Re: Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 19, 2010, 4:31:03 PM4/19/10

to

On Apr 17, 12:33 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
Dear Peter, the Fraud: I am the person who: Discovered that the M-M
experiment lacked a CONTROL light course, which negated "Lorentz
transformations" of anything; I designed, constructed, and
successfully tested my X, Y & Z interferometer which shows hundreds of
fringe shifts (Einstein said that any Earth-mounted devise detecting
velocity would disprove SR); I determined that SR violates the
fundamental Law of the Conservation of Energy; I invalidated the 1830
kinetic Energy equation of Coriolis, KE = 1/2mv^2, by showing that
such violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy, AND by designing
and successfully testing a sonographic, two-mass, KE test, AND a
$40.00, two-mass dropped ball test, both of which prove that the
Coriolis equation is wrong; I determined that the CORRECT formula for
kinetic energy is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m); I determined that
the CORRECT way to write the acceleration due to gravity is: g =
32.174 ft./sec. EACH second; I determined that the mechanism of
gravity is flowing ether, replenished by photon or charged particle
exchange; I determined that there is no such thing as a... space-time
continuum; I determined that the smallest energy units of the ether,
the IOTAs, are polar, and that that polarity accounts for
electromagnetism; I determined that LIGHT is composed of clumps of
IOTAs emitted outward by the apt valence shells of atoms, the spacing
of which, alone, determines the COLOR of the light; I discovered that
light doesn't reflect, it re emits; I explained how clumps of IOTAs
(photons) can bend near the edges of slits to hit a target out-of-the-
line-of-sight; I determined that the gravity of super-massive STARS
shuts off when those stars go... Black; I determined that the ether is
largely discontinuous in the Swiss Cheese voids between the galaxies,
making trans-universe gravity action impossible; I determined that
there was no such thing as the… Big Bang; I correctly explained the
increasing red shift, with increasing distance, as: the AGING (wedging
apart) of the photons; I determined that the Universe is finite, and
bounded by an electromagnetic meniscus that holds in the ether; I
determined that the Universe keeps recycling the matter and energy,
and will never die; AND I have proved that Albert Einstein, the MORON,
had it wrong when he said that 'c' is the maximum velocity—my easy-to-
replicate algebraic analysis of the M-M experiment proves that light—
and human travel—has no upper speed limit!

Tell, me, Fraud, what have you; the writer of your 'SR' link; or
anyone who ever LIVED done to compare with MY contributions to
SCIENCE? — NoEinstein — AKA Joh
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c43f4512-c650-4938...@c42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 16, 11:20 am, "Peter Webb"<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> Dear Peter: You are a fraud. I don't read links not written by the
> person replying.
>
> ______________________
> Why? Do you mean that you won't read any information on the world-wide-web,
> unless it is written by the exact person who posted the link to it? Why not?
>
> You never did list your own... '+new posts'.
>
> ____________________________________________
> You want to know every post I have made? Why?
>
>
>
>
>
> > ______________________________
> > So you won't even attempt to refute Einstein's arguments? Why? Do you
> > believe Einstein's argument given in the web page I linked is wrong? If
> > so,
> > how? If not, why do you claim that SR is wrong?
>
> > Peter, do me and the readers a big favor by listing any
> > '+new posts' that you yourself have made. If you have any, I will
> > look at them and... laugh. — NoEinstein —
>
> > _________________________________
> > Why does it have to be new?
>
> > You are just a blowhard. You claim that SR is wrong, and then throw down
> > the
> > challenge that you will refute any explanation "point by point". I give
> > you
> > a link to an explanation on a web page, and then you run away.
>
> > Do you think there are errors in the web page I gave you, produce them.
> > The
> > "point by point" rebuttal you boasted you would make.
>
> > > My argument for SR is identical to the one presented here:
>
> > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>
> > > Go ahead and refute it point-by-point if you like.
>
> > Well, come on.
>
> > You find an error, or are you full of shit?
>
> Well, you claim SR is wrong, yet you cannot find an error or even anything
> you disagree with in the key paper which introduced SR to the world.
>
> You are simply a boastful blowhard. You claim you will refute any
> explanation of SR "point-by-point", I give you one, and then you say that
> you will not read it.
>
> You are a coward and a liar.
>
> A coward because you are not even prepared to try to justify your belief
> that this paper is wrong. A liar because you said you would.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 20, 2010, 5:11:55 PM4/20/10

