Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his firstrelativity paper.

On Apr 27, 8:57*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:59*pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

On 26.04.2011 22:21, NoEinstein wrote:

no one before me has realized that an
object's static weight is an instantaneous KE that’s there before the
object has fallen .001"!

You are probably right about that! :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Dear Paul B. Andersen. *My middle name is Anderson, so we both have
Nordic connections. *A family named Anderson adopted Daniel Boone's
Shawnee Indian daughter, Kaziah. *She was my great, great grandmother;
making me, my sister, and my Armistead 1st cousins 1/32 Daniel Boone—
his closest living relatives. *You are both wise and brave to agree
with my New Science. *Whether you or I disproved KE = 1/2mv^2, the
results show that such equation doesn't correctly "predict" anything,
and by so determining, Einstein's E = mc^2 is disproved as well,
because such was "derived" from the Coriolis equation. *And, of
course, both of those equations violate the Law of the conservation of
Energy-Mass. *Thanks for your intelligent and sensible reply! *—
NoEinstein —

Once again, John demonstrates both his mental prowess and his firm
attachment to reality by being oblivious to mockery.

On Apr 28, 1:34*pm, PD wrote:

Ho... hum... PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. — NE —

On Apr 27, 8:57*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 26, 4:59*pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

On 26.04.2011 22:21, NoEinstein wrote:

no one before me has realized that an
object's static weight is an instantaneous KE that’s there before the
object has fallen .001"!

You are probably right about that! :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Dear Paul B. Andersen. *My middle name is Anderson, so we both have
Nordic connections. *A family named Anderson adopted Daniel Boone's
Shawnee Indian daughter, Kaziah. *She was my great, great grandmother;
making me, my sister, and my Armistead 1st cousins 1/32 Daniel Boone—
his closest living relatives. *You are both wise and brave to agree
with my New Science. *Whether you or I disproved KE = 1/2mv^2, the
results show that such equation doesn't correctly "predict" anything,
and by so determining, Einstein's E = mc^2 is disproved as well,
because such was "derived" from the Coriolis equation. *And, of
course, both of those equations violate the Law of the conservation of
Energy-Mass. *Thanks for your intelligent and sensible reply! *—
NoEinstein —

Once again, John demonstrates both his mental prowess and his firm
attachment to reality by being oblivious to mockery.

On Apr 28, 4:37*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 28, 1:34*pm, PD wrote:

Ho... hum... *PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. *— *NE —

That's ok, John. I was laughing at you. My laughter at your
foolishness does not require a reply.




On Apr 27, 8:57*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 26, 4:59*pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

On 26.04.2011 22:21, NoEinstein wrote:

no one before me has realized that an
object's static weight is an instantaneous KE that’s there before the
object has fallen .001"!

You are probably right about that! :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Dear Paul B. Andersen. *My middle name is Anderson, so we both have
Nordic connections. *A family named Anderson adopted Daniel Boone's
Shawnee Indian daughter, Kaziah. *She was my great, great grandmother;
making me, my sister, and my Armistead 1st cousins 1/32 Daniel Boone—
his closest living relatives. *You are both wise and brave to agree
with my New Science. *Whether you or I disproved KE = 1/2mv^2, the
results show that such equation doesn't correctly "predict" anything,
and by so determining, Einstein's E = mc^2 is disproved as well,
because such was "derived" from the Coriolis equation. *And, of
course, both of those equations violate the Law of the conservation of
Energy-Mass. *Thanks for your intelligent and sensible reply! *—
NoEinstein —

Once again, John demonstrates both his mental prowess and his firm
attachment to reality by being oblivious to mockery.

On Apr 28, 4:37*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 28, 1:34*pm, PD wrote:

Ho... hum... *PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. *— *NE —

That's fine, John. I'm actually quite ok with you not replying to me.
What I was laughing at was the fact that you DID reply to Paul
Anderson, who was the one that was mocking you.



On Apr 27, 8:57*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 26, 4:59*pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

On 26.04.2011 22:21, NoEinstein wrote:

no one before me has realized that an
object's static weight is an instantaneous KE that’s there before the
object has fallen .001"!

