REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!

Hopefully not soldering a sennie.

Sigh. I need to finish another one before 1700 today. Just in case. But it makes a nice break from 3D modeling.

Nope

Playing Jesus to a few LA batteries' Lazarus

Science is not a cult of personality.

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)
[link to www.orgonelab.org]


ALBERT EINSTEIN

Plagiarist of the Century


Abstract:

Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879&endash;1955), Time Magazine's "Person of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.

As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik.

The most recognisable equation of all time is E = mc2. It is attributed by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905). However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...", 1704).

The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E = mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.
[link to www.nexusmagazine.com]

Aw. LA's. I have a bucket full of NiMH's I'd love to be able to revive. I got one or two to limp around the room after I zapped them with 12V, but otherwise I have no ideas.

First stick them in the deep freeze for a few days....then I can tell you how to smack them to break up the whiskers

It's not supposed to be.
BUT IT IS.

There are four laws of Creation. The first is that the source of all the baffling, dark plot that the mind cannot conceive, or mathematics measure. In that plot fit the whole Universe. The second law is spreading a darkness, which is the true nature of Light, from the inexplicable and it’s transformed into the Light. The third law is the necessity of the Light to become a matter of Light. The fourth law is: no beginning and no end; three previous laws always take place and the Creation is eternal.

A telegraph is like a cat, you stomp on the cat's tail in Los Angeles and his head yowls in New York

I am waiting for your video Mr Moronium

Yup, just look at everyone's reaction when you state something like Einstein was a fraud and General Relativity is one of the most laughable theories ever put forth. It's funny how Einstein can ignore observations from his contemporaries, such as J.J. Thomson, when postulating on electro-dynamic theory and elemental forces associated with the subject, like some unknown forces which were actually well known and have been thrown into obscurity because of his theory, eh Einstein.

It's not supposed to be.
BUT IT IS.

First stick them in the deep freeze for a few days....then I can tell you how to smack them to break up the whiskers

Main streamers admit Relativity is hopelessly flawed


The reason is simple, because in order to prevent any KE calculation resulting in mass in excess of light speed, the proved formula was inexplicably altered wit 'resting mass energy" in the 'relativistic' formula so that no input of energy could ever possibly result in >C velocities!
Now I will present my theory, which is falsifiable by a nearly infinite number of experiments or observations.GOOD LUCK

GRAVITY EXPLAINED: what it REALLY is


Now, let me explain in very simple terms what the weak force gravity REALLY is.

In all matter there are electrons and protons. These particles both have an electrical or electrostatic charge.

Neutrons have no charge and they are the answer to the question of gravity, as I will explain.

In objects or masses which exert a force of gravity on other objects, there must be [and always are] neutrons present.

: This is because gravity is actually simply the electrostatic attraction between particles with a difference in charge potential, the neutrally charged neutron and the negatively charged electron exert a force inversely proportional to the distance they are from each other upon each other.

The simultaneous repelling and attracting forces of protons and electrons in two masses cancel, and this simply explains why gravity is weaker of the forces when compared to electromagnetism.
All matter with neutrons possesses a force of gravity.

ThIS IS AN INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!

There is no mystery to electrostatic attraction, it is a well known and accepted reality!

The confusing part to most is that BOTh electrons and protons have a difference in potential with neutrons, and BOTh are attracted to neutrons through this weaker of the forces, electrostatics, which IS gravity!

The simpler of minds would think that if protons attract neutrons {as in the nucleus of the atom which is an undisputed fact}, then neutrons must repel electrons and cancel the force of attraction.

Why? They OBVIOUSLY don't!

Particles with differences in electrical potential always attract electrostaticly even if one is neutral, it is only when they have the same charge do they repel. Since the neutron has no charge of it's own, it has a difference in potential with both electrons and protons and is attracted to both electrostaticly, as proved by the empirical evidence in countless experiments and apparatus dependent on this fact.

Isn't that a lot simpler than making up a bunch of crap about mass warping 'space time' and creating a 'dimple' in space that objects roll down into ?. if this were true why are objects always pulled toward the center of mass no matter what direction it is in relation to orientation of the space/ time crap?? why do objects fall in a straight line towards it when they start out being stationary in relation to the other mass instead of a "curve" along this so called curvature of space time or gravity well?

Anyway, believe me or not watch the video, Einstein is debunked and admitted to be fatally flawed by the mainest of stream science, that jap dude 'yall all think is the second cumming

Yup, just look at everyone's reaction when you state something like Einstein was a fraud and General Relativity is one of the most laughable theories ever put forth. It's funny how Einstein can ignore observations from his contemporaries, such as J.J. Thomson, when postulating on electro-dynamic theory and elemental forces associated with the subject, like some unknown forces which were actually well known and have been thrown into obscurity because of his theory, eh Einstein.

Tried the freeze before zapping them -- didn't seem to help.

Haven't tried any sort of physical impact or vibration, though.

How would you arrive at that silly statement?

Einstein in no way sent Thomson into obscurity

And it was Thomson that was the father of quantum mechanics not Einstein.

This is how.

[link to archive.org]

I own that book and it doesn't say anything like your silly statement nor are Thomson's observations in conflict with relativity.

pgs 20-25, apparent mass due to momentum of an electric field

here is an interesting article on the subject of relativity, even if you don`t agree with it atleast read it with an open mind...

pgs 20-25, apparent mass due to momentum of an electric field

here is an interesting article on the subject of relativity, even if you don`t agree with it atleast read it with an open mind...

being a semi aetherist I am well aware of that theory and it is disproven and not needed and was only another way of looking at it which didn't add up .

The "mass of the ether" moved WITH the electricity is false

whoops forgot link

[link to www.gestaltreality.com]

He is just as ridiculous and clueless as AA

there are ALREADY terms that he makes up new names for

Let _______ denote _________

Nonsense

Rofl, so you are calling all the pioneers of the art of Electrical Engineering clueless? Mr.Dollard knows his stuff and all his work is refrenced to the greats...What about the late great Nikola Tesla, what did he accomplish in his life and what did he have to say about Relativity?

Rofl, so you are calling all the pioneers of the art of Electrical Engineering clueless? Mr.Dollard knows his stuff and all his work is refrenced to the greats...What about the late great Nikola Tesla, what did he accomplish in his life and what did he have to say about Relativity?