Re: Curing Einstein's Disease (is Copyrighted)

On Jan 31, 8:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 31, 4:01 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



It's more attention than he otherwise gets. I wonder what he'd do if
the both of us stopped replying all together - do you think he'd just
keep populating threads in reply to himself like he seems to be doing
now, or do you think he'd go away? Eric

Dear Eric: Some of my "added" replies to my own post are because
Google, apparently, limits the number of posts by one person--at one
time--to four. And those replies of mine contain detailed descriptions of my
Einstein disproofs. If you would read each of them, you might could
learn some truths!

Read what, you babbling endlessly about Coriolis even though he died a
solid 70 years before relativity was discovered?

"Einstein's" relativity gets treated like: Laws of Nature by many
physicists--as you probably agree. But true Laws of Nature have
existed since creation. So, Einstein can't lay claim to relativity,
if such is a law of nature. But relativity is just the concocted
ideas of a moron who had even poorer spatial visualization skills than
you (as for finding the side angle of a hemispherical pyramid).

That "moron" revolutionized statistical mechanics, invented special
and general relativity, and formed not only the _foundations_ of
quantum mechanics but helped form some of the most important tests of
quantum theory.

Oh, and he was awarded a Nobel prize.


Einstein screwed up by insisting that all observers must record
observed events the same. Modern physicists screw up by letting that
moron "play God" with the Laws of Nature, and without challenge.

Einstein made no such insistence.


Or about your endless
misunderstandings about kinetic energy?

There is a ritual that physics professors go through: It's called
"deriving equations". They string lines of this and that together;
and faster than 'smart' students can write down, let alone question.

It is expected that the students not only understand what is on the
board, but be able to derive what is written at a later date. There is
nothing wrong with this. Especially since most often what is written
on the board is a discussion of what is in the textbook - at least in
undergraduate courses.

But did you ever consider this: Someone had to be the first to come up
with that equation. If the equation is correct, that person has
discovered, or defined a law of nature. But should any equation be
'accepted' as being correct just because it is published in the text?
Or, because the professor wrote it on the board?

Since you have no formal education in physics, I understand you don't
know this so I'll explain it to you.

Nothing is taken on faith - every equation used is derived multiple
times through multiple paths, and the reference for the equation is
either the textbook itself or a reference written in the textbook.

Personally I can derive every single line you have ever used in
classical mechanics, and many more you cannot use.


Ultimately, the only things that should be accepted are those that can
withstand repeated analysis and question. Unfortunately, there are so
many equations, that physicists take the lazy way out... They just
accept the status quo on everything. And that makes all of them
fools.

You haven't the faintest idea what physicists do or do not do.


Coriolis goofed by trying to attribute to velocity all of the
destruction-causing effects of falling objects, their penetrations
into clay, etc. He never realized that the materials being impacted
respond differently to more rapidly applied loads. His KE = 1/2 mv^2
requires that a falling mass manifest a greater KE gain in each second
than in the previous second. The source of the KE? It's the uniform
for each mass force of gravity. But Coriolis's equation requires that
a faster falling object (or one falling for a greater time) receive
from gravity a greater force than a slower object of the same mass.

Ahh, thank you. I was immediately sad when I made that reply to PD in
thinking it was you because I thought what I was replying to was
really stupid.

Go into a freshman physics lab and play with an air hockey table. It
is rather easy to verify how kinetic energy behaves. Or talk to a
crash investigator. Or read a fucking DMV manual that explains crash
energy increases as the square of velocity.

So, for Coriolis, gravity discriminates by always applying the
greatest force to the fastest object.

No. Gravity makes no such discrimination - the force is the same
regardless of the particle. This is called the equivalence principle,
by the way.


My correct equation for kinetic energy: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m) is
a linear equation that has gravity applying an identical force to
identical masses regardless of their velocity. NoEinstein's theorem:
"Falling bodies gain KE due to Earth's gravity at a uniform rate with
time, adding one weight multiple per second (of fall)."

