Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old February 23rd, 2013 #101
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
The above two equation lines are so abjectly stupid that they aren't even wrong.
Our "university-level-engineering-physics" poster must have stopped his education short of reaching differential equations. The second of my equations that he cited is merely an instance of a very simple separation of variables method.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #102
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
Cosmology Quest agrees that he was wrong, and goes on to prove it.

Besides, he was a kike, why should any white man not kick that kike in the teeth?
Try this one, hymie.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #103
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
Cosmology Quest agrees that he was wrong, and goes on to prove it.

Besides, he was a kike, why should any white man not kick that kike in the teeth?

LOL, had to edit that post, didn't you?

Since I already commented favorably on Electric Universe theory, and, as I reported above, cited it and its advocates on other threads here, I think I will make another comment.

Yes, there are some aspects such as listed on that site that are up for debate. But, alas, they are as yet unverified and thus undecided. But we do posses a multitude of experimentally verified results confirming relativity and its predictions, including mass increase and time dilation. And, moreover, a very recent experiment carried out in space supports the notion of gravity waves, as do other experiments.

The theory is on very solid ground. Period. The material relating to electric universe, even if it is absolutely spot on, and much of it probably is, I believe, will not "debunk" relativity. It will only subsume it as did Einstein's relativity subsume Newton's mechanics. The case will simply be that the special and general theories will turn out to be special cases of a yet more general and comprehensive theory, the same as happened with Newton's mechanics.

And no, electric universe proponents have NOT "proved" their case. Nor have they claimed to. They are presenting an alternative theory. Their work, as they readily admit, see Don Scott's website link below, is primarily qualitative, not quantitative.

http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

I've not only "tried it," dickhead, I have been keeping up with this work for several years, long before you no doubt ever thought to Google it. Hell, I've got an engineering textbook of Don Scott's, An Introduction to Circuits Analysis: A systems Approach. I cited his book on another thread and mentioned it on this one. Electric Sky. And notice my very first post, I suggested reading G. Harry Stine's (Not a Jew, BTW) article Faster than light.

I know these subjects, Fred.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #104
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Conclusion

After nearly 100 years, Einstein’s theories have not been unified. They are not falsifiable. These two facts alone merit reconsidering their continued use. The lack of unification and lack of fundamental ties to reality demands explanation. The LCDM model of the universe has no less than 5 adjustable parameters that can arbitrarily be adjusted to account for observation. This is no different than Ptolemy’s epicycles that were continually adjusted to account for observation without providing any real explanation of the mechanics behind what is being observed.


At this point it is almost impossible for even a professional cosmologist to name all of the hypothetical entities required by Einstein’s theories. Occam’s Razor demands we follow the theory with the least amount of unnecessary entities. While the standard model may be able to formulate responses to the problems presented, it seems that electric cosmology offers a solution to all of the problems by simply adding ONE postulate to the universe – that current flows in space plasmas. Given the utter simplicity of this postulate and the overwhelming evidence in support of it, Occam’s Razor demands it be given full attention.

Modern cosmology is engaging in what can broadly be categorized as scientific fraud. Nearly every explanation of astrophysical phenomena involves the use of frozen-in fields, an impossibility in any real plasma. Nearly every explanation involves the use of some totally unproven, unfounded, and baseless hypothetical form of matter or energy, be it dark energy, dark matter, or fictional black holes that blatantly violate Einsteinian relativity. Every attempt to prove the existence of these hypothetical entities has resulted in failure.

Because a steady state universe, as postulated by Lorentz, does not require unification and complies with Maxwell’s equations (which themselves assume an infinite universe and universal speed), this also resolves the long standing problem of unifying Einstein’s theories.

And finally, a large collection of papers in support of the arguments made.

https://sites.google.com/site/cosmol...tein-was-wrong

Last edited by Fred O'Malley; February 23rd, 2013 at 02:16 AM.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #105
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
Conclusion

After nearly 100 years, Einstein’s theories have not been unified. They are not falsifiable. These two facts alone merit reconsidering their continued use. The lack of unification and lack of fundamental ties to reality demands explanation. The LCDM model of the universe has no less than 5 adjustable parameters that can arbitrarily be adjusted to account for observation. This is no different than Ptolemy’s epicycles that were continually adjusted to account for observation without providing any real explanation of the mechanics behind what is being observed.


At this point it is almost impossible for even a professional cosmologist to name all of the hypothetical entities required by Einstein’s theories. Occam’s Razor demands we follow the theory with the least amount of unnecessary entities. While the standard model may be able to formulate responses to the problems presented, it seems that electric cosmology offers a solution to all of the problems by simply adding ONE postulate to the universe – that current flows in space plasmas. Given the utter simplicity of this postulate and the overwhelming evidence in support of it, Occam’s Razor demands it be given full attention.

Modern cosmology is engaging in what can broadly be categorized as scientific fraud. Nearly every explanation of astrophysical phenomena involves the use of frozen-in fields, an impossibility in any real plasma. Nearly every explanation involves the use of some totally unproven, unfounded, and baseless hypothetical form of matter or energy, be it dark energy, dark matter, or fictional black holes that blatantly violate Einsteinian relativity. Every attempt to prove the existence of these hypothetical entities has resulted in failure.

