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

On Jan 9, 12:23*am, "Androcles"

*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameA.gif
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameB.gif

You didn't explain your pictures. I see two possible
interpretations.
1) The line represents of rolling ball in contact with the round-a-
about, where static friction acts on the point of contact.
2) This is Andorkles brain, spinning its wheels.

On Jan 12, 4:37*pm, "Androcles"
*Let's suppose you are an idiot.
There is no force on the ball, just as there is no tangential
force on the planets, asteroids, and comets.
There is no radial force on the ball, either. In that way, it is
different from the planets, asteroids, and comets. There is a radial
force on the planets, asteroids and planets that is pointed toward the
sun.
Your claim was that Einstein was wrong because he supposedly
ignored the tangential force on the ball. Others (not me) pointed out
that there was no tangential force on the ball. You kept on blurbing
about that tangential force on the ball.
You have changed your story. Either this is because you don't
know Newtonian physics, or because you don't know English. My
hypothesis is that you have a problem with both.
If you knew there were no forces on the ball, you didn't make it
clear to all those posters. Even after dozens of posts. However, my
suspicion is that you initially misunderstood the physics. You really
thought there was a force on the ball. You are redirecting your
argument because you don't want to be seen as wrong.
Yes, there are no forces on the ball in the diagram you drew in
either picture. There is no force on the observer either, in the first
diagram you drew. However, in the second diagram, there is a force on
the observer. The observer wouldn't see a curved trajectory unless
there was a force acting on him.
What everyone is trying to tell you is that even in Newtonian
physics, the forces on the observer are important.
Okay, back to relativity. What I have been arguing with you and
others is that even in SR, the forces on the observer are important.
Newton placed a rather formal description of the absolute space which
precludes forces on the observer. Einstein placed a rather formal
description of the inertial frame which precludes forces on the
observer. Most of the "relativistic paradoxes" come about because some
people try to ignore the fact that a force is exerted on at least one
of the "observers."
I don't know about those reviewers that rejected Einstein's
paper. Maybe you misunderstood what they said. Maybe they actually
caught Einstein in error. Errors happen even to the best of us. In any
case, he sent them the article and they rejected it. So he wasn't a
lying idiot.
If the reviewers were right, and Einstein wrong, then this says
nothing about Einstein or the reviewers. After all, that is what the
review system is for. The reviewers are supposed to find mistakes. All
it would mean is that the reviewers did a good job. However, no one
can make out from your posts what Einstein's mistake was. So some of
us conjecture that the mistake was yours.
My hypothesis is that Einstein wasn't an idiot, the reviewers
were not idiots, and you are the idiot.

teh part about "radial acceleration on the disk,"
may be bound-up with Einstein's other problem,
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html

so, space isn't curved, and
Einstein's extension of gallilean relativity is wrong?

cap&trade voluntary USA verson from 2003 and 2005 is tens
of billions in hedge-fund gaming per annum;
mandatory EU version is much larger;
my Congressman Waxman's bill'd make ours, mandatory,
much as the AB32 in California; hey, it's Free Trade!

the most important thing about CO2 is that it is heavier
than air; and, water vapor is lighter.

anyway, I may have been wrong about Newton, since
I just read that Descartes believed that
lightwaves propogate faster in a denser medium,
contra Snell's law. did Newton take this
as a fact?

the only real difference between biodieselTM
and "regular," is that the biodiesel will have a bouquet
of just certain plants.

Why Green plants hate solar cells
Figure 2.
Solar panels typically absorb about 20 percent of incident sunlight
for conversion to electricity. They contribute nothing to moisture
recycling, and obtain no benefit from precipitation. In fact, they are
most effective with absolutely no clouds in the sky.
Whereas the biogenic migration of atoms is accelerated through the
various biogeochemical cycles intersecting at photosynthesis, it is
disrupted by the presence of solar panels. Further, unlike plants,
solar cells produce, but do not consume, heat in their operation. That
is, much of the sunlight that hits a solar cell is either reflected or
absorbed as heat, without inducing an electrical current. This heat,
as well as that produced in the movement of electricity through
conducting wires, constitutes waste heat. In fact, solar cells work
best at the frigid temperatures found in the vacuum of space.
Then there’s the problem of dust; it is estimated that less than a
tablespoon of dust per square meter can reduce the efficiency of a
typical solar panel by 40 percent. This is roughly the amount
deposited in one week in the desert. Dust, which is a major worldwide
export of deserts like the Sahara, also represents a major ecological
threat, as well as a serious human health hazard from—among other
things—infectious diseases that can be carried with it when blown
across the ocean.

