Re: Curing Einstein's Disease (is Copyrighted)

On Feb 1, 10:29 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

PD: Thanks for your unread dribble! Classes in abnormal psychiatry
are discussing you all across America! -- NoEinstein --

On Jan 31, 11:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

... a post too rich to pass up. I'll only comment where I guffawed
when I read.





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.

No physicist claims to inventing a law of nature. That's not what
physicists do. They *discover* the laws by which nature works.
Columbus did not invent the New World. He stumbled on it. He
discovered it, where it had been laying the whole time. Einstein is
credited for having *found* something fundamental about the way nature
works and has always worked. You apparently have these crazy ideas
about what scientists get credited for.

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).

Einstein screwed up by insisting that all observers must record
observed events the same.

No, he didn't. Where on earth did you ever read such claptrap?

Modern physicists screw up by letting that
moron "play God" with the Laws of Nature, and without challenge.

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.

Not in my classes. The smart students just followed what I was doing
by watching and questioning now and again, and then they went back to
their dorm rooms or apartments and did it again for themselves. It was
the not so smart students that were trying to write everything down so
that they wouldn't have to work it out for themselves, and were so
busy writing that they didn't have time to think of any questions, let
alone asking them.

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?

Of course not. The first equation should be tested in practical
experiment (and good physics classes do just that) to demonstrate that
they do in fact hold.



Ultimately, the only things that should be accepted are those that can
withstand repeated analysis and question.

No, that's not enough. Analysis and question are not enough.
Experimental test MUST be included.





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.

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

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)."

As mentioned before, analysis and questioning do not a theorem make.
The question is whether this matches reproducible experimental data.
You perhaps have a deep misconception about how physical laws are
determined.







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.

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.

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

I'll remind you that Good Will Hunting is a work of fiction written by
two actors, Matt Daman and Ben Affleck. I'll also remind you that the
subject matter there was mathematics and not physics.



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.

Here again, the quality of reason is determined by whether that reason
stands up to experimental test. You have the attitude that if an
experiment conflicts with your reasoning, then the experiment must be
wrong. A physicist comes to precisely the opposite conclusion: if the
result of reasoning conflicts with experiment, then the reasoning must
be wrong. Nature informs us what the laws of nature are, we do not
inform nature what the laws are. This is what separates what you're
doing from science. It's fine that you dabble and play in the manner
that you've been doing, but you should understand that it has nothing
to do with science.



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)

Sorry, that doesn't count as an experimental publication. Perhaps
you'd like to see a model for what is included in a good experimental
publication?



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.

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.

Actually, no he didn't. He based them on Galileo's principle of
relativity and on Maxwell's discovered laws of electrodynamics,

It was such equation which I easily nullified by
determining that M-M doesn't have a CONTROL.

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 a number of other things. Those "parlor tricks" are called
comparison of theoretical predictions against experiment. It's how
science is done. You should try it some time.



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.

Uh, no, it does no such thing. An experiment that indicates the
effects of the ether would reinstated the ether. Do you have one of
those?



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).

9.

...

read more >>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... Laws of Nature by many ... that physicists take the lazy way out... ... from gravity a greater force than a slower object of the same mass. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Physicists and Laws.
    ... Physicists do not dictate to Nature their laws. ... strange, as the physicists think of it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Physicists and Laws.
    ... Physicists do not dictate to Nature their laws. ... Electron, Energy are. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Physicists and Laws.
    ... Physicists do not dictate to Nature their laws. ... Electron, Energy are. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Plausible Gravity Drive
    ... A question for the physicists out there. ... I am working on creating a gravity drive that, I hope, while severely ... a displacement equal to the forward momentum of the vessel. ... I know a bunch of physical laws are creaking right now, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)