To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Einstein Debunked By Incontrovertable Evidence
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

Anonymous Astrophysicist
Any of you who have been following the Earth changes controversy with any degree of intelligence have probably discarded the Al Gore politically motivated idea of human caused global warming, and by now have by now probably come to the conclusion that the actual cause is the result of changes occurring in the entire solar system . NASA has confirmed the heliosphere is shrinking as the solar system enters an area of space with plasma of increasing density with magnetic properties.

Later I will get into the meat of the the falsification of general and special relativity and the details of the changes we are experiencing, what they are, and what implications they have for life on this planet, but first let me show you the incontrovertible proof I promised of mass exceeding and equaling light speed.

The reason it is so important that you see and acknowledge this is because it is going to be nesseccary for you to discard nearly every notion you have about generalized theories of physics and 'unlearn' practically everything you have learned and been taught if you are understand the ideas I intent to reveal as facts.

Of course as you know , one of the basic premises of mainstream physics is the inability of matter to exceed light speed. I am sure most of you have heard of the news of the detection of neutrinos exceeding light speed, but there seems to be some 'wiggle room' with the result and observations. there is no wiggle room with the evidence I am about to present, and confirm my earlier conclusions that a speed limit of C for mass is a ludicrous conclusion and the basis of Einsteins are theories fundamentally flawed. I also intend to prove that Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared is simply wrong.(E=MC^2) and has no basic whatsoever in reality.

I am disappointed that this is not on the cover of ever major science publication in the world, but not surprised. We need to realize as scientists when an idea that has been falsified by empirical observation, it must be discarded, or we are nothing more than readers and purveyors of complex science fictions , and fools.

It also means that more than half of the Nobel laureates of physics were improperly honored for their 'achievements' .

To see the proof for yourself, go to the following website and I will give you further instructions:

THE VERY LATEST SOHO IMAGES

(I am not able as a new member to post a direct link for some reason)

Select the link on the left margin labeled 'SOHO MOVIE PLAYER

Select "LASCO C3" from the list of image types

Enter the number 20120306 in the "start date" box and the number 20120307 in the 'end date' box
This is March 6th through the 7th

At precisely 1:29UTC on the 7th there is a CME (coronal mass ejection) of very unusual characteristics, in that there is no Sunspot associated with it, it appears to originate from a coronal hole but I am not certain other than the source WAS NOT a normal x ray flare event, though there was an X-5+ x ray reading associated with the more than 90 degree off Earth directed eruption. You have to watch the movie several times to catch it, but the first of the energetic particles reaching the satelite's senors from the CME actually preceded the light from it arriving, indicating velocity of mass in excess of C. It is also very clear that a large percentage of the particles were traveling at very near light speed as they continue to arrive as the CME erupts.
This is an empirical falsification of Einsteins theories that I really don't see how can be 'debunked', something that has been a long standing goal of mine since I realized the stumbling block to real advancement in the discipline they represent..

Earlier on this forum I wrote a theory of electromagnetic radiation under my actual identity and there was never any falsification of it attempted.

As far as I am concerned it is far more valid than any other explanation or theory of electromagnetic energy.
The only disqualifications attempted involved conflicts with 'accepted theories'. I do not know if the theory still exists on this forum, but if you want to read it, google 'electromechanical theory of electromagnetic energy". It is sophomore still in google with a single reply, though their were at one time several pages before the topic was closed an I was banned. It was never explained to me why i was banned.

In this theory I explained the particle wave duality of light, the frequency/ energy relationship, and provided simple mathematical formula that prove the theory correct. Any one of you are welcome to attempt to disqualify or falsify it, but I warn you, I will not tolerate or answer the use of conflicts with conventional academic physics as falsifications and will ignore them..
Confused1
Link:
http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/soho_movie_theater
Confused1
Sorry .. best to start from:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html

Maybe some problem with setting cookies makes for problems setting the dates to be displayed.

-C2.
Ed Wood
l believe waitdavid has predicted preciecly this effect using relativity under the warp drive technology topic
you'll forgive me if i don't post the link the phone is a pain.

