Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 25 Sep 2009 12:53 On Sep 25, 10:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 25, 3:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 25, 12:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 25, 4:17 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 24, 10:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 24, 2:36 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 11:51 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 5:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 10:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 4:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 9:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > ere found > > > > > it i s one to a few billions !!! > > > > 2 > > > > it was found not by say bombarding Atoms > > > > th e palce those super aprticles; are alleged tobe found > > > > but in a huge accelerator using eelctron positron collission > > > > in the nuc > > > > trhere ar e not all those huge accelerations as in that > > > > artificially made accelerator > > > > > NORE THOSE HUGE ENERGIES (in the atom )THAT ARE IN THAT ACCELERATOR > > > > you dont find any traces in normal obseravtions of Atom and nuc about > > > > suchenormous energies involved !! > > > > so > > > > no connection between those fantastic experiments and **reality * > > > > an unbelievable stupidity !! > > > > 3 > > > > as i understand > > > > the Higgs bosons were nevr found !! > > > > and it is part and parcel of that theory !! > > > > > so as long as they are not found > > > > it is a big bleeding hole in all that theory !! > > > > that shoud or well might kill it !!if not found > > > > and all the chances (untill now )show it will never be found > > > > 4 > > > > i said the mass of the electron is 0.00045 mev/c^2 > > > > you are right it is a little difference it is Meves > > > > (with capital M) > > > > (you enjoy to catch me by obvious Typo mistakes ...) > > > > but still doea not make a differnce to our dispute > > > > 5 > > > > i > > > > ... > > > > > read more » > > > > --------------------------------- > > > and another question: > > > what has > > > Anti proton and Anti neutrons > > > got to do in our regular Atom ???!!!! > > > What does measuring the fracture stress of concrete in an artificial > > test rig have to do with the fracture stress of concrete in a real > > bridge pylon? (Everything! That's why they do it in a test rig!) > > > ---------------- > > very nice that yiou know soemthibg about structrel engineering > but your methaphore i snot exactly as our cureent dsicussion > even modeling a struture of a abilding i snot as simple as one > whould think > it is ascience of itself and mind you > in many cases it is not acurate enough > because a model will never be as the orriginal itslef > by one to one > 2 > here i had a principal question: > 9i confess i ddint study it properly > but > ddi i undestood coreectly that the huge accelarator is creating > **anti particles ??!!!! > and you what to model it with reality ?? > is there a room in real every day matter for > anti particles ???!!! Absolutely. They're here all the time. Antiparticles rain through you every second. > as far as i rememvebr antiparticles will destroy > our matter?? > am i wrong about it? As soon as an antiparticle runs into its particle equivalent, then there's a good chance the two of them will annihilate and produce energy, yes. Which is why you don't see great big gobs of antimatter around. But antimatter particles are not unusual in everyday existence. They're here all over. > ------------- > 2 > you didint tell us that in that accelerator > while looking fo rthe W or Z and inorder "to close the picture > ft the theory "--- > there are some missing links ?? You mentioned the Higgs. That's an example. There are ALWAYS open questions in any theory, even when the theory is accepted. A theory does not have to have all open questions answered before it is generally accepted, and certainly you don't have to wait for all open questions to be answered before awarding a prize for the works. > > if so > can that be a complete theory > to be sure and so chest drumming > about it?? > if we go backto your building model methaphore > it is enough that just one building element willbe missing > *and the wole structure is collapsing* Remember, nature keeps doing what it's doing whether we've guessed right or not. We aren't building anything, we're discovering something. If you have something covered up under a sheet, and you uncover a corner of it and you see a tail, and then you uncover some more and you see four legs and you uncover some more and you see a brown bag and a collar with a tag on it, then most people will be able to say, "It's a dog" even before you uncover the whole head. Of course, it's possible that it's not a dog after all, but it's not like the animal suddenly collapses. And here, we don't have a *missing* brick. We just have a brick we're pretty sure is there, but we haven't uncovered it yet. There's SOMETHING there, otherwise the rest of it wouldn't have