Science and math prove Einstein was factually wrong

[StevenCrum]

In Einstein's 1905 paper that described his moving rod and synchronization there is a factual foundational error that undeniably proves Einstein's relativity, E=mc^2 and everything that followed the false-synchronization part then impossible to be correct. The following proves the undeniable facts and truth involved.

The entire principle concerning synchronization involves equalness that then accomplishes two or more time objects to be set to equal times. The way any ten year old kid knows that two wristwatches can be synchronized is that each kid having one presses the set button at the exact SAME time. This then accomplishes setting them in synchronization. This is obvious, but as will be shown factually in the following Einstein didn't obey this simple requirement of equalness.

In the first part of Einstein's explanation he has a rod with a clock at both end. His method used for setting the two clocks to the same exact time was to use light coming from the left point A and going toward the right end of the rod (B). At B there is a mirror that reflects the light back toward A. This is easy and does accomplish synchronization. Einstein's method for setting the clocks to the same time is simply taking the exact time difference between the clock at A when the light image of the original A gets back to A. He takes the time difference, divides by two because there are two lengths the light travels, and then adjusts the clocks as needed.

The reason synchronization is accomplished is because ALL FACTORS related to the time requirement for synchronization are kept EQUAL. The factors in all velocity equations are distance, speed and time. Since Einstein's method usecd distance and speed instead of just time like the kid's watches, the REQUIREMENT is that both distance and speed then are the equal parts that factually have to be maintained in order to accomplish synchronization. Einstein factually FAILED to do this.

When Einstein then described the second part with the rod moving to the right, in the direction of B, the non-equal situation of a velocity in ONLT the right direction then destroyed equalness. The following calculations prove this fully.

For this proof I have reduced the speed of light to 100 feet/sec, the length of the rod at 200 feet, and the velocity of the rod to the right at 20 feet/sec.

You can sketch this out easily to make it as easy as it gets to see the facts involved.

The original setup is a rod 200 feet long and the left end is A and the right end B. After sketching that the rod is moving to the right and a light image of the clock at A is also moving at 100 ft/sec right also.

You can then sketch an overlaying rod image just to the right and at the exact point when the light image reaches the mirror at B. Rod end B will have moved right 50 feet by the time the light gets to the mirror, and you can label the new B end B1 for further description here. Rod end A will have also moved right the same 50 feet and it can be labeled A1.

At this time the rod is still moving right at 20 ft/sec. and the light is reflected back by the mirror toward A1. By the time the light and the original light image of A reaches the A1 bar end the rod will have moved to the right another 33.33 feet, and the distance from B1, where the mirror was when the reflection occurred, back to the new location of the A bar end is 166.67 feet.

The final ends of the bar should then be labeled A2 and B2.

The results of this FACTUALLY are that since the clocks at A and B were fixed to the bar ends, the synchronization required for setting the clocks has to have the same exact time factors to be completely equal. In Einstein's false thing here, which he obviously didn't figure out and believed his calcualtions were correct, the distance in the first leg of light travel is 250 feet. And, the second leg back after reflection is 166.67 feet. The speed of light is the same so that isn't part of the ultra-error here, but the different distances is FACTUALLY a HUGE ERROR and dead-wrong in real science.

By the way, to accomplish synchronization using his moving rod situation, all that is needed is to use the true synchronization fact of applying the correct percentages of the total time observed to each clock. THis is the science FACT of since the two legs are 60% for the 250 feet, and 40% for the 166.67 feet. And making the CORRECT percentage time adjustments this accomplishes true synchronization of the clocks, and INSTEAD of Einstein's total garbage of the rod getting shorter in one of the time frames.

The above factually and undeniably proves Einstein's synchronization is completely FALSE SCIENCE and DEAD WRONG.

The situation also proves relativity is also dead wrong because EVERYTHING that followed the synchronization and DEPENDED on that being true first is then factually all wrong because of the foundational, first part being totally wrong.

This means E=mc^2 is factually also completely and undeniably wrong, and fully proven to be so by real science and math.

By the way, Einstein rings and everything else so-called observations of proving Einstein's things to be true are factually provenm by science to be other factual science that I will expalin any and all anyone want sto see the real science involved.

[antoniseb]

Hi StevenCrum, welcome to the BAUT forum, and thank you for recognizing that this is an "Against The Mainstream" (ATM) topic.

We have several members that are better prepared to discuss the mathematical specifics of Einstein's work than I am, so I will not comment on your idea here.

[Gillianren]

The entire principle concerning synchronization involves equalness that then accomplishes two or more time objects to be set to equal times. The way any ten year old kid knows that two wristwatches can be synchronized is that each kid having one presses the set button at the exact SAME time. This then accomplishes setting them in synchronization. This is obvious, but as will be shown factually in the following Einstein didn't obey this simple requirement of equalness.

Well, on account of watches not having "set" buttons in 1905--or, indeed, the same precision as watches today. Welcome to the board!

