Was Einstein Wrong ? Article discussion... Of course he was...

Dear Eric: It was you who first explained to me what 'top posting'
is. When the treads of replies gets long, later replies don't even
show at the start, but say: "Show quoted text." If I go to the
trouble of writing a reply, I want people to be able to see it! Do
you fault me for that? I say: "Away with YOU!" — NoEinstein —

You have roughly 7,300 messages to your name so far. Your latest
little shitpost is about 70 words. Assuming that's the average, that's
a fair bit over 500,000 words.

Given that a novel is roughly 75,000 words, this means you've spewed
roughly 6 entire books worth of nonsense.

What have you accomplished? What have you learned? Who have you
convinced? Or are you intending to do none of these? Do you just wish
to fill the hours of your remaining life with something?

[snip]

Jeffâ²Relf

2009-04-10 02:47:45 UTC

Quoting less, and quoting better, always beats:
“ endless >quoted lines at the top, middle or bottom ”.

NoEintein may have made 7.3 kiloPosts of about 70 words,
or 6 novels ( 75 kiloWords per novel ), but you've made
28 kiloPosts of ~70 words each ― 4 times as much, over 6 years.

Eric Gisse

2009-04-10 06:18:39 UTC

Post by JeffÃ¢ÂÂ²Relf
“ endless >quoted lines at the top, middle or bottom ”.
NoEintein may have made 7.3 kiloPosts of about 70 words,
or 6 novels ( 75 kiloWords per novel ), but you've made
28 kiloPosts of ~70 words each ― 4 times as much, over 6 years.

On the other hand, I actually know stuff.

NoEinstein

2009-04-11 22:22:09 UTC

On the other hand, I actually know stuff.

Dear Eric: If you 'know' so much, why don't you pick a single issue
in my new science and explain why it is wrong? Unless you can talk
DETAILED science, rather than just make blanket generalities, what you
think you... 'know' is just a delusion. — NoEinstein —

Eric Gisse

2009-04-11 22:46:14 UTC

On the other hand, I actually know stuff.

Force is not equal to mv.

NoEinstein

2009-04-15 02:09:40 UTC

On Apr 11, 6:46 pm, Eric Gisse <***@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Eric: If you were lying flat on your back on the ground and a
standard 8" concrete masonry unit was put on your chest, you would
feel a total force of 27 pounds (the weight of that CMU). 27 pounds
is the total FORCE (in pounds).

If someone then lifted that CMU above your chest, there is a height of
drop that will hit your chest with a FORCE of 54 pounds. (Painful,
but survivable.) And such height will have an associated velocity, v,
that can be used in the simple equation: Force (in pounds) = mv, or
mass times velocity. The only proviso is that "the mass" must be
expressed in SLUGS, or 32.174 pounds.

As you should know by now, my New Science definitions of mass, force,
KE, PE, and power have one and only one UNIT — pounds. Work remains
with the units foot-pounds. So, to find out the velocity necessary to
double the "effective weight" (momentum) of that falling CMU, use my
correct kinetic energy equation: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m).

On Earth the a/g = 1. So the velocity required to double the
effective weight of the CMU is 32.174 feet/sec. The latter will occur
after an exact ONE SECOND drop covering 16.087 feet.

You have expressed 'disagreement' that force = mv. If you do not
understand the above explanation how 'velocity' can increase the
effective hitting force (momentum), please elucidate. — NoEinstein —

On the other hand, I actually know stuff.

Force is not equal to mv.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

doug

2009-04-15 04:14:51 UTC

Post by NoEinstein
Dear Eric: If you were lying flat on your back on the ground and a
standard 8" concrete masonry unit was put on your chest, you would
feel a total force of 27 pounds (the weight of that CMU). 27 pounds
is the total FORCE (in pounds).
If someone then lifted that CMU above your chest, there is a height of
drop that will hit your chest with a FORCE of 54 pounds.

Well, no. John has no clue about the difference between force
and energy. Was he this incompetent at architecture? Is this
why he is unemployed?

