A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 23rd 11, 09:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.math,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
rasterspace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his firstrelativity paper.

*all* of the "classical" experimental evidence reveals
teh properties of light to be wavelike,
including the photoelectrical effect, if
the detector is properly seen as an antenna (essentially,
a tank-circuit).
  #2  
Old March 24th 11, 06:46 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.math,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
NoEinstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,799
Default Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his firstrelativity paper.

On Mar 23, 4:48*pm, rasterspace wrote:
*all* of the "classical" experimental evidence reveals
teh properties of light to be wavelike,
including the photoelectrical effect, if
the detector is properly seen as an antenna (essentially,
a tank-circuit).


And all such "classical" (STUPID) evidence is wrong! — NE —
  #3  
Old March 25th 11, 12:53 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.math,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
rasterspace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his firstrelativity paper.

in other words,
you just refuse to play ball
in "mathematical physics," at any level, if
only because of your level of English (or,
perhaps, of any language).

so, have a nice ___!
  #4  
Old March 25th 11, 07:03 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.math,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
NoEinstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,799
Default Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his firstrelativity paper.

On Mar 24, 7:53*pm, rasterspace wrote:
in other words,
you just refuse to play ball
in "mathematical physics," at any level, if
only because of your level of English (or,
perhaps, of any language).

so, have a nice ___!


rasterspace: Anyone knowledgeable of 'mathematical physics' should
realize that F = ma isn't an equation; nor are KE = 1/2 mv^2 and E =
mc^2 / beta valid ENERGY-Mass equations. Both of the latter get out
more "hamburger" than was the "steak" that was ground-up. Of course
doing that violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass, thus
disproving Einstein's moronic Special Relativity Theory and more than
a century of the associated ilk. — NoEinstein —
  #5  
Old March 27th 11, 04:46 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.math,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
rasterspace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his firstrelativity paper.

I suggest that you try to convince some one,
in person, of your derivation of your disproof
of Liebniz's KE = mvv. as for Coriolis,
anyone who could discover the Coriolis effect, is obviously able
to derive teh correct coefficient for that,
using calculus or what ever, KE = (mvv)/2.

if you can really prove Glileo's KE = mv,
you'll have some sort of reasoning for that. (incidentally,
perhaps your experiment with the balls dropped
into the clay, used an assumption that
the force was directly proportional to the volume
of the dent; eh?)
  #6  
Old March 28th 11, 04:14 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.math,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
NoEinstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,799
Default Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his firstrelativity paper.

On Mar 26, 11:46*pm, rasterspace wrote:
I suggest that you try to convince some one,
in person, of your derivation of your disproof
of Liebniz's KE = mvv. *as for Coriolis,
anyone who could discover the Coriolis effect, is obviously able
to derive teh correct coefficient for that,
using calculus or what ever, KE = (mvv)/2.

if you can really prove Glileo's KE = mv,
you'll have some sort of reasoning for that. *(incidentally,
perhaps your experiment with the balls dropped
into the clay, used an assumption that
the force was directly proportional to the volume
of the dent; eh?)


rasterspace: There is no precedent that will ever uphold KE = 1/2
mv^2. Get off of the sauce gent. Your head needs to be cleared. —
NE —
  #7  
Old March 30th 11, 12:09 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.math,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
rasterspace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his firstrelativity paper.

so, did you hypothesize that the volume of the dent
is proportional to teh force of the ball, dropped?

do you have any special sauce for your ideas?
  #8  
Old March 30th 11, 12:27 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.math,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
rasterspace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his firstrelativity paper.

if you're not going to answer any questions,
why are you in this forum, with only me, myself and Brian
to talk to?

unfortunately, you picked the least-likely target to attack,
in Liebniz, who actually ennunciated teh very, modern definition
of "to prove a mathematical argument, pure or applied."
  #9  
Old March 30th 11, 12:50 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.math,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
rasterspace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his firstrelativity paper.

I mean, you don't have to a rocket-scientist;
just a friendly suggestion; there are other jobs ... (say)
bathroom attendant. "Ladies and Germs,
adjust the toilet-seat when necessary, and
I've got really good ears!"
  #10  
Old March 31st 11, 05:55 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.math,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
NoEinstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,799
Default Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his firstrelativity paper.

On Mar 29, 7:09*pm, rasterspace wrote:
so, did you hypothesize that the volume of the dent
is proportional to teh force of the ball, dropped?

do you have any special sauce for your ideas?


rasterspace: Great question! The characteristics of the clay become
non issues if the experiment hits the same (whatever firmness) clay
with equal kinetic energy for two, same size, but different weight
balls. If Coriolis's KE - 1/2 mv^2 was correct, such should predict
the height of drop to cause both different weight balls to impact with
identical KEs and thus to make identical indentations into the soft
clay. If you will email me directly, I'll reply with the color photo
showing the nowhere-near-equal depths of penetration. — NE —
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his first relativity paper. Androcles[_39_] Amateur Astronomy 464 March 29th 11 06:09 PM
THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 21 May 30th 07 08:51 AM
Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT 46erjoe Misc 964 March 10th 07 07:10 AM
Paper w/cometary panspermia proof & new biology Jason H. SETI 6 March 15th 04 01:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.