[publius]

Steven,

So Einstein was a Lamont Sanford, just a big dummy. :lol:

The distances you are using are what you see in a frame where the rod is moving. Now, what about the frame of reference of the rod itself, where it isn't moving? The distance is 200' both ways there.

What was making Einstein such a big dummy was the pesky little experimental fact that the speed of light is invariant to all observers regardless of the motion relative to the source. In the rod frame, the speed of light is c. In your frame where the rod is moving, the speed of light is c.

You see exactly what you describe. But an observer moving with the rod sees the light travel distance to be equal. The pesky fact that both see the speed of light to be always c in their frames is why clocks appear to slow and distances appear to contract between frames in relative motion.

Rather than being a dummy, Einstein was figuring out how space and time must behave in order for this to be so.

-Richard

[hhEb09'1]

The above factually and undeniably proves Einstein's synchronization is completely FALSE SCIENCE and DEAD WRONG.
Einstein laid out his assumptions, and derived his conclusions from them. There were no facts involved in that derivation, just logic.

However, his conclusions have one advantage: they agree with experiment, whereas yours do not. (I'm not talking about the 100 ft/sec speed of light, either.)

[StevenCrum]

Concerning the view seen by someone on the rod, the situation is NOT the bad-science Einstein spouted about the speed of light being the same in all planes. There are examples in the universe that prove that Einstein's "nothing can go faster than the speed of light" is complete garbage.

The view of a person on the rod sees the situation as follows, and which is real science instead of Einstein's wrong science.

In the first leg of the light travel, the rod viewer sees a distance, the length of the rod at 200 feet long, the time it takes fro the light to get from A to B at 2.5 seconds, and the velocity he views is 80.

The 80 is factual, and you can easily see in the example and with you imagining being on the rod that the light is traveling from A to B in the statioanry world at 100 feet/second, and the rod you are stabding on is also going that same direction. The end view you will see is 100 - 20 = 80.

If you don't understand this fact, we can change the velocity of the rod to the same 100 feet/sec that the light is traveling. That situation, as viewed factually from the rod would have the light never getting to B on the rod, all because the light and rod are traveling at the same speed.

The facts are undeniably that Einstein was DEAD WRONG and this proves it. I understand his false science about c being the same velocity in all frames. And, I understand FACTUALLY that he didn't know enough to understand his total blunder described here.

So, any way it gets siad, he was still dead wrong and factually shown to be that right here.

[ToSeek]

Concerning the view seen by someone on the rod, the situation is NOT the bad-science Einstein spouted about the speed of light being the same in all planes. There are examples in the universe that prove that Einstein's "nothing can go faster than the speed of light" is complete garbage.

Please name one.

[StevenCrum]

To hhEb09'1

Concerning your first point about him making assumptions and conclusions without facts and then using logic, the situation he used, and is fully seen and proven in his paper, is that his logic was ENTIRELY based in the math of the synchronizing equations.

His first equations used to prove synchronization of a statioanry rod situation was tB-tA=AB/c, and t1A-tB=AB/c. He then used the equation tB-tA=AB/c-v and t1A-tB=AB/c+v.

With those equations, Einstein factually relied entirely on the math involved to prove the truthfulness of his theory. He also went into a whole lot more math that followed the synchronization to then prove his supposed truths about how the synchronization supported the foolowing advancement to get to E=mc^2.

So, unfortunately, your statement about einstein not using the math is factually wrong. His entire life work was fully based on mathematic proof then proving the truth of the science. And, the ultra-math and science logic error is undenaible in factual truth, and is seen plainly to be solid fact in truth.

And, concerning his theories agreeing with experiment I can show you real science that proves that statement is completely wrong. The truth is is is "thought" to be true that his theories are supported by experiment and science observation. Instead, it is solid fact that there isn't even one of the so-called experiments that I cannot show the real science facts involved. That includes the farcical Einstein rings, which are pathetically another universe fact in science instead, and you name it and I can blow every single one of anything described right out of the water completely with the real science facts involved.

And, I am not trying to just blow wind in the air here, but I am saying precisely and truthfully that anyone can describe anything they want and I won't fail to live up to every single word I have stated here. I've done that and can do it factually again. Einstein was dead wrong and I know the factual science that proves every bit of that staement.

[ToSeek]

You'll probably get a lot farther here if you start talking about your interpretation of actual observations than thought experiments.

[Van Rijn]

This means E=mc^2 is factually also completely and undeniably wrong, and fully proven to be so by real science and math.


Well, let's see the real science and math. For instance, with your alternate math, how would you predict the energy release from a nuclear reaction, and how would this differ from E=MC2?

[Doodler]

Steven,

So Einstein was a Lamont Sanford, just a big dummy. :lol:

The distances you are using are what you see in a frame where the rod is moving. Now, what about the frame of reference of the rod itself, where it isn't moving? The distance is 200' both ways there.

What was making Einstein such a big dummy was the pesky little experimental fact that the speed of light is invariant to all observers regardless of the motion relative to the source. In the rod frame, the speed of light is c. In your frame where the rod is moving, the speed of light is c.

