On Jul 5, 6:24 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote: > there was an expedition mounted by Einstein's colleague, > friend, what ever, to photograph Mercury during a total eclipse; > that, is a fraud? > 1tree: Wake up! What was photographed during the total eclypse (1919?) was the background stars reappearing from behind the blotted- out Sun, NOT the planet Mercury! As I've mentioned, any astronomer with a low power, wide field telescope can install an opaque disk in front to block the lumin of the Sun. Einstein, the biggest FRAUD in science, already knew the angular deviation of the star's phanton location (caused by the flowing ether, that is the Sun's gravity). There is no way that MORON could have calculated the angle of anything. 85 IQs don't give many advantages. Without his "prediction" of the angular deviation of the background stars' locations, Einstein, the MORON, never would have been, laughably, acclaimed to be a genius. I've noted that you have switched the topic of discussion away from the "units" of KE and definition of acceleration. The latter is just the increase in velocity over the course of a single second. To determine the velocity at any point in time, simply multiply the "acceleration velocity" times the number of seconds. Nothing about that requires... higher math! ? NoEinstein ? > > anyway, as you say, yourself, > you are hopelessly ineducable. because, > you refuse to see, for yourself, in their paper, > that eminem did not have a "nil result" -- no matter, > what *Scientific American* (and other Einsteinmaniacs) says. > > anyway, anyone can see, who doesn't dumb himself down > by reading *SA* (or the Wonder Books) on such, that > "atoms & their electrons in free space are all > that is needed for the propogation of lightwaves." > > > > Newton's corpuscular "theory" was clearly wrong, > > > wrong, wrong. not his little findings of "universal gravitation," > > > nor F=ma (momentum is not a force, it's ... momentum, as in > > > "we are now going to use 'units of momentum' > > > for all problems using momentum, and not any other kind > > > of unit, without further justification." > > > ice has almost no tensional strength, and most of these inherent and > > > artificial forces must be centrifugal, > > > viz "the hole(s) in the ozonosphere, that break(s)-up with Sunsight. > > > > what was once a refuge for older ice has become a graveyard." > > thus: > I did not attempt to find the respective dates of capturing > of those "before & after" images on the homepage, but > a big part of the difference is clearly a matter > of perspective, especially in the foreground.http://www.glacierworks.org/ > > thus: > it seems as if we are in a different phase of weather, > perhaps for several decades, whether or not "global" warming is a) > an oxymoron, b) > a nonsequiter, or just c) > a simple misnomer, per Ahrrenius' 1896 glass "house" effect. > > > again,"Thicker multiyear ice used to make up around a quarter of the > > Arctic sea ice cover. Now it constitutes only 2 percent." > > thus: > as to why, ice has so little tensional strength, > my guess is, because it has so many phases which, > although not all appreciable at local temperature & pressure, > may transitionally be present, viz "currents > in the seismically-known-to-be-solid mantle."