EINSTEIN WAS NOT RIGHT - SPACE AND TIME DO NOT BEND [Relativity]

Prev: Gravity and its push is the center of universal order
Next: A Hawking black hole

From: Arindam Banerjee on 17 Jun 2010 19:02

From: Arindam Banerjee on 17 Jun 2010 20:38

On Jun 17, 5:35 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 11:14 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 3:29 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > I thought all India was behind the British Empire the destroyer of
> > > many great civilizations on earth including India and China. The
> > > plundering of India is obvious.
>
> > There were two stages - of the plundering East India Company and the
> > British Empire. Briefly, the former did bad and the latter did a lot
> > of good. The British empire united India and brought common
> > administration, law, military, university education, technology,
> > roads, new foodstyles, safety, absence of famine... Had a vote been
> > taken, they would have won hands down. Elderly people still say how
> > good and great the Raj was.
>
> Hmmm... After the brits have plundered all the wealth to further
> their agenda of civilization destruction throughout the world, these
> villains all of sudden become beneficiaries by teaching the
> impoverished locals how to prosper again for another round of
> plundering, is that right?

Wrong. The British did a lot of good, after Lord Curzon improved the
administrative processes. India in the Raj had more peace and
prosperity than it had known for centuries. So much even the most
nationalistic Indian leader accepts. Indians wanted independence as
they did not want the racist structures to continue. Mainly the
middle class and the trading classes wanted better jobs and
opportunities. The WW2 gave Indians independence when the situation
became too unstable. The freedom-fighters during the Raj were always
in the minority. After independence, their prestige has gone up.

> > In China, these drug dealers had to
>
> > > fight a couple of wars to gain rights to sell opium (narcotics) into
> > > China in which at that time frame China boasted the biggest middle
> > > class population in terms of numbers as well as the percentage.
> > > Achieving a point-blank advantage, Hitler should have just wiped away
> > > these fuckers on the beaches of Dunkirk. <shrug>
>
> <shrug>
>
> > > Anybody is free to honor any hero of his wish. That includes the
> > > Einstein Dingleberries. They are free to worship Einstein the nitwit,
> > > the plagiarist, and the liar as a god if that is what they want.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > > I don't think Hitler had a choice. His great intelligence networks in
> > > USSR at that time was indicating an imminent massive strike by Stalin
> > > in July of 1941. A good indication is that all Soviet troops except
> > > the Siberians under Zhukov were deployed right at the border. On top
> > > of that, the number of Soviet troops involved at the time is still a
> > > top secret. Also, a good indication of an imminent strike is the
> > > number of planes and tanks. The Soviets dwarfed the Germans by quite
> > > a bit during Operation Barbarossa.
>
> > Isn't this nonsense?
>
> I don't think so if you understand military theory. <shrug>

Point is why should I believe you. If Hitler was keen on self-defense
he need not have advanced so much into Russia after his successful
initial strike. But he wanted Russian land for Germans, and he wanted
to wipe out the ethnic peoples or reduce them to slavery. Lebensraum,
wasn't this the word? This is why that after getting the initial
support of the Eastern Europeans, after liberating them from
Communism, he found that they had turned against him. Why??? It is on
this particular issue that Hitler is confirmed as a true racist.

> > Germany struck at Russia because they wanted oil
> > and a land route to India.
>
> That is nonsense. The Ploesti oil fields in Romania pretty much
> satisfy the needs. Just how do you think the Germans were able to
> carry on with the war for that many years without any outside help
> anyway?

All the books I have read said that Germany was running out of oil and
they needed Soviet oil for continued warfare. Also, Hitler was
similar to Napoleon in this respect. Like Napoleon he wanted to
invade India with a land route, to do what Alexander could not succeed
in doing. Besides the British were very strong at sea so both for
Napoleon and Hitler there was no other way.

> > Stalin wasn't expecting an attack.
>
> Of course, not. He was expecting to be the attacker to spread
> Stalinism throughout Europe and finally the world. <shrug>

I don't think so. One may as well say that France was about to attack
Germany in 1939.

