Science Education, Government and Einstein

In this world, whatever happens in one area inevitably affects what
happens in other areas. As much as many might like things to be
otherwise, there is no such thing as separatism; we're all in the same
melting pot.
In the Summer of 2007, I realized for the first time that the
majority of the intransigence of those in the physics departments at
our universities to recognize my disproofs of Albert Einstein was due
to this one fact: 'The National Science Foundation' is "throwing money
at" any research with the word Einstein in the title, or in the
rationale. There is no requirement for pragmatism in what gets funded
by the NSF--relative to Einstein or not.
My odyssey to get my Einstein disproofs recognized has led me to
realize that not only are our universities screwed up, but our systems
of government that fund public education are screwed up, too. I
predict that when my Einstein disproofs are finally recognized, our
ideas about the 'role of education' will be rewritten to be PRAGMATIC
for the first time in our nation's history. And our governments--which
are composed of our 'elected dictators', NOT our elected
representatives--will once again be brought under the rein of... the
PEOPLE!
But first: A German, Jewish Moron named Albert Einstein must be
kicked out of the science texts and reference books for all time! The
positive changes in the entire world that will be brought about by
that one act should bring us together, nations and groups--because of
our common goals, not our disparate ones.
Presidential candidate Ron Paul correctly likened straightening
out America to "...a revolution". He said that "revolutions take a bit
longer than a presidential term". And Paul correctly sees the War in
Iraq... as the cause of much of our decline and rising discontent in
America.
Below this 'introduction' are two letters which I sent last year
to President Bush, urging him to stop the NSF from being the 'leading'
grants for "Einstein related research". But Bush never replied.
Unfortunately, it is he who will be recommending to the 2008 Congress
what the 2009 budget for the NSF will be. My guess is that Bush will
continue including whatever amount of funds the NSF requests. From
his perspective it's understandable that Bush doesn't worry about
nickel-and-dime, two billion dollar per year units like gets thrown-at-
Einstein, yearly--because Bush must be concerned with funding his...
multi-trillion dollar war in Iraq.
Recently, I described the handwriting analyses which I made of
six candidates for President. Such resulted from my seeing the
signatures of the six that were shown in a TIME Magazine article last
May. Just one of these candidates: Obama, Clinton, or McCain, will be
the President Elect. If such President affirms my goal to make the
NSF be pragmatic in its funding grants, the entire world will be the
beneficiary. But of the three candidates, only Hillary Rodham Clinton
is qualified to be President. In nutshells:
Obama is a strong willed individualist, not a group player. He
is much too detail oriented to delegate authority to others. And his
ego is so large that he will find it difficult to follow the
recommendations of others--even experts. It'll be Obama's way or no
way. 'Compromise' isn't in his vocabulary. Those in the Executive
Branch will not like being Obama's puppets. And those in Congress--
with equally huge egos--will resist being dominated by a president who
is deluding himself that he has "cross the aisle" support.
Obama likes to tout that he doesn't accept support from "special
interests". Yet, his 90 plus percent support among blacks is just
such support. Suddenly, the "black" special interest looms large.
And they will be expecting favors. Having Obama be President
reinstates the old divisiveness of segregation. Those who have
indorsed the man--in any way--will be expecting similar favors.
Lastly, Obama isn't a friendly and pleasant person to be around.
His life has mostly been one of isolation, or... lonely in a crowd. He
relates to others, begrudgingly. His motives are largely ego related,
and his disposition doesn't uplift others.
John McCain managed to parlay his years as a POW into a political
career. It's likely that his IQ was lowered by poor nutrition while
he was a prisoner. Though he can speak fluently on familiar subjects,
he has difficulty discussing fresh issues. To protect his below
average IQ, McCain supports his own familiar status quo and repeats
those many speeches he has memorized in the past, or that he reads
from teleprompters. The man has major personal identity issues. Such
are made manifest by the illegibility of both his first and last name
in his signature. People who so write have very negative
personalities, and are not trustworthy. A president should write like
"John Han***", not like John McCain!
The wavering, unsteadiness of his writing suggests someone with a
very nervous temperament. McCain isn't a person the USA should have
with... his finger on the 'World War III button'. And the thin pressure
of his writing denotes someone who is hypersensitive and easily
offended. Additionally, the light pressure hints that he isn't
healthy, physically.
McCain would be the Republican Party's puppet. He isn't fit
enough mentally nor physically to be President as an individual
leader. And McCain has no executive experience. The pressures of the
job would overwhelm the man in months. It's likely he would die in
office, or have to resign due to poor health.
That leaves us with only one FINE choice for President of the
United States of America: Hillary Rodham Clinton! She is a most well
rounded person, with wide interests. She is friendly and
approachable. She knows how to deal with others because she has been
in the thick of that all of her life. She's at her best when working
in small groups. And she values the opinions of others. Working for
her in the Executive Branch would be a joy. And her sunshine might
even unify Congress for positive ends for the first time in decades!
The negative barbs that Clinton must parry stem from the
strengths that she and her husband manifested during his years as
President. Where there is success, many are jealous.
It's often been said: "Hindsight is 20-20." 'Free Trade' has
both positive and negative sides. But can the blame for the negative
be placed solely on the concept? It's likely that poor management of
those businesses that have rushed to Mexico is more responsible for
that happening, than NAFTA is.
In the beginning, the Iraq War was palatable to most Americans.
We all rejoiced when we read the sign on that aircraft carrier
proclaiming victory--while President Bush landed in a jet fighter. At
the time the allied death toll was about a hundred. Now, after years
of fighting--that no one expected would follow--the death toll of
Americans alone exceeds 4,000. That's many more than the toll on
9/11... Senator John McCain is hanging his hopes for the presidency
on our years of troop buildup, finally, having positive effects. But
in hindsight, are there any "positive effects" that could possibly
justify the wasting of over 4,000 American lives?
Barack Obama believes that it's important for the person who
answers the 'red phone' in the White House at 3:00 a.m. be able to
discuss the crisis as one who voted against the War in Iraq. Tell me,
in a world crisis, will the words of a 'dove' like Obama have as much
clout as a 'hawk'? Clinton is wise enough to avoid war if possible,
but smart enough to use our military might if needed. And she has
many years of executive experience. She was THERE while Bill Clinton
was Governor and President. And she has entertained world leaders and
already knows the expected protocols. Obama, on the other hand, has
only one qualification to be president: His ego demands it.
Please, accept my recommendation of Clinton for President. It
comes from the man who is 'smart enough' to have disproved Einstein's
theories of relativity!

