Einstein's Biggest Blunder - - Wasn't???
in [Physics]
|
Prev: (i) as a 90 degree rotation? Re: Algebra Number Wheel #503 Correcting Math
Next: RFC Number Factor Patterns & Riemann Zeta Function?
From: Koobee Wublee on 10 Mar 2010 02:14 On Mar 9, 7:43 pm, fitz <zeus...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Einstein's Biggest Blunder Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. That was the nitwit's only blunder. <shrug> > - - Wasn't??? Yes, it was. <shrug> The Cosmological constant indicates a negative mass density. It is obvious that negative mass will result in antigravity in Newtonian physics. <shrug> The suggestion of negative mass is so fvcking desperate on that nitwit's part. <shrug> I suppose you don't believe that negative mass will result in antigravity has not come across anyone's mind, do you? <shrug> > a bit more light about it > > (click link) > > http://www.amperefitz.com/einsteins.blunder.htm More nonsense in line with the party thinking. <shrug> The field equations were first derived by Hilbert after pulling out the so-called Lagrangian from his own a$$ to satisfy the stationary action of the so-called Einstein-Hilbert action whatever $hit that is. <shrug> The universe cannot be decided by a mathematical model --- especially the one that is full of mathemaGics. In another words, you cannot play God. If you insists on creating your own universe by playing God on paper, for $99,999.99, yours truly will find you a metric as a static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat solution to the field equations that will satisfy all the specifications of your universe. This also applies to the so-called Dr. Perlmutter's observation in accelerating universe. > Enjoy, Want your paper universe based on the Einstein field equations? Want to play God?
From: PD on 10 Mar 2010 14:09 On Mar 10, 1:14 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 9, 7:43 pm, fitz <zeus...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Einstein's Biggest Blunder > > Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. That was the > nitwit's only blunder. <shrug> > > > - - Wasn't??? > > Yes, it was. <shrug> > > The Cosmological constant indicates a negative mass density. It is > obvious that negative mass will result in antigravity in Newtonian > physics. <shrug> However, an indication does not mean a necessary consequence. Therefore, your foregone conclusion that it is ruled out because it would yield antigravity in another theory altogether neither follows logically nor is at all relevant. > > The suggestion of negative mass is so fvcking desperate on that > nitwit's part. <shrug> He didn't suggest a negative mass. You did. > > I suppose you don't believe that negative mass will result in > antigravity has not come across anyone's mind, do you? <shrug> > > > a bit more light about it > > > (click link) > > >http://www.amperefitz.com/einsteins.blunder.htm > > More nonsense in line with the party thinking. <shrug> > > The field equations were first derived by Hilbert after pulling out > the so-called Lagrangian from his own a$$ to satisfy the stationary > action of the so-called Einstein-Hilbert action whatever $hit that > is. <shrug> > > The universe cannot be decided by a mathematical model --- especially > the one that is full of mathemaGics. In another words, you cannot > play God. > > If you insists on creating your own universe by playing God on paper, > for $99,999.99, yours truly will find you a metric as a static, > spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat solution to the field > equations that will satisfy all the specifications of your universe. > This also applies to the so-called Dr. Perlmutter's observation in > accelerating universe. > > > Enjoy, > > Want your paper universe based on the Einstein field equations? Want > to play God?