But solar panels themselves also pose a direct threat to the survival
of living organisms. Certain species of aquatic insects, which lay
their eggs in water, are attracted to the polarized light reflected by
solar panels, mistaking it for the reflection from water.

--sell every thing to the highests bidder,
such as carbon-credit hedge-fundamentalism, because
it's the Free Market, the Free Beer, the Free Trade
and freedom!... http://tarpley.net

On Jan 12, 11:55*pm, spudnik wrote:
teh part about "radial acceleration on the disk,"
may be bound-up with Einstein's other problem,http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html
I clicked on your link. It doesn't lead to anything.
I am not clear where the problem is supposed to be. "Radial
acceleration on the disk" comes from Newton, not Einstein. A little
calculus, independent of relativity, shows that the material in a
spinning disk has to undergo radial acceleration. This acceleration is
designated centripetal acceleration.
I have read several articles by Einstein. He uses the formulas
for centripetal acceleration quite a lot. I have nver seen anything
wrong with it, and most "relativists" see nothing wrong with it. So
far as I can see, Androcles and you are the first anti-relativist who
have ever seen anything wrong with it.

On Jan 14, 2:17*pm, "Androcles"
Frame of reference, drosen0000.
The ONLY difference between these two images is the frame of reference.
No force takes place at all.
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameA.gif
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameB.gif
The rotating disk can only impart a tangential force on the ball,
it imparts no radial force at all.
Maybe that is confusing everybody else.
You said that the rotating disc CAN impart a tangential force on
the ball. Therefore, you accept the idea that there may be a small
amount of friction between the disc and the ball. Then you say the
disc can not impart radial force at all. However, friction can act in
the radial direction. You really don't know much about friction.
I accept the idea that there are no frictional forces between
disc and ball. The ball is greased and small, so frictional forces are
negligible. There are no tangential forces and no radial forces on the
ball. I accept that fully. However, I will remind you that there are
no frictional forces if you bring it up again.
If the ball is glued to the disc then it is not a separate body, it is
part of the disc.
However, an object glued to the disc could be part of an
observer. It could be part of the observer that is in the rotating
frame where the disc is stationary. The observer in this reference
frame does not see all the laws in Principia satisfied.
If it suddenly becomes unglued at the rim of
the disc then it moves off tangentially, not radially. No calculus
needed.
In the absolute space described by Newton, the ball moves off
tangentially. The absolute frame of reference is by definition a
reference frame where all laws presented in Principia are satisfied.
This is not the only reference frame allowed.
The Newton's Laws of motion are Galilean invariant. Therefore, any
reference frame moving at a constant velocity with respect to the
reference frame are equivalent to the absolute space. Newton's Laws of
motion, as described in Principia, are satisfied in any reference
frame moving at a constant velocity with respect to the absolute
space. Again, these are not the only reference frames allowed.
In the rotating reference frame where the disc is stationary, the
ball without friction starts moving out radially, but in a slightly
curved path. Given enough time, the observer glued to the disc may see
the ball move in a loop. Was that the loop you were showing?
Newton's third law of motion is not satisfied in the rotating
reference frame where the disc is stationary. In order to move in a
curved path according to Principia, the ball has to have a tangential
force acting on it. However, the disc is not applying a force to the
ball. We just said the disc is friction free. Therefore, there is no
reaction force on the ball. Therefore, Newton's Third Law is violated
in this reference frame.
However, Newton would approve because THE ROTATING REFERENCE FRAME
IS NOT ABSOLUTE SPACE. It doesn't even move at a constant velocity
with respect to absolute space. Therefore, only parts of Principia
have to apply in this not so absolute space.


--
Test of GR.

Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif

Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/
and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.

If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092...

If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
universal constant.
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c

Either way, NIST are useless yankee ******s and WRONG.

All you can honestly do, drosen0000, is agree with me or say
you do not know.

Newton said this:
*Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
a month, a year.
Einstein said this:
we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
and this:

--
r_AB/(c+v) *= r_AB/(c-v). *References given:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

Let r_AB = 480 million metres,
let c = 300 million metres/sec,
let v = 180 million metres/sec.

