Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: Einstein, the crackpot's Croq
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 10:08 AM


"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.  .dotat> wrote in message news:i4hcu65ofccm2ttde279uqd6gvebfm1rso@4ax.com...  On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 00:14:46 0700, "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote:   >The interns & recruits here hope that you did enjoy  >your links which were not opened nor read here.  >It is far more important to us that you will stay and  >be coming back for the 29th time and continue to  >be our chief enabler & facilitator to publicize these  >essential but little known facts about Einstein & his  >Relativity work, on SR & GR, in  ><http://tinyurl.com/CrackpotEinsteinsCrock>  >wherein it says:  >>  > KW, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:  > Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:  > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:  >>  >hanson wrote:  >Einstein, in his own words, just a year before he  >folded his relativity tent, closed his umbrella, kicked  >the bucket and finally puffed and bit the grass,....  >Einstein wrote, in 1954, to his Italian friend Besso:  >>  >AE: "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to  >AE: reality, they are not certain; and as far as they  >AE: are certain, they do not refer to reality."  >AE: "why would anyone be interested in getting exact  >AE: solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"  >AE: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be  >AE: based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous  >AE: structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire  >AE: castle in the air, [my] gravitation theory included."  >AE: "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".  >AE: ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]  >< http://tinyurl.com/BlousePlumberEinstein >  >>  >So, that then is the end of Einstein's infamous fantasy  >careerjourney which concludes, long last, with what  >most enlightened folks have suspected for a long time,  >if not outright from the start, that:  >====== SR is short for STUPID RANT and ======  >===== GR is just a GULLIBLE RECITATION ====  >>  >Einstein flagellated himself & came clean (1), after  >he was used by the Zios for their own, to them then  >noble political agenda. (2)  ><http://tinyurl.com/Emc2existedbeforeEinstein> (1)  ><http://tinyurl.com/HowEinsteinstoleEmc2> (1)  ><http://tinyurl.com/KwubleeviewsEinsteinsTheft> (1)  ><http://tinyurl.com/ZioPoliticswithRelativity> (2)  ><http://tinyurl.com/AlbertsZioPoliticswSRGR> (2)  >>  >GR/SR is a useless crock o'shit, save it being  >"a Base", an "al Qaida", for Einstein Dingleberries  >to worship Albert's sphincter.. although AE said  >not to do that.  >>  >Professor Panteltje wrote:  >I do get a bit sick of the 'Einstein was right again crowd'.  >He was not, he was just a math fiddler, curve fitter.  >If somebody asks: How much is 2 + 3, and Einstein  >would have answered : 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.  >Then saying: "see, he once did say 5, he was right again",  >is really really bad.  >He had no clue, and died without one.  >That he was pushed by the US at that time as a great  >scientist to brush up the Jewish image was also a mistake,  >as he did not have that clue, and just jammed science  >with his curve fitting replacing simple physics understanding.  >>  >KW wrote:  >Please allow Yours Truly to remind everyone whether if he/she is a  >true scholar of physics or another Orwellianilleducated Einstein  >Dingleberry that fall in the following ridiculous traits:  >>  >** FAITH IS THEORY  >** LYING IS TEACHING  >** NITWIT IS GENIUS  >** OCCULT IS SCIENCE  >** PARADOX IS KOSHER  >** FUDGING IS DERIVATION  >** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH  >** BELIEVING IS LEARNING  >** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM  >** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE  >** CONJECTURE IS REALITY  >** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY  >** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS  >>  >Newton discovered the law of gravity in which if the gravitating mass  >is positive, gravitational force is attractive. The reverse, although  >never been observed, must be true. That is if the gravitating mass is  >negative, the gravitational effect must be repulsive or antigravity.  ><shrug>  >>  >Later on, it was discovered by Poisson that the gradient of the  >Newtonian gravitational potential is equivalent to the mass density.  >In free space, this mass density [rho] is zero.  >>  >hanson wrote:  >Revisiting an earlier discussion:  ><http://tinyurl.com/hansond2GQuestion>  >Newton in his 2 or 3rd Principia edition, 300 years  >before Einstein, addresses Gravitation as  >G = d2(1/rho)/dt^2.  >Einstein was to lazy or stupid to incorporate  >G = d2(1/rho)/dt^2 into his GR croc. Or maybe  >Albert was still scared from his 1907 confession  >and apology for him having stolen Emc^2.  ><http://tinyurl.com/Emc2existedbeforeEinstein>  ><http://tinyurl.com/HowEinsteinstoleEmc2>  ><http://tinyurl.com/KwubleeviewsEinsteinsTheft>  >>  >Despite all that, like brainwashed addicted cultists,  >current day Dingleberries still worship Einstein's  >sphincter, full well knowing that for the last 70 years,  >experiments show Newtonian's gravitation also to be:  >G = H^2/rho  >wherein H is the Hubble constent and rho is the  >masdensity (even on cosmic scales), (some  >small digits & pi omitted here) all of which can  >be concatenated into the skeletal 1234 cosmic  >envelope as  >c = (GM/R)^1/2 = (GMH)^1/3 = (GM*b_r)^1/4  >IOW, none of Einstein's convoluted shit has  >any use in the here and real universe that we  >live in. .... KW is correct in his assessment.  >>  >KW continued & wrote:  >However, it does not take a genius to figure out if the  >mass density is negative, gravitational effect becomes  >repulsive. Poisson was the very first person to suggest  >antigravity but knew better not to. Einstein the nitwit, the  >plagiarist, and the liar was just so fucking ignorant that this  >nitwit, this plagiarist, and the liar had no hesitation to claim  >negative mass density in vacuum in which the giants before this  >nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar knew better not to go there.  ><shrug>  >>  >Now, the selfstyled physicists are getting hardons whenever Dark  >Energy (negative mass density in vacuum) is mentioned. What the fuck  >does negative mass mean? The only plausible answer is ignorance.  >After all, they are still worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the  >plagiarist, and the liar as a god. Anything this nitwit, the  >plagiarist, and this liar uttered just bedazzaled the hell out of  >these selfstyled physicists. That is called Dingleberry  >worshipping. <shrug>  >>  >Moving on to GR, the silliness embraced by the selfstyled physicists  >exponentially amplifies. The Schwarzschild metric was discovered by  >Hilbert not Schwarzschild. Both metrics are mathematically legal  >solutions to the field equations that are static, spherically  >symmetric, and asymptotically flat. Schwarzschild's original solution  >does not allow for the existence of black holes. Let's look at the  >Schwarzschild metric before the integrating constant is identified  >through the boundary requirement of satisfying the Newtonian law of  >gravity. There are more integration constants, but for the purpose of  >this discussion, they are ignored.  >>  >** ds^2 = c^2 (1 + K / r) dt^2  dr^2 / (1 + K / r)  r^2 dO^2  >Where  >** K = One of the many integration constants  >** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2  >>  >Notice this particular solution predicts just about everything from  >gravitation to antigravity. There is no definitive reasoning to pin  >point this particular integration constant as the following besides  >through this boundary condition that emphasizes hind sights are always  >20/20. <shrug>  >>  >** K =  2 G M / c^2, Newtonian compatibility requirement  >>  >This point collaborates with Professor Ponte's astute observation of  >how Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar reasoned  ><shrug>  >   If only hanson would stop to decorate his diatribes with cut and paste  formulas, which he does not understand, nor does he know what they  mean.  In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled', the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive, in both protasis and apodosis.  Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"
If only wabnigger had a 'then' or 'else' in which to find the conclusion.