(Painful,

Post by NoEinstein
but survivable.) And such height will have an associated velocity, v,
that can be used in the simple equation: Force (in pounds) = mv, or
mass times velocity. The only proviso is that "the mass" must be
expressed in SLUGS, or 32.174 pounds.
As you should know by now, my New Science definitions of mass, force,
KE, PE, and power have one and only one UNIT — pounds. Work remains
with the units foot-pounds. So, to find out the velocity necessary to
double the "effective weight" (momentum) of that falling CMU, use my
correct kinetic energy equation: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m).
On Earth the a/g = 1. So the velocity required to double the
effective weight of the CMU is 32.174 feet/sec. The latter will occur
after an exact ONE SECOND drop covering 16.087 feet.
You have expressed 'disagreement' that force = mv. If you do not
understand the above explanation how 'velocity' can increase the
effective hitting force (momentum), please elucidate. — NoEinstein —

Read any physics text from the last 300 years. You have some
catching up to do.

On the other hand, I actually know stuff.

Force is not equal to mv.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

NoEinstein

2009-04-16 16:38:59 UTC

Dear Eric: If you were lying flat on your back on the ground and a
standard 8" concrete masonry unit was put on your chest, you would
feel a total force of 27 pounds (the weight of that CMU). 27 pounds
is the total FORCE (in pounds).
If someone then lifted that CMU above your chest, there is a height of
drop that will hit your chest with a FORCE of 54 pounds.

Well, no. John has no clue about the difference between force
and energy. Was he this incompetent at architecture? Is this
why he is unemployed?
(Painful,

but survivable.) And such height will have an associated velocity, v,
that can be used in the simple equation: Force (in pounds) = mv, or
mass times velocity. The only proviso is that "the mass" must be
expressed in SLUGS, or 32.174 pounds.
As you should know by now, my New Science definitions of mass, force,
KE, PE, and power have one and only one UNIT — pounds. Work remains
with the units foot-pounds. So, to find out the velocity necessary to
double the "effective weight" (momentum) of that falling CMU, use my
correct kinetic energy equation: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m).
On Earth the a/g = 1. So the velocity required to double the
effective weight of the CMU is 32.174 feet/sec. The latter will occur
after an exact ONE SECOND drop covering 16.087 feet.
You have expressed 'disagreement' that force = mv. If you do not
understand the above explanation how 'velocity' can increase the
effective hitting force (momentum), please elucidate. — NoEinstein —

Read any physics text from the last 300 years. You have some
catching up to do.

On the other hand, I actually know stuff.

Force is not equal to mv.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Folks: Dougie is this underling with delusions of grandeur. Ignore
the dunce! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

2009-04-16 17:40:18 UTC

On Apr 15, 12:47 am, Eric Gisse <***@gmail.com> wrote:
Eric said: “Wrong. Force is the rate of change of momentum. This was
figured out 400 years ago.”

NE: No, Eric. YOU are wrong! Force is: “An impetus to move (whether
or not motion actually occurs)”. Change in MOMENTUM has absolutely
nothing to do with it! Note: A change in momentum can, however,
indicate that a force(s) has been applied. But since weights and
forces can be measured directly via scales, it isn’t necessary, at any
time, to know the velocity.

Eric said: “Apparently your architectural training didn't cover basic
Newtonian mechanics which is fucking frightening. Do you have any
structures to your name, John? It wouldn't be too hard to check to
see if you are (or ever were) a licensed architect in your home
state.”

NE replies: Eric, to aid you in your FUTILE quest to discredit me at
anything, you can email Melissa Jones at the SC Board of Architectural
Examiners regarding your query. ***@llr.sc.gov. My SC
registration number is #1191.

Post by NoEinstein
As you should know by now, my New Science definitions of mass, force,
KE, PE, and power have one and only one UNIT — pounds. Work remains
with the units foot-pounds. So, to find out the velocity necessary to
double the "effective weight" (momentum) of that falling CMU, use my
correct kinetic energy equation: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m).

Eric (who is LOOSING IT) said: “Which is falsified by every day high
school experiments. Go buy a goddamn ballistic pendulum.”