480/(300-180) = 480/(300 +180)
480/(120) = 480/(480)
4 = 1

You, drosen0000, claim you 'have nver seen anything
wrong with it, and most "relativists" see nothing wrong with it.'

All "relativists" are either blind or insane.
In agreement with experience we further assume four seconds plays the
part, physically, of one second, the idiocy of raving lunatics in
Relativityland.

'Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their
having received it from some person who has their entire confidence,
impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of
their heads.'- Galileo Galilei
'Faced with changing one's mind, or proving that there is no need to do so,
most people get busy on the proof.'- John Kenneth Galbraith
'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero

On Jan 9, 12:31*pm, Jerry wrote:

No, Einstein got it right. The acceleration towards the center
implies that the ball "is sensible of a force which acts outwards
in a radial direction."
The ball is responding to a force that is acting inwards in a
radial direction. The outward force is a pseudo-force, not a real
force. This is one thing that even Androcles occasionally understands.

On Jan 7, 11:32*am, "Androcles"
wrote:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html

Albert Einstein (1879-1955). *Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
1920.

*"An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
Einstein

http://mcaaron.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/schleich_catapult.jpg
Notice the cup is pointing tangentially.
Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
An observer who is sitting eccentrically on a disc is sensible of a force
which acts in a tangential direction.

NEWTON'S FIRST LAW.
Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right
line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
thereon.

The lying idiot Einstein doesn't know the meaning of radial.
Proven by experiment!
Proven by peer review!

You don't understand his 1905 paper, so why have you moved on the the
much more difficult General relativity?

You are catching on. It's not every day I find someone that actually thinks.
Most of ratpack can only repeat Einstein's drivel, never knowing they've
been conned by an idiot.


But you're making an unfair comparison. No one person can stand up
against the global brain, represented here by all of Usenet.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:22:42 -0800 (PST), Darwin123
wrote:

On Jan 9, 12:31*pm, Jerry wrote:

No, Einstein got it right. The acceleration towards the center
implies that the ball "is sensible of a force which acts outwards
in a radial direction."
The ball is responding to a force that is acting inwards in a
radial direction. The outward force is a pseudo-force, not a real
force. This is one thing that even Androcles occasionally understands.

Have you ever seen a centrifugal clutch like the ones used in motor bikes or
chainsaws?

Above a certain rotation speed, a couple of rotating masses exert a radial
force on the drum in order to create enough friction to drive the thing. IT IS
A REAL RADIAL FORCE.





Henry Wilson...

On Jan 7, 6:32*am, "Androcles"
wrote:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html

Albert Einstein(1879-1955). *Relativity: The Special and General Theory..
1920.

*"An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
Einstein

http://mcaaron.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/schleich_catapult.jpg
Notice the cup is pointing tangentially.
Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
An observer who is sitting eccentrically on a disc is sensible of a force
which acts in a tangential direction.

NEWTON'S FIRST LAW.
Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right
line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
thereon.

The lying idiot Einstein doesn't know the meaning of radial.
Proven by experiment!
Proven by peer review!

THIS WOULD BE NOBLE IF THE MAN [EISNTEIN] WHERE HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF
AND POST A RESPONSE IN KIND....YOU ARE NO ONE TO ARGUE THIS
POINT...FURTHERMORE YOUR PROOF EXPERIMENT IS ACTUALLY AGAINST YOUR
POSTURE, SINCE IT IS OBVIOUS TO ANY DISCRIMINATE OBSERVER THAT A BODY
SPINNING ON A DISC UNATTECHED WOULD EVENTUALLY BE EJECTED AND THAT
SAID BODY WOULD NOT ONLY TRAVEL OUTWARD FROM THE DISC BUT IN A
TANGENTAL CURVE, SINCE IT WOULD DEVELOP BOTH SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM
ROTATION....WHAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING WOULD NEED ITS OWN PROPULSION TO
EQUATE..AND AT A RATE GREATER THAN THE R SPEED OF THE DISC..HENCE YOU
ARE MISTAKEN...AND NO MATCH FOR EINSTEIN....GIVE IT UP...DON'T
EMBARRASS YOURSELF OR THE DECEASED GENIUS ANY FURTHER, IT IS A BAD
POSITION.

PAT ECUM

PAT ECUM