> > If he
> > had, the Germans could not have advanced that rapidly and not been
> > able to strike such stunning blows.
>
> <shrug> Stalin did not. So, your point is utterly irrelevant.
> <shrug>
>
> > > I personally think any Stalinist regimes ought to be wiped out on the
> > > surface of the earth regardless of any economic enterprises. <shrug>
>
> > Stalinism and socialism are entirely different.
>
> You are correct. That does not justify the proliferation of the
> tyranny known as Stalinism, do you?

It did not proliferate. Internal pressures brought it down. To the
outside world, it showed very fast progress and was thus attractive,
showing the power of the state via socialistic methods. As opposed to
capitalistic. Stalinism is dictatorial socialism. Socialism need not
be dictatorial.

> > > Same thing happened in Germany, Japan, Taiwan, China, and other
> > > conquered territories by the Japanese. There were millions of people
> > > starved to death. According to the historian David Irving, 1M German
> > > civilians perished during the war, 3M during the expulsions from
> > > Poland and other places, and another 10M between '45 to '48. The
> > > Japanese and the Taiwanese (being considered as a main island of
> > > Japan) probably suffered half of that.
>
> > Yes but they recovered after WW2.
>
> So, are you saying the Germans and the Japanese are superior than the
> Bengalis?

I am saying that the Germans and the Japanese got a lot more help than
the Bengalis, as they gave up being what they were and turned tame and
docile. Bengalis (and similar Indians) are the only genuine Aryans
left.

> > Bengalis face hostility to this
> > day, are are screwed in every way possible as Hitler and the Japanese
> > apparently had high regard for them.
>
> The Germans and the Japanese had to say 'yes, sir' to the allies from
> then on. <shrug>

Correct, for they lost the war. But not Bengalis, and for this they
have to pay.

> > > It is interesting that the Taiwanese were fully supportive of Japan
> > > despite themselves being ethnically Chinese. Naturally, they got
> > > punished for losing the war. Some places in China chose Japan as the
> > > least of the three evils including Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Tse-Tong.
> > > They were right, and they got punished as well.
>
> > > So, the Bengalis were not alone. The war was not about right or wrong
> > > but a typical power struggle among vicious empires. Naturally, the
> > > history repeats itself that the people caught between also suffered.
>
> > As I said, the Bengalis (or more generally, Eastern Indians) face
> > hostility to this day. They are most certainly alone, and they have
> > their own unique world-view.
>
> They just have to learn to live among their neighbors then. Don't we
> all have with the same problems? <shrug>

No. Bengalis and similar Indians are unique and aloof. They need to
be more confident and co-operative.

> > > I don't think so. The Germans suffered the most --- not only in terms
> > > of the number of people perished AFTER THE WAR but also intellectual
> > > properties.
>
> > Germany gained a lot from the US after losing the war, and became
> > prosperous and advanced.
>
> Are you saying the Germans are way superior just like what the
> accusations of the allies as a derogatory remark. You know the master-
> race-nonsense thing. <shrug>

They got help after they lost and became allies against the Soviets.
India got some help from the Soviets, and that was good. In Bengal
the Communists took over but they did not really quit being Aryan -
only de-emphasised certain aspects for foreign consumption.

> > The persecution of Bengalis by the rest of the world is an unique and
> > persistent phenomenon, as Bengalis (or more generally, Eastern
> > Indians) are the only Aryans left on the planet.
>
> Wow! It is the mythical Aryan thing of trying to be racially superior
> to your neighboring tribes. Let me tell you a secret. Your
> neighboring tribes are still practicing cannibalism till this day.
> <wink and shrug>

Biggest mistake here, to think that the Aryan thing is anything
racial. It is cultural primarily, although it is based upon genetic
lines transcending race. Anyone can be an Aryan - ultimately, after
study and practice, or adoption over a number of years. It is innate
and natural for those not subject to racial or bigoted bullshits. To
hold that blonde blue-eyed people are the only real Aryans, is Nazi
bullshit.
>
> > It is only in Bengal
> > that my original work on physics including the formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
> > could be published in print, though other Indian papers took it up.
>
> Good for you. <shrug>
>
> > It is only in Bengal that I could get the initial recognition for my
> > work - the rest of the planet is corrupt or cowed down.
>
> Sounds like you find an Alice-in-Wonderland in Bengal where all your
> wishes can come true. <shrug>

It is a matter of time before other people elsewhere, who have not
lost their sanity or sense of fairness, take notice. You are right,
there is something magical about Bengal. It is after all the main
source of prosperity for the Western world - the loot from Bengal
started the Industrial Revolution, founded Australia, etc.

