Do I understand this correctly?

On Dec 24, 6:22*pm, h1705 wrote:
Break Line Porat" wrote:

you wrote a lot Break Line
but still * didnt answer simply Break Line
a single question of my above simple questions Break Line

a porat brain is an astronomical agglomeration of brek lines !

---------------------
and another anonymous
psychopath gangster
what is you real pig **** name
may be Gisse or schaise ?
(:-)

Y.P
------------------

On Dec 24, 11:22*am, h1705 wrote:
Break Line Porat" wrote:

you wrote a lot Break Line
but still * didnt answer simply Break Line
a single question of my above simple questions Break Line

a porat brain is an astronomical agglomeration of brek lines !

Introduce yourself, h1705. spudnik does let his thoughts wander,
sometimes. But he manages to ask good questions. Instead of talking
"break lines", why not talk some science? — NoEinstein —

On Dec 24, 11:22*am, h1705 wrote:
Break Line Porat" wrote:

you wrote a lot Break Line
but still * didnt answer simply Break Line
a single question of my above simple questions Break Line

a porat brain is an astronomical agglomeration of brek lines !

Correction! Y.Porat manages to defend some of science's truths!
"spudnik" shows an increasingly open mind to do the same thing. — NE —

On Dec 25, 2:02*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Dec 24, 6:22*pm, h1705 wrote:

Break Line Porat" wrote:

you wrote a lot Break Line
but still * didnt answer simply Break Line
a single question of my above simple questions Break Line

a porat brain is an astronomical agglomeration of brek lines !

---------------------
and another anonymous
psychopath gangster
what *is you real pig **** name
may be Gisse or schaise *?
(:-)

Y.P
------------------

Y.Porat: Don't be overly defensive. h1705 hasn't revealed his (or
her) true colors, yet. — NE —

On Dec 31 2010, 4:07*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Dec 31, 4:46*am, NoEinst *So, Einstein's

claim of the convertibility of mass and energy was a no-brainer. *Now,
if atoms and molecules are formed out of pure energy, then, that
energy must be being depleted near massive objects. *Most galaxies,
which I consider to be the "creation" module of the Universe, have
nearby Swiss cheese voids. *So, there is no doubt that the ether
density, and also the ether FLOW, vary from very low to highest close
to PRE black holes. *Once the mega star goes... black, the gravity
cuts off, and the ether flow stops. *That allows the zone of high
density ether to flow outward to become part of the "weather
systems" (an analogy) of neighboring stars.

I don't understand why you suppose that having a uniform ether density
would preclude movement. *If you will explain that, I might could
comment. *— NoEinstein — *or — NE —, not " NA "

---------------------
again you overlook my question
or may be i ddint explain it well
or you ddint understand it

if you say
that here is a uniform density of Aether
(per unit of volume !!)

Y.Porat: Who says that? I sure don't!

it could be accepted at least physically or logically.

What on Earth is "illogical" about having the ether density vary, thus
causing the "flow" that is gravity?

BUT UNIFORM DENSITY MEANS
**DENSITY**
BUT NOT ALL VOLUME FILLED WITH *IT
it meas ***some** *----
---100 percent EMPTY SPACE AS WELL !!
*or else no motion can be done!
do you agree with it ??

The laws of probability preclude there being a 100% uniform ether
density—even at "creation". If the energy was FORCED to be uniform in
density, like you propose, but won't rationalize, no elemental
particles could have formed, and the Universe would be dark and
empty. Why do you keep demanding an answer to a question without
logic? — NE —

On Jan 2, 2:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Dec 31 2010, 4:07*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:



On Dec 31, 4:46*am, NoEinst *So, Einstein's

claim of the convertibility of mass and energy was a no-brainer. *Now,
if atoms and molecules are formed out of pure energy, then, that
energy must be being depleted near massive objects. *Most galaxies,
which I consider to be the "creation" module of the Universe, have
nearby Swiss cheese voids. *So, there is no doubt that the ether
density, and also the ether FLOW, vary from very low to highest close
to PRE black holes. *Once the mega star goes... black, the gravity
cuts off, and the ether flow stops. *That allows the zone of high
density ether to flow outward to become part of the "weather
systems" (an analogy) of neighboring stars.

I don't understand why you suppose that having a uniform ether density
would preclude movement. *If you will explain that, I might could
comment. *— NoEinstein — *or — NE —, not " NA "

---------------------
again you overlook my question
or may be i ddint explain it well
or you ddint understand it

if you say
that here is a uniform density of Aether
(per unit of volume !!)