to

On Apr 19, 4:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
Dear Readers: There are a few additional contributions which I've
made to science—not the least of which is my figuring out that
Newton's Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation, isn't universal at all.
His huge error? He never realized that gravity is proportional to the
amount of ether that can flow 'down' per unit of the object's mass;
and the downward ether flow will be greater for very HOT bodies that
emit more light. So, bright stars will have much more gravity than,
say, cold planets. The consequences of his error: There is an
approximate 10 fold over-estimate of the mass of the universe (and
galaxies), and an approximate ten fold UNDER-ESTIMATE of the gravity
of star systems. Those two, combined, will account for ALL of the
supposed "missing mass"... that has wasted close to a trillion dollars
trying to... find. Unfortunately, the primary 'mission' of science is
to find nonsense justifications for spending research money that's
provided by the naive taxpayers and 'foundations'. If supposed
scientists only had the ability to REASON, there would be a lot fewer
absurd experiments being financed and run! — NoEinstein —

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

BURT

unread,

Apr 20, 2010, 6:21:15 PM4/20/10

to

If gravity isn't universal I will eat my hat.

You really do claim too much.

Mitch Raemsch

xxein

unread,

Apr 20, 2010, 9:13:16 PM4/20/10

to

On Apr 20, 5:11 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 4:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Readers: There are a few additional contributions which I've
> made to science—not the least of which is my figuring out that
> Newton's Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation, isn't universal at all.
> His huge error? He never realized that gravity is proportional to the
> amount of ether that can flow 'down' per unit of the object's mass;
> and the downward ether flow will be greater for very HOT bodies that
> emit more light. So, bright stars will have much more gravity than,
> say, cold planets. The consequences of his error: There is an
> approximate 10 fold over-estimate of the mass of the universe (and
> galaxies), and an approximate ten fold UNDER-ESTIMATE of the gravity
> of star systems. Those two, combined, will account for ALL of the
> supposed "missing mass"... that has wasted close to a trillion dollars
> trying to... find. Unfortunately, the primary 'mission' of science is
> to find nonsense justifications for spending research money that's
> provided by the naive taxpayers and 'foundations'. If supposed
> scientists only had the ability to REASON, there would be a lot fewer
> absurd experiments being financed and run! — NoEinstein —
>

xxein: Sorry. Still non sequitur.

artful

unread,

Apr 20, 2010, 10:42:50 PM4/20/10

to

On Apr 21, 7:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 4:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Readers: There are a few additional contributions which I've
> made to science

Nope

> —not the least of which is my figuring out that
> Newton's Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation, isn't universal at all.
> His huge error? He never realized that gravity is proportional to the
> amount of ether that can flow 'down' per unit of the object's mass;
> and the downward ether flow will be greater for very HOT bodies that
> emit more light. So, bright stars will have much more gravity than,
> say, cold planets.

And your evidence for this nonsense ??

> The consequences of his error: There is an
> approximate 10 fold over-estimate of the mass of the universe (and
> galaxies), and an approximate ten fold UNDER-ESTIMATE of the gravity
> of star systems. Those two, combined, will account for ALL of the
> supposed "missing mass"... that has wasted close to a trillion dollars
> trying to... find. Unfortunately, the primary 'mission' of science is
> to find nonsense justifications

Sounds like your mission

BURT

unread,

Apr 20, 2010, 10:50:06 PM4/20/10

to

You can't weigh the universe. There is no center of gravity for it in
its entirety. We do not know the gravitational constant to a good
enough degree and that starts with what we know about the Earth's
gravity alone.