> > > Nonsense. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The
> > > nitwit was nobody.
>
> > Well that is not what the world says. All the textbooks are in full
> > praise of Einstein, and the entire physics of the last 100 years is
> > based upon his e=mcc.
>
> That is actually a very correct, good, and scientifically sound
> observation. I can hardly disagree with you in that, BUT EINSTEIN WAS
> STILL A NITWIT, A PLAGIARIST, AND A LIAR. It is all in the
> mathematics and the subjects involved. <shrgu>

No. I do not agree. He was not a nitwit, he was a brilliant bungler
who made a very wrong postulate. I don't where he was lying, he was
only blundering most brilliantly. I have found out the main source of
his error in the article
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
where the fundamental mistake the world has accepted for generations,
is made clear.
>
> > He was the one who postulated the constancy of
> > the speed of light,
>
> No, Maxwell was the one who did so. However, the constancy in that
> case only applied to the stationary background of the Aether. This is
> all in the classical studies of electromagnetism and Maxwell's
> equations.

Maxwell derived the speed of light c from his travelling wave
equation. It is a function of mu and ep, the magnetic permeability
and the electric permittivity. As per that formula, the speed of
light is NOT constant. It varies with the medium. It is slower in
glass than in vacuum, for instance. This was well known by the time
Einstein made his first postulate. There Einstein said that the speed
of light does not vary with respect to the speed of the transmitting
source. He based it upon the null finding in the MMI experiment, to
explain it. This was his original work. It is not the same as
Maxwell's work.

<shrug>
>
> After the null result of the MMX (actually Michelson's solo 1871
> experiment as a gray area of timeline), Voigt was the first to apply
> Maxwell's constancy in the speed of light in the absolute frame of
> reference to all frames of references.

The null result of the MMI experiment had to happen, when the speed of
light does vary with the speed of what transmits it. A mistake that I
have pointed out in the link given above has been clearly explained.
You have not shown who derived e=mcc before Einstein, nor have you
shown who before Einstein made such startling claims that mass would
actually become infiinite at light speed, length would actually become
zero at light speed, and so on. This theory effectively made inter-
stellar travel impossible, and confined humanity to the solar system.
Now, with my work, I have cleaned all this mess up. We can go beyond
light speed with the proper engines, once we accept the new theories I
hafe been expounding over the past 10 years.

<shrug>
>
> > and that is the basis of all SR and GR.
>
> Yes. That does not mean SR and GR are correct or valid in Professor
> Roberts' library of "correct" vocabularies.
>
> There are an infinite numbers of transforms other than the Voigt and
> the Lorentz transforms that also explain the null results of the MMX
> with the constancy in the speed of light applied to all frames of
> references not just Maxwell's in the absolute one. <shrug>

Point is, light speed does vary with the speed of the transmitter, and
so c(v=V) = c(v=0) + V . Natural phenomena like thunder and
lightning, red shift and blue shift, the duck in a pond creating
variable velocity wrt orientation water waves, all show the
correctness of this equation. And this smashes, SR, GR, opens up the
whole world of modern physics. Now thoroughly screwed up, and needing
just one proper experiment for its total demolition.

> > He also
> > bungled about the quantum theory, by basing the photoelectric effect
> > upon it, and for that he got the Nobel Prize.
>
> So, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar got a Nobel
> Prize plagiarizing after Planck's work. <shrug>

No, he explained the photoelectric effect based upon the quantum
theory, and thus gave it validity. Point is, that the photoelectric
effect can be easily explained by modern antenna theory which I learnt
and practised as a professional antenna engineer. So the quantum
theory is redundant or wrong, as it was based upon the non-presence of
aether. With aether back in favour, quantum theory is at best
redundant.

> > It is just dishonest to
> > call him a nitwit, plagiarist and liar
>
> No, it is a dishonest not to call Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
> and the liar a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>

I do not agree. Einstein was a brilliant bungler but he was also
insightful otherwise. He did good work on lasers and specific heats,
later on. GR is rubbish, but the tortuous maths he did for it was
impressive.