NE replies: Eric, I have no qualms regarding pendulums, so long as
“KE = ½ mv^2 isn’t part of the DOWNWARD energy progression. The latter
—according to Coriolis and the millions of status quo physics dunces—
is an exponentially increasing value, when the ONLY energy being input
is the linear (with time), uniform downward force of gravity =
objects’ static weights.

Post by NoEinstein
On Earth the a/g = 1. So the velocity required to double the
effective weight of the CMU is 32.174 feet/sec. The latter will occur
after an exact ONE SECOND drop covering 16.087 feet.
You have expressed 'disagreement' that force = mv. If you do not
understand the above explanation how 'velocity' can increase the
effective hitting force (momentum), please elucidate. — NoEinstein —

Eric (whose ego has been wounded) said: “I think my time would be
better spent inquiring with the state licensing board to see if John
Armistead has ever been a licensed architect in the state of South
Carolina. [snip remainder from usual rude top posting]”

NE replies: No, Eric. Your time would be better spent not arguing
with me about anything to do with mechanics; gravity; light; ether;
the Big Bang (never happened!); and magnetic fields. My New Science
trumps your (Eric is gullible, too) OLD science. 400 year old
mistakes are STILL mistakes! — NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002

Eric Gisse

2009-04-17 03:13:15 UTC

On Apr 16, 9:40 am, NoEinstein <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[...]

Post by NoEinstein
Eric said: “Apparently your architectural training didn't cover basic
Newtonian mechanics which is fucking frightening. Do you have any
structures to your name, John? It wouldn't be too hard to check to
see if you are (or ever were) a licensed architect in your home
state.”
NE replies: Eric, to aid you in your FUTILE quest to discredit me at
anything, you can email Melissa Jones at the SC Board of Architectural
registration number is #1191.

This is the only part that actually interests me. I'll email her in a
day or two, because I'm greatly curious to know how you could become
licensed without understanding basic statics and dynamics.

[...]

NoEinstein

2009-04-18 16:10:55 UTC

Post by Eric Gisse
[...]

Dear Eric: A college flunk-out like you who escaped to Alaska surely
carries a lot of 'jealous' clout to suggest that I don't understand
statics and dynamics. I have the equivalent of a masters degree in
civil engineering (Bachelor of Architecture, Structural option - five
year major). If you suggest that I'm not qualified to be registered,
the burden of proof will be on you. So, go ahead. The Board will
enjoy laughing at you! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

2009-04-11 22:16:14 UTC

Dear Jeff: :-) ! Thanks for valuing free discussion enough to
record the "whos" and "wheres". You don't have to agree with me to
know that I'm sticking to my guns. Though I've said many words, my
message hasn't changed: "Einstein was wrong at every turn!" —
NoEinstein —

Jeffâ²Relf

2009-04-11 22:54:25 UTC

Which man, dead or alive, do you most agree with ?

Jim Burns

2009-04-11 23:20:59 UTC

Which man, dead or alive, do you most agree with ?

I agree with me most often (but only when I'm right).

Jim Burns

NoEinstein

2009-04-11 22:11:00 UTC

On Apr 9, 9:15 pm, Eric Gisse <***@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Eric: You should be able to infer that I am a person of
conviction. Very few, than the likes of me, are willing to challenge
the "status quo" of intellectual elitehood by disagreeing with over a
century of the nonsense that has passed for... science. The status
quo supporters, instead of being with the intellectual elite, are
actually the intellectual weaklings—unable to question, and to think
logically and clearly for themselves. The main reason most chose to
major in physics was that they realized that if they accepted what
they are taught to accept... ON FAITH, then they, too, could be
identified with that unlikely IQ idol, Albert Einstein. *** The
selfish desire to be "thought" to be intellectually superior has
destroyed the integrity in all of higher education.

I’m flattered that I make you marvel at the time and conviction that
is exemplified in my posts and replies. If the likes of Eric Gisse
could just 'suppose' for a minute that what I keep explaining 'might'
be correct (For you, that would be an experiment in rational
thought.), you should realize that the TOTAL PICTURE logic behind my
New Science far exceeds the bits-and-pieces hog-wash that must be
embraced to support Einstein. If you would like to get some real
intellectual acclaim of your own, why don't you just admit that you
have finally seen the LIGHT (and the gravity, and magnetism, etc.).
Then, you won’t need to belittle me for having so much conviction. —
NoEinstein —

You have roughly 7,300 messages to your name so far. Your latest
little shitpost is about 70 words. Assuming that's the average, that's
a fair bit over 500,000 words.
Given that a novel is roughly 75,000 words, this means you've spewed
roughly 6 entire books worth of nonsense.
What have you accomplished? What have you learned? Who have you
convinced? Or are you intending to do none of these? Do you just wish
to fill the hours of your remaining life with something?
[snip]

doug

2009-04-12 00:31:35 UTC

Post by NoEinstein
Dear Eric: You should be able to infer that I am a person of
conviction.

You just have not figured out that being stupid regarding
physics will not help you do anything useful. Your experiments
were a bad joke for a high school student.

Very few, than the likes of me, are willing to challenge

Post by NoEinstein
the "status quo" of intellectual elitehood by disagreeing with over a
century of the nonsense that has passed for... science. The status
quo supporters, instead of being with the intellectual elite, are
actually the intellectual weaklings—unable to question, and to think
logically and clearly for themselves.

So you choose to be wrong just to be different.

The main reason most chose to

Post by NoEinstein
major in physics was that they realized that if they accepted what
they are taught to accept... ON FAITH, then they, too, could be
identified with that unlikely IQ idol, Albert Einstein. *** The
selfish desire to be "thought" to be intellectually superior has
destroyed the integrity in all of higher education.

For you maybe but the truth works pretty well for the rest
of us.

Post by NoEinstein
I’m flattered that I make you marvel at the time and conviction that
is exemplified in my posts and replies. If the likes of Eric Gisse
could just 'suppose' for a minute that what I keep explaining 'might'
be correct

Do not worry, we could not get drunk enough to believe
anything you claim.

(For you, that would be an experiment in rational

Post by NoEinstein
thought.), you should realize that the TOTAL PICTURE logic behind my
New Science far exceeds the bits-and-pieces hog-wash that must be
embraced to support Einstein. If you would like to get some real
intellectual acclaim of your own, why don't you just admit that you
have finally seen the LIGHT (and the gravity, and magnetism, etc.).
Then, you won’t need to belittle me for having so much conviction. —
NoEinstein —

No, we belittle you for your ignorance and unwillingness
to learn.

Post by NoEinstein
Dear Eric: It was you who first explained to me what 'top posting'
is. When the treads of replies gets long, later replies don't even
show at the start, but say: "Show quoted text." If I go to the
trouble of writing a reply, I want people to be able to see it! Do
you fault me for that? I say: "Away with YOU!" — NoEinstein —

You have roughly 7,300 messages to your name so far. Your latest
little shitpost is about 70 words. Assuming that's the average, that's
a fair bit over 500,000 words.
Given that a novel is roughly 75,000 words, this means you've spewed
roughly 6 entire books worth of nonsense.
What have you accomplished? What have you learned? Who have you
convinced? Or are you intending to do none of these? Do you just wish
to fill the hours of your remaining life with something?
[snip]

NoEinstein

2009-04-15 02:12:58 UTC

On Apr 11, 8:31 pm, doug <***@xx.com> wrote:
Dougie is playing the only game he knows: belittling his superiors...
HOPING that others will think he is the superior one. Dunces, like
Dougie, never win at that game. — NoEinstein —

Dear Eric: You should be able to infer that I am a person of
conviction.

You just have not figured out that being stupid regarding
physics will not help you do anything useful. Your experiments
were a bad joke for a high school student.
Very few, than the likes of me, are willing to challenge

the "status quo" of intellectual elitehood by disagreeing with over a
century of the nonsense that has passed for... science. The status
quo supporters, instead of being with the intellectual elite, are
actually the intellectual weaklings—unable to question, and to think
logically and clearly for themselves.

So you choose to be wrong just to be different.
The main reason most chose to

major in physics was that they realized that if they accepted what
they are taught to accept... ON FAITH, then they, too, could be
identified with that unlikely IQ idol, Albert Einstein. *** The
selfish desire to be "thought" to be intellectually superior has
destroyed the integrity in all of higher education.

