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

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 22:37:40 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 20:36:04 -0000, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
|
| |
| | | ....just as light moves at 1 lightwilson/wilson
| |
| | Ashes move at 10,000 miles per test match.
| |
| | Why don't you join Dad's balmy army?
| |
| I'm not a fanatic. Actually I don't give a flying **** about cricket,
| but I know you do, so I tease you. If you asked me the name of an
| English player I wouldn't be able to tell you without looking one up
| on the internet.
| I haven't looked at cricket since my schooldays and even then I
| couldn't see the point of it. It is only this winter that I learnt the
| ashes were the burnt bails of some long forgotten game that was
| once played between England and Oz. Ball games never hold my
| interest, not even snooker. I gave up golf when I birdied a par three
| on the same course that I saw someone behind me get a hole-in-one
| and he asked me to sign his card, the poor bugger was playing alone
| and needed a witness. Not much else you can do with it except find
| a bar and have a celebratory drink. Most times I have a
| commiserative drink instead. What's the point in your team
| winning if you are not part of the team? The spectators scream
| "We won!" and all they did was drink beer, clap and shout.
| The losing spectators hold an inquest and decide the referee was
| blind or the team captain should be replaced, you have to find
| blame if the team loses and accolades if the team wins.
| Being a winner by association is no different to being a criminal by
| association.
|
| The trend is to be a supporter of either a football team or a religion.
|
| The only difference is that football supporters use knives and broken
bottles
| rather than bombs and bullets.
|
Yeah... as I said, I don't see the point. By all means encourage youngsters
to play games, that's no different to teaching kittens the skills needed to
hunt when they become adult. Games are for sharpening your skills and
for kids. Danged if I'd pay to watch a game more than once, though.
I did go to see the Pittsburgh Pirates play baseball out of curiousity.
I never bothered again, I was thoroughly bored. I watched a game of
cricket on the village green, but that was local lads and a pleasant
way to spend a Sunday afternoon with a pint, not part of a crowd of
supporters, and it didn't matter which side won.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:24:31 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 22:37:40 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:

| |
| | Why don't you join Dad's balmy army?
| |
| I'm not a fanatic. Actually I don't give a flying **** about cricket,
| but I know you do, so I tease you. If you asked me the name of an
| English player I wouldn't be able to tell you without looking one up
| on the internet.
| I haven't looked at cricket since my schooldays and even then I
| couldn't see the point of it. It is only this winter that I learnt the
| ashes were the burnt bails of some long forgotten game that was
| once played between England and Oz. Ball games never hold my
| interest, not even snooker. I gave up golf when I birdied a par three
| on the same course that I saw someone behind me get a hole-in-one
| and he asked me to sign his card, the poor bugger was playing alone
| and needed a witness. Not much else you can do with it except find
| a bar and have a celebratory drink. Most times I have a
| commiserative drink instead. What's the point in your team
| winning if you are not part of the team? The spectators scream
| "We won!" and all they did was drink beer, clap and shout.
| The losing spectators hold an inquest and decide the referee was
| blind or the team captain should be replaced, you have to find
| blame if the team loses and accolades if the team wins.
| Being a winner by association is no different to being a criminal by
| association.
|
| The trend is to be a supporter of either a football team or a religion.
|
| The only difference is that football supporters use knives and broken
bottles
| rather than bombs and bullets.
|
Yeah... as I said, I don't see the point. By all means encourage youngsters
to play games, that's no different to teaching kittens the skills needed to
hunt when they become adult. Games are for sharpening your skills and
for kids. Danged if I'd pay to watch a game more than once, though.
I did go to see the Pittsburgh Pirates play baseball out of curiousity.
I never bothered again, I was thoroughly bored.

It's the most boring game ever invented...next to soccer..

I watched a game of
cricket on the village green, but that was local lads and a pleasant
way to spend a Sunday afternoon with a pint, not part of a crowd of
supporters, and it didn't matter which side won.

Cricket is OK. I was fanatical when I was a kid but couldn't afford coaching so
took up girls instead...but they cost me a lot more in the long run..

Sport is now designed solely to promote TV ads. One's value to society is based
on one's ability to make the TV barons even richer.