Because a steady state universe, as postulated by Lorentz, does not require unification and complies with Maxwell’s equations (which themselves assume an infinite universe and universal speed), this also resolves the long standing problem of unifying Einstein’s theories.

And finally, a large collection of papers in support of the arguments made.

https://sites.google.com/site/cosmol...tein-was-wrong

Much of this is quite true. But all of this refers specifically to cosmology, Fred. Their beef is primarily with Big Bang, not Relativity. They are challenging an exclusively gravity-only driven universe.

You are simply Googling for references to Einstein being wrong without knowing even what the hell you are citing. Notice, too, that none of these are calling Einstein a "plagiarist" or asserting that he was "untrained."

And, Fred, notice what you actually boldfaced?

Quote:
Nearly every explanation involves the use of some totally unproven, unfounded, and baseless hypothetical form of matter or energy, be it dark energy, dark matter, or fictional black holes that blatantly violate Einsteinian relativity.
These men know that "Dark Matter, dark energy" and such violates relativity. They are NOT arguing from the position you are claiming.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #106
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Man I'm so fucking tired of you trying to glorify that theiving kike. Only a kike promotes kikes on WN sites.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #107
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
Man I'm so fucking tired of you making me look stupid! Only a moron like me talks so much about things I don't know anything about. I guess I really need to stop before I look even more ridiculous than I already do. Next time I will only write about stuff that I really know something about. Stuff like wiping my ass with a handful of grass like I admit on another thread.
Fixed it for you.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #108
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

LOL, Fred, I'm always and forever going to correct you or anyone else whenever you happen to be wrong. No matter if it is about a Jew or gentile. It's just the way I am.

Hell, I would maintain the very same stridency defending you or something you said or wrote if someone made a statement describing it that was demonstrably false ( though I don't know right off what it could be that you are knowledgeable and correct about, but if there is ever such a situation, I will defending you).
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #109
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter E. Kurtz View Post
Did I miss something?
Yes, apparently quite a bit.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #110
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
Conclusion

After nearly 100 years, Einstein’s theories have not been unified.
Not unified? So what? Neither has Newton's work with quantum mechanics, yet I assume you do not reject those at face value like you do with SR and GR?

Quote:
They are not falsifiable.
Two of the most falsifiable theories we have in all of science are SR and GR. Wise up. We have a century of hundreds and hundreds of experimental validation for Relativity from all over the world. The track record for special and general relativity is enormous.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #111
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Ryan View Post
Furthermore Goode or the small cabal that call themselves that failed to mention that Einstein ripped off the correct General Relativity equations from a mathematician named David Hilbert.
First off, Winterberg does not say that his work proves Einstein plagiarized or nostrified Hilbert. He actually says:
Quote:
My analysis of Hilbert's mutilated proofs therefore cannot prove that Einstein copied from Hilbert.
Before Hilbert had been to a lecture of Einstein's and begun working on GR, the majority of work on GR had already been done by Einstein and Grossman. For the subsequent three months, the two were sharing ideas and progress through letters, leading up to the final wrap-up of the field equations, i.e what would give the least action (which is usually referenced as either the Hilbert-action or Hilbert-Einstein action). It's given from the content of their papers that their work were independantly done, with different methods. And the only debacle regarding Hilbert and Einstein have been on the final icing on the cake for GR, significant still, the gravitational field equations.

Winterberg recognizes the contribution to GR of Grossman, Hilbert and Einstein. And as Logunov wrote (a physicist who critiqued the paper by Cory and Stachel against Winterberg, and who's also been used as an authority by proponents of Hilbert's priority):
Quote:
The Einstein formulation of the problem and his identification of the gravitation potential with the metric tensor gμν of a Riemannian space appeared the key ones for Hilbert.
That was sufficient for him in order to find out the gravitational field equation proceeding from the principle of the least action (Hilbert’s Axiom I) and from his profound knowledge of the theory of invariants.

The analysis, undertaken in Sections 1 and 2, shows that Einstein and Hilbert inependently discovered the gravitational field equations. Their pathways were different but they led exactly to the same result. Nobody "nostrified" the other. So no “belated decision in the Einstein–Hilbert priority dispute”, about which [Corry, Renn, and Stachel] wrote, can be taken. Moreover, the very Einstein–Hilbert dispute never took place.

All is absolutely clear: both authors made everything to immortalize their names in the title of the gravitational field equations. But general relativity is Einstein’s theory.

Source: ”How were the Hilbert-Einstein equations discovered?” - Phys.Usp. 47 (2004) 607-621; Usp.Fiz.Nauk 174 (2004) 663-678
Einstein's equations were evidently not like Hilberts, their entire methodology and application behind them differed as well. Looking at the sequences of papers of the two, it's evident their works were moreso independant and that they were going about it differently. Ultimately, getting the final sequence right was nothing but an effort in weeding through the process of trial and error.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #112
Roy Wagahuski
professional critter
 
Roy Wagahuski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd O'Malley View Post
How could anyone have known that?
By simply reading what I wrote, you dumb motherfucker.



