Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT

In article .com,
"Double-A" wrote:

Kook capitals noted and quacky a so called un-approved
application for PhD (Please help Ducky)


I hope his grammar and spelling on his dissertation were better than he
has displayed here, or approval of any PhD is doubtful!

OH I dropped a capital E - someone send for the doctor...

So please tell me your last scientific publication, Double-Anus?

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article . com,
"Double-A" wrote:

I filed a complete report in Troubling Planetary News thread.
Temporary power outage tonight, but now the power is back on, and I'm
back online! Just all in a night's work for a Earth Science Officer
manning the most extreme post on the western weather front.


Have any of you ever kissed a girl?

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Double-A Best to keep in mind Einstein thoughts(ideas) came out of him
when he was at the prime of life,and that was 100 years ago. Hard
for us to read his mind at this spacetime. SR was not all his thinking.
He just put things together nicely,and used good math. GR showed how
clever he really was. It has such original thinking. Why he did not get
the Nobel for GR is a mystery. Go figure Bert

GR was not accepted fully until the 60's, it was the photoelectric
effect that got him his Nobel.

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

From Mud duck, in reply to question "What is being warped?":

The shape of spacetime.

Hmm. Sounds like Duck and db have been hangin' out. Same mama doll, pull
string response. :-)

Really, even a dunderhead like you
should understand this.

Well Duckster, us dunderheads seem to believe that *descriptions of
effects* do not equate to _explanations of causation_. Field equations,
geometric coordinates and 'metrics' describe something. They do not
_cause_ it. A speedometer readout describes something. According to your
logic, twisting the speedometer needle should make the car go, and
twisting it further should make it accelerate. Us dunderheads believe
that you, db, OG, Scott et al lack even the most basic comprehension of
the difference between descriptions of effects and _explanations of
causation_.. and that as such, your worldview is Quack-ery. Har har. :-)
oc

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

Well Duckster, us dunderheads seem to believe that *descriptions of
effects* do not equate to _explanations of causation_. Field equations,
geometric coordinates and 'metrics' describe something. They do not
_cause_ it.

Matter tells space how to curve
Space tells matter how to move.

A speedometer readout describes something. According to your
logic, twisting the speedometer needle should make the car go, and
twisting it further should make it accelerate.

Don't project your faulty logic on me.

Us dunderheads believe
that you, db, OG, Scott et al lack even the most basic comprehension of
the difference between descriptions of effects and _explanations of
causation_.. and that as such, your worldview is Quack-ery. Har har. :-)

And your belief is worthless as it has no grounds in reality.

Please tell me your physics qualifications, this should be good for a
laugh. Or are you another of nightbats space cadets?

Congratulations. You've just proved you completely misunderstand the
point of Einsteins field equations

Matter tells space how to curve
Space tells matter how to move.

The fact you're an anti-relativist puts you the as the quack. And as a
hint, I chose this obviously fake name for a reason. Its a good sign of
a kook if they start saying things like "duckster"...

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

From Duckie:
Don't project your faulty logic on ME.

Sorry.

And your belief is worthless as it has no
grounds in reality.

I'm shattered. Should i go stand in corner?:-)

Please tell me your physics
qualifications.

#1, I managed to escape the 'space-as-void' indoctrination.

Or are you another of nightbats space
cadets?

No, a probationary cadet.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

You've just proved you completely
misunderstand the point of Einsteins
field equations

Apparently you have a very superficial knowledge base. You seem unaware
that Einstein fully endorsed the reality of the spatial medium until
well into the 1920s before inexplicably flip-flopping to the 'no medium'
idea which then grew legs and became the bedrock axiom of science.. all
in the space of scarcely 80 years. Can you explain the flip-flop?
The 'ether', as it was known to Einstein, was depicted
as fixed and immobile, like a rigid lattice. Yet the existance of such a
medium was disproven by Michelson-Morley in 1887. He FINALLY rejected
it, and rightly so. But why did he continue endorsing it for 35+ years
before doing so?
Why, instead of further investigating a medium that's
FLUID, compressible/expansible and amenalble to density gradients, did
Einstein suddenly "throw out the baby with the bathwater" and go with
'no medium'? Why did he instead adopt the "curvature of space" metaphor?

Matter tells space how to curve

Oh. But if space is 'nothing', what's curving?

Space tells matter how to move.

Sounds like Abbot & Costello in "Who's on first?" :-)

The fact you're an anti-relativist puts you the as the quack.

Who's an anti-relativist??

And as a hint, I chose this obviously fake name for a reason.

I see.

Its a good sign of a kook if they start
saying things like "duckster"...

How 'bout Baby Huey? (-:

oc

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

Apparently you have a very superficial knowledge base. You seem unaware
that Einstein fully endorsed the reality of the spatial medium until
well into the 1920s before inexplicably flip-flopping to the 'no medium'
idea which then grew legs and became the bedrock axiom of science.. all
in the space of scarcely 80 years. Can you explain the flip-flop?

His work with GR...

The 'ether', as it was known to Einstein, was depicted
as fixed and immobile, like a rigid lattice. Yet the existance of such a
medium was disproven by Michelson-Morley in 1887. He FINALLY rejected
it, and rightly so. But why did he continue endorsing it for 35+ years
before doing so?
Why, instead of further investigating a medium that's
FLUID, compressible/expansible and amenalble to density gradients, did
Einstein suddenly "throw out the baby with the bathwater" and go with
'no medium'? Why did he instead adopt the "curvature of space" metaphor?

Scientists often try various ideas before settling on the one that
works. The whole early 20th century science was already in flux thanks
to Maxwell....

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

Matter tells space how to curve

Oh. But if space is 'nothing', what's curving?

Space tells matter how to move.

Sounds like Abbot & Costello in "Who's on first?" :-)

No - its called coupling. Happens a lot in systems.

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

Please tell me your physics
qualifications.

#1, I managed to escape the 'space-as-void' indoctrination.

Ah, none - you are a space cadet.

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

From Mr. (Ms. Mrs.?) Duck:

you are a space cadet.
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!

A probationary space cadet, thank you.

oc