Germany.
That is in reality a given.Yes if he was a black Jew killing him
would make millions very happy.-- Judeo-Nazi TreBert
______"reber A. Hitler, z0g@ gmail.com" ______ wrote:
If Einstein lived in Florida with the biggoty in America in
this day and age he would be treated as he lived in Germany.
That is in reality a given.Yes if he was a black Jew killing him
>>
>>
Double-A" AA, <doub...@hush.com>, alias Mr. "Abner Afterduft"
( = Yiddish for "Asshole Aroma") is an "Alcoholic Addict", and not
only Glazier's "Ass Angel", but also Bert's "Asshole Ambassador",
"Anal Advocate" & "Aberrant Analyst" as the "Double-Asshole"
who yearns to be like Full Swine Glazier, & also wanted hanson
to stop posting & be dead, like Hate monger Glazier does, to whom
Abner daily sucks up to, since there is a scatological homoerotic
attraction factor involved between Bert & Abner, ever since Glazier
promised to bequeath Glazier's stinky Van and that Pail that,
>
Bert shits into, to Abner, who in his DT flash-backs observes the
motions of a Dingleberry swinging between Abner's legs, as he
hallucinates to be "right on the money", of which Abner has none,
but sustains himself on his dumpster-diver-diet, or crumbs that
Abner mooches and gets from begging geriatric Bag-ladies...
>
yet, Abner sees himself as a Jewish Supremacist & as a Marxist
Communist Bolshevik Anarchist & said "Better Red the dead" in
his <http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017> --- now wrote:
" The truth is the Nazis in Germany used the race laws in states
like Florida as models for setting up their race laws in Germany!
>
" The truth is the Nazis in Germany used the race laws in states
like Florida as models for setting up their race laws in Germany!
>
Benj wrote:
Even Better than that! They used American ideas on Eugenics to set up
their "super-race" programs to produce Aryans by breeding and by the
elimination of "undesirables", defectives and "deplorables".
>
Contrary to Jewish propaganda, the gas chambers with the fake
showerheads and all actually existed but for the purpose of "eugenic
cleansing" of mentally ill, handicaped, gay and other "defectives".
>
Hitler continued this up until German public had enough an brought
enough pressure to stop the killings. AFter the war Jews thought
the gas chamber stories had more clout than simply telling that
the Jews were simply worked to death as slaves so they adopted
them.
But we can thank America for Eugenics and you can be sure once
the Left in the USA is back in power and the cleansing begins again,
Even Better than that! They used American ideas on Eugenics to set up
their "super-race" programs to produce Aryans by breeding and by the
elimination of "undesirables", defectives and "deplorables".
>
Contrary to Jewish propaganda, the gas chambers with the fake
showerheads and all actually existed but for the purpose of "eugenic
cleansing" of mentally ill, handicaped, gay and other "defectives".
>
Hitler continued this up until German public had enough an brought
enough pressure to stop the killings. AFter the war Jews thought
the gas chamber stories had more clout than simply telling that
the Jews were simply worked to death as slaves so they adopted
them.
But we can thank America for Eugenics and you can be sure once
Double-A
Aug 18, 2017, 5:45:31 PM8/18/17
to
Double-A
0 new messages