Mitch Raemsch

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 4:14:51 PM4/22/10

to

> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Burt: Start eating your hat! Gravity, at the maximum, acts over
the distances of galaxy clusters. And that action is weak, indeed. —
NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 4:17:33 PM4/22/10

to

On Apr 20, 9:13 pm, xxein <xx...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
Dear xxein: What don't you understand? Close to 100% of my New
Science developed from LOGIC and clear reasoning. Those are the best
sequiturs I know! — NoEinstein —

> xxein: Sorry. Still non sequitur.- Hide quoted text -

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 4:22:00 PM4/22/10

to

On Apr 20, 10:42 pm, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear "late-comer" artful: Follow my thread. I've explained your
'evidence' dozens of times. Do us all a favor and list your own '+new
posts'. Mine are copied, below. — NoEinstein —

> > absurd experiments being financed and run! — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

BURT

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 4:24:14 PM4/22/10

to

> NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I know gravity has a range. I meant gravity is a universal force. I
see you meant something different. So I will refrain from eating my
hat!

Mitch Raemsch

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 4:32:33 PM4/22/10

to

On Apr 20, 10:50 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Dear Burt: The 'mass' of the Universe has been 'estimated' from the
illumination of the galaxies. The mass of the Milky Way was
extrapolated from the errant calculation of the mass of the Sun.
Note: Once the size and orbit particulars of our Moon were known, the
mass of the Earth could be calculated. Knowing those two, the mass of
the remaining planets and moons, etc. could be calculated. Knowing
those "outer" sizes and orbits, allowed calculating the (cold) mass
needed at the center to hold everything in orbit. Since Newton never
knew that gravity is radiation dependent, the mass of the Sun was
greatly OVERESTIMATED. That caused the mass of the Milky Way to be
over-estimated, and the Universe, too.

Scientists GOOF every time they assume something to be correct simply
because a well-meaning man like Newton proposed that his formula
was... "universal" (sic) — NoEinstein —

> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

BURT

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 4:41:09 PM4/22/10

to

The mass of the universe gets you nowhere. It is meaningless because
it has no center. The universe is not held together by it.

Mitch Raemsch

xxein

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 8:54:23 PM4/22/10

to

On Apr 20, 10:50 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

xxein: So then. What gives you evidence to postulate your theory?

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 9:04:10 PM4/22/10

to

On Apr 20, 10:42 pm, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > absurd experiments being financed and run! — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Artful: Saying "nope" to me is like saying no to the rain
falling from the clouds. Your standards of what is what is only the
status quo garbage—proving that you lack both reasoning ability and
intelligence. Instead of simply disagreeing, take any one point from
my many posts, or my replies on those; paraphrase why you think I err;
and I will shoot you down. Not a SOUL has proved me wrong, or even
half tried. But you can give that your best shot. — NoEinstein —

BURT

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 9:30:36 PM4/22/10

to

> xxein: So then. What gives you evidence to postulate your theory?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The 4th dimensional hypersphere model of cosmology began by Einstein
as a closed universe finite yet without boundaries.

Mitch Raemsch

BURT

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 9:32:29 PM4/22/10

to

A complete theory is universal. But there are none lest people might
say they have one.

Mitch Raemsch

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 9:39:02 PM4/22/10

to

On Apr 20, 10:50 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Dear Burt: Weighing the Universe and estimating the mass are two
different things. The errant Big Bang theory would require a "center
of expansion". Scientists have looked for that center and not found
it. So, they rationalize that the 'expanding universe' is manifested
like spots printed on a balloon being blown up with air. The spots
get further apart, but the center isn't obvious. The whole-sky
photographs of the heavens (spliced together to show both the northern
and the southern hemispheres) aren't indicative of a uniform sphere of
light. The main reason that would be is because the Universe isn't a
perfect sphere. Of course, the Earth wouldn't be likely to be at the
center. Even so, the latter fact, by itself, is against there having
ever been a Big Bang. My strongest rationale is that there are no
such things a super-massive black holes. (As proved by the star gap
at the center of Andromeda.) So, there could never BE a singularity—
by any stretch of the imagination—which contained all the mass inside
just a speck of space.

It took Einstein's MORONIC space-time’s non-existence, right after the
Big Bang (sic) to allow there to be even a 'chance' that there could
have been a super-expansive phase... BEFORE the Laws of Physics kicked
in. When I invalidated the M-M experiment by showing that such
experiment simply lacked a CONTROL light course, I shot down Lorentz
and his Rubber Rulers—so necessary, if one is to believe that time and
space vary near very massive objects. Actually, only the ether
density and pressure vary near massive objects. That only requires a
middle school education to understand. SR and the Einstein stupidity
require a higher education Super Stupidity—typical of ALL technical
education being taught in those places. Parents, don't let you kids
grow up to be physicists! Those teaching the courses are as clueless
about nature as Einstein was. — NoEinstein —

> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 9:42:25 PM4/22/10

to

On Apr 22, 4:24 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Dear Burt: Good, honest out! Gravity is evident in places throughout
the Universe, just not ACROSS the Universe! — NoEinstein —

BURT

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 9:42:41 PM4/22/10

to

What is your nature NE?

