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

On 16 Mar., 03:13, Neinstein completely lost the plot:
To wit:

To woo.

'Nuff said, really. :-)

On Mar 16, 2:36*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On 16 Mar., 03:13, Neinstein completely lost the plot:
*To wit:

To woo.

'Nuff said, really. :-)

Chris.B: Does 'nuff said' mean that you are beginning to comprehend
my logical New Science? I hope so! — NE —

On Mar 16, 1:58*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Mar 16, 2:36*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:

On 16 Mar., 03:13, Neinstein completely lost the plot:
*To wit:

To woo.

'Nuff said, really. :-)

Chris.B: *Does 'nuff said' mean that you are beginning to comprehend
my logical New Science? *I hope so! *— NE —

Oh good grief, the poor psychotic soul can't even tell when he's being
mocked.

so, if the material seen from a nova,
has a doppler shift indicating its velocity,
how does that make it, faster?

your conjectures seem always to be,
just no "where," thereat.... maybe that' why,
no-one thinks you've actually done anything.

that's what it looks like, to me, anyway, so
don't get bent out of shape.

Okay, not even a theory. thank you, and
watch the turnstile as you limbo onto the tracks.

I can never see, why people don't realize,
taht aether theories came about *around* the time
that atoms & stuff were being illucidated, so that
the advent of the electron established the theory
of "electromagnetism," which requires no aether, at all
.... no matter how many times, Einstein fudged his way
around the whole matter.

between Einstein's God-am photon, and
Minkowski's God-am phase-space,
there is alot of extraneous & very puffy confusion.

this is another thing that is mystifying, although
there is a ton of pop-science crap to confuse everyone.

if light is a kind of energy, and matter is ultimately
a complicated form of energy, as a practical matter merely
of momentum, why would adding energy to a quantum of matter,
not increase its "rest mass?" (or, alternatively,
isn't it known that fission & fusion reduce the mass
of the fuel, by a measurable amount?)

well, it's useless typing at you, because
you never think any critique could p o s s i b l y be raional,
coz you the big, nude thing.

On Mar 16, 3:22*pm, PD wrote:

PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of being replied to. — NE —

On Mar 16, 1:58*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Mar 16, 2:36*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:

On 16 Mar., 03:13, Neinstein completely lost the plot:
*To wit:

To woo.

'Nuff said, really. :-)

Chris.B: *Does 'nuff said' mean that you are beginning to comprehend
my logical New Science? *I hope so! *— NE —

Oh good grief, the poor psychotic soul can't even tell when he's being
mocked.

On Mar 16, 8:31*pm, rasterspace wrote:
so, if the material seen from a nova,
has a doppler shift indicating its velocity,
how does that make it, faster?

your conjectures seem always to be,
just no "where," thereat.... *maybe that' why,
no-one thinks you've actually done anything.

that's what it looks like, to me, anyway, so
don't get bent out of shape.

rasterspace: If you stand on the bow of a cruise ship traveling 10
mph, and throw a 90 mph fast-ball, the effective speed of the ball
will be V + v or 100 mph. Since the emission velocity of the light is
'c', then the effective velocity of the light is 'c' + v, or the
approach velocity of the source of the light. I have confirmed that
"theory" perfectly well by my algebraic invalidation of the M-M
experiment. — NoEinstein —

Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...b2a1511b7b2603

On Mar 16, 8:33*pm, rasterspace wrote:
Okay, not even a theory. *thank you, and
watch the turnstile as you limbo onto the tracks.

To whom are you talking? And about what? Ha, ha, HA! — NE —