Einstein Never Found Contentment

On Jun 17, 1:04 am, Jeff$B"%(BRelf [email protected] wrote:
Eric Gisse is a very private person, he won't answer my questions;
a lot of people are like that, scared ****less, hiding.
Gisse won't give me anything but his trademark one-line insults.

Speaking of scared people, why can't you tell us your real name ?

Dear Jeff: My name is unique enough that anyone could call me 24/7 if
I gave it out. Certainly, you know my persona by now without knowing
my name. Gisse, in particular, liked to fault me for, supposedly,
being secretive. Mine is probably one of the better known names,
NoEinstein, because such also gives people an idea regarding my
position on science. Amazingly, Noeinstein (without the capital E) is
a sir name. Some are calling me Mr. NoE--I like that.
I hope Eric is OK. He has had some emotional issues. I do care
about the guy. -- NoEinstein --

On Jun 17, 8:15*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
NOE * When I see you name in a book I'll know your right. *Untill then
only your low wit ego is showing * Bert

Dear Bert: You make an all too common mistake: You get your
'confirmation' from books. Most textbooks are published by Jews. And
no Jew will publish anything that knocks Albert Einstein from the
ranks of the intellectual elite. I seem to recall that you are a
Jew. If so, is that why you require me to be 'published' before you
can value my new science truths? Whether you have such a bias or not,
I still like you. — NoEinstein — :-)

On Jun 17, 8:29*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
NOE * Now you have aliens sending us faster than light signals,and we
can't detect a faster than light signal *This begs the question *How do
the aliens do it? *How fast is faster? *NOE your mouth moves faster than
your brain *Faster than light means to me this *"The arrow hit the
target before it left the bow " *Go figure * * * * *Bert

Dear Bert: I reason by a process, the name of which was coined by R.
Buckminster Fuller: teleologic projection. I take known truths, and
examine every aspect of the 'fringe' information, and make inferences
to the unknown information. If a person is flexible, and doesn't
'lock-in' wrong information, it is possible to journey into the
unknown to reach conclusions. This is similar to 'cirsumstancial'
information—as in some trials.
I don't know how the extra-terrestrials do everything, I just
know that they must have figured a way. One of the most powerful
mindsets to problem solving is this: Tell yourself that the extra-
terrestrials know the answer. Then, keep asking yourself, HOW they
solved the problem! — NoEinstein —

On Jun 17, 8:21*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
NOE *The only reason you laugh at Steven Hawkings you think your smarter
than him,and that's a laugh *When Einstien and Hawkings talk people come
from all over the world to listen. Your lucky you have the internet.
You just don't get it * *Bert

Dear Bert: I have the virtue of patience. I'm not saying things just
to be a big ego. Einstein talked at the speed of a three year old.
He was a moron from the get-go. I've disproved the man. So, a lot of
people will have to eat crow if they've been a proponent of Einstein.
Hawking's main failing is his having difficulty visualizing 3D
concepts. He admits that in his books. His escape has been to
specialize in the workings of black holes. I've disprove those a
gravity sinks, too. So, I've disproved Hawking's ideas, or many of
them. Even so, I've really admired that man's constitution. He was
likable... before, and after, his disease limited him, physically (but
NOT mentally!). — NoEinstein —

On Jun 17, 8:38*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
NOE * Best you know it was the steel that held up the floors in the
towers that could not withstand the great heat. On collapsing they
pulled the concrete vertical walls in as they went down. * Stronger
concrete would not have been of any help. *It only shows you are a block
head.low wit thinker * Bert

Dear Bert: NOW you are overstepping you own... "area of expertise"!
I am an ARCHITECT and have the equivalent of a Masters Degree in
structural engineering. The thing that brought down the World Trade
Center was FIRE, not structural under design. My voided slab, just
12" thick, has a 4-hour fire rating! The fireproofing on the WTC was
plaster sprayed on deep trusses with a rating of just two hours. But
most of that supposed fire protection fell off from the vibrations of
the collisions. Because my slabs are flat, top and bottom, an
aircraft hitting a floor would just punch out the opposite exterior
wall and leave most of the floor structures in tact!
My system doesn't require space consuming ductwork—it has a
plenum inside of the slabs. What that means is that a building’s
floors are three feet or more closer together. The effect of such
compactness is to increase the stiffening of the walls and columns by
1/3 or more. And a plane would impact the stiff EDGE of a slab, not
the weak cords of metal trusses. If my floor system had been used on
the WTC, those buildings would still be in use today! — NoEinstein —