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 9:50:11 PM4/22/10

to

On Apr 22, 4:41 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Dear Burt: The various parts of the Universe stay pretty much where
they were formed, because there was never an initial explosion to kick
things... out. The major 'stirring' of the gas and dust is caused by
the light emitted from newborn stars. Super Novae do a lot of mostly
localized kicking and stirring of the matter. That's why the Universe
is such and interesting place, NOT a growing colder and colder place!
— NoEinstein —

BURT

unread,

Apr 22, 2010, 10:31:09 PM4/22/10

to

Please disprove original space for first matter NE.

Spread out energy after space is the Big Bang. Einstein believed in a
Creator himself.

Mitch Raemsch

Sam Wormley

unread,

Apr 23, 2010, 1:27:47 AM4/23/10

to

On 4/22/10 8:39 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

> Dear Burt: Weighing the Universe and estimating the mass are two
> different things. The errant Big Bang theory would require a "center
> of expansion".

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

BURT

unread,

Apr 23, 2010, 2:10:52 AM4/23/10

to

There is no center to the universe because it is finite yet unbounded.
It is closed in the higher dimension of space. The universe is in the
surface of the higher dimension and its aether.

Mitch Raemsch

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 24, 2010, 1:37:20 AM4/24/10

to

On Apr 22, 9:30 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Dear Burt: " ... finite yet boundless (infinite)." You, sir, like to
have your cake and eat it, too! — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 24, 2010, 1:40:57 AM4/24/10

to

On Apr 22, 9:42 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Dear Burt: I'm honest, patient, analytical, intuitive, inventive and
motivated. What is YOUR nature? — NE —

> What is your nature NE?- Hide quoted text -

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 24, 2010, 1:46:20 AM4/24/10

to

On Apr 22, 10:31 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Dear Burt: The Universe began as a bubble of ether bounded by an
electromagnetic meniscus. The randomness of the polar ether formed
constructs of charged particles, which eventually formed atoms of
hydrogen, then, stars, then helium, etc. The unit of creation is
probably the galaxies. The spiraling motions of such had to be
already there before the stars formed. — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 24, 2010, 1:47:00 AM4/24/10

to

Sam WHO? — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 24, 2010, 1:49:18 AM4/24/10

to

On Apr 23, 2:10 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Dear Burt: You read too much... science fiction. String theory
hasn't got a thread to hang from—nor have you. — NE —

BURT

unread,

Apr 24, 2010, 2:03:26 AM4/24/10

to

Take a hike. Of course I eat my cake. There is a higher dimension.

Mitch Raemsch

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 24, 2010, 12:38:43 PM4/24/10

to

On Apr 24, 2:03 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Dear Burt: You are most... prolific with your mixed-bag science
notions. As a student I detected that same uncertainty in what was
being taught. I knew things were being said wrong, so I decided to
REJECT all of the explanations, and just accept the scientific
observations. Scientists are about ten times better at gathering
correct information than they are in explaining the probable reasons
for those observations.

Albert Einstein POLUTED the science environment by making it be...
popular to have illogical-sounding explanations. Since no one in
their right mind understood space-time, they only CLAIMED to
understand. Then, they said: "You know, I can be seen as... smart
(sic) too, by also saying illogical things. Your pick-and-choose
science mishmash may not seem illogical to you— because you don't
consider the Universe as a whole—only that bunch of "never-have-been-
understood" parts that seem to be calling for theories to be thrown at
them… Every time you reply on a post which I dominate, you are only
throwing out theories NOT asked for. I’ve determined, to near
certainty, that ‘varying ether pressure and density’ can define every
single observation in nature. If that is... taking CAKE away from a
tired-brain person like you, so be it. — NoEinstein —

BURT

unread,

Apr 24, 2010, 3:37:06 PM4/24/10

to

By boundless I mean round geometry the curves back on itself in the
form of an universal hypersphere form. Distance is closed in that way.
The higher dimension and its aether closes the universe.