-- NoEinstein --

__________

8/13/07

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The Founding Fathers desired that the USA have a president, in
part, because a single individual can respond more quickly to breaking
developments. As the Congress gets further into the fiscal year, your
budget for 2008 has not been approved. In the climate of "rush-rush"
in such times, arms get twisted and compromises made. The results are
not always to your liking, nor always in the best interest of the
American People.
The attached letters explain my concerns that budgeting mistakes
made in many past years are being allowed to continue--and after I have
pointed out the wastefulness from the most fundamental level. What is
that wastefulness? For over a century Albert Einstein has been
wrongly hailed as the epitome of scientific thinking. For him, 3D
space, and even time itself don't exist in high gravity, as near to a
Black Hole. Without time and space, today's scientists have reasoned
that all of the matter in the Universe was once smaller than a single
atom. Sir, does that statement defy your logic as it does mine? I
was so offended by the apparent lack of common sense in much of
cosmology, that I research-ed the scientific experiment responsible
for Einstein's theories--the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. In a
most fundamental and crucial way, that experiment was designed without
a CONTROL--or something that is unchanging to which something that does
change can be compared.
Any physicist worth his salt should see, or should have seen, the
shortcoming of the M-M design. Now, those physicists are stonewalling
to allow the status quo of flawed thinking to continue. Why? Because
the NSF is granting our universities billions of dollars every year to
"research" anything and everything to do with Einstein's ideas. My
revelations should STOP the Einstein money drain! But will an
embarrassed Congress allow a single scientist like me to make them
'look bad' for having voted so often to fund such wasteful things?
Mr. President, with your help, Congress can be made to consider new
basic truths in science. Our World can only be improved with truthful
science.


