NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein

NoEinstein

unread,

Dec 21, 2009, 3:07:21 PM12/21/09

to

After years of being pestered by PD, I know that he is genetically and
pathologically incapable of being convinced of anything that’s not
part of his “status quo” education. But I do credit that rascal with
sometimes asking good questions. I will therefore give you, the
Readers (not PD), part of my rationale for saying that Einstein’s GR
resulted directly from analysis of the orbital data for the planet
Mercury.

Very early in my odyssey to conclusively disprove Einstein’s SR, I
spent an afternoon in my local library. I had already proven to my
own satisfaction that the M-M experiment simply lacked a CONTROL, or
unchanging light course. Lorentz’s lame attempt to explain the nil
results of M-M was to say—more stupidly than any other “scientist”
since—that: “All matter, regardless of its composition or geometry—
will contract in direct proportion to velocity, and will remain
contracted, without the possibility of elastic rebound, until the
velocity is reduced.” Some of you know the latter as the “rubber
ruler” effect, also called the “Lorentz transformation”.

My providing the correct explanation, as above, for the ’failure’ of M-
M, simultaneously shot Lorentz out of his drunken saddle! While
skimming McGraw-Hill’s Scientific Encyclopedia, I saw that Einstein
was also including a Lorentz transformation in the equations purported
to represent his GR theory. I would eventually learn that GR closely
’predicts’ numbers of astronomical occurrences. Since I knew that
Lorentz transformations were wrong as a “concept”, such equation,
somehow, must be ‘close’ to correct, mathematically—otherwise GR
wouldn’t ’predict’ anything.

One of the first little books I read that afternoon in my public
library was a word-for-word translation, from German, giving
Einstein’s “simple” explanation for both his SR theory and his GR
theory. English is a Germanic language. After reading just a few
pages, I was immediately aware that the writer had a very small
vocabulary, and that his syntax was below average. After reading
several, usually short, chapters, I realized that the writing style
changed dramatically throughout the book, suggesting to me that
portions of book were the words of others… Since I had seen a live TV
broadcast in which Einstein had been interviewed, I could conclude
that Einstein was a slow-talking, verbal MORON and that he was likely
a ‘science’ moron, too.

An Einstein biography that I skimmed that afternoon, mentioned that
Einstein had an astronomer friend who had observed that the moons of
Jupiter were re emerging from the backside of that planet sooner than
the orbital periods predicted. I also read that anomalies in the
orbit of the planet Mercury, inconsistent with Newton’s Law of
“Universal” (sic) Gravitation, was what inspired Einstein to try to
refine Newton’s equation to fit the observations for the orbital
locations of Mercury. Einstein, who was clearly jealous of Newton’s
status as a scientist, set about with maniacal zeal to write an
empirical equation(s) to predict the orbit of Mercury at any point
about the Sun.

Since Einstein knew that some of the moons of Jupiter, that had
essentially circular orbits, were re emerging (visually) sooner that
the orbital periods predicted, he (or another…) concluded that the
‘gravity’ of Jupiter was somehow bending light like a lens. And he
(or another…) concluded that the amount of optical bending of light
would be directly proportional to the mass of the planet (or star).

Other than for his (or another’s) observations on the photovoltaic
effect; and on Brownian Motion in liquids, Einstein was a lackluster
scientist. He would stake his entire reputation on being able to
‘predict’ the angle of bending of a star’s light in passing from
behind the Sun during a solar eclipse. A recent TV biography of
Einstein explained how he had been all set to predict the angle of
bending for an upcoming solar eclipse, when he realized that his
equations weren’t correct… A few years would pass before the
equations could be made to be satisfactory.

By deductive reasoning, Einstein’s GR equations had to have been based
about equally on Newton’s law and on the precise orbital data
available for the planet Mercury. That’s because: *** The latter were
the only “observations” that were available to Einstein, or to anyone,
for writing a ‘predicting’ equation(s)!*** To maximize the importance
of his GR equations, Einstein conveniently neglected to tell others
that Mercury was involved. One of the first “proofs” of GR was to let
others use his equations to “predict” where Mercury should be. Of
course they worked…

Just after the outbreak of WW I, Einstein managed to get photographic
observations of a solar eclipse inside Russia. When the measurements
of the star plates were taken, they showed the angle of bending to be
close enough to Einstein’s “predictions”, that the scientific
community started calling MORON Einstein a genius… I would read,
later, that Einstein had been cock-sure of his… prediction. But how
could that be, for a man with a marginal intellect?

Astronomy used to be my hobby. In reading over the years, I learned
that any low power telescope can have a disk put on the front to blank-
out the lumen of the Sun—just like the Moon would do during a solar
eclipse. Stars’ light is getting bent by the Sun all the time, but
the Sun’s brightness prevents the making of any observations. But
with a correctly sized and placed disk in front of the telescope, the
virtual eclipse(s) will allow star measurements to be made just about
any time.

The primary equation variable to (reverse) predict the angle of
bending would be the mass of the Sun. Newton’s Law of
“Universal” (sic) Gravitation gave a mass that was different from the
actual, because Newton’s Law didn’t consider that very hot bodies have
a higher gravity than a ‘colder’ body would have. Another important
variable would be the apparent distance of the star(s) from the center
of the Sun. Unbeknownst to Newton nor Einstein, the maximum gravity
of the Sun is where the maximum heat and illumination is. Often that
is at solar flairs on the surface. So, regardless of the equations
used, any mathematical prediction would likely vary from the observed
bending at any given time.