Henry Wilson...

This stuff is fascinating -

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...ge&q&f=fa lse

The empiricists working with the Earth's dynamics had great difficulty
with the causes of the variability in the natural noon cycles but at
least they could correlate that variability with the annual components
in tides in terms of orbital acceleration and retardation and credit
where it is due,they were zooming in on issues which are all the more
important today.When Newton's strain of empiricism dumped the Earth's
dynamics into right ascension,these interpretative deductions went and
remain in a deep freeze.

It is now known from historical records that the lunar nodal cycle
introduces temperature fluctuations (insofar as fish are extremely
sensitive to these fluctuations which in turn affect their migratory
patterns) and with the solar cycle introducing an additional
component,it is time to get serious about El Nino and La Nina is
dynamical terms.The necessary introduction of orbital longitude
meridians reflecting the orbital characteristic of the Earth which
turns 360 degrees to the central Sun and coincident with the orbital
period of the Earth is the first order of business.

These orbital meridians are determined by the distance from the polar
rotational coordinates (North/South poles) to the orbital axis located
on the Arctic/Antarctic circles as it stretches through the center of
the planet.At the precise moment of the December solstice where the
circle of illumination is always orthogonal to the Sun-Earth line,the
South pole is at orbital noon while the North pole is at orbital
midnight.By the March Equinox,the polar coordinates will turn through
the circle of illumination reflecting the orbital daylight/darkness
cycle as one polar coordinates enters the circle of illumination and
the opposite coordinate exits the circle of illumination and into 6
months of daylight.

All these people who make a big fuss over models and here is one huge
challenge to use daily and orbital dynamics in conjunction with the
lunar cycle to get a better handle on things.

On Jan 17, 2:18*pm, Kelleher scribbled:

By the March Equinox,the polar coordinates will turn through
the circle of illumination reflecting the orbital daylight/darkness
cycle as one polar coordinates enters the circle of illumination and
the opposite coordinate exits the circle of illumination and into 6
months of daylight.

Your grammatical software badly needs updating.

Most of your virtual sentences are now running to half a dozen lines
of complete nonsense.

The planet Earth experiences a single orbital daylight/darkness cycle
coincident with its orbital period,as the cycle is characterized by 6
months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness at the polar
coordinates where that cycle is experienced almost in isolation,it
requires a slow and uneven turning of the Earth to the central Sun to
account for what is essentially a cycle just as the daily daylight/
darkness cycle requires a dynamic to explain it.

I can't say whether it is frustration or irritation but the remarkable
inability to accept that this orbital daylight/darkness cycle and its
orbital cause is already isolated through observations of Uranus -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...99/11/video/b/

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

Here is a planet which has two separate motions to the Sun at almost
90 degrees to each other with the polar coordinates spending roughly
42 years in daylight and then 42 years in darkness and nobody wishes
to apply the same interpretative dynamical composite to the Earth with
specific attention to the motion of the polar coordinates in a
complete orbital circuit as the planet moves along its orbital
circumference.

How,for goodness sake,can an entire group of people calling themselves
scientists ignore the orbital/polar daylight/darkness cycle and its
orbital cause as this is crucial for explaining what the 17th century
guys couldn't do in noticing that the annual components to the tides
were affected by either orbital acceleration and retardation as it
applies to experimental analogies.

The institution of orbital longitude meridians reflecting the turning
of the planet from an axis stretching through the center of the Earth
from Arctic to Antarctic circles while maintaining the roughly 1600
mile distance from the orbital axis to the polar coordinate as it
turns like the hand of a clock and passes in an out of the circle of
illumination and acting like a beacon for the single orbital cycle
experience by all locations on Earth.This is what causes the seasons
and natural noon cycles to vary and that it has been front and center
for many years is an injustice like no other.

On Jan 17, 6:33*pm, orifice muttered:

snip crap

Your posting habits are getting worse! Your corrupted software is
telling you that a sentence requires an entire paragraph. Update your
grammar shell or be condemned as barely literate as well as a raving
imbecile. We know (from long experience) that you don't mind being
considered immoral, completely mad and quite impossible to teach new
tricks. But illiterate? Can you possibly live with this lasting
shame?