I haven't looked @ the movie yet but david pointed out that an EMP could create a warp field allowing increase in speed without acceleration that is highly paraphrased


have a nice day.
Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Mar 29 2012, 12:43 PM)
l believe waitdavid has predicted preciecly this effect using relativity under the warp drive technology topic
you'll forgive me if i don't post the link the phone is a pain.

I haven't  looked @ the movie yet but david pointed out that an EMP could create a warp field allowing increase in speed without acceleration that is highly paraphrased


have a nice day.

I am sorry , but a what this man wrote about isn't a theory and only a vague explanation from a scientific point of view because there is no way to falsify it, and since it is coming from someone I've never heard of who has never published anything of consequence that uses Star Trek terminology , he simply ins''t a scientist in my opinion and is writing fiction.

I stated in my opening post my intention was to falsify and disqualify Einsteins most fundamental ideas , and that is precisely what I intend to do.

Mr. Einstein was quite emphatic about the upper limit of the velocity of matter being<C

I promised i would prove his basic formula of E=MC^2 was flawed, false and illogical and in this post I will begin on that.
In his formula he is not specific about whether the "E" means kinetic or potential energy, but let us assume it means kinetic since there is a velocity ^2 in the formula. What I intend to show is that this formula is nonsense, and in fact it is proved nonsensical every day in the operation of nuclear power reactors. We KNOW the mass isn't 'converted" to energy, and I can prove it using quite simple mathematics.

What I've noticed in the arena of physics is so many are under the delusion that genius is the ability to explain simple concepts in complex ways using uncommon nomenclature. The truth is of course the very opposite.
Like doctors and lawyers, physicists tend to use terms that are not meant to be understood and usually aren't even by each other ,and combinations of words that can have dozens of meanings in a single sentence. I am not one of these individuals

Quantum theory states that electromagnetic energy is kinetic energy without mass that is produced and released from an atom when an electron moves from one energy level to another.
Standard physics teaches us that mass is a [o]component[/i] of Kinetic energy]This translates into quantum mechanics is also illogical nonsense. If you read the theory I posted in my first post on this thread on electromagnetic energy, where the mass goes is explained and why electromagnetic energy has kinetic energy that varies with it's frequency is explained succinctly in a way the average 9th grade student of science can understand. Let us not forget Occam's razor.

, Unlike quantum mechanics the math concerning how the various frequencies of EMR energy is produced works out precisely in nuclear reactions. ( I will refer to electromagnetic energy as EMR hence forth to save time and space)

This is what confuses me about why we are holding on to these archaic fairy tales. We already know when applied to real engineering they don't work. . (lmao already)
The only thing different about Einsteins most famous and well known formula, the cornerstone of all of his work , is simply the formula for Kinetic energy is he enigmatically leaves out the 1/2 part of the formula at the beginning and uses the speed of light arbitrarily as he admits, to indicate a 'large amount of energy. If this isn't nonsense I don't know what is, and how could anyone use any math based on or derived from this cornerstone of his work in real engineering problems?! .

In other words the Kinetic energy formula is and always has been 1/2M x V^2. For there to be kinetic energy, there much be mass in relative motion to some other mass. Why did we discard all that we have learned and all of a sudden attempt (unsuccessfully BTW), kinetic energy without mass? Is there any two people on this forum that can write a brief essay on the basics of quantum physics independently and have both come out meaning exactly the same thing, understood exactly the same way by everyone who reads them that has a fundamental knowledge of physics? If not , there is no consensus and therefore no real theory, and I will challenge any two of you to complete that assignment. You will fail and you already know it.

There are great advances to be made in physics but not on a road to nowhere eating up huge sums of research funds and accomplishing absolutely nothing.
And by the way, I recommend that you use the spell checking feature and you have a nice day too biggrin.gif
Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (Confused1+Mar 29 2012, 11:50 AM)
Sorry .. best to start from:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html

Maybe some problem with setting cookies makes for problems setting the dates to be displayed.

-C2.

You can't post a like with the time parameters already set, I tried in another forum.
You have to enter them manually
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Anonymous Astrophysicist+Mar 29 2012, 08:54 AM)
I am sorry , but a what this man wrote about isn't a theory and only a vague explanation from a scientific point of view because there is no way to falsify it, and since it is coming from someone I've never heard of who has never published anything of consequence that uses Star Trek terminology , he simply ins''t a scientist in my opinion and is writing fiction.

