Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the LorentzTransformation

"palsing" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 11:15:32 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles, Zeroth
Earl of Medway wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message

...



On Saturday, September 1, 2012 10:30:04 AM UTC-7, Lord Androcles, Zeroth

Earl of Medway wrote:

"palsing" wrote in message



...







On Friday, August 31, 2012 2:06:23 PM UTC-7, NoEinstein wrote:







There is more science in a flake of my dandruff than in your biggest







turd! — NE —







Unfortunately, you vastly overestimate your own knowledge and abilities,

and



vastly underestimate actual physicists. You don't really understand

physics



at all... I read your posts strictly for their entertainment value,
which

is



quite funny at times.







Keep up the good work, we need all the laughs we can get.



================================================== =======



Hey bigot palsing!



Fortunately, you vastly overestimate your own knowledge and abilities,
and



vastly underestimate actual physicists. You don't really understand

physics



at all... I read your posts strictly for their entertainment value,
which

is



quite funny at times.



Keep up the good work, we need all the laughs we can get.







"palsing" wrote in message



...



On Mar 23, 7:59 am, "Androcles"



wrote:



"palsing" wrote in message







...



On Mar 22, 10:58 pm, "Androcles"







wrote:



"palsing" wrote in message







...



On Mar 22, 9:48 pm, "Androcles"







wrote:



"palsing" wrote in message







...



On Mar 22, 5:39 pm, "Androcles"







wrote:



"palsing" wrote in message







...



On Mar 22, 3:34 pm, "Androcles"







wrote:



"palsing" wrote in message







...



On Mar 22, 1:26 pm, "Androcles"







wrote:



"palsing" wrote in message







...



"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't



matter



how



smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's

wrong,"



- Richard P. Feynman







==================================================



That's why relativists cook the experiments.







Do you have an example of a *cooked* experiment that is

otherwise



accepted by mainstream Academia?







\Paul A



========================================



Yes. Would you like to see it?







Sure



=========================================



Ok, well, let's start with the beautiful theory:



Do you agree that this calculation is accepted by mainstream



Academia?



http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img61.gif







Do you further agree that



tau = 2.1948 microseconds * sqrt(1 - 0.9994) = 0.05376

microseconds



according to the equation given in img61 by Einstein?







If you do so agree that this calculation is acceptable to

mainstream



Academia,



I'll proceed.











Note: I was terse but polite to palsing up to this point, then he chose
to



become rude and combative:











Well, I've seen first-hand just how you can take Einstein's math
out



of context, either on purpose or because you don't understand it
in



the first place, so there is no sense going down that road again,
I



already know you won't admit it when you are wrong... Understand

that



I didn't ask about a theory or its math - beautiful or not - I



specifically asked about a mainstream-accepted experiment in which



mainstream "relativists" cooked the books... of course, if you
can't



do so, I'll understand...



==============================================







I'm certainly not doing anything out of context, all I want from
you



is a firm yes or no on the equation and the arithmetic from it so

that



you can't accuse me of cooking the books, it'll be you that is

cooking



them.







Do you agree with Einstein's theory, the equation he gave and the



simple arithmetic, or not, you pathetically ignorant cowardly
wimp?







If you do so agree that this calculation is acceptable to
mainstream



Academia I'll proceed, you ****in' academic arsehole.







I've come across decomposing bodies that are less offensive than you



are.



==============================================



Your diatribe is out of context.



You can't even agree on what the beautiful theory is, let alone



look at an experiment concerning it, you ****ing chicken ****.







What's up, can't you read algebra or perform simple arithmetic,



**** for brains?







Do you agree that this calculation is acceptable to mainstream



Academia or not, YES or NO, you ignorant cowardly *******?







I accept that you can't point to an experiment performed by a



creditable scientist that has been cooked. I knew you couldn't.



=============================================



Oh yes I can, see Nature Vol 268.



I'd give you a URL but you are too ****ing rude to bother with,



I accept you can't read algebra or perform simple arithmetic.



I've come across decomposing snails that are smarter and braver



than you are.