stood up so well. > if you want a more striking example > in building a space craft > it is enough that jsut one miserable covering ceramic brick > will be missing > and we get the famous catastrophy!!! > do you see the diffrence between engineering and > table theory responsibility (:-) > if there is a mistake in you theory > no one stil died from that > > in sapce engineering ... you saw the results !! > btw you see that not **all** my questions are > as if i know a better answer > sometime i ask because i dont know > but i have a hunch that there is soemthing wrong And that's the problem, Porat. You operate on hunches about things you haven't learned about. It would help to GUIDE your hunches if you read some more on the subject, so you wouldn't make so many uninformed hunches. > or jsut waht to learn better by the media of the net > is it a crime No, it's not a crime. It's just not a good way to do it. And I don't have to cater to it. You can indulge in whatever you want. Just don't expect the world to serve it on the platter you choose. > inmany other cases wile i thing i have some better answer than others > i contribute it > it should be a sytem of 'give and take as for your best ability > so > now back to my above question question > about the antiparticles in our real common matter > (excuse me my ignoranc about it may be laziness > but at my age some laziness is legitimate (:-) > > what is your explanations ?? > > btw i never saw you asking any questions just for he sake of learning > something > you always pose as if you know everything ..... > > (my father used to say > anyone who is ashamed --- will not have children !! ...(:-) > > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------
From: PD on 25 Sep 2009 12:55 On Sep 25, 9:10 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > Jonah Thomas wrote: > > > > > I hope they do better than the experiments that detected > > > > > neutrinos. > > > > > You really should read some actual science some time. The > > > > experiments that detect neutrinos were well done. You seem to be > > > > totally ignorant of them. > > > > They detected positrons and neutrons at about the same time, > > > indicating that what they found was protons converting to neutrons > > > and positrons. This happened far more often near the nuclear reactor > > > than it usually would, indicating that something about the reactor > > > was probably causing it. They assumed that it was the many incidents > > > in the reactor where beta particles were produced that caused it. In > > > those reactions there was something missing, in the neutron+positron > > > reacton something extra was needed. > > > > This did not actually detect the undetectable particle. It detected > > > the reaction that visibly violated conservation of energy and > > > momentum. The undetectable particle is still undetectable, but you > > > can detect its traces -- incidents where stuff disappears or appears > > > out of nowhere, that imply that the undetectable particle has been > > > there. > > > This last paragraph is wrong. The neutrinos were initiators of a > > reaction (inverse beta decay) that would not happen otherwise at those > > rates. The fact that there was something initiating those reactions > > that only the thing called a neutrino would do, was the indicator. > > There is something to what you say. The particle itself is still > undetectable, but since we know that there is no possible way to get > that result than with an unobservable particle, we can for all intents > and purposes say that we have observed the undetectable particle. Hmmm.... if we observe the unobservable particle, then it's not so unobservable after all, is it? > > Only a pedant would say otherwise. > > As I was saying, when the experiment gives results that differ from > long-accepted theory, the natural response is to decide that there is > something wrong with the experiment or decide that something else is > going on that masks the truth. And there is nothing wrong with this.
From: Y.Porat on 26 Sep 2009 00:47 On Sep 25, 6:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 25, 10:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 25, 3:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 25, 12:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 25, 4:17 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 24, 10:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 2:36 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 11:51 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 5:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 10:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 4:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 9:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > ere found > > > > > > it i s one to a few billions !!! > > > > > 2 > > > > > it was found not by say bombarding Atoms > > > > > th e palce those super aprticles; are alleged tobe found > > > > > but in a huge accelerator using eelctron positron collission > > > > > in the nuc > > > > > trhere ar e not all those huge accelerations as in that > > > > > artificially made accelerator > > > > > > NORE THOSE HUGE ENERGIES (in the atom )THAT ARE IN THAT ACCELERATOR > > > > > you dont find any traces in normal obseravtions of Atom and nuc about > > > > > suchenormous energies involved !! > > > > > so > > > > > no connection between those fantastic experiments and **reality * > > > > > an unbelievable stupidity !! > > > > > 3 > > > > > as i understand > > > > > the Higgs bosons were nevr found !! > > > > > and it is part and parcel of that theory !! > > > > > > so as long as they are not found > > > > > it is a big bleeding hole in all that theory !! > > > > > that shoud or well might kill it !!if not found > > > > > and all the chances (untill now )show it will never be found > > > > > 4 > > > > > i said the mass of the electron is 0.00045 mev/c^2 > > > > > you are right it is a little difference it is Meves > > > > > (with capital M) > > > > > (you enjoy to catch me by obvious Typo mistakes ...) > > > > > but still doea not make a differnce to our dispute > > > > > 5 > > > > > i > > > > > ... > > > > > > read more » > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > and another question: > > > > what has > > > > Anti proton and Anti neutrons > > > > got to do in our regular Atom ???!!!! > > > > What does measuring the fracture stress of concrete in an artificial > > > test rig have to do with the fracture stress of concrete in a real > > > bridge pylon? (Everything! That's why they do it in a test rig!) > > > > ---------------- > > > very nice that yiou know soemthibg about structrel engineering > > but your methaphore i snot exactly as our cureent dsicussion > > even modeling a struture of a abilding i snot as simple as one > > whould think > > it is ascience of itself and mind you > > in many cases it is not acurate enough > > because a model will never be as the orriginal itslef > > by one to one > > 2 > > here i had a principal question: > > 9i confess i ddint study it properly > > but > > ddi i undestood coreectly that the huge accelarator is creating > > **anti particles ??!!!! > > and you what to model it with reality ?? > > is there a room in real every day matter for > > anti particles ???!!! > > Absolutely. They're here all the time. Antiparticles rain through you > every second. > > > as far as i rememvebr antiparticles will destroy > > our matter?? > > am i wrong about it? > > As soon as an antiparticle runs into its particle equivalent, then > there's a good chance the two of them will annihilate and produce > energy, yes. Which is why you don't see great big gobs of antimatter > around. But antimatter particles are not unusual in everyday > existence. They're here all over. > --------------------------- COMMON PD!! if there a single antiparticle passing me it might as you say destroy just **one* Proton in my body!! but in your model it is A ONE TO ONE PROPORTION !!!!! for each 2 protons you getthere 2 Anti protons!! DONT YOU SEE your PROBLEM ???!!! > > ------------- > > 2 > > you didint tell us that in that accelerator > > while looking fo rthe W or Z and inorder "to close the picture > > ft the theory "--- > > there are some missing links ?? > > You mentioned the Higgs. That's an example. There are ALWAYS open > questions in any theory, even when the theory is accepted. A theory > does not have to have all open questions answered before it is > generally accepted, and certainly you don't have to wait for all open > questions to be answered before awarding a prize for the works. > > > > > if so > > can that be a complete theory > > to be sure and so chest drumming > > about it?? > > if we go backto your building model methaphore > > it is enough that just one building element willbe missing > > *and the wole structure is collapsing* > > Remember, nature keeps doing what it's doing whether ------ just later i wil show you if you are entitled to talk in the name of nature !!!! (:-) ------ we've guessed > right or not. We aren't building anything, we're discovering > something. > If you have something covered up under a sheet, and you uncover a > corner of it and you see a tail, and then you uncover some more and > you see four legs and you uncover some more and you see a brown bag > and a collar with a tag on it, then most people will be able to say, > "It's a dog" even before you uncover the whole head. Of course, it's > possible that it's not a dog after all, but it's not like the animal > suddenly collapses. > > And here, we don't have a *missing* brick. We just have a brick we're > pretty sure is there, but we haven't uncovered it yet. There's > SOMETHING there, otherwise the rest of it wouldn't have stood up so > well. > ----------------------- you talk a lot but ""STOOD UP SO WELL"" ??? My PD there is a differnce between science and propaganda !! you forgot that your theory STANDS UP SO WELL so far **ON THE PAPER !!! and not on nature !! it is your huge accelarator with its one to one proton and Antiproton ---- IS NOT NATURE !!!! > > if you want a more striking example > > in building a space craft > > it is enough that jsut one miserable covering ceramic brick > > will