For you maybe but the truth works pretty well for the rest
of us.

I’m flattered that I make you marvel at the time and conviction that
is exemplified in my posts and replies. If the likes of Eric Gisse
could just 'suppose' for a minute that what I keep explaining 'might'
be correct

Do not worry, we could not get drunk enough to believe
anything you claim.
(For you, that would be an experiment in rational

thought.), you should realize that the TOTAL PICTURE logic behind my
New Science far exceeds the bits-and-pieces hog-wash that must be
embraced to support Einstein. If you would like to get some real
intellectual acclaim of your own, why don't you just admit that you
have finally seen the LIGHT (and the gravity, and magnetism, etc.).
Then, you won’t need to belittle me for having so much conviction. —
NoEinstein —

No, we belittle you for your ignorance and unwillingness
to learn.

You have roughly 7,300 messages to your name so far. Your latest
little shitpost is about 70 words. Assuming that's the average, that's
a fair bit over 500,000 words.
Given that a novel is roughly 75,000 words, this means you've spewed
roughly 6 entire books worth of nonsense.
What have you accomplished? What have you learned? Who have you
convinced? Or are you intending to do none of these? Do you just wish
to fill the hours of your remaining life with something?
[snip]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

doug

2009-04-15 04:19:20 UTC

Post by NoEinstein
Dougie is playing the only game he knows: belittling his superiors...

That is pretty funny from the incompetent architect. You are so
far below ANY scientist that we all enjoy laughing at john
and his silly delusions.

Post by NoEinstein
HOPING that others will think he is the superior one. Dunces, like
Dougie, never win at that game.

Sorry, John, game over. The world of science is still ignoring
you and will continue to do so. Try studying and you will be
embarrassed at your stupidity.

— NoEinstein —

Post by NoEinstein
Dear Eric: You should be able to infer that I am a person of
conviction.

You just have not figured out that being stupid regarding
physics will not help you do anything useful. Your experiments
were a bad joke for a high school student.
Very few, than the likes of me, are willing to challenge

So you choose to be wrong just to be different.
The main reason most chose to

For you maybe but the truth works pretty well for the rest
of us.

Do not worry, we could not get drunk enough to believe
anything you claim.
(For you, that would be an experiment in rational

No, we belittle you for your ignorance and unwillingness
to learn.

You have roughly 7,300 messages to your name so far. Your latest
little shitpost is about 70 words. Assuming that's the average, that's
a fair bit over 500,000 words.
Given that a novel is roughly 75,000 words, this means you've spewed
roughly 6 entire books worth of nonsense.
What have you accomplished? What have you learned? Who have you
convinced? Or are you intending to do none of these? Do you just wish
to fill the hours of your remaining life with something?
[snip]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

NoEinstein

2009-04-16 16:39:26 UTC

On Apr 15, 12:19 am, doug <***@xx.com> wrote:
Folks: Dougie is this underling with delusions of grandeur. Ignore
the dunce! — NoEinstein —

Post by NoEinstein
Dougie is playing the only game he knows: belittling his superiors...

That is pretty funny from the incompetent architect. You are so
far below ANY scientist that we all enjoy laughing at john
and his silly delusions.

Post by NoEinstein
HOPING that others will think he is the superior one. Dunces, like
Dougie, never win at that game.

Sorry, John, game over. The world of science is still ignoring
you and will continue to do so. Try studying and you will be
embarrassed at your stupidity.
— NoEinstein —

Dear Eric: You should be able to infer that I am a person of
conviction.

You just have not figured out that being stupid regarding
physics will not help you do anything useful. Your experiments
were a bad joke for a high school student.
Very few, than the likes of me, are willing to challenge

So you choose to be wrong just to be different.
The main reason most chose to

For you maybe but the truth works pretty well for the rest
of us.

Do not worry, we could not get drunk enough to believe
anything you claim.
(For you, that would be an experiment in rational

No, we belittle you for your ignorance and unwillingness
to learn.