You see exactly what you describe. But an observer moving with the rod sees the light travel distance to be equal. The pesky fact that both see the speed of light to be always c in their frames is why clocks appear to slow and distances appear to contract between frames in relative motion.

Rather than being a dummy, Einstein was figuring out how space and time must behave in order for this to be so.

-Richard

And that is one heck of a paradox to wrap around your noodle.

[StevenCrum]

Concerning an example in the universe of something going faster than the speed of light I will give you two.

The first one is in Einstein's synchronization equation itself and where he wrote t1A-tB=AB/c+v. This isn't the best one, but it does shwo where Einstein himself violated his own maximum speed of light point. c+v is using in his equation the speed of light (c) and adding a velocity of the moving rod (v) to then use in the equation. You can actuially go faster than c, but Einstein's point was that you couldn't. His equation uses that fact of going faster than c, and is undeniably shown as such.

As for something going faster than c, there are tons of astrophysics articles and pictures from Hubble shots, etc. that prove the situation I am stating here. So, you aren't going to believe the fact of this, but our entire galaxy is factually traveling through the universe at the speed of light. It is factual science that nothing can naturally go faster than the speed of light as exists in the science of explosions and natural blasts like that. However, the core of the Milky Way is traveling at c, and our swilring arm where our vioewpoint is is moving through the universe at a universe velocity slightly over c.

This fact is fully proven by the real science involved in the star clusters that are all around our galaxy ball-shaped structure as we are streaking toward Draco in front of us. The star clusters are all around our galaxy because as our highly charged galaxy is streaking through other star areas they are magnetically attracted toward our galaxy's huge pull. The situation is that the stars in the clusters are streaking toward our galaxy and then in time crash through and collide with our inside stars. And, virtually all of the so-called baby star nurseries are factually instead huge masses of our stars being balsted to smithereens by outside stars. This is undeniable, and I can show you enedless proofs of the war-zone huge impacts going on in all kinds of so-called nebulas all around.

There is a string of stars that are easily seen as well that are sliding up the front curved ball face of the front of the Milky Way also, and all because of our velocity sliding them up the face in a huge curved line.

All of the Bernard objects, which are seen as huge black voids, are factually where streaking stars are coming toawrd our inside stars so fast that the light the radiate is factually traveling at a total velocity that it can't even be seen. The real science in this is blue-shift isn't the bad-science described constantly and caused by a stretching of light wave by curved space, but instead factually involves light that is traveling OVER the speed of light. That is easily proven as well by real science. The point of the blue shift is that blue is the fatsest light color before it gets into the black of the Bernard stars. And, the Bernard stars show blue also adjacent to the black and where the blue stars aren't quite at the higher velicity of the black stars.

So, there are tons of articles and space shots that prove all I have written here, and I would provide a huge amount of them anytime asked. Along with the real science facts of what is factually going on in the shots. Once you see ultra-crashing of stars in the collisions for what they are you WILL be convinced in the end. There are some ultar-huge impact situations going on taht I can show in a flash.

So, things can go faster than c. And are.

[StevenCrum]

To ToSeek

Concerning your point about actual observations instead of thinking, the situation is that Einstein being factually wrong in his calculations and science is factually a HUGE science truth. And, it's a bit on the kinda' bad side to think that science-minded people aren't able or interested in intelligent truth that exists in science and are not able to intelligently be able to discuss science with actually simple math involved.

So, I understand people liking what they like, but my gosh when it gets as HUGE as Einstein being factually wrong, I think maybe it might be good to work on what is right science and needed a bit too.

[phunk]

Every FACT you post is based on your misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the work of actual scientists. For example, redshift and blueshift do not alter the speed of light, they alter the frequency. Light past the blue end of the visible spectrum isn't going faster than we can see or faster than normal light.

How do you figure that our galaxy is moving at exactly C? What makes you think that the galaxies around ours are magnetically attracted and not just gravitationally bound because they formed in from the same cloud of gas?

How about picking just 1 of your points, and providing some evidence for us.

[captain swoop]

OK so instead of just saying there are 'tons of articles and space shots' give us some refs to them? and whats all this about 'truth' surely science deals with evidence?

[Doodler]

Tired light? That's been debunked here more than once.

[Van Rijn]

As for something going faster than c, there are tons of astrophysics articles and pictures from Hubble shots, etc. that prove the situation I am stating here.


Article references please, preferably peer reviewed. Also, for this statement, what is your definition of "something"? And what is your definition of "c" (since it seems you use a nonstandard definition)?


So, you aren't going to believe the fact of this, but our entire galaxy is factually traveling through the universe at the speed of light.


Is that the speed of light in a vacuum? And the galaxy is traveling at the speed of light relative to what? Finally, what is your evidence?