I stated in my opening post my intention was to falsify and disqualify Einsteins most fundamental ideas , and that is precisely what I intend to do.

Mr. Einstein was quite emphatic about the upper limit of the velocity of matter being<C

I promised i would prove his basic formula of E=MC^2 was flawed, false and illogical and in this post I will begin on that.
In his formula he is not specific about whether the "E" means kinetic or potential energy, but let us assume it means kinetic since there is a velocity ^2 in the formula. What I intend to show is that this formula is nonsense, and in fact it is proved nonsensical every day in the operation of nuclear power reactors. We KNOW the mass isn't 'converted" to energy, and I can prove it using quite simple mathematics.

What I've noticed in the arena of physics is so many are under the delusion that genius is the ability to explain simple concepts in complex ways using uncommon nomenclature. The truth is of course the very opposite.
Like doctors and lawyers, physicists tend to use terms that are not meant to be understood and usually aren't even by each other ,and combinations of words that can have dozens of meanings in a single sentence. I am not one of these individuals

Quantum theory states that electromagnetic energy is kinetic energy without mass that is produced and released from an atom when an electron moves from one energy level to another.
Standard physics teaches us that mass is a [o]component[/i] of Kinetic energy]This translates into quantum mechanics is also illogical nonsense. If you read the theory I posted in my first post on this thread on electromagnetic energy, where the mass goes is explained and why electromagnetic energy has kinetic energy that varies with it's frequency is explained succinctly in a way the average 9th grade student of science can understand. Let us not forget Occam's razor.

, Unlike quantum mechanics the math concerning how the various frequencies of EMR energy is produced works out precisely in nuclear reactions. ( I will refer to electromagnetic energy as EMR hence forth to save time and space)

This is what confuses me about why we are holding on to these archaic fairy tales. We already know when applied to real engineering they don't work. . (lmao already)
The only thing different about Einsteins most famous and well known formula, the cornerstone of all of his work , is simply the formula for Kinetic energy is he enigmatically leaves out the 1/2 part of the formula at the beginning and uses the speed of light arbitrarily as he admits, to indicate a 'large amount of energy. If this isn't nonsense I don't know what is, and how could anyone use any math based on or derived from this cornerstone of his work in real engineering problems?! .

In other words the Kinetic energy formula is and always has been 1/2M x V^2. For there to be kinetic energy, there much be mass in relative motion to some other mass. Why did we discard all that we have learned and all of a sudden attempt (unsuccessfully BTW), kinetic energy without mass? Is there any two people on this forum that can write a brief essay on the basics of quantum physics independently and have both come out meaning exactly the same thing, understood exactly the same way by everyone who reads them that has a fundamental knowledge of physics? If not , there is no consensus and therefore no real theory, and I will challenge any two of you to complete that assignment. You will fail and you already know it.

There are great advances to be made in physics but not on a road to nowhere eating up huge sums of research funds and accomplishing absolutely nothing.
And by the way, I recommend that you use the spell checking feature and you have a nice day too biggrin.gif

seeing as you're anonymous you are less a nobody than I am. At least I have a name, and its strange that several prestigious colleges know me linking my site as reference matterial and you don't while you claim to be an Astrophysicist. Tell you what I'll walk you through it step by step. First, post here what the exact electromagnetic pp radiation solution to Einstein's field equations is and the exact cooresponding Einstein tensor. Hint - This will be easy to type out in standard uv coordinate form.
Ed Wood
get on with it you pissy little gimp.

if you want to be a dismissive prick i will return the favor.
if you would like to have a mutual discussion i am willing to do that as well.
present your case and drop the pretence that you are the smartest man alive.

so far you have falsified nothing
presented no explaination of what you believe you have discovered
GET ON WITH IT
synthsin75
QUOTE (Anonymous Astrophysicist+Mar 29 2012, 04:04 AM)
You have to watch the movie several times to catch it, but the first of the energetic particles reaching the satelite's senors from the CME actually preceded the light from it arriving, indicating velocity of mass in excess of C. It is also very clear that a large percentage of the particles were traveling at very near light speed as they continue to arrive as the CME erupts.
This is an empirical falsification of Einsteins theories that I really don't see how can be 'debunked', something that has been a long standing goal of mine since I realized the stumbling block to real advancement in the discipline they represent..