You're such a vindictive, frustrated closet homosexual. Grow the fuck up. Better yet: get the fuck out.
__________________
"Don't underestimate the power of 'evil.' ... The fact is, 'evil' makes women horny and men curious. Use those to further the cause."
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #113
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall View Post
All the foregoing is prefatory to this, which is Stonewalls Fourth Law, to be kept in mind when reading sites such as this: Anyone who repeatedly uses the term ‘inbred’ in derogatory references to White people is either a jew or a fool.
If he uses it three times in a single post, he qualifies under “The Law of Return.” Count on it!
Again, I'd modify your law to instead state that anyone on a non-white nationalists website is either a jew or a fool. I have repeatedly pointed out who actually does the inbreeding and incest on "mainstram" websites and forums. But if we can't talk plainly and/or discuss and correct weaknesses on an in-house website or websites then where?

That being said, what do you call white people that continue to persist in being dead wrong in the face of all evidence to the contrary? Do you agree or disagree that such people damage the reputation, standing, stature, and perception of apparent intelligence of WN?

What do you call white people who forever seem to willfully embrace some of the most ridiculous practices, personal habits, the lowest grades of personal integrity, image and intelligence, etc? And there are plenty of such white people in every region of these United States.

What do you call these kind of people? What do you call them in a burst of great anger? And are you seriously suggesting, no, make that asserting, that the probably millions of non-jewish, white people who have made such derogatory statements about other whites "qualify under the Law of Return?"

Really?
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #114
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
The above two equation lines are so abjectly stupid that they aren't even wrong.
And if anyone doubts that the integral xdx is not 1/2 x squared plus some constant, here is a link to an integral table. Integral x dx is the very simplest form of an integral. It is the very first form to appear in tables, at the top as (1).

http://integral-table.com/integral-t...00000000000000
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #115
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

For Marlon Brando above.

A very simple derivation of E = mc2

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...red/proof.html

A derivation of the kinetic energy formula that I did above:

http://physics.info/energy-kinetic/

A video of the derivation of E = mc2


 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #116
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Do Electric Universe proponents think Einstein and his theories of relativity are wrong, or are they saying cosmologists are wrong in what they say about Einstein? Here is something that Don Scott, one of the leading scientists promoting Electric Universe and cited multiple times in Fred's source, has to say in response to a NASA scientist, Tom Bridgman, who accuses him, Scott, of denying Einstein's gravitational lensing, a part of the general theory of relativity:

http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf

Quote:
GRAVITATIONAL LENSING
TB says I "describe gravitational lensing (GL) as untested." This is a total fabrication. I resent it. A complete reading of that section of TES [The Electric Sky] will reveal that, in my opinion, it is not that GL is untested but rather that it has been misapplied in ways that Einstein never intended. He described it as being an effect between two stellar (point) sources. In order to interpret it as being an effect observable between a galaxy and a distant QSO, the galaxy would have to behave in a way such that all its mass is acting at a point, a so-called 'point-mass singularity'. There is no astronomical (or laboratory) evidence of infinitely dense point-masses. When relativists discuss 'point-masses' what they mean is a mathematical abstraction - the center of mass - which is not a physical object. So my opinion is that the original Einstein prediction has been hijacked for purposes of explaining away enigmatic observations to which its application is inappropriate.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #117
quorthon
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 204
Default

Randal Goode,assuming that you do indeed have clear intentions,let me make this clear for you:

Einstein was a kike.
Kike are a race of theives and rascals and scoundrels.All of them.No exceptions.
Intelligence isn't a virtue valued by them.
See someone else,someone more intelligent than you also thinks the same:

Quote:
"The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how
numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power
they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of rascals
and deceivers.
"
CICERO (Marcus Tullius Cicero). First century B.C. Roman statesman.

Get this past your thick skull!
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #118
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quorthon View Post
Intelligence isn't a virtue valued by them.


But, now you look. I appreciate being able to count on you for exclusively and always taking the white side. I really do. But, understand this, and where I'm coming from, your utility is extremely limited. If I need your vote, or your fists or your help in fights, rest assured I know you are going to be there for the white man.

However, when it comes to making higher decisions and leadership and advocacy, your simple conditioning and mentality is lacking.

There are quite a number of white people of whom it would be a great help if they realized they should cease and desist from "helping" in many cases.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #119
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

An article I wrote quite some time ago, posted here on VNN by my friend Karl Radl.
 
Old February 23rd, 2013 #120
Marcus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
You're such a vindictive, frustrated closet homosexual. Grow the fuck up. Better yet: get the fuck out.
That's the second person, just that I know of, whom you've told to "get the fuck out" within just the last few days; the first one being me.
Lay off the mini-modding, Mr. Keyboard Commando.
 
Reply

Tags
albert einstein, einstein, fraud, jew fraud, jew fraud einstein, jew lies, physics

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 AM.
Page generated in 0.16346 seconds.