Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT

oc yes the constant of 'c' was Einstein's idea that was the universes
speed limit in his SR and that was the speed say of the graviton(same as
the photon,and both messenger particles to boot. Still in one of my
gravity thoughts I have posted that gravity of the cosmos can be
instantaneous. Its intrinsic force acts on all that is immersed in
space. instantaneously. Like you I'll use the none compression of water
to illustrate my point. Jug full to the top with carbonated
water with millions of bubbles. Push a cork down hard and all the
bubbles get smaller at once.The liquid makes this relative action of all
bubbles at once because it is non-compressible. Space gravity can be
like a 3 dimensional spider web,and if any of its web acts(structure
strings)(vibrates,and relating these vibrating strings to gravity,we can
see an action taking of gravity being faster than the speed of light
go figure oc just thoughts that can be used.??? Bert

From Bert:
I'll use the non-compressibility of water
to illustrate my point. * * * * *
Jug full to the top with
carbonated water with millions of
bubbles. Push a cork down hard and all
the bubbles get smaller at once.The
liquid makes this relative action of all
bubbles at once because it is
non-compressible.

...just thoughts that can be used.???

Yes, absolutely, Bert. You've just illustrated a perfect example of
*functional instantaneity*. When you jammed the cork down the impulse
appeared throughout the whole jug instantly.. well for all practical
purposes, instantly. The impulse actually traveled thru the jug at the
speed of sound in water, but it was functionally instantaneous. This is
what is meant by the functional instantaneity of gravity. Whatever lag
there *might* be is functionally, virtually negligible.. as proven by
stability of planetary orbits over billions of years.
oc

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:


That is one of the stupidest thing you have posted yet.
Relativistic =
Coming under the relativity theory.

I'm sure he can come up with even stupider ideas to post.

In the next post as well, probably...

It didn't take long at all, just a few hours.

Surely the rate that this sewage is produced has to slow down sometimes.

painsnuh is like a ball valve, he's either full on, or full off. If he
follows his usual pattern, he'll disappear soon for several months.
Same same with Sheppard.

Funny, you do the same thing, Pedo Deco!

"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...

Art Deco wrote:
Double-A wrote:

John Zinni wrote:
Painius wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message
news In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

Aspiring astrophysicists ought to know where
they're headed, on which road they will travel.
A few, a very few really great ones, even much
greater than A. Guth (if that's possible) will
officially question the anomalous paradigms.

More than that, the truly great ones will go
searching for reality and truth. They will study
among other things, Einstein and App. 5. And
maybe they'll remember their ko0ky friends
here in alt.astronomy, and how wonderful the
idea of a dynamic, moving, flowing energetic
space zooming into mass and causing gravity
can truly be!

Awesome times ahead for you, Phineas.

I don't subscribe to flowing space at all. My own field of study
is
already contentious.

It's fairly obvious that you don't agree with Einstein
about space as a flowing field of energy, Phineas.

Fields don't flow.


What about the flow of the flux in a magnetic field?

You need to go back and retake EM, it obviously didn't sink in very far.

Double-A



Perhaps then you can refer me to an insightful reference that will
clarify my thinking on this point.

Double-A

LOL

"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

For this deep, profound idea that all forms of energy are
gravitational, combined with his dogged determination to prop up the
flowing space verbal cornucopia despite all evidence to the contrary,
I
nominate painsnuh for the Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award,
January 2007.

Any seconds?

I second that

--


Why don't you guys build a fire and burn him at the stake for heresy
too!

Double-A

Because there isn't one single "ball" between the two of them!

HJ

Double-A wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

For this deep, profound idea that all forms of energy are
gravitational, combined with his dogged determination to prop up the
flowing space verbal cornucopia despite all evidence to the contrary, I
nominate painsnuh for the Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award,
January 2007.

Any seconds?

I second that

--


Why don't you guys build a fire and burn him at the stake for heresy
too!

Your abject lack of clues is not my problem.

Double-A

Art Deco wrote:


More than any other scientist, Einstein has the unique property that he
attracts kooks of all flavors, a phenomenon that continues to this very
day.

nightbat

Thanks for admitting your auk group shortcomings and that is
natural because profound scientist and researchers of the caliber of
Einstein are normally targeted by clueless ones. This propensity carries
on via the over displayed attraction and affinity that the auk
coffeeboys in general have for the present net profound Earth Science
Team Officers.

put another coffee pot on,
the nightbat

Double-A wrote:

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
oc Reading your post just now a thought jumped in. "What if" space flow
that gives gravity its push force(pressure) moves at C^2 186,242 X
186,242. Its not instantaneous and yet so very fast that it can never
be detected. Its not an infinite speed,and maybe Einstein could live
with it. Can you live with it oc?