Earlier on this forum I wrote a theory of electromagnetic radiation under my actual identity and there was never any falsification of it attempted.

No idea what you're talking about. We see the light of the CME long before the particles reach the sensor. Not only that, but you don't even have ANY measurements of actual speeds to come close to calling this an "empirical falsification" of what you claim.

From this alone, I have no doubt that whatever you posted under you other identity is nonsense as well. And why exactly did you feel it necessary to distance this from the other post by using a sock puppet?

All very cranky, including your preceding grandiose delusions.
waitedavid137
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 29 2012, 09:29 AM)
No idea what you're talking about. We see the light of the CME long before the particles reach the sensor. Not only that, but you don't even have ANY measurements of actual speeds to come close to calling this an "empirical falsification" of what you claim.

From this alone, I have no doubt that whatever you posted under you other identity is nonsense as well. And why exactly did you feel it necessary to distance this from the other post by using a sock puppet?

All very cranky, including your preceding grandiose delusions.

To be as more fair to him than maybe I should be, perhaps he's confusing his info with the case that neutrinos from supernovae tend to arrive at our detectors just before we see them optically due to the slowing of the light through the refractive index of the nova's matter. Neutrinos interact with matter so weakly that they aren't slowed from their essentially light speed movement but the refractive index delays the light pulse a few hours.
Lasand
From 2006:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=5469

The electron as a photon doesn't interest me, maybe someone else will find it interesting.
synthsin75
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Mar 29 2012, 10:39 AM)
To be as more fair to him than maybe I should be, perhaps he's confusing his info with the case that neutrinos from supernovae tend to arrive at our detectors just before we see them optically due to the slowing of the light through the refractive index of the nova's matter. Neutrinos interact with matter so weakly that they aren't slowed from their essentially light speed movement but the refractive index delays the light pulse a few hours.

Good point. Either way the claim is erroneous.
Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Mar 29 2012, 04:23 PM)
seeing as you're anonymous you are less a nobody than I am. At least I have a name, and its strange that several prestigious colleges know me linking my site as reference matterial and you don't while you claim to be an Astrophysicist. Tell you what I'll walk you through it step by step. First, post here what the exact electromagnetic pp radiation solution to Einstein's field equations is and the exact cooresponding Einstein tensor. Hint - This will be easy to type out in standard uv coordinate form.

Actually i am not anonymous at all, since I referenced a theory with my real name on it. My name is Robert Hawkins. I test repeatedly in the top tenth of the 99th percentile of human intelligence.I have decided to use this scree name here since i use it on other forums where revealing ones identity might not be in their best interest, and i don't mind people of my choosing from these forums reading my work here or knowing my identity. My intention is to completely re write mainstream physics in the short itime I have left before I die..

The first thing that I would like to point out to you is that not a single person who has ever become a legend in science was traditionally educated, in fact they tend to all be self educated with some background in traditional academics. Since I have studied physics and astrophysics independently intensively for over 12 years and before iI began that intensives study engaged in an informal study and interest for over 40 years makes the fact that I don't have a PhD meaningless. There are hundreds of PhD's in physics and dozens of Noble Physics laureates who aren't nearly my equal in reality.
Remember, no innovator is a follower. Maybe your ideas have merit in your own mind and in the minds of this who cannot understand what you are claiming, but they don't to me because they are just another attempt to reconcile nonsense, and you're going to have to do a bit better than you have explaining yourself than using complex combinations of words that together in the pastern you present them are nonsense.

To the intellectual inferior, not being able to understand someones work is all to eloquently misconstrued as a display of superior intelligence.
Not me. If everyone with a background in the study of physics of reasonable intelligence does';t understand it exactly the same way, then it is not valid as science of any kind.
Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 29 2012, 04:29 PM)
No idea what you're talking about. We see the light of the CME long before the particles reach the sensor. Not only that, but you don't even have ANY measurements of actual speeds to come close to calling this an "empirical falsification" of what you claim.