OK, I found and read the probable article...







http://ivanik3.narod.ru/TimeLifeMezon/301-305Nature.pdf







... and I understand most of it just fine.







So, tell us just how this experiment was cooked and is therefore



invalid.



=============================================



Look on page 301, top of column 2 of the text, the equation reads







" tau = tau0 DIVIDED BY sqrt(1-v^2)







where tau0 is the lifetime for the particle at rest."







64 usec = 2.2 usec DIVIDED BY sqrt(1- 0.9994^2)







There can be no question about it, 2.2 usec is computed for the



resting muon, and 64 usec is MEASURED for the moving muon.







Now look at Einstein's paper.



/QUOTE



§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving
Rigid



Bodies and Moving Clocks



Between the quantities x, t, and tau, which refer to the position of the



clock, we have, evidently, x=vt and







http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img60.gif



Therefore,



http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img61.gif



whence it follows that the time marked by the clock (viewed in the



stationary system) is slow by...







/UNQUOTE







There can be no question about it, the time marked by the moving muon



(viewed in the stationary system)



has to be LESS THAN 2.2 usec and is computed to be 0.05 microseconds.







Of course, NOBODY measured the life of a resting muon, the only measured



life is 64 usec.







Far from proving Einstein's drivel as they wished to, your academic



****heads got the equation inverted and DISPROVED special relativity.



That's why relativists cook the experiments.







Theory: 0.05 microseconds



Actual: 64 microseconds.







"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter



how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong,"



- Richard P. Feynman







0.05 microseconds doesn't agree with experiment. Your beautiful theory
is



wrong.







You and your mainstream Academia are frauds and not very smart at all.



I accept you can't read algebra or perform simple arithmetic.



I've come across decomposing snails that are smarter and braver



than you are.



Now **** off and decompose, you rude, arrogant, ignorant *******.











Bigot palsing has failed to respond. Perhaps he is embarrassed or
perhaps



his dead brain is decomposing. After all, he knew I could not cite
Bailey,



Borer et. al. with their proud list of universities when the document
was

on



the screen before me. He is the ideal exemplar of an idiot.







-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway



You, of course, are almost as delusional as Neinstein, you seriously

misunderstand the mainstream opinions to which you so seriously object
(fast

light and slow light, for example, LOL), and somehow think that there are

hundreds of thousands of scientists and teachers out there who are idiots

because they don't see things the way you do...



Now remember, tomorrow is "Hug a Crank Day", so don't freak out like you
did

last year, no one is trying to hurt you.

================================================== ===========



An excellent display of bigotry and blind faith in hundreds of thousands
of

sheep out there who are idiots who rely upon but cannot follow
mathematics,

all deluded just as you are. How does it feel to be part of a lynch mob

mentality, burning witches at the stake for their heresy of scientific

investigation? Mankind hasn't come far since the invention of the
telescope,

he can still only see the arse of the sheep in front.



Very fortunately, you, palsing, vastly overestimate your own knowledge and

abilities, and vastly underestimate actual mathematics. You don't really

understand physics and mathematics at all... I read your posts strictly
for

their entertainment value, which is quite funny at times. Keep up the good

work, we need all the laughs we can get, you useless ignorant turd. You
are

even more delusional than Kelleher. If logic and mathematics doesn't work,

use insult as argument.



"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter

how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong,"

- Richard P. Feynman

0.05 microseconds doesn't agree with experiment. Your beautiful theory is

wrong and you are a total ****head. Join the rioters and grab a TV from
the

shop window, cerebral palsy palsing.



Now, about that tower in Paris you were interested in. I can accept the

deeds to your house as a down payment and you can begin charging admission

fees on it right away! What do you say, my fine gullible fellow? Is it a

deal?



-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

I know you hate Wikipedia, but still;

"Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily
tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action. It is closely
related to credulity, which is the tendency to believe unlikely propositions
that are unsupported by evidence.
Classes of people especially vulnerable to exploitation due to gullibility
include children, the elderly, and the developmentally disabled."