On Jun 17, 10:25*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Burry *He has a big head that has only his reinforce concrete in it. *He
uses this group to feed his ego. He thinks he is the smartest person
ever created. *He can prove Einstein and Hawkings are wrong by his own
great imperial thinking *Oh ya *Bert

Dear Bert: I've never claimed to 'think' I'm the smartest. In
addition to my having a "fair" IQ, I have two other huge problem
solving qualities: I have common sense. And I have a very long
attention span. If you have ideas about my intellect, most likely,
they came from you, not me. — NoEinstein —

On Jun 17, 10:37*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
NoE *I have theories I don't like,but I don't shot down the carrier like
you do. *Is their a Einstein theory you do like? *Do you like Art
Deco,or Warhol? *If you do than your thinking fits *Bert

Dear Bert: I NEVER attack the "carrier" (messenger)! Mainly, when I
do attack, it's those like None and PD who have no objectivity in
science. Your only fault is that you learned (or figured out) things
wrong, and your pride won't let you admit it. — NoEinstein —

On Jun 17, 11:36*am, oldcoot wrote:
On Jun 16, 3:31*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

*I keep telling you that the
cause of gravity is the FLOW OF ETHER through a mass. *There is no
'space' flowing through, just very real ether!

"Ether", "space", whatever. It is the *spatial medium*, the "stuff" of
space that is flowing. And without the __acceleration__ component,
there is no "curvature of space", no gravity, no momentum imparted to
matter *irrespective of the actual velocity of the flow*. This self-
same property of the spatial medium, of the SPED, is the root of
gravity-acceleration equivalence. And it underlies and fixes the laws
of inertia and conservation of momentum (in sub-relativistic speed
regimes, that is).

Dork. And knock off the syrupy "dear" stuff. Yuck.

[If conventions bother you, that's your problem.] Dear oldcoot: Ether
varies in density all over the place, all of the time! 3D space is
regular, but ether isn't. You can't "see" just space. Since your
eyes can't "see" ether flow, either, you would just like to dismiss
it. But the pressure differentials in ether CAUSE gravity; and ether
is the 'stuff' of light and every particle or subatomic particle, or
organism in the Universe! — NoEinstein —

On Jun 11, 10:45*pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Jun 11, 5:35*pm, NoEinstein wrote,
addessing oc :

Have you ever been sucked into a black hole? *If you ran
into one, it would, literally, explode you backwards...

HUH?! Upon falling into a BH, you would be 'spagettified' due to the
extreme _accelerational_ gradient as you cross through the event
horizon. This applies to BHs of several solar masses. But with
supermassive galactic scale BHs, the accelerational gradient is much
less severe and you wouldn't get spagettified falling in.

Black holes keep
getting smaller and smaller by evaporation. *

Pure conjecture by Hawking, and unproven. Even if true, it would be
relevant only to extremely small BHs.

"Nuts!" to you.. *—

Narrf.

Dear oldcoot: Black holes DO evaporate! That means they can get very
small. But their gravity is still zero! Hawking wasn't the source of
my idea. We just reached the same conclusion! — NoEinstein —

On Jun 12, 6:59*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
NoE * SR has never been proven wrong. It fits well * *Bert

Dear Bert: "Never" is a long time! I disproved SR in less than one
hour of study of a schematic of the M-M experiment. I quickly
realized that such experiment mounted all of the optics in the same
PLANE. So, it didn't have an unchanging light course to serve as a
CONTROL. My own X, Y, Z interferometer has a CONTROL, and it detects
Earth's motion in the Cosmos! — NoEinstein —