-- NoEinstein --

__________

10/11/07

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As Congress finesses the 2008 budget, about two billion dollars
of your budget request that relates to "Researching Einstein's
Universe" is still on the table. Now, I am pleading my own "new
science" case. I know from long, hard experience that people are very
sheepish about siding with anyone opposed to the ideas of the
"recognized" brain of the past century, Albert Einstein. His theories
are so over-the-heads of laymen that they zone-out at the mention of
his name. The rationale: Universities can 'handle' the technical
things; and they will do research that at least has a chance to
benefit mankind...
However well intended the NSF was when it was founded in the
1950s, the complex-ities of the myriad areas of science cause those in
charge of the NSF to zone-out, too. They just go 'on faith' that
complex research, of whatever kind, will eventually prove beneficial.
The 'National Science Board', that controls the NSF, is composed of
niche specialists. Those readily approve research projects across the
broad scope of science, hoping that other members will reciprocate and
approve research in their niche areas, too.
When the NSF approached your office to request about an 8%
increase in its budget, you went 'on faith' that such funding would
prove beneficial to the best goals of science. But I know otherwise--
at least for the "Einstein" portion of the budget. Physicists, long
ago, abandoned reason and zoned-out about Einstein. After all, there
was more acclaim to be had in supporting his outlandish ideas, "on
faith", than there was in questioning them. And the NSF has been
paying physicists HUGE grants to go on acclaiming outlandish things--
though it was probably naïve that its grants were having such effect.
SC Senator Jim DeMint and Representative J. Gresham Barrett
sympathize with my concerns about the NSF budget. But will those men
be ridiculed if they tell Congress: "Einstein has been disproved. Cut
the NSF budget, accordingly!"? 'Simple, truthful things trump
complicated things that are errant'--like Einstein's theories are. To
substantiate the technical side of my disproofs of Einstein, I mailed
packages of files to Congressman Gordon and Senator Inouye. But will
those men argue on my behalf? Not unless they read and understood the
files I mailed them. To try to bridge the 'chasm' between "being
sympathetic" and actually 'doing' the right things, I have sent both
DeMint and Barrett one of the most concise and repeatable statements
of my several-armed disproofs of Einstein. I enclose a copy of my
letter to Barrett, and I include two easy-to-read pages, and a most
important page of corresponding graphs. If you will understand those
'graphs', you can disprove Einstein, yourself.

Mr. President, the simple truths that I tout in disproof of
Einstein don't require PhDs in physics to understand. In fact, they
are so easy to understand that those who claimed to 'know about
Einstein' will be very, very embarrassed. NSF Director Bement has
protected his embarrassment by staying mum about my revelations, even
though I mailed him all of my disproofs. Bement hopes that folks will
continue to zone-out about Einstein, and fund such lame-brain research
to perpetuity. 'True science' is about learning and adapting what is
learned into an ever-evolving new science. It's not about LOCKING IN
the mistakes of the past--because few people have enough guts, or
integrity, to stand up to the status quo.
Mr. President, after you understand the enclosed--and I am sure
that you will--please call both Gordon and Inouye to explain to them
about what you read. With enough 'eureka moments', by you and others,
the NSF grants can begin to be allocated to research that CAN be
beneficial to both the USA and the World!

-- NoEinstein -- (actual name used here and above)

Copy: Representative J. Gresham Barrett; Senator Jim DeMint
__________

.

Quantcast