[StevenCrum]

To Van Rijn

Concerning the nuclear explosion energy, it can be seen in Einstein's early writing that his thinking was that there would be a HUGE amount of energy that would be released from atom nuclei being split. I recall reading that his early things were to express his world concerns about nuclear explosions to world leaders so they would understand just HOW HUGE. The point is that the kinetic energy equation e=1/2mv^2 was well known to Einstein. His thinking was obviously also knowing that to him the maximum velocity anything could go at was the speed of light. C squared then got into the ultra-huge amount of energy he wanted to describe in nuclear probability.

So, whether the energy amount was E=mc^2, which it isn't, or E=1/2mc^2, which it is, both go into ultra-huge energy blasts.

The actual energy released in nuclear explosions comes from the bonding energy that has to be added to cause protons and electrons to be bonded into atom nuclei. By the way, electrons is factual and not neutrons, because whetehr anyone belives the fact or not, neutrons are not individual particles, but instead one positievly charged proton magnetically bonded to one negatively charged electron. The quantuam mechanics garbage about neutrons being change to electrons and antiparticles is toatl baloney. Instead beta decay occurs when their "neutron" is released from a nuclues, and the result is a free electron along with the free proton beiong emitted. Bonding energy is also released in the decay.

But, to get back to the nuclear explosion energy it is all a chain reaction of cores being split and the bonding energy PUT IN when the atom was formed then being released. The enrgy equation is factually that it takes a huge amount of bonding energy to cause the like-charged objects to bond in the nucleus. Even with electrons in the nucleus they are still far more positiev in charge.

The equation involved is E=1/2mc^2, and comes from the huge amount of kinetic energy that has to be used to ram the nuclei components together and to then bind them. It also takes a huge amount of heat in the compaction process. In the end, it is factually BONDING ENERGY IN equals BONDING ENERGY OUT. The chain reaction occurs because of the extreme velocity that the nucleus parts come flying out after the release of all the bonding pressure.

So, THIS is the factually true sceince equation as to where all of the nuclear energy comes from.

By the way, cold fission of water, and "fission" is correct and not the farcical fusion of quantum mechanics, also comes from the water molecular bond energy being released. And cold fission of water factually does have a chain reaction process once you know what the catalyst is.

So, Einstein wasn't right about E=mc^2 and nuclear explosion energy, but he was close enough in whatever process he went through to arrive at the total energy. In any case, relativity and E=mc^2 was dead wrong.

[Doodler]

Cite please.

[Van Rijn]

So, whether the energy amount was E=mc^2, which it isn't, or E=1/2mc^2, which it is, both go into ultra-huge energy blasts.


I'm not seeing any math, just an assertion. I would think, however, that half the expected energy would be slightly obvious in experiment.

[antoniseb]

By the way, cold fission of water, and "fission" is correct and not the farcical fusion of quantum mechanics, also comes from the water molecular bond energy being released. And cold fission of water factually does have a chain reaction process once you know what the catalyst is.

I'd be curious to see more information about this. How much energy can you get, and for how long using this process? How quickly does the water get used up, and what does it become?

[StevenCrum]

To Plunk

Concerning the red shift and blue shift you described, the real science situation as it exists in the universe is that all the color we see from objects outside our galaxy all come from a color shift of red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet, and occur all because of the velocity of the light as seen from our view in an over-light speed situation.

In Wikipedia it describes there that red shift is caused by a frequancy length change that causes a stretching of a wave length.

The real situation is that time is fixed at the speed of light, and if anything is traveling at a speed that is over c then a break occurs between the object or viewer from real time in the universe. What occurs in light shift is light wave fronm outside our galaxy and traveling at universe speed under c then come into our view at different locations of viewing the wave lengths.

This is proven in universe pictrues with light coming from stars ahead of us and rdaiating back toward us are seen where our viewpoint sees the wave length behind the normal view and where we see all of the blue and violte at tghe wave peak and littel or none of the red in the wave valley. Red shift is the opposite where we see light coming from the back direction in that location and where we see lots of valley red and no blue or violet at the peak just beyond our view. Inside our galaxy we see white because our view is dead center in the wave locations.

The color shift is also confirmed by universe pictures from a variety of the colors also coming from the wrong directions as described above. The situation of those is easily seen, and gives tons of science information about what is happening in the locations, that they are the results of explosions in directions that then are seen to be what they are because of the light velocity coming form the combiantions of forward, back and inbetween directions of the blasts.

The red shift spouted now is one of Einstein's junk things that just plainly isn't right. And, yes, there is a black area in the wave loaction that has its start at the high peak and the back wave end at the valley. The photons in the back slope of the wave aren't able to be seen.

Our galaxy is traveling at the maximum c because the Milky way was formed in the Large Magellan Cloud and where it got balsted out of there without a neutron star being inside the balst area and slowing our veloicty down by its huge magnetic attraction and braking action. Because of there being no neutron star the resulting blast shot our galaxy out at maximum speed. Another solid fact is our galaxy arm having us in an over-c speed and causing our view to be all in color shift of objects outside our galaxy. The galaxy has to be at c or very close to that for our velocity to exceed c.