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 10 Mar 2010 16:20 Koobee Wublee wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:14:56 -0800: > On Mar 9, 7:43 pm, fitz <zeus...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Einstein's Biggest Blunder > > Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. That was the nitwit's > only blunder. <shrug> > >> - - Wasn't??? > > Yes, it was. <shrug> > > The Cosmological constant indicates a negative mass density. It is > obvious that negative mass will result in antigravity in Newtonian > physics. <shrug> Nope. > The suggestion of negative mass is so fvcking desperate on that nitwit's > part. <shrug> > > I suppose you don't believe that negative mass will result in > antigravity has not come across anyone's mind, do you? <shrug> > >> a bit more light about it >> >> (click link) >> >> http://www.amperefitz.com/einsteins.blunder.htm > > More nonsense in line with the party thinking. <shrug> > > The field equations were first derived by Hilbert after pulling out the > so-called Lagrangian from his own a$$ To be read as "from his own research" by the rest of us :-D > to satisfy the stationary action > of the so-called Einstein-Hilbert action whatever $hit that is. <shrug> > > The universe cannot be decided by a mathematical model --- especially > the one that is full of mathemaGics. In another words, you cannot play > God. > > If you insists on creating your own universe by playing God on paper, > for $99,999.99, yours truly will find you a metric as a static, > spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat solution to the field > equations that will satisfy all the specifications of your universe. > This also applies to the so-called Dr. Perlmutter's observation in > accelerating universe. > >> Enjoy, > > Want your paper universe based on the Einstein field equations? Want to > play God? -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: spudnik on 10 Mar 2010 17:22 in his little essay, Fitz confuzed "bending of red" (spherical abberation?) with the "doppler" redshift (if it is due to velocity-away-from-us, or to *acceleration* away from us -- cancel the programme du space ?!?) thus quoth: I came upon the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow piece in the course of pursuing the trail of the nuclear hypothesis developed by my dear friend and former collaborator, University of Chicago physical chemist and physicist Dr. Robert J. Moon. Moon was the brilliant student of that same Harkins who, for several decades, beginning about the time of World War I, took the point against the reductionist school of atomic and nuclear physics led by Rutherford and Bohr. We shall return to that healthy tradition shortly. We first briefly review the story of the overpriced letter. caption: Harkins noted that three elementsOxygen (O), Silicon (Si), and Iron (Fe)make up more than 80 percent of the atomic composition of meteorites. Ten elements of even number make up 97.59 perent of the meteorites. The extraordinary abundance of just a few of the 92 elements must be a clue to the stability of their nuclear structure. The data are given for 350 stone and 10 iron meteorites. Source: Harkins The Building of Atoms and the New Periodic System, Science, Dec. 26, 1919, p. 581 In early 1948, George Gamow, the well-known physicist and writer then at George Washington University, and R.A. Alpher launched their attack on Harkins, et al., in the form of a new theory of the origin of the chemical elements. Gamow, ever the merry prankster, asked Hans Bethe to join in endorsing the effort, which was published as a letter to The Physical Review in April 1948.1 Bethe (who as recently as 1990, told 21st Century Associate Editor Charles B. Stevens that the only thing worse than cold fusion is Harkins) was glad to join in, giving the papers authorship its alphabeticality. We shall thus, henceforth, refer to it as ABC Humbug. http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/fall%202003/Humbuggery.html > >>http://www.amperefitz.com/einsteins.blunder.htm > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/ca...- Hide quoted text - thus: no; n=4 is a very, very special case, that required only "infinite descent," and he did not follow that, one of hsi very few explicit proofs, with a proviso about the general case. anyway, the "theorem" seems to have been one of his earliest insights into numbertheory; might it not? > There is good circumstantial evidence that he did not; specifically, > the fact that he produced a proof specific for n=4 at a later date but > never mentioned the more general conjecture. thus: don't top-post, you God-am trollamatic! > yep, JSH is pure Troll.- Hide quoted text - --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman and ICC's 3rd British invasion of Sudan! http://laroucehpub.com
From: Koobee Wublee on 11 Mar 2010 14:15
On Mar 10, 11:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 10, 1:14 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. That was the > > nitwit's only blunder. <shrug> > > > The Cosmological constant indicates a negative mass density. It is > > obvious that negative mass will result in antigravity in Newtonian > > physics. <shrug> > > However, an indication does not mean a necessary consequence. Recall energy and mass being equivalent? So, in this case, it is. <shrug> > Therefore, your foregone conclusion that it is ruled out because it > would yield antigravity in another theory altogether neither follows > logically nor is at all relevant. Just what part of Newtonian law of gravity do you not understand? Positive mass yields gravity according to the Newtonian law of gravity. This indicates and leads to the consequence of negative mass yielding antigravity. <shrug> > > The suggestion of negative mass is so fvcking desperate on that > > nitwit's part. <shrug> > > He didn't suggest a negative mass. You did. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not capable of understanding the mass-energy relationship. Apparently, you dont either. Recall (E = m c^2)? This is a typical contradiction in the academics among those so-called self-styled physicists. <shrug> Their applications of mathematics involved are always comical in nature. Ahahaha... |