> > when really he was a brilliant
> > bungler.
>
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody. <shrug>

Wrong. He is currently held the greatest mind in the Western world,
and all media, celebrities, scientists hold him in the very highest
esteem. He is certainly somebody! He wrote to the Potus that an atom
bomb could be made, and that was something famous. He is the greatest
person in the 20th century according to the Western world. The e=mcc
guy promised endless energy from matter to energy conversion, and that
has been driving fusion reasearch for generations. The US has
powerful H bombs, etc and Einstein is held the cause for so much
power.

> > To this day Einstein is most highly regarded by the entire
> > scientific establishment, and the media and all the politicians or
> > whoever important consider him the highest standard in scientific
> > brilliance.
>
> That is correct. To this day, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
> and the liar is worshipped as a god by the self-styled physicists, and
> that does not mean Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
> is indeed a god. <shrug>

He was a brilliant bungler, but also a competent scientist in his
later years. (work on lasers, specific heats). The physicists have
been misled, and if they have any honesty they should heed what I have
been writing so far.

> > In Star Trek series, he is given god-like status...
>
> In any fairy tales, anyone can achieve godhood including Einstein the
> nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>

You are welcome to your opinion. Don't expect me to share it.

> > > Nonsense again. None of what is credited to Einstein the nitwit, the
> > > plagiarist, and the liar came out Einstein the same nitwit, the same
> > > plagiarist, and the same liar. ]
>
> > Huh? All modern physics is based upon the constancy of the speed of
> > light c, as independent upon the velocity of what transmits it.
>
> That is correct, and it was Maxwell/Voigt who fist proposed that.

You are wrong. Finding that light speed is based upon certain
constants is not the same thing as saying that it is independent of
the speed of the light transmitter, and from that to derive e=mcc and
make enormous conclusions relating to the workings and structure of
the universe. Maxwell was right, Einstein was not right. Never heard
of Voigt before, will look him up. He has not been around in any
textbook that I have read.

> <shrug>
>
> > It
> > was this first postulate that made Einstein so great to the modern
> > world,
>
> Voigt should be the one credited with that. <shrug>

Will check this out.

> > and it is upon this that e=mcc is based.
>
> The equations (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)) cannot be properly
> derived (and thus non-convoluted) without the Lagrangian Method
> without the geodesic equations involved. SR lead to no (E = m c^2).
> It is a total myth that Einstein was the one doing all that. The
> forensic evidence is all in the very mathematics involved luckily for
> the historian in this case. <shrug>

The Lagrangian was there before, but e=mcc was not there. Einstein has
to be given his due credit for being a great bungler. It was up to me
to find that out, by pointing out the fundamental mistake in the
analysis of the MMI experiment.

> > Which the world today
> > understands as the source of all energy formations,
>
> Since it is based on the geodesic equations, all theses infinite
> transforms (that do not satisfy the principle of relativity) all
> arrive at the same result of (E = m c^2 where E and m are the observed
> energy and mass). <shrug>

blah-blah

> > as it destructively links energy with mass.
>
> Yes. <shrug>

Well, that is wrong.

> > The sun produces its energy
> > from fusion with loss of its mass - as a result of very high
> > temperatures in the core.
>
> Yes, for elements with atomic number of iron or less. <shrug>

Wrong. There could not be such a strong magnetic field on the sun
without a strong current and that means a superconducting and very
cold core has to exist in the Sun to produce same. So, no fusion
happens in the Sun or any star - all your modern physics theories are
totally wrong.