Mitch Raemsch

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 27, 2010, 8:49:40 AM4/27/10

to

Dear Burt: What problem do you have with space being defined by x, y
and z coordinates? All of that "turns back on itself" crap came from
the brain dead in academia. Though science fiction writers will cry,
there is no such thing as worm holes and 'shortcuts' into the past or
future. That childish Steven Hawking show, this past weekend, about
time travel only points out how once irrational notions, such as the
Big Bang, get locked in, the mass-minded stupidity of academia simply
won't let go. My New Science knocks the props out from under the
ivory towers of academia; they can now be blown over in a slight
breeze. — NoEinstein —

BURT

unread,

Apr 27, 2010, 2:40:01 PM4/27/10

to

Space is not 3 dimensional. The higher diemnsion closes the universe.

Mitch Raemsch

spudnik

unread,

Apr 28, 2010, 3:42:28 PM4/28/10

to

don't touch that dial!

thus:
1. The circle that measures ecliptic latitude, that is, the number of
degrees above or below the ecliptic of the Moon or the planets. It is
properly calibrated when it reads "zero" every day at noon, when
sighting the Sun.

2. A half-circle and plumb-bob attached to the sighting arm, which
gives the elevation of a star or planet above the horizo
3. Equatorial plane, points to the celestial equator, by tilting it
from the horizontal by an angle equal to the co-latitude. The
14"circle on it is divided up into hours, for sidereal time or right
ascension (when necessary, these readings can easily be converted into
degrees, since 1 hour = 15 degrees).
4. Base, in the plane of the observer's horizon, oriented so that the
axis of symmetry is on the north-south meridian.
5. Ecliptic plane, also known as the 23.5-degree wedge, set parallel
to the plane of the ecliptic. The 12"circle on this plane is divided
up into 24 hours, giving ecliptic longitude, where the position of the
Sun is the sidereal time at noon for that day.

6. Sighting arm, with sights for "shooting"a planet, star, the Moon,
or the Sun.
Source: Adapted from Sentiel Rommel, "Maui's Tanawa: A Torquetum of
232 B.C.,"
21st Century, Spring 1999, p. 75.

> Aether is uncompressed matter and matter is compressed aether, so if
> you want to say light propagates through uncompressed matter, that
> would be correct.

> > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
> > his real "proof" is _1599_;
> > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
> > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
http://www.takethetrashoutofgoogolURL.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co....

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

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 28, 2010, 9:25:06 PM4/28/10

to

On Apr 27, 2:40 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Dear Burt: I'm an architect. Believe me space IS three dimensional,
only! Steven Hawking, who admitted in one of his early books that he
has trouble visualizing spatial things, supposes that because
"magnified" surfaces, like pool tables, are irregular, that "time"
must be irregular, too (so there can be... worm holes [ sic ]). Know
this, Hawking: TIME is a variable in the location of objects in
space, BUT time is NOT a dimension! Hawking was a mathematician who
likes to plot all the variables. Some jerks like Coo Coo Kako think
the Universe has 10 or 11 (variables) dimensions. Other than the x, y
and z of "space" the only variables are varying ether pressure and
density. There is no need for the Universe to "close", because it
isn't open; unless you call printing a 360 degree photo of the sky on
a flat piece of paper... "open". — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 28, 2010, 9:30:25 PM4/28/10

to

On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear spudnik: To whom are you replying? Plotting the locations of
objects in the heavens relates to astronomy more than the 'simple
puzzle' question. What is the connection you're making? — NoEinstein
—

> http://www.takethetrashoutofgoogolURL.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertain.......
>
> --Light: A History!http://wlym.com

BURT

unread,

Apr 29, 2010, 10:05:25 PM4/29/10

to

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

>
> - Show quoted text -

There is one higher dimension and it lives up to its name because we
can only see it in math.

Mitch Raemsch

NoEinstein

unread,

Apr 30, 2010, 11:15:06 PM4/30/10

to

On Apr 29, 10:05 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Dear Burt: And what higher dimension is that? — NE —