From this alone, I have no doubt that whatever you posted under you other identity is nonsense as well. And why exactly did you feel it necessary to distance this from the other post by using a sock puppet?

All very cranky, including your preceding grandiose delusions.

All that is required to prove the assertion of >c velocity of matter is to see the gradual increase in density of high speed particles reaching the sensors on the same frame as the light from the CME. This is clearly and plainly obvious.

You are unintelligent relying on the fact that you believe the time between images is too great to make an accurate assessment, and you ar to some degree correct.

HOWEVER, You ignorantly overlooked the fact that there is a live , real time stream of data. coming from the satellite that I have access to and archived and recorded, which I intend to post here as soon as that ability is made available to me.
There are many sources of data not commonly known to or available to those who do not know how to obtain them. I will reveal some of those 'secrets' here on this thread.

It amazes and disheartens me to see people defend s pseudoscience in much the same way as a religious fanatic defends and obviously false religion. it means you have been brainwashed and there is little chance of deprogramming you short of the same methods used to deprogram cult members.

What I showed you is good enough to convince all but the most hard headed brainwashed minion of pseudoscience.
Science is not mathematics, science is empirical observation measure by mathematics.

You lightweights might as well not post to my thread unless you like to be called out and exposed as ignorant.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Anonymous Astrophysicist+Mar 29 2012, 08:37 PM)
I test repeatedly in the top tenth of the 99th percentile of human intelligence.

You'd be surprised at how little that means.
Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (Lasand+Mar 29 2012, 04:52 PM)
From 2006:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=5469

The electron as a photon doesn't interest me, maybe someone else will find it interesting.

There is no such thing as a photon . No such particle has every be isolated nor describe or observed.,and the particle that makes up electromagnetic energy can and will be proved to be an electron vibrating passively to an oscillating magnetic field, because that's what it is.I t does not display the simple proprieties of a the charged particle electron because it is in a totally different state of motion and contains another component.

. There in no such thing as mass less energy. There are two kinds of people who claim to believe these theories, those who don't understand them and those who shoveling it deep claiming to or knowingly deceiving.
Kinetic energy has two components, mass and velocity..Electromagnetic energy is a infestation of kinetic energy with an electrical and a magnetic competent. There is no poissilbe way to have kinetic energy without mass and mass cannot be converted to energy and be equal to energy which actually what Einstein claimed, because mass is a single component of energy. Just because mass reaches a certain velocity does not mean it instantly changes to pure energy.

This is the thinking of inferior minds who are ignoring basic laws of physics. They think because they cannot understand it , the person who wrote it is of superior intelligence.
As I have repeatedly pointed out true genius is not explaining simple ideas using complex explanation and 'big' words'. true genius is explaining complex ideas in ways almsot everyone can udnerstand them.
Ed Wood
I am the smartest man on earth he said as he spent his last days under a bridge covered by a box as he struggled to keep the rain off of his last bit of dry clothing.

Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Mar 30 2012, 01:19 AM)
I am the smartest man on earth he said as he spent his last days under a bridge covered by a box as he struggled to keep the rain off of his last bit of dry clothing.

For some reason Nicola Tesla comes to mind, thr father of all modern electronics died broke and without recognition because of people just like yo. Now you sit there using a device made possible exclusively by his work to criticize others who the chosen ones have done the same thing to.

You are not worthy to breath the same air , and certainly have no place on a forum dedicated to the advancement of knowledge.
synthsin75
QUOTE (Anonymous Astrophysicist+Mar 29 2012, 06:37 PM)
Actually i am not anonymous at all, since I referenced a theory with my real name on it. My name is Robert Hawkins. I test repeatedly in the top tenth of the 99th percentile of human intelligence.I have decided to use this scree name here since i use it on other forums where revealing ones identity might not be in their best interest, and i don't mind people of my choosing from these forums reading my work here or knowing my identity. My intention is to completely re write mainstream physics in the short itime I have left before I die..