By constant hard work (not genius) Einstein formulated GR equations
which make satisfactory predictions. But Einstein never could figure
out what the mechanism of gravity is… Since his equations plotted to
vary according to the inverse square law, Einstein wrongly assumed
that… space and time… must be warped… close to massive objects. But
yours truly knows that the mechanism of gravity is simply downward
flowing ether whose density and velocity vary according to the inverse
square law. A “double variation” of an inverse square law,
coincidentally will plot similar to that conceptually errant, but
mathematically correct… “Lorentz transformation”.

I trust that the above explanation answers PD’s question, though I
don’t expect that air-head to acknowledge such fact. — NoEinstein —
P. S. The above was "posted" three months ago... but not
successfully. The context is off, but the subject matter is right-on!

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Dec 21, 2009, 4:52:48 PM12/21/09

to

NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
36a2ed68-5859-44a3...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com

> After years of being pestered by PD,

... you're still here, trying in turn to pester this newsgroup.
Here's some news for you: you are not pestering this newsgroup.
You are entertaining this newsgroup.

Dirk Vdm

Sam Wormley

unread,

Dec 21, 2009, 5:51:32 PM12/21/09

to

On 12/21/09 2:07 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> After years of being pestered by PD...

Pathetic, you are, but kill files keep you fairly insignificant.

Raymond Yohros

unread,

Dec 21, 2009, 6:08:05 PM12/21/09

to

yeah, i dont know why pd gave him so much play?
there is no productive interaction with a guy like that!

r.y

Uncle Al

unread,

Dec 21, 2009, 8:51:45 PM12/21/09

to

NoEinstein wrote:
[snip crap]

> Very early in my odyssey to conclusively disprove Einstein�s SR, [snip [120 lines of crap]

1) Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a
purely mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to
contradictions in number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the
mathematics of Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of
real numbers and with arithmetic.

2) Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>

3) idiot

> I had already proven to my
own satisfaction that the M-M experiment simply lacked a CONTROL,

4) A 2007 study sensitive to 10^(-16) rlative employed two
simultaneous interferometers over a year's observation: Optical in
Berlin, Germany at 52�31'N 13�20'E and microwave in Perth, Australia
at 31�53'S 115�53E. An aether background could never be at rest
relative to both of them.

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031

5) Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation

6) idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

NoEinstein

unread,

Dec 22, 2009, 8:05:31 PM12/22/09

to

On Dec 21, 4:52 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> 36a2ed68-5859-44a3-9df9-8a2c7f726...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com

>
> > After years of being pestered by PD,
>
> ... you're still here, trying in turn to pester this newsgroup.
> Here's some news for you: you are not pestering this newsgroup.
> You are entertaining this newsgroup.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Dear Dirk Vdm: ... I'm glad you are enjoying what I say. Have a
great holidays! — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Dec 22, 2009, 8:10:58 PM12/22/09

to

Dear Sam: You have yet to counter any of my New Science. You only
defend what you... taught (sob, sob...). Instead of wandering the
groups hoping to find a sympathetic ear, try to be opened-minded to
the fact that what you taught was at least partly wrong. Don't feel
shame; you've got a lot of company who believed the same thing—but not
me! — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Dec 22, 2009, 8:12:57 PM12/22/09

to

Dear Raymond: It would be productive if you, or others, who agree
with me, would simply say so. — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Dec 23, 2009, 5:01:32 PM12/23/09

to

Dear Sam: Other than your having taught science falsehoods for years,
please enlighten the readers by giving links to your own '+ new posts'
that in any way advance the causes of science. I copy some of mine,
below. Thanks! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Dec 23, 2009, 5:05:09 PM12/23/09

to

On Dec 21, 6:08 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...@birdband.net> wrote:

Dear Raymond: Please enlighten us: What kind of guy are you? Have
you ever made an original '+new post' that advances the causes of
science? If not, then refrain from attacking the messenger. It's
unlikely that you can attack, or even discuss, the MESSAGE. —
NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Dec 23, 2009, 5:27:09 PM12/23/09

to

On Dec 21, 8:51 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
Dear Uncle Al: You are a slow learner. You enjoy your "four-letter-
word" and hope that its use will elevate you to being all-knowing of
science truths. Actually, that word of yours shows that you,
yourself, are incapable of discussing either narrow or broad issues
about physics.

As I've told you several times before, interferometer experiments over
Earthy, or other great distances, will never detect ether DRAG.
That's because the ether, composed of IOTA energy units, nurtures
photons (or microwaves) on their way—at velocity 'c'. James Clerk
Maxwell's ridiculous notion that light can be dragged by the ether
caused A. A. Michelson to perform the M-M experiment—which failed,
miserably. Please understand this fact: If the ether were capable of
slowing light or microwaves below velocity 'c', or speeding light
above velocity 'c', then, light from the Sun and stars would soon be
slowed such that it never reaches the Earth. No light = no life on
Earth! If you are alive, Uncle Al... (which I sometimes doubt) that
supposed double interferometer experiment that you cite was as wrongly
conceived as was M-M!! — NoEinstein —

>
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> [snip crap]
>
> > Very early in my odyssey to conclusively disprove Einstein’s SR, [snip [120 lines of crap]
>
> 1) Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a
> purely mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to
> contradictions in number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the
> mathematics of Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of
> real numbers and with arithmetic.
>
> 2) Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
>

> <http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments....>

>
> 3) idiot
>
> > I had already proven to my
>
> own satisfaction that the M-M experiment simply lacked a CONTROL,
>
> 4) A 2007 study sensitive to 10^(-16) rlative employed two
> simultaneous interferometers over a year's observation: Optical in
> Berlin, Germany at 52°31'N 13°20'E and microwave in Perth, Australia
> at 31°53'S 115°53E. An aether background could never be at rest
> relative to both of them.
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
>

> 5) Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml

> <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
> No aether
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
> No Lorentz violation
>
> 6) idiot
>
> --

> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/