Concerning galaxy attraction, our galaxy has a huge positive charge and stars have a negative. The situation also occurs that when a negative star from outside our galaxy rips through our galaxy's + charged shell the outer star then has a + charge affecting its charge so the star is also then attracted to our ineer negative stars. The kinetic energy of the streaking star and the impact cause the star to have its charged altered for the colliding situation.

Your last thing about how stars are made isn't real either. Satrs, galaxies, planets and moons are all made in an ultra-hot fusion process where they are swirling maddly inside a cocoon taht has liquid metals and all other liguid-hot elements bonded and fused together. The cores are antimatter and spun together in magnetic metal forms first and then the outer areas are liquid metal of an opposite regular matter material and charge in the end. The process involves a manufacturing of a totally electromagnetic ball-shaped object that has all the magnetic poles and other components needed for their self-operating functioning. The component parts of a planet like earth are incredible once you know how the land, oceans and other exactly placed obects all work together in causing the entire planet to self-operate just like atoms do.

[Fortis]

By the way, Einstein rings and everything else so-called observations of proving Einstein's things to be true are factually provenm by science to be other factual science that I will expalin any and all anyone want sto see the real science involved.
I look forward to you explaining how GPS works (which has the theory of SR and GR built into it.) :)

[SirThoreth]

I look forward to you explaining how GPS works (which has the theory of SR and GR built into it.) :)

I look forward to him explaining any of his claims, rather than simply continuing to make claims, stating they're "real science", then not bothering to actually provide any real evidence.

[StevenCrum]

To Rijn and the earlier poster asking for pictures it's gettin late and i wil, do those tomorrow.

As far as peer review, I am sorry, but what isn't yet seen here, and will be soon, is that this is science above presently known science, so no peers know it yet. That sounds awful but it's truth in real science and will be seen to be taht when I provide the pictures and science descriptions that are obviously there.

As far as "something" that is anything that is moving fatser than the speed of light. C is the speed known now to be the speed of light and the 186,000 mps, or whjatever exact figure it is now. The speed of light for reference as to our galaxy spped is the speed from the universe reference frame, because that is the frame in which our galaxy was initially blasted from in the beginning. But, light speed is determined by the frame in which it is radiated from, so light radiated inside our moving galaxy is then going at twice the speed of light as seen form the universe frame.

The evidence is in the information already written here and in the coming pictures and descriptions that are close to or at obvious.

[Fortis]

The actual energy released in nuclear explosions comes from the bonding energy that has to be added to cause protons and electrons to be bonded into atom nuclei. By the way, electrons is factual and not neutrons, because whetehr anyone belives the fact or not, neutrons are not individual particles, but instead one positievly charged proton magnetically bonded to one negatively charged electron. The quantuam mechanics garbage about neutrons being change to electrons and antiparticles is toatl baloney. Instead beta decay occurs when their "neutron" is released from a nuclues, and the result is a free electron along with the free proton beiong emitted. Bonding energy is also released in the decay.
There is a simple argument using the uncertainty principle that shows that the electron couldn't have existed within the neutron beforehand. (Think in terms of the uncertainty in the electron's momentum if it to be confined inside an object the size of a neutron.)

[Lurker]

I look forward to you explaining how GPS works (which has the theory of SR and GR built into it.) :)
I look forward to him explaining any of his claims, rather than simply continuing to make claims, stating they're "real science", then not bothering to actually provide any real evidence.
Um... so apparently GPS works but it isn't scientific... :)

Personally as a Pagan I would have to agree with him on this one... GPS is strong black magic!! You toy with it at the peril of your immortal soul... :eh:

;)

[StevenCrum]

To Rijn

Concerning the E=mc^2 and E=1/2mc^2 math and seen in experiment, the experiment part isn't right because nulcear detonations are huge chain reaction events and it is obvious that their measurments either aren't able to detect the 1/2, or the explosions are so huge they don't even make the effort. In any case, E=mc^2 is factually wrong and Einstein's error proves the fact, so the math and experiment facts are in the situation as described or just plain error. Quantum mechanics has a whole lot that is wrong and depending on that for calculations isn't all that hot.

By the way, partcile physics is all goofed up as well, and the quarks, muons, gluons and the other partciles they think they are seeing in accelaretaor collisions and detection chambers is all completely wrong. Real physics is that protons and electrons have sub-proyons ans sub-electrons that are electromagnetic fully functioning oblects on their own, and each of them have proton-like and electron-like componenets on the next level down that make up the sub-atomic objects. The lowest level protons and electron-type have two antimatter particles and one regular matter particle in their nucleus, and the orbiting objects are two regular matter and one antimatter.

That is the sub-atomic world that really exists in physics, and the particles they are supposedly finding are blasted parts of the above, and in some cases where they have actually named a particle that is a temporarilly bonded piece on one of the above levels with another particle from another level. So, they might think they know their particles, but they don't, and they don't habve a clue about the really bad mix described here. It decays in fractions of seconds because the odd mix is instantly known in real science to have the opposite charges, but not right in the antimatter/matter mix.