be missing > > and we get the famous catastrophy!!! > > do you see the diffrence between engineering and > > table theory responsibility (:-) > > if there is a mistake in you theory > > no one stil died from that > --------------- to send a space craft to space that is to cope with nature!!! not some paper calculations with fantastic theories about a force messenger that is 100 times bigger thanits mother !! that i s produced in a huge accelerator that have ways more energy than in the **real* nuc process !1 and produces two protons for EACH two antiprotons !! TIA Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: NoEinstein on 26 Sep 2009 13:31 On Sep 23, 11:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: I'm unaware of anyone laughing at me. As my number one groupie, you sure like associating with someone whom you keep suggesting is only wrong, and laughable. Tell us, Dougie Boy, why do you keep devoting hours a week trying to disparage me? It's because I am neither wrong nor laughable. Look in any mirror; you keep describing yourself. NE > > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Sep 20, 11:23 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You are an example of a severely mentally > > ill low-life whose "accomplishments" are limited to disparaging those > > who actually HAVE accomplishments. You are a blood-sucking groupie of > > the worst kind. Calling you a leech is most apt. NE > > John is here for us to laugh at. He is doing a good job of that. > > >>NoEinstein wrote: > > >>>On Sep 19, 1:54 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>Where is YOUR contribution to science Dougie Boy, the Leech? NE > > >>Unlike you, I have made contributions. Your main contribution > >>is to give us someone to laugh at. We can also use you as > >>an example of what happens when your ego gets to big > >>for you to be able to see anything else. > > >>>>Y.Porat wrote: > > >>>>>On Sep 19, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>On Sep 19, 1:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>On Sep 18, 9:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>PD wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>PD wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>your own words". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>blurred distinction? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > >>>>>>>>>>>>>aisles! NoEinstein > > >>>>>>>>>>>>All of them. Imagine! > >>>>>>>>>>>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > >>>>>>>>>>>>is based on physics. > >>>>>>>>>>>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > >>>>>>>>>>>>biology is based on chemistry. > >>>>>>>>>>>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > >>>>>>>>>>>>believed! > >>>>>>>>>>>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > >>>>>>>>>>>>probably wrong, too. > > >>>>>>>>>>>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > >>>>>>>>>>>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > >>>>>>>>>>>criteria. > > >>>>>>>>>>John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > >>>>>>>>>>licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > >>>>>>>>>>seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > >>>>>>>>>>principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > >>>>>>>>>>the license. > > >>>>>>>>>And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are > > >>>>>>>>>from the architects who did read the books? > > >>>>>>>>Apparently so! Because clearly none of those calculations can be close > >>>>>>>>to right! > > >>>>>>>------------------ > >>>>>>>now PD became an expert for buildings as well !!! > >>>>>>>and all that by his fucken QM !! > >>>>>>>the man is a pathologic ------- > > >>>>>>>-----Napoleon Bonaparte !!! > >>>>>>>who thinks he can cheat every one > > >>>>>>What cheat? You asked me how to calculate the volume of an atom, and I > >>>>>>told you. > >>>>>>It's a simple exercise in any freshman chemistry text. > > >>>>>>>forever !!! > >>>>>>>poor pupils of his !! > > >>>>>>>Y.P > >>>>>>>=------------------------ > > >>>>>you forgot to say that i sked you tocalculate the volume of the Atom > >>>>>based on your shell theory > >>>>>isit possible that you ddint understand what i am talking about > > >>>>>2 > >>>>>i asked youas well > >>>>>tobring a clacualtion thwat shows that > >>>>>based on your shell model > >>>>>toshow a calcualtion > >>>>>that will show that teh Atom > >>>>>of Al > >>>>>MUST HAVE THE SAME VOLUME AS SAY Au > >>>>> ie Gold > >>>>>(and a tom with 13 electrons around it > >>>>>is according to you must have the same volume > >>>>>as that og Gold with > >>>>>79 electrons and muchmore 'shells' around it!! > >>>>>if you say it is easy > >>>>>you ether dont know about what youare talking about > >>>>>or yiou are a crook > >>>>>just one of the problems fo rthat > >>>>>is > >>>>>how differnt electons > > >>>>Since you cannot even write a coherent sentence, > >>>>it is not surprising that you cannot do any > >>>>science. > > >>>>>in different shells > >>>>>repel each other !! > >>>>>**in all 3D direction > >>>>>even that 'simple problem > >>>>>is > >>>>>shells repalling themselves* in all 3 dimensions * > >>>>>those that are beside them > >>>>>those that are above and > >>>>>below them etc > >>>>>and all that in additionto the > >>>>>Attraction of the positive charge of the nuc > >>>>>and that i s only one of many > >>>>>other oroblems !!! > >>>>>another problem is > >>>>>why should there be a screening effect > >>>>>of closer shells on those > >>>>>further away!! > >>>>>i can promis you that even God > >>>>>would not take control on that > >>>>>turmoil > >>>>>it seems much better > >>>>>that you dont have a green ideal > >>>>>about waht is going on there !!! > >>>>>(by your fantastic model) > >>>>>remember that word > >>>>>'fantastic ' !!