Y.Porat: *Who says that? *I sure don't!

it could be accepted at least physically or logically.

What on Earth is "illogical" about having the ether density vary, thus
causing the "flow" that is gravity?

BUT UNIFORM DENSITY MEANS
**DENSITY**
BUT NOT ALL VOLUME FILLED WITH *IT
it meas ***some** *----
---100 percent EMPTY SPACE AS WELL !!
*or else no motion can be done!
do you agree with it ??

The laws of probability preclude there being a 100% uniform ether
density—even at "creation". *If the energy was FORCED to be uniform in
density, like you propose, but won't rationalize, no elemental
particles could have formed, and the Universe would be dark and
empty. *Why do you keep demanding an answer to a question without
logic? *— NE —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mass is a lower concept to energy and Einstein knew it but not
directly.
Energy is the higher concept.

Mitch Raemsch

On Jan 2, 5:30*pm, BURT wrote:
On Jan 2, 2:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote:









On Dec 31 2010, 4:07*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Dec 31, 4:46*am, NoEinst *So, Einstein's

claim of the convertibility of mass and energy was a no-brainer. *Now,
if atoms and molecules are formed out of pure energy, then, that
energy must be being depleted near massive objects. *Most galaxies,
which I consider to be the "creation" module of the Universe, have
nearby Swiss cheese voids. *So, there is no doubt that the ether
density, and also the ether FLOW, vary from very low to highest close
to PRE black holes. *Once the mega star goes... black, the gravity
cuts off, and the ether flow stops. *That allows the zone of high
density ether to flow outward to become part of the "weather
systems" (an analogy) of neighboring stars.

I don't understand why you suppose that having a uniform ether density
would preclude movement. *If you will explain that, I might could
comment. *— NoEinstein — *or — NE —, not " NA "

---------------------
again you overlook my question
or may be i ddint explain it well
or you ddint understand it

if you say
that here is a uniform density of Aether
(per unit of volume !!)

Y.Porat: *Who says that? *I sure don't!

it could be accepted at least physically or logically.

What on Earth is "illogical" about having the ether density vary, thus
causing the "flow" that is gravity?

BUT UNIFORM DENSITY MEANS
**DENSITY**
BUT NOT ALL VOLUME FILLED WITH *IT
it meas ***some** *----
---100 percent EMPTY SPACE AS WELL !!
*or else no motion can be done!
do you agree with it ??

The laws of probability preclude there being a 100% uniform ether
density—even at "creation". *If the energy was FORCED to be uniform in
density, like you propose, but won't rationalize, no elemental
particles could have formed, and the Universe would be dark and
empty. *Why do you keep demanding an answer to a question without
logic? *— NE —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mass is a lower concept to energy and Einstein knew it but not
directly.
Energy is the higher concept.

Mitch Raemsch

So... "energy has more energy than matter composed of energy." Ha,
ha, HA! — NE —

On Jan 7, 12:00*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

Dear Loony Bin, Y.Porat: Your original question was: "How much ether
is in a cubic meter?" Now you want to know how much mass? Don't you
know that the ether is ENERGY, not mass? And can't you understand
that ether, like weather systems on Earth varies is pressure, and thus
varies in energy concentration? You are a sure CRANK if you fault me
for not knowing the God damned mass of the Universe, and its volume.
Most estimates of that are plus or minus 500%. Pick a number out-of-
the-air, Y.Porat, that's where you get most you your... science—from
VERY thin air. Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —

NE
as you know i am a bit more blant and rude than PD
because i dont *like dis honest crooks
and * and i think the best think i can do to advance science is to
tell them that
as bluntly as possible right to their face!

*i like to dsicuss with honest people
not with *pompous ignorant demagogues *like you :

if you cant know how many kilograms of Aether are in one cubic meter
of space
inits common density
you *cant make any *of your ****en
Aether calculations
all you can do is ball boggling
2
Einsteins *Historic formula
is

E *= mc^2

full stop!!
there is not there * mc^/anything

and that BTW is why *it i s not' relativistic'
in sense that nothingthere is
inflating with * velocity

it came from relativity SR
BUT NOT RELATIVISTIC !! (:-) !!
because c is a constant !!
(sound like an absurd * but not !!)

in order of using it
indeed you cant know how many energy you cant get from a heavy Atom
because youdont know how a heavy Aton is built
(is you know my model i know a bit more than most peole because you
have to know more about its internal geometric
3D structure
to *know about some weak point
of that structure
for instance in heavt Atons tgher are locations with 4 points of
connestions
andf others withonly 2 points of connetions
and that is where *it breaks
and if you knowe like me
what is the binding energy at any *of those points *something that
only me in this univers known ..
then you can claculate EXACTLY
*what will be the energy reelase
exactlt to the 6 digits acuracy
AND EXACTLY ACCORDING TO THAT
FORMULA *E=mc^2
of that Einstein that you so dislike and despise!!
so *please
next time while you mention *the name of
*Albert Einstein
just take off you hat
put it on your chest
take of you shoes *and bend down
with *respect the the greatest * *scientist
of the 20 th century !!
and may be one of the greatest of all times !!
of course
not anything he suggested is right
if youknoe how great ideas come
it starts many cases by guesses
sometime successful
other times nonsense

and *of course *no great scientist
start from scratch
even the great Newton said

''I COULD SEE FURTHER AWAY *-
BECAUSE I WAS STANDING ON THE
SHOULDERS OF GIANTS !!''

Keep well
and from now on try to be a bit more honest !!
Y.Porat
------------------
-------

On Jan 26, 6:36*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Jan 7, 12:00*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

Dear Loony Bin, Y.Porat: *Your original question was: "How much ether
is in a cubic meter?" *Now you want to know how much mass? *Don't you
know that the ether is ENERGY, not mass? *And can't you understand
that ether, like weather systems on Earth varies is pressure, and thus
varies in energy concentration? *You are a sure CRANK if you fault me
for not knowing the God damned mass of the Universe, and its volume.
Most estimates of that are plus or minus 500%. *Pick a number out-of-
the-air, Y.Porat, that's where you get most you your... science—from
VERY thin air. *Ha, ha, HA! *— NoEinstein —









NE
as you know i am a bit more blant and rude than PD
because i dont *like dis honest crooks
and * and i think the best think i can do to advance science is to
tell them that
as bluntly as possible right to their face!

*i like to dsicuss with honest people
not with *pompous ignorant demagogues *like you :

if you cant know how many kilograms of Aether are in one cubic meter
of space
inits common density
you *cant make any *of your ****en
Aether calculations
all you can do is ball boggling
2
Einsteins *Historic formula
is

E *= mc^2

full stop!!
there is not there * mc^/anything

and that BTW is why *it i s not' relativistic'
in sense that nothingthere is
inflating with * velocity

it came from relativity SR
BUT NOT RELATIVISTIC !! (:-) !!
because c is a constant !!
(sound like an absurd * but not !!)

in order of using it
indeed you cant know how many energy you cant get from a heavy Atom
because youdont know how a heavy Aton is built
(is you know my model i know a bit more than most peole because you
have to know more about its internal geometric
3D structure
to *know about some weak point
of that structure
for instance in heavt Atons tgher are locations with 4 points of
connestions
andf others withonly 2 points of connetions
and that is where *it breaks
and if you knowe like me
what is the binding energy at any *of those points *something that
only me in this univers known ..
then you can claculate EXACTLY
*what will be the energy reelase
exactlt to the 6 digits acuracy
AND EXACTLY ACCORDING TO THAT
FORMULA *E=mc^2
of that Einstein that you so dislike and despise!!
so *please
next time while you mention *the name of
*Albert Einstein
just take off you hat
put it on your chest
take of you shoes *and bend down
with *respect the the greatest * *scientist
of the 20 th century !!
and may be one of the greatest of all times !!
of course
not anything he suggested is right
if youknoe how great ideas come
it starts many cases by guesses
sometime successful
other times nonsense

and *of course *no great scientist
start from scratch
even the great Newton said

''I COULD SEE FURTHER AWAY *-
BECAUSE I WAS STANDING ON THE
SHOULDERS OF GIANTS !!''

Keep well
and from now on try to be a bit more honest !!
Y.Porat
------------------
-------

Correction: ...varies IN pressure...

On Jan 27, 2:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Jan 27, 4:47*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Dear Eric: *If anyone, including YOU, had grasped Newtonian physics,
they would have realized that the supposed "Universal" (sic) Law of
Gravity isn't mass and distance determined, but photon-exchange
determined. *Because I have DISPROVED Newton's equation for his Second
Law of Motion, F = ma^2 [The correct equation is: F = v/32.174 (m).],

Congratulations on disproving F = ma^2.

Newton's second law is F = ma. Which works rather well.

[...]