================================================== ==
That's you, boy, fitted to a T. You are developmentally disabled and have
the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by
evidence, such
as "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body", a belief
every astronomer, amateur or professional, holds dear to his heart. You can
only see with your eyes, not with your mind. For 1400 years Ptolemy reigned
because we can SEE Mars in retrograde motion, hence epicycles in a
geocentric universe. It took the mind of a priest, Nicolas Copernicus, to
question it, and the mind of Galileo to back it up. Even in fear of
excommunication, he took them all on because he was first and foremost a
mathematician, and so do I. I don't have his fear, you can excommunicate me
and worship Einstein as the church worshipped Ptolemy along with the rest of
the sheep anytime you want to, you clueless cretin.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

If you really think that Einstein was an idiot and his hundreds of thousands
of disciples are but sheep, then it is your portrait that should appear with
the definition of 'gullible'. There is essentially zero chance that you are
correct.
================================================== =======
We aren't talking about chances, or probability, or statistics.
I gave you simple but rigorous mathematics, ewe ****ing gullible sheep.
Here it is again and I won't retract a word, it has our conversation
included.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
I don't "think" Einstein was an idiot, I KNOW it because I PROVED it, but
a gullible idiot like you is incapable of understanding a proof.

THIS is chances, it lacks the rigour:
Faster light arrives sooner, slower light arrives later, making the true
sinusoidal velocity curve look like this:
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...d79cd3696b1291
with it's impossible acceleration.
Keep on bleating, it's all ewe are good for. Ewe won't even look, your mind
is closed. You are ancient.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.

On Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:58:09 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:


That's you, boy, fitted to a T. You are developmentally disabled and have

the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by

evidence, such

as "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c

which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body", a belief

every astronomer, amateur or professional, holds dear to his heart. You can

only see with your eyes, not with your mind. For 1400 years Ptolemy reigned

because we can SEE Mars in retrograde motion, hence epicycles in a

geocentric universe. It took the mind of a priest, Nicolas Copernicus, to

question it, and the mind of Galileo to back it up. Even in fear of

excommunication, he took them all on because he was first and foremost a

mathematician, and so do I. I don't have his fear, you can excommunicate me

and worship Einstein as the church worshipped Ptolemy along with the rest of

the sheep anytime you want to, you clueless cretin.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Just like a true Crank, you compare yourself with Galileo and Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of your beliefs is in itself evidence of their plausibility, in the long run. Sure, I might need to apologize in a few hundred years, but that is not very likely.





If you really think that Einstein was an idiot and his hundreds of thousands

of disciples are but sheep, then it is your portrait that should appear with

the definition of 'gullible'. There is essentially zero chance that you are

correct.

================================================== =======

We aren't talking about chances, or probability, or statistics.

I gave you simple but rigorous mathematics, ewe ****ing gullible sheep.

Here it is again and I won't retract a word, it has our conversation

included.

http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm

Of course you won't retract a word, that is typical Crank behavior, you can't imagine that there is any possibility whatsoever that you are wrong. There is no room in your world for even a tiny, trivial error, on your part, is there...


I don't "think" Einstein was an idiot, I KNOW it because I PROVED it, but

a gullible idiot like you is incapable of understanding a proof.

Somehow the mainstream scientific community has missed your "proof". How could you let that happen? A clever person such as yourself, a person who sooner or later will be an important historical scientist, can surely come up with some way of getting his message out there in front of someone capable of "seeing the light", as it were, can't you? Among those hundreds of thousands of scientists and teachers out there in the big mean world, there MUST be at least ONE or even TWO acknowledged experts who can see the infallible logic in your proof, isn't there? Oh, the inequity of it all!


THIS is chances, it lacks the rigour:

Faster light arrives sooner, slower light arrives later, making the true

sinusoidal velocity curve look like this:

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...d79cd3696b1291

with it's impossible acceleration.

Keep on bleating, it's all ewe are good for. Ewe won't even look, your mind

is closed. You are ancient.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.