The first thing that I would like to point out to you is that not a single person who has ever become a legend in science was traditionally educated, in fact they tend to all be self educated with some background in traditional academics. Since I have studied physics and astrophysics independently intensively for over 12 years and before iI began that intensives study engaged in an informal study and interest for over 40 years makes the fact that I don't have a PhD meaningless. There are hundreds of PhD's in physics and dozens of Noble Physics laureates who aren't nearly my equal in reality.
Remember, no innovator is a follower. Maybe your ideas have merit in your own mind and in the minds of this who cannot understand what you are claiming, but they don't to me because they are just another attempt to reconcile nonsense, and you're going to have to do a bit better than you have explaining yourself than using complex combinations of words that together in the pastern you present them are nonsense.

To the intellectual inferior, not being able to understand someones work is all to eloquently misconstrued as a display of superior intelligence.
Not me. If everyone with a background in the study of physics of reasonable intelligence does';t understand it exactly the same way, then it is not valid as science of any kind.

Ah, the oh so familiar mantra of the wild woo-woo.

- Touting IQ without any demonstrable exercise of it? Check.
- Seeking to completely rewrite physics? Check.
- Erroneously claiming great scientists weren't traditionally educated? Check.
- Touting the years they've spent in independent study and interest of a subject they haven't demonstrated any fluency in? Check.

QUOTE
HOWEVER, You ignorantly overlooked the fact that there is a live , real time stream of data. coming from the satellite that I have access to and archived and recorded, which I intend to post here as soon as that ability is made available to me.
There are many sources of data not commonly known to or available to those who do not know how to obtain them. I will reveal some of those 'secrets' here on this thread.

It amazes and disheartens me to see people defend s pseudoscience in much the same way as a religious fanatic defends and obviously false religion. it means you have been brainwashed and there is little chance of deprogramming you short of the same methods used to deprogram cult members.


- When someone calls them on their BS they immediately lash out in lieu of some hard evidence, especially with some promise of "secret" data to come? Check.
Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 30 2012, 01:14 AM)
You'd be surprised at how little that means.

I'd say as it relates to the odds of being correct or incorrect it means everything.
If you have one person who is an actual genius with a high iq telling you one thing and an idiot savant telling you another you be a fool to go with the idiot no matter how impressive his specific area of knowledge is. A man who can write formulas to prove anything using mathematics that a person can dream up but cannot tie his own shoes in not a reliable source of information . That's all I am saying.
A dynamic range of knowledge combined with a high IQ makes a good leader, but our society is set up to prevent this from ever occurring by making dishonesty and ruthlessness the most important and decisive qualities.
Robittybob1
It sounds like we are going to have real ding dong battle here! I'm going to start following this thread just to see who wins.

I wonder if Robert Hawkins knows just how damaging to ones health it is to come on the Science Forums?

Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 30 2012, 02:15 AM)
Ah, the oh so familiar mantra of the wild woo-woo.

- Touting IQ without any demonstrable exercise of it? Check.
- Seeking to completely rewrite physics? Check.
- Erroneously claiming great scientists weren't traditionally educated? Check.
- Touting the years they've spent in independent study and interest of a subject they haven't demonstrated any fluency in? Check.



- When someone calls them on their BS they immediately lash out in lieu of some hard evidence, especially with some promise of "secret" data to come? Check.

>Displaying crude criticism without basis in fact-check
>making statements without referencing or proving them, then while claiming another is incorrect-check
>contributing NOTHING of substance-check.
>acting in an unprofessional and gradeschool level fashion-check

Why science of Jewish origin is always defended in this way is highly suspicious. Defend it on it's on merits. prove Anything I said was wrong, claiming it is easy and any idiot can do it.


Look up current LASCOC3 and STFU

It can be reloaded as frequently as once per second
Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 30 2012, 02:42 AM)
It sounds like we are going to have real ding dong battle here! I'm going to start following this thread just to see who wins.

I wonder if Robert Hawkins knows just how damaging to ones health it is to come on the Science Forums?

You are here, is it damaging your health or was this a veiled threat and are you trained to use psychological tactics to silence opposition to bullshit science?
Stay off my thread unless you have something material to contribute.
All I have seen so far is persona attacks and loosely veiled threats, what kind of science forum is this moderators/ Ban these people or all you have is a joke of a forum and a free for all.
synthsin75
QUOTE (Anonymous Astrophysicist+Mar 29 2012, 08:47 PM)
Why science of Jewish origin is always defended in this way is highly suspicious.