[StevenCrum]

To Antiniseb

Concerning the cold fission of water there was an experiment done where they accidentally used ultrasound in water and they got a huge energy release from the molecules breaking. They thought it was bubble energy somehow, but the huge bubbling energy release was the molecule bond breaking. Ultarsound used more energy than was released.

The situation for cold fission involves getting a chain reaction and one that is self-generating. The situation after accomplishing that is that a significant energy amount is released and continues all by itself after the initial start and as long as water is inside the container. That point is if you have a pipe from an ocean going into the container to continually fill the container it continues until the ocean is dried up. So, THAT is how long.

And, the initial catalyst that causes the start, and what is needed for it to occur is simple. The end result is a WHOLE lot of free energy, and extremely easy to get. As to how that is done, I don't know if this borad is a very good place to describe that.

But, the cold FUSION that has been tried forever with heavy water, etc. that is all totally bad science and another failure of quantum mechanics if I remember the details right.

[StevenCrum]

I will describe GPS tomorrow. I am running out of time toady.

[Lurker]

I will describe GPS tomorrow. I am running out of time toady.
Oh Steve... I wish you would not call people names... that is not really considered fair play here...

[captain swoop]

assertions aren't evidence.! This feels like a 'loki' somehow

[StevenCrum]

To Fortis

The uncertainty principle is one of the quantum mechanics things tahtb they had to come up with in trying to prove things they wanted when they couldn't prove it by the positive evidence way. So, it's quantum stuff that is trying to expalin things that aren't right.

As far as the idea of the uncertainty about electrons not being able to fit inside their neutron, the situation first is their very small electron they have nmeasured isn't an electron at all and is insteda a sub-electron on the enxt level down. The real situation is that electrons have always moved so fast that they have never been able to actually measure one. Their understanding of which partilces are which also has them not knowing which particles are flying off after collisions.

The other part that is fully involved is that they are calcualting the particle mases by using Einstein wrong science and then their electron volts all goofed up. The end situation is quantum mecahnics is factually way off in a bad direction from real science. They think they know, but they were led down a bad path by the wrong Einstein baloney.

By the way, the half spin and angular momentum is all garbage also, and the half spin of electrons is where strings of electrons are magnetically arranged in their strings so their magneic poles are all facing the same magnetic direction. When a charge charge change then occurs at one ened of the string, the entire string snaps 180 degrees in the opposite direction. This reopeated snapping from one polarity diurection to the other is how charge passes instantaneously through ultra-long strings, and what causes the buzzing appearance of electrons. It isn't spin-related at all, which they know, but it isn't really all that much angular momentum either. It's just normal electron strings snapping in polraity changes.

[captain swoop]

Oh Steve... I wish you would not call people names... that is not really considered fair play here...

Erm, I think he just did a typo for today! I don't think he called anyone a name.

[StevenCrum]

To Lurker

Sorry about the names. It comes from the situation where I know science and the ultra-huge wall that is nearly impossible to explain through no matter how right the science is. But, I will try hard to prevent that.

[Lurker]

Erm, I think he just did a typo for today! I don't think he called anyone a name.
Well... that's the assumption I am making too...

The rest was a friendly reminder... I am sure he's the sporting type...

[StevenCrum]

To Captain Swoop

I'll work on evidence tomorrow. There is plenty, and a WHOLE lot more than you will believe right now.

[Lurker]

To Lurker

Sorry about the names. It comes from the situation where I know science and the ultra-huge wall that is nearly impossible to explain through no matter how right the science is. But, I will try hard to prevent that.
I have to disagree with you there... I have spent a lot of time in science. It only really takes some evidence and the sound, rigorous logic from there. If you tightened yours up you'd get more people listening to you here...

[Van Rijn]

To Rijn

Concerning the E=mc^2 and E=1/2mc^2 math and seen in experiment, the experiment part isn't right because nulcear detonations are huge chain reaction events and it is obvious that their measurments either aren't able to detect the 1/2, or the explosions are so huge they don't even make the effort. In any case, E=mc^2 is factually wrong and Einstein's error proves the fact, so the math and experiment facts are in the situation as described or just plain error. Quantum mechanics has a whole lot that is wrong and depending on that for calculations isn't all that hot.


Who said anything about nuclear detonations? In the lab, it is quite possible to measure this with smaller events.

For instance, from Einstein Was Right (Again): Experiments Confirm that E= mc2 (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/einstein.htm):

Albert Einstein was correct in his prediction that E=mc2, according to scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Institute Laue Langevin, Genoble, France (ILL) who conducted the most precise direct test ever of what is perhaps the most famous formula in science.

In experiments described in the Dec. 22, 2005, issue of Nature,* the researchers added to a catalog of confirmations that matter and energy are related in a precise way. Specifically, energy (E) equals mass (m) times the square of the speed of light (c2), a prediction of Einstein’s theory of special relativity. By comparing NIST/ILL measurements of energy emitted by silicon and sulfur atoms and MIT measurements of the mass of the same atoms, the scientists found that E differs from mc2 by at most 0.0000004, or four-tenths of 1 part in 1 million. This result is “consistent with equality” and is 55 times more accurate than the previous best direct test of Einstein’s formula, according to the paper

Clearly, the evidence does not support your argument.