I am ancient, it's true, but my mind is far from closed. It's just not so open that my brains fall out. If I were a better mathematician I would point out your errors, but I'm not, so I can't. But that does not mean that I should just follow along, nodding my head, does it, like one of those sheep you like to refer to? That does not mean that there are others out there that can't blow you completely out of the water, mathematically, does it? What, you're the finest mathematician in the world? Can't ever be wrong? Unlikely. Biggest loudmouth in the world is more like it. Biggest potty-mouth also fits the bill. You would have a lot of competition for Biggest Crank, so you can't claim that... yet... but keep working on it, you never know what you might achieve.

"palsing" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:58:09 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl
of Medway wrote:


That's you, boy, fitted to a T. You are developmentally disabled and have

the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by

evidence, such

as "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c

which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body", a
belief

every astronomer, amateur or professional, holds dear to his heart. You
can

only see with your eyes, not with your mind. For 1400 years Ptolemy
reigned

because we can SEE Mars in retrograde motion, hence epicycles in a

geocentric universe. It took the mind of a priest, Nicolas Copernicus, to

question it, and the mind of Galileo to back it up. Even in fear of

excommunication, he took them all on because he was first and foremost a

mathematician, and so do I. I don't have his fear, you can excommunicate
me

and worship Einstein as the church worshipped Ptolemy along with the rest
of

the sheep anytime you want to, you clueless cretin.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Just like a true Crank, you compare yourself with Galileo and Copernicus,
implying that the mere unpopularity of your beliefs is in itself evidence of
their plausibility, in the long run. Sure, I might need to apologize in a
few hundred years, but that is not very likely.
================================================== =======================
You can call me names, ****head, I can do the same to you.
That only causes antagonism which bothers me not at all.
I'm a true Crank with a capital C, okay?
I don't give a flying **** about "likely", you'll be dead in a
few hundred years and so will I, so you obviously can't apologise
unless you do it NOW, you illogical ****, and you need to if you
had any integrity at all. Obviously you do not, your only response
is your emotional anger.
Yes, Copernicus and Galileo (and Kepler and Newton and Doppler
and Michelson) are my peers, they taught me well and taught me
to think. They are certainly not YOUR peers, you learnt nothing from
them.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway



If you really think that Einstein was an idiot and his hundreds of
thousands

of disciples are but sheep, then it is your portrait that should appear
with

the definition of 'gullible'. There is essentially zero chance that you
are

correct.

================================================== =======

We aren't talking about chances, or probability, or statistics.

I gave you simple but rigorous mathematics, ewe ****ing gullible sheep.

Here it is again and I won't retract a word, it has our conversation

included.

http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm

Of course you won't retract a word, that is typical Crank behavior, you
can't imagine that there is any possibility whatsoever that you are wrong.
There is no room in your world for even a tiny, trivial error, on your part,
is there...
================================================== ===
There may be a trivial error in what I've said, but you haven't found one.
You can only say "likely" and "chances" and appeal to the authority of
sheep who eat the same grass and step in the same **** as you do.
If I'm wrong point out the error, you ****ing bigot. So far all you've
said is the other sheep say I'm wrong and you haven't addressed the
mathematics at all.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

I don't "think" Einstein was an idiot, I KNOW it because I PROVED it, but

a gullible idiot like you is incapable of understanding a proof.

Somehow the mainstream scientific community has missed your "proof". How
could you let that happen? A clever person such as yourself, a person who
sooner or later will be an important historical scientist, can surely come
up with some way of getting his message out there in front of someone
capable of "seeing the light", as it were, can't you? Among those hundreds
of thousands of scientists and teachers out there in the big mean world,
there MUST be at least ONE or even TWO acknowledged experts who can see the
infallible logic in your proof, isn't there? Oh, the inequity of it all!
================================================== ====
I'm posting to usenet right now, archived by Google, and there are others
who can see the infallible logic in my proof.
You can't see it because you are a blind bigot. What's your point?
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway




THIS is chances, it lacks the rigour:

Faster light arrives sooner, slower light arrives later, making the true

sinusoidal velocity curve look like this:

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...d79cd3696b1291

with it's impossible acceleration.

Keep on bleating, it's all ewe are good for. Ewe won't even look, your
mind

is closed. You are ancient.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.