"Jewish origin"?!!!

Can we add conspiracy theorist to the list?
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Anonymous Astrophysicist+Mar 29 2012, 10:47 PM)
Why science of Jewish origin is always defended in this way is highly suspicious.

ohmy.gif ohmy.gif ohmy.gif ohmy.gif

This says more about you than any of us.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Anonymous Astrophysicist+Mar 30 2012, 02:55 AM)
You are here, is it damaging your health or was this a veiled threat and are you trained to use psychological tactics to silence opposition to bullshit science?
Stay off my thread unless you have something material to contribute.
All I have seen so far is persona attacks and loosely veiled threats, what kind of science forum is this moderators/ Ban these people or all you have is a joke of a forum and a free for all.

It is not a threat, but a doctor's warning. This place will kill those with a weak heart, for you will be hurt.
You might want to know how I know. I've been there and done that.
Good advice and a warning is material. Besides that I am interested in knowing about your evidence.

This forum is self moderating, like the pit with the lions, if you win you live to fight another day.

For so far you are lucky you are getting replies, wait till there is just silence. That will be worse.

waitedavid137
QUOTE (Anonymous Astrophysicist+Mar 29 2012, 05:37 PM)
Actually i am not anonymous at all, since I referenced a theory with my real name on it. My name is Robert Hawkins...

Astrophysicist? Strange that I've never heard of you. Anyway I was going to walk you through the pulse sublight warp drive so post here what the exact pp electromagnetic radiation solution to Einstein's field equations is here along with the exact corresponding Einstein tensor. This should be easy in uv coordinates as you are a famous astrophysicist after all, despite the fact I've never heard of you, well there is a harvard historian by that name, but no astrophysicist anyway.
AlexG
QUOTE
Why science of Jewish origin is always defended in this way is highly suspicious


I was only going to reference his obvious megalomania, but now we've got anti-semitic to add to the crazy mix.

But I certainly don't want to make any kind of gratuitous cheese based remark.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 30 2012, 06:55 AM)

I was only going to reference his obvious megalomania, but now we've got anti-semitic to add to the crazy mix.

But I certainly don't want to make any kind of gratuitous cheese based remark.

When are you going back to Sciforums? It's been quiet over there without you.
Did you get to see the image that the AA was talking about?
AlexG
I've been back there.

AA is a sock puppet of a banned user.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 30 2012, 07:05 AM)
I've been back there.

AA is a sock puppet of a banned user.

If there is no "police" why are you quoting the rules? Be like going to Mexico and saying drug runners should be arrested. There's no one here to do the job no more.
Even though Reality Check was sent packing. So let's be on our best behaviour for you never know when your number is up.
synthsin75
RealityCheck wasn't smart enough to refrain from trying to bait the moderator. His MO finally caught up with him.
Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 30 2012, 03:37 AM)
"Jewish origin"?!!!

Can we add conspiracy theorist to the list?

We all know there are no such things as conspiracies, and people who believe that there are are nuts. biggrin.gif
Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 30 2012, 07:13 AM)
If there is no "police" why are you quoting the rules? Be like going to Mexico and saying drug runners should be arrested. There's no one here to do the job no more.
Even though Reality Check was sent packing. So let's be on our best behaviour for you never know when your number is up.

More like the criminals are the police. To be truthful i was banned, but not for breaking the TOS here. I simply posted some information that could not be disproved that you weren't supposed to hear. As for rules, we need rules for civilized society, but then if they don't apply to everyone equally they are a meaningless and endless source of conflict ,simply a method of maintaining control over a 'lessor' group' and keeping them from being heard..
Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 30 2012, 03:41 AM)
ohmy.gif ohmy.gif ohmy.gif ohmy.gif

This says more about you than any of us.

Are you denying Jews dominate 'traditional' academics and mainstream science?
Are you denying that statistically this is illogical since there are at least 10,000 times as many 'gentile' geniuses as there are jewish ones?