[StevenCrum]

To Lorker and everyone else about GPS

The situation of einstein's thing about an airplane flying around the earth and having a difference in clocks on board from that on earth is as follows.

The real science situation involved is that with our part of the gaklaxy traveling away from the Large Magellan Cloud at over light speed, we experience a break from time. This then causes an aircraft traveling at a higher radius point from earth's core and AWAY from the LMC, to have a faster velocity away from there than any clock on earth. The situation taht occurs is a time break occurs where the people inside the aircarft are actually slipping slightly into the past at a slightly higher rate than those directly below on earth. On the opposite side of earth and when flying back toward the LMC the opposite occurs and the clock in the aircraft is ahead into the future a bit more.

The GPS situation is not Einstein's thing at all, and instead the time break that occurs because of our going faster than light speed through the universe and this then causing the time travel.

So, that is the GPS true science, and if you check it carefully you can see it is true and Einstein's is not. The proof is in the plus on one side of earth and the decreasing on the other. Einstein's doesn't do this, and real earth science does.

So, that is Einstein that looks right but factually isn't the real science involved.

[Van Rijn]

To Rijn and the earlier poster asking for pictures it's gettin late and i wil, do those tomorrow.

As far as peer review, I am sorry, but what isn't yet seen here, and will be soon, is that this is science above presently known science, so no peers know it yet. That sounds awful but it's truth in real science and will be seen to be taht when I provide the pictures and science descriptions that are obviously there.


I wasn't asking for pictures. I asked for references. And subjective image interpretation (what an image looks like to you) is not evidence. An image as a part of evidence, with supporting physics, numbers and math explained is another thing, but we rarely see that here.

[StevenCrum]

To Van Rijn

I know the MIT and the testing lab measurements and the situation there. Unfortunately, I have to go now, and will be back in the morning. By the way, I know factually what the error is in that situation. Both labs were correct in their measurements, but the error exists between the two reports.

That situation involved their misunderstanding agin about neutrons, and what occurred when neutrinos collided in their container. The situiation they explained was that neutrons were being hit by neutrinos and this then caused the neutron to change into an electron and energy was given off, and I think if I remeber correctly taht an antiparticle was also given off. They calcualted the three energies they thought they found and the following is where their error is.

First, the neutron didn't cahnge into an electron, and the real situation was the proton and electron pair that was seen as a neutron was simply balsted apart. The situation also released the bonding energy between the two.

The end error was that they double added energy because they din't know the real science of the neutorn pair.

The end situation is their three adds got fairly close to the toatl od E=mc^2, and without the falsely added third wrong energy calculation, the real energy is associated with E=1/2mc^2 instead.

So, I am familiar with the MIT and Natioanl lab report, but that is factually where their error occurred, and the real science situation involved.

I won't write more on this tomorrow because it just quickly finished here. If you look at the papers carefully you can see the doubling of one of the energies.

[StevenCrum]

To Van Rijn

If the pictures are good enough, the description is also good enough and there is further supporting evidence that is undeniable, then true science can be found. I will work on that tomorrow. You can go read the MIT and National lab papers to see the truth of that between now and then. See you later

[Fortis]

I'm noticing a distinct lack of maths. Care to put some calculations behind your explanation of the effects of QM, GPS, etc?

[Lurker]

He seems to feel that it is incumbent upon us to go look up the sources he presents and thus prove his case for him.

StevenCrum -- Perhaps you should read the "Assisting with homework" thread in the About BAUT forum...

[PhantomWolf]

factually

You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

[SirThoreth]

He seems to feel that it is incumbent upon us to go look up the sources he presents and thus prove his case for him.


What sources? I see quite a few assertions, but nothing to back them up.


factually

You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.


Heh....I'd been thinking the same thing. Throw the word scientifically in there as well, though.

[SirThoreth]

The proof is in the plus on one side of earth and the decreasing on the other. Einstein's doesn't do this, and real earth science does.


OK, someone other than Steven correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was not the case in the experiments we've conducted.

(setting aside, of course, the claim that our galaxy is moving faster than the speed of light)

[JimTKirk]

And that our galaxy was spit out of the much smaller LMC.