Well, although Bert is able to see right through war-fizzy, that is
apparently where his lucidity ends.


Gravity is caused by the acceleration of the flow.

No. There is no aether.

And as I see it,
it's speed at any point can be calculated from the time dilation at a
given point within a gravitational field.

And the result is in units of pixies per femtoneedles.


Well the graviton has spin 2,and that
is twice as fast as boson particles.


I don't think 2 refers to its actual speed of rotation, but more to its
characteristics.

Perhaps.


Best to keep in mind motion,and
gravity are two sides to the same coin and that motion can be curved
Spin motion or accelerating motion creates gravitation effects.
Coasting motion only shows its effects when the object is close to 'c'
Bert PS Could Darla's space ship go at C^2


Darla's ship goes with the flow of space currents.

Darla is a fake-alien sockpuppet brigade; "she" has no ship and
therefore is going nowhere fast.

She talked about
that.

Saucerheads talk about a lot of things.

Double-A

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From Bert:
"What if" space flow that gives gravity its push force(pressure) moves
at c²* * * (186,242 X 186,242)?

OK Bert, just to clarify (again)- ahem- The *rate of flow* into any
particular mass is not the same thing as the 'speed of gravity'.

The 'speed of gravity' (or speed of gravitational charge), just as
Newton originally observed, is instantaneous irrespective of distance
and irrespective of the size of the mass(es) involved.

Its not instantaneous and yet so very fast that it can never be
detected.

Well, it's instananeous for all practical purposes, i.e., functionally
instantaneous. If this were not so, there would be what's called
"aberration of gravity", which would cause the planets' orbits to spiral
outward over time. Since they do not, and remain stable over billions of
years, this proves Newton was correct- that the 'speed of gravity' is
functionally instantaneous. (In light of this fact, i dunno why the
Wesident waddler keeps harping er, quack-ing er, yip-yapping on the
aberration issue.)

Its not an infinite speed,and maybe
Einstein could live with it.

Believe it or not, Einstein believed the 'speed of gravity' to be c.

Can you live with it oc?

No, nein, nyet. The speed of *gravitational waves* is c.

All the Duck's protestations and histrionics notwithstanding, there's a
clear-cut distinction between gravity and gravitational waves. The
latter DO propagate outward from their source (say a supernova exploding
or a binary BH merger). But the *speed of gravity itself* is always
functionally instantaneous.

Well the graviton has spin 2,and ..

'Gravitons' are needed only under the Void-Space regime.

Now, going back to the *rate of flow* into any given mass, it's equal to
the escape velocity for that mass. F'rinstance, the Earth's escape
velocity is 11.2 km/s (or about 7 mps).. which equals the inflow rate at
Earth's surface. Same with any planet, moon or sun. But with a black
hole, the inflow velocity and escape velocity both equal c, the speed of
light.

Pure undiluted pseudoscience vapor, completely sans meaning.

oc

Double-A wrote:

Art Deco wrote:
Double-A wrote:

John Zinni wrote:
Painius wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message
news In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

Aspiring astrophysicists ought to know where
they're headed, on which road they will travel.
A few, a very few really great ones, even much
greater than A. Guth (if that's possible) will
officially question the anomalous paradigms.

More than that, the truly great ones will go
searching for reality and truth. They will study
among other things, Einstein and App. 5. And
maybe they'll remember their ko0ky friends
here in alt.astronomy, and how wonderful the
idea of a dynamic, moving, flowing energetic
space zooming into mass and causing gravity
can truly be!

Awesome times ahead for you, Phineas.

I don't subscribe to flowing space at all. My own field of study is
already contentious.

It's fairly obvious that you don't agree with Einstein
about space as a flowing field of energy, Phineas.

Fields don't flow.


What about the flow of the flux in a magnetic field?

You need to go back and retake EM, it obviously didn't sink in very far.

Double-A



Perhaps then you can refer me to an insightful reference that will
clarify my thinking on this point.

Su

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-P...-Halliday/dp/0
471105597
http://bcs.wiley.com/he-bcs/Books?ac...1216437&bcsId=
2037

Double-A