....and is wrong. Plain and simple.

This is a freshman in highschool class of observation.


Nobody has taken you seriously
yet - why should they start now?

You can speak only for yourself. Bias is in your blood; think about
that.

I didn't think you were stupid until after I read things that made me
think you were stupid.




As I said before, you'd fail a freshman physics course not because of
your idiotic rantings about what you don't understand but rather
because _you don't know what you are talking about_.

And you fail by attacking the messenger, rather than the message.

Why? The messenger is the one who created the message, and the message
is amazingly stupid.




Here's his premise:
1. Coriolis based his formula (1/2)mv^2 on an experiment with balls
impacting the earth. Such an experiment has identifiable experimental
flaws found by NoEinstein, and so (1/2)mv^2 cannot be right.

In the movie 'Good Will Hunting' the flaws were found by a janitor.

In Star Trek, ships can fly faster than light.

Children learn to distinguish from fiction and nonfiction at an early
age - what's your excuse?

Sweep some floors; maybe 'that' will improve your mind... No, not a
chance!

2. Any subsequent experiment that provided support for (1/2)mv^2 must
have been tainted by religious faith that the formula is right, and so
those experiments cannot be trusted either.

Any such experiment would be wrong because the force of gravity can't
discriminate falling objects' speed, so as to apply the most KE to
those objects.

3. Since the experiment is faulty, the formula is therefore wrong, and
therefore any subsequent experiment even involving the claim that
KE=(1/2)mv^2 is wrong, and the whole edifice falls.

Not only can't you read, you can't write!

4. NoEinstein has a backyard experiment that he thinks supports
another formula for KE, but he won't publish the results -- you have
to go to his back yard and have him talk you through it.

My results: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m)

5. Einstein obviously used (1/2)mv^2 in his development of relativity,
so it's wrong.

Einstein and Coriolis believed that the energy progression of an
accelerating object is exponential. Since that requires that gravity
be able to differentiate objects' speeds, it is wrong. Not because I
say it is, but because I have found the various errors.

The only "various errors" are in your failure to understand classical
physics and the exceedingly simple experimental methods required for
testing.


6. Einstein based his whole theory on that and the MMX, which is an
experiment that again has a flaw that NoEinstein has found.

Mostly Einstein based his theories on the beer-hall-conceived Beta
equation of Lorentz. It was such equation which I easily nullified by
determining that M-M doesn't have a CONTROL.

And your argument was nullified even easier by pointing out that you
don't understand what an interferometer is and that Einstein didn't
actually base his theories on anything Lorentz did.


7. Any subsequent experiment that provided support for relativity was
similarly tainted by religious fervor, and so once again, the whole
edifice collapses.

Originally, Einstein's ideas were just accepted, because few people
cared one wit about the man's subject areas. Later, Einstein's ideas
were held high, because of the jealousy of physicists to the
undeserved acclaim the man got by his all or nothing parlor trick:
Predicting the angle of bending stars' light by the Sun's gravity.

.....and the successful explanation of Mercury's perihelion precession.
But don't let the facts get in your way, especially since there has
been a lot of observations done since 1916.


8. NoEinstein has another backyard experiment that he thinks
demonstrates that there is either an ether or absolute motion, but he
doesn't publish his results here either -- you have to go to his
backyard and have him talk you through it.

The errant M-M experiment had ruled out ether. My invalidating M-M
reinstates ether. Since variations in ether density and flow near
massive objects can explain every observation that had purported to be
a "prediction" of Einstein's, I assert that ether is the most
fundamental energy source in the Universe(s).

Are you aware that there have been successive versions of the
Michelson-Morely experiment? You might want to do a literature
search....


9. Scientific worth is established by how many scientists you can lure
to your backyard to see work you've done.

No votes are required. "Truths don't have egos; but lies surely do!"
-- NoEinstein

So why do you hide behind a pseudonym?
.