I am ancient, it's true, but my mind is far from closed. It's just not so
open that my brains fall out. If I were a better mathematician I would point
out your errors, but I'm not, so I can't. But that does not mean that I
should just follow along, nodding my head, does it, like one of those sheep
you like to refer to?
=============================================
So why do you nod your head at the other sheep, calling on them to bleat "
baa" as you do?
They will, you know.
I don't ask you to nod your head and follow along, I ask you to use reason.
If you can't use reason and want to call me names like "true Crank" then
I'll call you a true ****. Name-calling doesn't bother me but it bothers
you.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway


That does not mean that there are others out there that can't blow you
completely out of the water, mathematically, does it?
===============================================
I'm from England, the first "Show me" state where Newton was born. Missouri
comes second.
Show me.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway


What, you're the finest mathematician in the world?
=============================================
No, those were Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Christian
Doppler, Carl Gauss, Leonhard Euler, Muḥammad ibn Mūs� al-Khw�rizmī,
Pythagoras, Euclid... the list goes on. They were my teachers.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Can't ever be wrong?
===================
Of course I can. Show me, clueless emotional ****.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway


Unlikely. Biggest loudmouth in the world is more like it. Biggest
potty-mouth also fits the bill. You would have a lot of competition for
Biggest Crank, so you can't claim that... yet... but keep working on it, you
never know what you might achieve.
==========================================
I will.
Got anything of substance to say besides name-calling, ewe clueless angry
****?
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

no comment; I don't want the sharks to hear me,
typing -- oops.

O O O O O U
U U U C C H
H H H H H H !!!!!!!!

There was no "hypothesis" needed when I realized that fact
and designed my successful X, Y, & Z interferometer to have the
CONTROL light course down and back on the Z axis, only. *I had already
proved, algebraically, why the M-M experiment had zero fringe shifts
in 360 degrees of instrument rotation.

On Sep 7, 11:52*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
no comment; I don't want the sharks to hear me,
typing -- oops.

O O O O O U
U U U C C H
H H H H H H !!!!!!!!



There was no "hypothesis" needed when I realized that fact
and designed my successful X, Y, & Z interferometer to have the
CONTROL light course down and back on the Z axis, only. *I had already
proved, algebraically, why the M-M experiment had zero fringe shifts
in 360 degrees of instrument rotation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks, if 1tree is feeling pain and is 'bleeding' so as to attract
sharks, that means he is alive! As Dr. Frankenstein exclaimed: "It's
ALIVE!!!". Now, if he can only stay focused and ask some thoughtful
science questions, maybe he will heal. — NoEinstein —

I had to kill them; I had no idea that sharks hunted
in pods.

so, name one prediction of yout mumble-butt "theory
of every thing," if you can do it.

seems unlikely, with your aversion
to the four subjects of *mathematica*.

thus:
IPCC summary for
policymaker’s reports. Inexplicably, the Medieval Warm Period
appearing in the first report which was warmer than today’s
temperatures, disappeared from the second. The last Little Ice Age
disappeared as well. They were replaced by the infamous “hockey
stick”
graph, which appeared multiple times. That was a big disconnect.

Actually, looking back over the past 11,000 or so years since Earth
began to recover from the last big Ice Age, we’re experiencing a very
moderate and stable climate stage. And going back nearly half of the
past million years, a long Ice Age occurred about every 90,000 years

On Sep 10, 11:45*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
I had to kill them; I had no idea that sharks hunted
in pods.

so, name one prediction of yout mumble-butt "theory
of every thing," if you can do it.

Dear 1tree, the forgetful and regressive one: The primary
'prediction' I have made is that varying ether flow and density will
account for every force and every material observation in the
Universe. From that comes the logical and patently unique to me
'prediction' (or more correctly, an absolute fact!) that gravity is:
"Flowing ether that imparts a mass-proportional force to all objects
in the path and has the ether pool be replenished by the 'Hobo' ether
being transported back into space within the trains of photons being
exchanged between the attracting bodies." That 'prediction' means
that gravity is determined ONLY by the radiation or charged particles
being exchanged, and is not in any way, but incidentally, related to
the 'product of the masses and the inverse of the distance between the
centers. The latter 'predicts' (proves!) that Newton's Law of
Universal (sic) gravitation is wrong.