You are probably right about that! :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Dear Paul B. Andersen. *My middle name is Anderson, so we both have
Nordic connections. *A family named Anderson adopted Daniel Boone's
Shawnee Indian daughter, Kaziah. *She was my great, great grandmother;
making me, my sister, and my Armistead 1st cousins 1/32 Daniel Boone—
his closest living relatives. *You are both wise and brave to agree
with my New Science. *Whether you or I disproved KE = 1/2mv^2, the
results show that such equation doesn't correctly "predict" anything,
and by so determining, Einstein's E = mc^2 is disproved as well,
because such was "derived" from the Coriolis equation. *And, of
course, both of those equations violate the Law of the conservation of
Energy-Mass. *Thanks for your intelligent and sensible reply! *—
NoEinstein —

Once again, John demonstrates both his mental prowess and his firm
attachment to reality by being oblivious to mockery.

sounded like you wre using pingpongballs
in comparison with metal ones, which
would certainly frict with the air, a lot more;
what was the material, you said?

anyway, you need to configure another way
to measure the KE, that is not dependent
upon the properties of some clay ... and
you are very unlikely to disprove Liebniz, but
if you want to try, be your own guest.

the Newton-Liebniz controversy was strictly
a political hatchet job on Liebniz,
who was being considered to be the PM of England --
and Queen Anne was certainly the head of the sectarian church.

On Apr 28, 5:45*pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 28, 4:37*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 28, 1:34*pm, PD wrote:

Ho... hum... *PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. *— *NE —

That's fine, John. I'm actually quite ok with you not replying to me.
What I was laughing at was the fact that you DID reply to Paul
Anderson, who was the one that was mocking you.









On Apr 27, 8:57*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 26, 4:59*pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

On 26.04.2011 22:21, NoEinstein wrote:

no one before me has realized that an
object's static weight is an instantaneous KE that’s there before the
object has fallen .001"!

You are probably right about that! :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Dear Paul B. Andersen. *My middle name is Anderson, so we both have
Nordic connections. *A family named Anderson adopted Daniel Boone's
Shawnee Indian daughter, Kaziah. *She was my great, great grandmother;
making me, my sister, and my Armistead 1st cousins 1/32 Daniel Boone—
his closest living relatives. *You are both wise and brave to agree
with my New Science. *Whether you or I disproved KE = 1/2mv^2, the
results show that such equation doesn't correctly "predict" anything,
and by so determining, Einstein's E = mc^2 is disproved as well,
because such was "derived" from the Coriolis equation. *And, of
course, both of those equations violate the Law of the conservation of
Energy-Mass. *Thanks for your intelligent and sensible reply! *—
NoEinstein —

Once again, John demonstrates both his mental prowess and his firm
attachment to reality by being oblivious to mockery.

Pauls of a feather (Duck) flock together. Bang, bang! — NE —

On Apr 28, 7:16*pm, Aaron wrote:
sounded like you wre using pingpongballs
in comparison with metal ones, which
would certainly frict with the air, a lot more;
what was the material, you said?

anyway, you need to configure another way
to measure the KE, that is not dependent
upon the properties of some clay ... and
you are very unlikely to disprove Liebniz, but
if you want to try, be your own guest.

the Newton-Liebniz controversy was strictly
a political hatchet job on Liebniz,
who was being considered to be the PM of England --
and Queen Anne was certainly the head of the sectarian church.

Aaron: The air resistance of a 3/4" dia. PTFE (teflon) ball and a SS
ball are very close at the small distances of drop (well below the
terminal velocity of the former). Read the following link. —
NoEinstein —

KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...414c2?hl=en&q=

On Apr 28, 7:16*pm, Aaron wrote:
sounded like you wre using pingpongballs
in comparison with metal ones, which
would certainly frict with the air, a lot more;
what was the material, you said?

anyway, you need to configure another way
to measure the KE, that is not dependent
upon the properties of some clay ... and
you are very unlikely to disprove Liebniz, but
if you want to try, be your own guest.

the Newton-Liebniz controversy was strictly
a political hatchet job on Liebniz,
who was being considered to be the PM of England --
and Queen Anne was certainly the head of the sectarian church.

Aaron: The air resistance of a 3/4" dia. PTFE (teflon) ball and a SS
ball are very close at the small distances of drop (well below the
terminal velocity of the former). Read the following link. —
NoEinstein —

KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...414c2?hl=en&q=

I must again state,
you are comparing apples & orangutanes, if
you are comparing pingpogballs with metal balls --
why do that, when your theory will
be blown out of the claypot with some precise mehtod
of measuring kinetic energy?

not toe again mention, that
you are probably using an ill-found definition
of KE and momentum, thus the wrong units altogether.

it's seems to be a hopeless situation, so,
I'm going to be signing-off, since
you will doubtless not concede a God-am thing,
you love your own **** so bad.

PD never answers me.