> > This is the standard theory taught in
> > texts!
>
> That is correct, but the history behind that is all fucked up.
> <shrug>
>
> > Without e=mcc, they had a tough time explaining the energy
> > from radioactivity.
>
> Yes, once again, but that does not mean it was Einstein the nitwit,
> the plagiarist, and the liar who derived it. In fact, the same nitwit
> made a series of mathematical blunder to arrive at that proving the
> liar was indeed a plagiarist after knowing what the answer should be
> (already derived by Lorentz and others). <shrug>

He did derive it. Everyone says so - for years they all laughed at
Einstein, just as they laugh at me now for my new theories. You have
an even tougher task than I have, if you really want to prove that
Einstein was a nitwit, plagiarist, liar, etc. Yes, Maxwell got a
mathematical formula for c which matched with experiment, yes the
Lagrangian was around, but e=mcc was not around. Einstein took the
null result of MMI as the proof for c constancy, used the Lagrangian
and derived e= mcc.
>
> > Then they formed a law to cover that, the law of
> > conservation of mass and energy.
>
> The conservation law of mass and energy is not universal. It also is
> dictated by the geodesic equation associated with the temporal
> dimension. In general, even these mundane and fundamental quantities
> do not have to be conserved. It is all in the mathematics of the
> Lagrangian Method developed close to 300 years ago. <shrug>

blah-blah

Nothing could be much simpler to derive than the most basic formulas
used in science and engineering, and my new formula relating mass and
energy that is e=0.5mVVN(N-k) is very easily derived from first
principles.

> > All this is well know history!
>
> That is right. Luckily, in this particular subject in history, one
> can use mathematics as a forensic tool. <shrug>

Just that, racists and bigots, liars and hypocrite, pseudo-cientific
parasites are very careful about what maths they select from whom. It
is either blah or ignore, for them.

> > Who can deny that??
>
> Those who cannot understand the mathematics involved. <shrug>

There is such a thing as blah-blah mathematical jumbo based upon
nonsense, and sniffy pseudo-scientists are very good at fooling people
on such lines. It is not surprising that the maths relating to credit
derivates had been praised on relativistic lines - so complex no one
knew anything! heh-heh

> > <shrug>
>
> <shrug>
>
> > Yes. My being of Bengali background (actually I am a Bihari, being
> > born and brought up in Bihar) is such a hindrance, isn't it?
>
> You have to forgive me for not knowing all shades of Bengalis.
> Honestly, all Bengalis look the same to me. Telling you otherwise
> would be lying on my part. <shrug>

All racists and bigots, liars and hypocrites, look exactly the same to
me.

> > Nobody wants to listen!
>
> Keeping all these nonsense up, even the ever so humble yours truly
> would have to turn my back on you. My time is ever very valuable.
> <shrug>

I have given enough of my own to you. Forgive me if I do not reply to
anything more from your side.

> > They don't have the guts.
>
> It is your opinion. <shrug>

It is my experience. Time alone will tell!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

From: Arindam Banerjee on 17 Jun 2010 21:11

On Jun 17, 7:20 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
> Arindam wrote:
>
> "the modern world is based upon Einstein's e=mcc (aka E=mc^2).
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> AHAHAHA... that only seems to you to be this way, Ari.
> Einstein Dingleberries will dearly love you for that... BUT
> 1st of all, it was NOT Einstein who originated E=mc^2.

He did so.

> Google for it or take Koobee's word that "Einstein was a
> nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar." -- E=mc^2 was around, in
> the sci. literature, for more than 30 years, after which
> Einstein plagiarized it from ...

He mentioned Maxwell and Voigt. Maxwell had nothing to do with e=mcc,
and neither had Voigt according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt
Voigt did some minor work with some mathematical transforms, that too
mostly after 1905. I conclude that you and that bloke are not correct
in this instance, to put it politely.

Einstein & his ilk have their
> ingrained Talmudian habit to be parasites on the environment
> they operate in. Besides Einstein, just look at example Israel.
> Israel is a parasite of the USA. Without it sponging off the
> US taxpayers, Israel would have died long ago... ahahaha...

Irrelevant. So tell me, why can't US give a bit of its land to the
Jews for their own independent state there? They have got so much, and
any present owner can be compensated for moving away. Very cheap
alternative, what? It is not that the original owners (the native
Americans) have any say. Have they made any offer yet???

> 2ndly and **** FAR MORE IMPORTANT, ******:
> "the modern world is **NOT** based upon Einstein's e=mcc".

I am not saying that the modern world is anything right and true. It
is full of lies, corruption, oppression - with occassional flashes of
true greatness. However peace of a sort is based upon the power of
nukes, and for the working of the nukes e=mcc is held true. It is a
wrong equation, for my e=0.5mVVN(N-k) explains nukes and in fact all
explosions and energy formations clearly and naturally.

