To Neried (#12)

Concerning you last suggestion about having a separate thread describing all of the science that is actual science for the assumed Einstein proofs that is an incredibly good idea. The truth is though that before the existing threads get done here I am sure every single one of the science items will be discussed and described anyway. But, if they aren't, I would do what you suggested in a heart beat. And, just so you know, the real science involved for every single one of the Einstein "proofs" can be explained.

So, in my opinion, that was an extremely good idea.

Concerning your first comment about not understanding what my post said, if someone says that all atoms have cores that are rocks and the objects orbiting around the cores are frogs, then this description of atoms is FACTUALLY wrong. The point of this is when a science statement is proven to be wrong (dead in real science) then there is nothing good that can be gotten from the frog-atom description. Even if someone points out a universe object that looks like a Frog ring.

I am not trying to be a smart *** or anything like that, but only trying to point out the insanity of trying to use something that is dead to then use in predictions of real science. This assumes the Einstein synchronization and what was depending on that is actually dead, but that is the point of all thses posts. The math and science in the first posts proves it is wrong. So, we take it from there.