The orbital longitude considerations are a cinch by applying to
observations of Uranus and specifically the equatorial ring -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

The structure of the equatorial ring follows the intrinsic rotation of
the planet which,like the Earth,has a maximum equatorial speed
reducing to nothing at the polar coordinates.The motion of the
equatorial ring with respect to the central Sun is actual and acts
much the same as an imaginary orbital meridian would on Earth.

It is that combination of daily rotational and orbital components
sometimes crossing each other and sometimes promoting each other that
has the highest probability of explaining the tides,definitely the
seasons and certainly the variations in the natural noon cycle.It is
here where the 17th century guys came close but unfortunately they did
not have the observational power of today to see the actual orbital
dynamic and the fortuitous attributes of Uranus who permit a clear and
decisive correspondence between the orbital daylight/darkness cycle
and its cause.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RyB...ge&q&f=fa lse

I am not an empiricist and don't particularly have a stake in pushing
experimental analogies too far as they apply to terrestrial effects as
a consequence of dynamical inputs but surely there has to be some
empiricists among you with the courage to deal with observations that
are visible with tangible effects as opposed to this cowardice where
all the concepts are super-fast,super small,super-distant,super-old or
any other excuse to push concepts which are up front and center.

How is it possible not to interpret the images of Uranus in context of
orbital dynamics otherwise there is no point calling yourselves
physicists.Maybe too dull to consider why the outer planets have rings
while they are absent from the smaller and inner planets or dozens of
other questions these images bring up.

On Jan 17, 7:44*pm, orifice mumbled:

I am not an empiricist and don't particularly have a stake in pushing
experimental analogies too far as they apply to terrestrial effects as
a consequence of dynamical inputs but surely there has to be some
empiricists among you with the courage to deal with observations that
are visible with tangible effects as opposed to this cowardice where
all the concepts are super-fast,super small,super-distant,super-old or
any other excuse to push concepts which are up front and center.

7 whole lines (of complete nonsense) and counting....

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!

Androcles: As you probably realize, a body on a rotating disk (say, a
modified record player) must be restrained in the RADIAL direction—by
friction or other means—to remain on a circular path. Once the means
of retention is cut, the body will retain its TANGENTIAL, straight-
line velocity, and cease traveling in a circular path. Graphical
analysis may show that as the loosed body travels tangentially its
coordinates may no longer remain on the original radial line. Anyone
with more time than I have, should check this out to see. That said,
there is nothing in the quoted excerpts of Einstein that conclusively
shows he misunderstood the meaning of "radial". — NoEinstein —

On Jan 14, 11:52*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:22:42 -0800 (PST), Darwin123
wrote:

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


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.
You just said "the rotating masses exert a force on the drum."
However, there is no outward force on the masses (i.e., brake shoe).
All the forces on these masses are inwards.
there is no outward force on the break shoe. The drum exerts an inward
force on the masses. The springs exert an inward force on the break
shoe. The brake shoe is being pushed inward, not outward.
There is an outward force of the brake shoe on a section of drum.
However, the rest of the drum exerts an elastic force on this section
of drum that keeps this section in circular motion. The entire drum is
subject to a force by the hub keeping it in place.
Every real force is paired. The total force on the drum is
zero. The sum of the forces is zero. There is no "radial force" on the
drum that is caused by spinning alone.
If the drum and springs disappeared, the brake shoe would travel
in a straight line. There would be no radial force on the brake shoe
if the drum and springs disappeared. If the centrifugal force were
real, then the brake shoe would travel in a curved path when the drum
and brake shoe disappeared.
In absolute space as described by Newton, every force is
associated with two bodies. The brake shoe is a body, the drum is a
body, the springs are bodies. The centrifugal force on a body is
associated with that body alone. Therefore, the centrifugal force on a
body does not exist in absolute space as described by Newton.
The centrifugal force doesn't exist in absolute space, as
described by Newton. I think that Androcles understands this, though
what he says seems muddled even on this point. Your association
between centrifugal force and relativists simply shows (shoes?) that
you don't understand Newtonian physics. What you think of as
"Einsteinian" is really "Newtonian."