From the above it is logically predicted that Black Holes can have
only ZERO gravity because when the radiation stops being emitted,
there is no 'Hobo' ether being transported back into space to CAUSE
gravity. The latter prediction was easily confirmed, and within just
one week after I had been the first to correctly define what gravity
is. I saw the star distribution data for the Andromeda Galaxy that
had a starless band at the center where those stars next in line to be
gobbled-up by the large star at the center flew out on their tangents
when that star's gravity turned off.

From the above comes the correct 'prediction' that there could not
possibly have ever been a "Big Bang". And since the latter never
happened, there can be no expanding Universe. And since it is a known
fact (by observation) that there are 'Swiss Cheese' voids between the
galaxies, and since it is known (by observation) that mass is composed
of energy, then logic 'predicts' that the energy needed to construct
the galaxies must have come from the nearby Swiss Cheese voids. The
latter fact 'predicts' that there must be an electromagnetic meniscus
around all of those 'Swiss Cheese' voids to prevent the ether flow
from balancing-out the ether PRESSURE, which determines the ether
DENSITY, that determines the quantity of ether FLOW that determines
the local force of gravity. From the latter comes the logical
'prediction' (a fact!) that the entire FINITE Universe must be bounded
by a meniscus that will keep the Universe's density constant.

My New Science also 'predicts' that because of the Law of the
Conservation of Energy-Mass that KE = 1/2mv^2 and E = mv^2 are both
wrong!! And my New Science 'predicts' that my own KE = a/g (m) + v/
32.174 (m) is CORRECT! The latter is a correctly written variant of
the old "momentum" equation F = mv (sic). I say (sic) because to be
correct that mass must be expressed in slugs to get the numeric
quantity right, but it does NOT get the units right! To do the latter
it is the VELOCITY that is the PROPORTIONALITY FACTOR determining the
effect of the increase in VELOCITY on HITTING FORCE. Since
proportionality factors are UNITLESS, both KE and momentum have the
same UNITS as forces, which in the USA is POUNDS, only!!! My equation
has been exactly confirmed in an experiment dropping two clevis pins
of differing mass head=to-head. When the KE of the smaller pin is
dropped from the height PREDICTED by my equation, the ringing tone of
the smaller pin gets dampened to a dull thump—meaning that the KE has
matched the INERTIA of the larger pin!

I also predicted, and have proved both mathematically and
experimentally that the velocity of light is 'c' plus or minus the
velocity of the source. That proof, simultaneously, disproves
Einstein's SRT! He, himself said: "If any experiment can ever detect
Earth's velocity in the Universe, my SRT will have been disproved! I
have also 'predicted' (proved) that the acceleration due to gravity,
g, isn't exponential!!! That disproves Newton's F = ma, which isn't
even an equation!

So, 1tree, as you should be able to see by my having explained these
same things to you several dozen times that my New Science correctly
predicts the entire Universe!!! And that makes my contributions to
science (only touched on, here) exceed the combined contributions of
every single physicists (except yours truly) who has ever lived! So,
loose your history books and textbooks, 1tree. I, and I alone,
determine what is truth in the physical (mechanical) sciences
(chemistry and biology excluded)! Glad you fought off those
"sharks"! — NoEinstein — AKA John A. Armistead


seems unlikely, with your aversion
to the four subjects of *mathematica*.

thus:
IPCC summary for
policymaker’s reports. Inexplicably, the Medieval Warm Period
appearing in the first report which was warmer than today’s
temperatures, disappeared from the second. The last Little Ice Age
disappeared as well. They were replaced by the infamous “hockey
stick”
graph, which appeared multiple times. That was a big disconnect.

Actually, looking back over the past 11,000 or so years since Earth
began to recover from the last big Ice Age, we’re experiencing a very
moderate and stable climate stage. And going back nearly half of the
past million years, a long Ice Age occurred about every 90,000 years

ha ****in' ha, you bloated egomaniac;
you the greatest, ever, because drum machine,
please I say, that you say, So,
What?

whoever put Shakespeare's sigfile
into the KJV Bible, may not have been his worst fan,
although it could have been an act of remorse
by Ben Johnson.

anywaaay, mere prosaic accounts do not count,
anywhere in physics, except in a)
"mathless pop science a la *Nova* (PBS)" and b)
any where, alse, that you know of?

your Nobel prize will be a golden dustpan!
me and I alone,
determine what is truth in the physical (mechanical) sciences

On Sep 12, 10:16*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
ha ****in' ha, you bloated egomaniac;
you the greatest, ever, because *drum machine,
please I say, that you say, So,
What?

whoever put Shakespeare's sigfile
into the KJV Bible, may not have been his worst fan,
although it could have been an act of remorse
by Ben Johnson.

anywaaay, mere prosaic accounts do not count,
anywhere in physics, except in a)
"mathless pop science a la *Nova* (PBS)" and b)
any where, alse, that you know of?

your Nobel prize will be a golden dustpan!



me and I alone,
determine what is truth in the physical (mechanical) sciences- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: Try as hard as many true egomaniacs will, none of them
can profess to have contributed even 1% of what my New Science has.
Try this, deep-thinker: Sentence by sentence write down why you think
what I have just explained is wrong. Or easier, still, for you, take
just a single one of my predictions and explain why what I say is
wrong. But realize: By the rules of fair debate, any theory once
challenged, can't be upheld simply by restating the challenged
theory. Since your only 'defense' is the status quo, and those
screwed-up science history books, then, you have easily been bested
without your needing to say a word. I will agree that I am super
confident of my many "predictions". Try predicting anything yourself,
fellow, and without escaping into Shakespeare's times. — NoEinstein —

On Sep 14, 7:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 12, 10:16*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:





ha ****in' ha, you bloated egomaniac;
you the greatest, ever, because *drum machine,
please I say, that you say, So,
What?

whoever put Shakespeare's sigfile
into the KJV Bible, may not have been his worst fan,
although it could have been an act of remorse
by Ben Johnson.

anywaaay, mere prosaic accounts do not count,
anywhere in physics, except in a)
"mathless pop science a la *Nova* (PBS)" and b)
any where, alse, that you know of?

your Nobel prize will be a golden dustpan!

me and I alone,
determine what is truth in the physical (mechanical) sciences- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: *Try as hard as many true egomaniacs will, none of them
can profess to have contributed even 1% of what my New Science has.
Try this, deep-thinker: Sentence by sentence write down why you think
what I have just explained is wrong. *Or easier, still, for you, take
just a single one of my predictions and explain why what I say is
wrong. *But realize: By the rules of fair debate, any theory once
challenged, can't be upheld simply by restating the challenged
theory. *Since your only 'defense' is the status quo, and those
screwed-up science history books, then, you have easily been bested
without your needing to say a word. *I will agree that I am super
confident of my many "predictions". *Try predicting anything yourself,
fellow, and without escaping into Shakespeare's times. *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: 1tree is conspicuously absent, again. I hope he hasn't been
eaten by another pod of 'sharks'. Oh, I notice the usual fall-off in
readership associated with the start of college and pro football. The
latter is, in my opinion, the most intellect intensive of the major
team sports. I follow the Clemson Tigers and the Carolina Panthers.
However, when all is said and done, 1/2 of the teams will be losers
after the games. I have written and polished a New Constitution of
the United States of America, which I hope will save the USA from its
"sports mentality" of group fighting group. The latter is certainly
primal and gets the blood to circulating, but is nowhere near as
important to your children and grandchildren as having an efficient
and deferential to the People government. The masses will be far more
willing to vote yea for my New Constitution if they realize that the
author, John A. Armistead, is the same NoEinstein who has quite easily
and thoroughly disproved Einstein's relativity theories and Newton's
supposed law of "universal" gravitation. You would all be helping
your families by starting to tell others what I have done. I'm not
seeking "YouTube" fame. But the power of my words and super IQ won't
matter much unless the number of readers stay high. Any help you can
give in that regard will be appreciated! — NoEinstein —