Should academics be lead by a more dynamic range of intellectuals?
Anonymous Astrophysicist
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 30 2012, 03:53 AM)
It is not a threat, but a doctor's warning.  This place will kill those with a weak heart, for you will be hurt.
You might want to know how I know.  I've been there and done that.
Good advice and a warning is material. Besides that I am interested in knowing about your evidence.

This forum is self moderating, like the pit with the lions, if you win you live to fight another day.

For so far you are lucky you are getting replies, wait till there is just silence.  That will be worse.

I NEVER get silence, EVER, in any forum I have ever posted to relating to science. What I do get is a well organized attack that concentrates on distraction and when that fails, censorship. I suggest someone try to disprove the information I have provided, incontrovertible evidenced that falsifies quantum physics, SR and GR by empirical observation and proves they are total bunk.


. Politics , religious preference or personalities have nothing no place in real science.

[Moderator: Clearly, neither do you have a place in real science. Suspended 10 days for not doing science, for claiming knowledge without doing science, for claiming to be previous banned user, for hateful stereotypes and for asking for it.]
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Anonymous Astrophysicist+Mar 30 2012, 06:44 AM)
Are you denying Jews dominate 'traditional' academics and mainstream science?
Are you denying that statistically this is illogical since there are at least 10,000 times as many 'gentile' geniuses as there are jewish ones?

Should academics be lead by a more dynamic range of intellectuals?

So what you're saying offends you is that Jews are smarter than you.
Ed Wood
Anonymous Astrophysicist

Please say something relevant.

I suppose this is where you are supposed to present your particular aether theory some jump in and kind of agree and others just call you a dumbass and still others attempt to enlighten you. Because a mind especially one so obviously intelligiant as yours with such vitely impotent imformation to the survival of mankind is a terrible thing to waste.

GET ON WITH IT!!!!!!!!

Unless you would like to continue the pissing contest.

The insults and ad homonym attacks are entertaining and all.

I'll even throw you a bone Anthropogenic global warming is over rated.

and the misspellings were on purpose laugh.gif
rpenner
The arrogance of the willfully ignorant is amazing.
QUOTE (Anonymous Astrophysicist+Mar 29 2012, 03:54 PM)
In his formula he is not specific about whether the "E" means kinetic or potential energy, but let us assume it means kinetic since there is a velocity ^2 in the formula.
...
In other words the Kinetic energy formula is and always has been 1/2M x V^2.

Nowhere was there an argument there based on empiricism. The poster is complaining about an assumption that he made and then just asserting what he wishes to believe.

Kinetic energy, K, is the difference between a body's energy, E, and the body's energy in an inertial frame where it has no instantaneous motion, E₀. For a free body, one subject to no external forces, a description of its energy, mass, velocity and momentum is the whole story.

v = pc / E
E = mc⁴ + pc

So:
K = E − E₀ = √(mc⁴ + pc) − mc = [√(1 + p/(mc)) − 1] mc
|p| = (1/c) √(E − E₀) = (1/c) √(E − E₀)√(E + E₀) = (1/c) √(K)√(K + 2E₀) = (1/c) √(2E₀K)√(1 + K/(2E₀))= (1/c) √(2 mc K) √(1 + K/(2mc))

This last relation was the subject of 1938 precision experimental tests of the relativistic de Broglie relationship, a relationship with is used daily with Transmission electron microscopes in the 80 kV - 300 kV range. Denial of special relativity is denial of science.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v54/i12/p1085_1
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Anonymous Astrophysicist+Mar 30 2012, 09:44 AM)
Are you denying Jews dominate 'traditional' academics and mainstream science?

So what if they do? Good for them.
QUOTE
Are you denying that statistically this is illogical since there are at least 10,000 times as many 'gentile' geniuses as there are jewish ones?

Genius means nothing without education and training. You are a perfect example of this.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Are you denying that statistically this is illogical since there are at least 10,000 times as many 'gentile' geniuses as there are jewish ones?

Genius means nothing without education and training. You are a perfect example of this.
Should academics be lead by a more dynamic range of intellectuals?

I would be worried if a particular group was being excluded from participation, not if one group tries harder to participate.

Thank you for proving that anti-semitism is alive and well.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.