(lunatic ) > > >>>>>and if you don thave that calcualtion > >>>>>just show a quote > >>>>>you can ask the hjelp of all > >>>>>universites of the world > >>>>>but still dont forget totellthem > >>>>>that they must 'fiddle ' their calculation to show that > >>>>>Al volume is the same as Au > >>>>>btw > >>>>>if i am not wrong you said jsut lately that > >>>>>heavy atoms have a bigger > >>>>>involume than light one > >>>>>is it not the common paradigm !! ?? > >>>>>)is it not more 'reasonable ' (:-) > >>>>>yet we find that > >>>>>not only thAT * SOME* OF THEM (in our case Al and Au as a sample ) > >>>>> are not bigger > >>>>>but practically the ***same** volume !! > >>>>>is it the common paradigm > >>>>>and 'common sense """""??? (:-) > > >>>>Well, if you would even look at a chemistry > >>>>book, you would start to see how stupid you look. > >>>>But it seems easier for you to have tantrums. > > >>>>>TIA > >>>>>Y.Porat > >>>>>---------------------- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 26 Sep 2009 13:33
On Sep 23, 11:40 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: I'm unaware of anyone laughing at me. As my number one groupie, you sure like associating with someone whom you keep suggesting is only wrong, and laughable. Tell us, Dougie Boy, why do you keep devoting hours a week trying to disparage me? It's because I am neither wrong nor laughable. Look in any mirror, you keep describing yourself. NE > > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Sep 20, 4:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD: "Engineering" is taught in various colleges of engineering > > NOT in the useless college of physics. Can you show otherwise? > > NoEinstein > > This is from john, the uneducated fool who knows nothing of any > physics from the last few centuries. It is amazing that he is > so starved for attention that he is wants to come here even though > he always looks like a complete fool. > > >>On Sep 20, 9:09 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>On Sep 18, 3:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Architecture is primarily an art over > >>>engineering discipline. If the world were put under the control of > >>>architects and engineersforgetting about the head-in-clouds scientists > >>>the world would be a better place. NE > > >>Why do you say that? Engineers practice physics. > >>What's head-in-the-clouds about that? > >>Note that a lot of the physics that is used by architects and > >>engineers is the stuff you've rejected. > > >>>>On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>>PD wrote: > > >>>>>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > >>>>>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > >>>>>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > >>>>>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > >>>>>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > >>>>>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > >>>>>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > >>>>>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > >>>>>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > >>>>>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > >>>>>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > >>>>>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > >>>>>>>>your own words". > >>>>>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > >>>>>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > >>>>>>>>blurred distinction? > > >>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > >>>>>>>aisles! NoEinstein > > >>>>>>All of them. Imagine! > >>>>>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > >>>>>>is based on physics. > >>>>>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > >>>>>>biology is based on chemistry. > >>>>>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > >>>>>>believed! > >>>>>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > >>>>>>probably wrong, too. > > >>>>>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > >>>>>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > >>>>>criteria. > > >>>>John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > >>>>licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > >>>>seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > >>>>principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > >>>>the license.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |