[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu*Subject*: Re: starship-design: relativity*From*: STAR1SHIP@aol.com*Date*: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:17:53 EDT*Reply-To*: STAR1SHIP@aol.com*Sender*: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu

Subj: Re: starship-design: relativity Date: 8/8/00 3:46:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: STAR1SHIP To: stevev@efn.org CC: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu In a message dated 8/7/00 11:36:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/ > > After you read that link, go and read this link: > > http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html You have provided a credible source for answering questions incorrectly to support a preconceived notion. Watch As I answer correctly. "I have proven that special relativity/Quantum mechanics is wrong." Equation derivations require derivative proofs not taught to most formal educated physicist to the Ph.D. level. You could easily prove it wrong, but it is more likely you will prove the interpreter of Einstein's SR and GR theory wrong as few people even today understand relativity beyond rote memorization. Myna birds mimic speech without understanding. You mean you did an experiment whose results disagree with the predictions of that theory? Experimental proofs are only one of many acceptable proofs scientists use. " I didn't think so". Your beliefs are not as important as the Universal laws of physics and the scientists organized laws of common sense. You mean you proved it is self-contradictory? Self contradictions are not considered proof of deception at any level until the contradictions and the liar accuser scenario both are subject to review of facts and evidence. Contradictions are a normal part of human speech. "That's what they told Galileo." Any new independent scientific thought is attacked by the majority. Scientists and democracy protect the few free thinkers from the tyranny of the majority. I know Galileo, and you're no Galileo. I read the 1955 work of Albert Einstein, claiming U235 explodes because of impact not chain reaction and mass can exceed light speed. You do not understand atoms or relativity if you think otherwise. "My theory is prettier than the accepted one." Einstein said we cannot make thing simpler than they already are. "My theory is better philosophically". Those that cannot do, teach, those that can do, do. This is not ancient Greece where philosophers are valued. America in the 21st century where the applied physicist rules and theorist is reduced to grant sucking to survive. "My theory makes more sense." Considering the majority taught theories, that is not a big accomplishment. "My theory doesn't need any complicated math, like calculus or vector algebra." Newton warned scientists not to use calculus in science as it was only to be used for engineering. Einstein used vector algebra to discover the forth dimension to be time. Einstein warned scientists not to use any algebra for physics with exponents higher than 3 cause you would enter the fantasy world of Quantum theorists. Then how do you calculate anything? Algebraically using equations in physics with only exponents of 0,1,2,3 to represent the 4 known dimensions. "My theory totally replaces the accepted one." But how would you know all that if you haven't studied the old theories in the first place? You do not need to replace an old theory with a better one you only need to show the old theory as in violation of universal law like protons in a nucleus violate like charges repel. Throw the theory out. Go back to basic research of Rutherford and Einstein to come up with a new theory and both them publicly denounced Neils Bohr atom model by 1940. "I knew you wouldn't listen, you scientists are too arrogant and closed-minded." That is so as their grants depend on them supporting the majority taught view. "You have to spend some time studying my theory." Proper scientific examination of any theory requires both the theorist and any debunker be examined by the same methods. The debunker does not determine what proof is acceptable and he has his belief system challenged by the same examination method. How much time did you spend getting an education in physics? 8000 plus classroom hours equivalent to 4 doctorates in math, physics, computer science and general education "Why don't you spend some time telling me what's wrong with my theory?" Debunkers are lazy, they find it easier to just say prove it, and let the other fellow do all the work. I say prove a mass cannot exceed light speed. Show me a match box of neutrons or even an example of compressed metal used allegedly to obtain critical mass in nonsense chain reaction bombs. They always fail the three examinations regardless of all the alleged neutron sources, neutron guns; fast and slow, thermalized, ultral cool, and even decaying neutrons of imagininary theory. Why don't you take a course? I took more courses you did, now what is your excuse Steve for supporting the nonscientific nonsense you teach? I apologized to you once, Do not make me do it again;-) Respectfully, Tom Jackson

- Prev by Date:
**Re: starship-design: relativity** - Next by Date:
**Re: starship-design: relativity** - Prev by thread:
**Re: starship-design: relativity** - Next by thread:
**Re: starship-design: relativity** - Index(es):