Re: Basics Series I: NEWTON, MAXWELL, EINSTEIN HOAXES - REVEALED!

From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/18/05 

Date: 18 Feb 2005 06:33:49 -0800

Ron Poteet wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> For over thirty years I've been studying the unresolved questions in
> physics. Each time a new question appears it adds a new hint to the
> unresolved issues of physics. A few months ago while I was reading a
book on
> the history of the square root of minus one I had an incredible
moment of
> insight; during that moment the room that I was sitting in turned
blue, I
> experienced an incredible feeling of excitement and euphoria. It was
a
> moment of absolute clarity and certainty. I thought for a moment that
I was
> having a stroke. But after a period of about five seconds I realized
that I
> had discovered the answer to the problems which had intrigued me for
so
> long: that answer was that matter, energy and time has multiple
dimensions!
>
> I worked on it for a couple of sleepless weeks and developed a
complete and
> concise theory which I call MEAT, for Matter, Energy And Time; the
MEAT of
> physics. Simply put the theory is as follows: "Matter, energy and
time are
> conserved quantities. They exist in multiple dimensions. All matter
moves as
> matter waves of energy in imaginary dimensions of time. Particles of
mass
> are stationary and exist in a real dimension of time."
>
> That's it. Of course, between the lines of those few short sentences
is a
> lot of new physics.
>
>
> Let's start with the conservation of time: if time were not conserved
we
> would have run out of it a long time ago. We wouldn't exit and
neither would
> the cosmos without the conservation of time. Interestingly, it's the
first
> question that occurs to a young student studying relativity, what's
happened
> to the rest of time? The answer is that it goes into wave motion, and
as
> such, it conserves time. An interesting side to this is that for
ensemble
> averaging to equal time averaging, time must be conserved. The proof
of this
> relation has not been possible until now. Matter, energy and time are
so
> tightly bound together that one cannot exist without the other, and
if one
> is conserved so must the others. Each conserved form of energy exists
in its
> own orthogonal imaginary dimension of time. And each form of energy
(linear
> motion, angular motion and random thermal motion, etc.) must be
accounted
> for in the time dilation of particles in real time. That is why time
is
> conserved.
>
>
> The conservation of matter means that the energy required to convert
a
> stationary particle to a wave of energy must transfer to another
particle
> within the object when the wave converts back to its particle after
> displacement. Particles quit converting only when that energy is
removed
> from the object.
>
> The conservation laws requires that a fixed (or at least what the
matter
> sees as being fixed) frame of reference must exist. This obviously
spells
> doom for inertial frames of reference in relativity.. This refrence
frame is
> most likely to be composed of strings.
>
> "Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
in
> message news:1108657097.815550.190990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Lady Chatterly wrote:
> >> In article <1108033784.191840.34970@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> >> Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Androcles wrote:
> >> >> "Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote
> >> >in
> >> >> message
> > news:1107946350.475736.310460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Androcles wrote:
> >> >> >> "Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:cu6ved$71i$9@news.iucc.ac.il...
> >> >> >> > In sci.physics.particle Paul B. Andersen
> >> >> >> > <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > : The fact that the sky is blue is thus a proof that
> >> >> >> > : the ballistic theory is OBVIOUSLY true.
> >> >> >> > :
> >> >> >> > : The ballistic theory can explain everything!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Can it explain why the sky is falling?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course. There are no props to hold it up.
> >> >> >> Androcles.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Drat! And I thought it was because it was attracted to my
> >> >> > beeee-yooooo-tiful face.
> >> >>
> >> >> Push your beautiful face into this, then:
> >> >
> >> >Fun time!!
> >>
> >> It is a bunch of horse***.
> >>
> >
> > Whatever turns you on.
> >
> >> --
> >> Lady Chatterly
> >>
> >> "An automated response program that is similar to an artificial
> >> intelligence." -- Gunner
> >

OK, now I understand why it's so hard to recognize satire in this
forum.

PD

Quantcast