> That is wishful thinking in the minds of Einstein Dingleberries.
> The modern world, and even the ancient one, is based purely
> on EXPERIMENTAL trial and error improvements of existing
> gismos, gagets and tools. Most new inventions did & do occur
> by serendipity anyway.

What you call serendipity, another might call Divine Will or Grace.
All true inventions of the fundamental nature (not the tinkering type)
necessarily involve creativity, and from a theistic outlook there is
no other possibility than Grace.

> |||| If you refuse to believe that then prove otherwise by taking
> |||| your wonderful equations, read them, interpret them, apply
> |||| them and then show me the new and improved hardware
> |||| that you created , which was only possible because of your
> |||| new equations, or Einstein's for that matter... Show me!

Great idea. Let us have a partnership! On my own, I am waiting till
I turn 55 and can access my super funds without paying 22% tax. After
that, it will take hopefully a few months before I get my model IFE
working.

> Theories are just stories!.. The best that can be said for
> theories is that they are useful tools for school teachers
> to transmit/convey the condition of the state of technology
> to the next generation.

A very narrow view. Theories are for correct analysis, application,
prediction - and for making better theories based upon rejection or
further elaboration.

> If you have the inner need to find a physics hero to hang
> your own belief systems onto then you might be far better
> off to chose Max Planck who said

In an aetheric universe restored, with better knowledge of antenna
theory (and practise, for me) Planck's quantum theory is at best
redundant; and generally, misleading.

> =P= "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at
> =P= our disposal. The rest is poetry and imagination."
> =P= --- Max Planck ~1894....

Not all knowledge,only scientific knowledge.

> Thanks for the laughs though, Ari... ahahaha... ahahanson

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> PS:
> I've let your entire post below stand for it contains very
> interesting information about 20th century socio physics
> in the eyes of the 3rd largest population set, .. and which
> you also illuminated in this post

From: Arindam Banerjee on 20 Jun 2010 21:27

On Jun 19, 11:57 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com>
> cranked himself AGAIN & lamented like a very, very
> sore loser, ... sour grape style... and so Ari, wrote:
> "I don't care for the racist-bigot Nobel prize and I doubt
> if I will take it if offered"... Then Ari finally let me have
> a glimpse at his theory which can be seen in hishttp://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm
> Arindam Banerjee. --- Melbourne, August 2005.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ahahahaha... Ari, don't get besides yourself. I was
> helping you. I was promoting your theory using your
> own words. Unfortunately there are 2 problems:
> 1) Your Website, when opened with IE6 or 7, the
> most common browser, has all your schematics &
> graphs over-laid ONTO your narrations, thus making
> your document unreadable. Bad Scene, Ari. Fix it.

At least this is a good point, if valid. I'll check it out. Works well
on my browser.

From: Arindam Banerjee on 20 Jun 2010 21:31

On Jun 21, 11:27 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 11:57 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com>
> > cranked himself AGAIN & lamented like a very, very
> > sore loser, ... sour grape style... and so Ari, wrote:
> > "I don't care for the racist-bigot Nobel prize and I doubt
> > if I will take it if offered"... Then Ari finally let me have
> > a glimpse at his theory which can be seen in hishttp://adda-enterprises..com/MMInt/MMInt.htm
> > Arindam Banerjee. --- Melbourne, August 2005.
>
> > hanson wrote:
>
> > ahahahaha... Ari, don't get besides yourself. I was
> > helping you. I was promoting your theory using your
> > own words. Unfortunately there are 2 problems:
> > 1) Your Website, when opened with IE6 or 7, the
> > most common browser, has all your schematics &
> > graphs over-laid ONTO your narrations, thus making
> > your document unreadable. Bad Scene, Ari. Fix it.
>
> At least this is a good point, if valid. I'll check it out. Works well
> on my browser.

Got to thank you, Hanson. I'll straighten this out, and some other
stuff too, in due course. Thanks again.
Up with your cackling, you got me this time. Maybe if you read it
again when it is nice (let you know when I am done) you'll cackle a
bit less.
Sorry for my rudeness, you did not deserve it.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.

First | Prev |
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Gravity and its push is the center of universal order
Next: A Hawking black hole