[tusenfem]

Just to go back to the first post of Mr. Crumb, he has a problem there explaining about the timing and the moving rod. I will simplify it a little with just taking a billiard table on a train.
The train is standing still and the billiard ball is send from one side to the other and coming back, assuming no friction, so the speed remains constant. I will say that it takes 1 second to cross, so the ball will be back in 2 sec.
Someone standing on the platform in the railwaystation looks in, and naturally sees the same. One sec. to one side and 2 sec. for the round trip.
Now the train is moving and I play with my balls again (uhhhh ... what did I say?). Lo-and-behold I measure that the ball takes 1 sec. to reach the other side and 2 sec. for the round trip.
Now, my brother standing at the platform sees something else, because the train is moving now, and he sees that the ball moves over the table and also the distance the train moves (train moving sloooooowly) in 1 sec. and then afterward he sees that the ball takes 1 sec. to move back over the table, but also the motion of the train.
So basically what I am doing on the train, being an intertial system (well this is a highly idealized train harhar) is exactly the same as when I would do it in the train station. Only my brother sees something differently. I feel that Mr. Crumb is somehow switching systems, but that is not FACTUAL.
FACTUAL is that the assumption that the velocity of light is constant in every inertial frame has been shown to work very well. A source that emits a photon when travelling near the speed of light would emit a photon at almost twice the speed of light, and this clearly has never been measured.
FACTUAL is also that when a neutrino hits an neutron, the latter does not change into an electron (where would the leftover positive charge go?)
And interestingly Mr. Crumb and Grav seem to think that E = m c2 seems to be a "speed of light" limit of the kinetic energy of a particle E = 0.5 m v2.

[StevenCrum]

Supporting evidence

First of all, I will provide plenty of supporting evidence and was not procrastinating at all. There is no need at all for any of you to have to find the evidence, and I never intended that either.

The following evidence isn't the best to lead off with, but it does show the wrong science Einstein was describing about Einstein rings. The following url describes only one type that are involved in the two erros that are wrongly described as einstein rings.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060524.html

The above url is described as an einstein ring because of the curved warped streaks that circle the area. And yes, I know the full baloney about what is einstein's junk here.

The real science is seen in this pictuire enough to understand one type of the error, And, that is that the central bright light source isn't a star or an exploding star, but is in fact an outward huge blast that is the second stage of the two-way energy bubble collisions. The blast is central to the curved warp lines, and is a part of the total science involved.

The situation with all blasts are that they start in a somewhat pinpoint and radiate outward in all directions. With the collsion blasts, the softness of the bubbles causes a two-way opposite blasting and not every direction. If the line of the streaking bubble masses is offest from dead-on their can and is then only one outward blast, but this type is rare and only for particular blast situations.

The point of the above is that the central orange blast in this picture is balsting outward toward our viewpoint and in a controlled cone shape. The cone shape is seen in other NASA shot as a helical energy structure that keeps the blast contained in the directional cone situation. The main purpose of the cones is to make sure all of the outward blasted material for new galaxies goes all together in a one direction so the new galaxy forms. And, there are tons of pictures that fully shows the energy colisions and the two-opposite controlled blasts and the resulting new galaxies that I can provide.

For the einstein ring in the picture the situation is then that a cone-shaped blast is radiating from the orange central source. As the come expands toward us in space it passes through the highly magnetic neutron stars seen and the magnetic fields of the stars causes the curved cone light on each side of the stars to be seen.

On other sides of the cone there are also galaxies that are also causing the cone curved light to be seen.

In the end, they call this an einstein ring because they see curved warpings that look like the ring baloney about lensing. True science is factually that there isn't one single thing in the center that light is being lensed around, and the Einstein rings are total garbage.

So, this is one einstein ring false thing and I will get the other type as soon as I get a moment. By the way, the other type is where they are seeing outward blasts as described here and from the point of view of looking up the gun barrel. They see a ring of blue around the outer edge and orange/yellow,etc. in the center. The center part is the new galaxy material and the outer blue is the helical controlling energy cone that controlls the blast direction. There is a HUBBLE picture that shows one of the huge balsts in close-up from the side, and it can easily be seen that the blue edge inside the molten-hot blasted cone is fully there and what is going on. It factually is not an einstein ring, and the rings are nothing but fantasy and false and misleading science.

So, this is one bit of evidence. There are tons more.

[captain swoop]

that's not evidence, that's just your assertions about a picture.

Wheres the math?

[StevenCrum]

To Van Rijn (#41)

There are two good calculation examples that should be good preliminary examples at this point, and one of those involves the GPS situation and the other the real calculations of E=mc^2, and how energy turns into matter and the reverse of that also.

The GPS calcs are simply that since our galaxy arm is swirling away from the Large Magellan Cloud over light speed, we have the unique situation that any velocity we add to or subtract from the "away" velocity we are moving at then has a time change involved. And yes, it is a very small amount of time travel.

The easiest way to understand this is from a situation of our starting velocity being below or equal to light speed, Velocities in this area have no time-shift at all, and this is because light speed/time linking together is in the normal situation of being the same and together.

But, if we use a space vehicle to increase our velocity so we are then over universe light speed then all of the travel over c then involves a time break.

For the following I will use light speed at 100 miles/sec and the velocities of the vehicle as described below.

The calculations then are if we travel east at 200 miles/sec (C + 100) and a time of 1000 seconds is that the distance we "actually" travel physically is 200,000 miles. The "time distance" that occurs because time is stopped at c is then 100 mps x 1000 seconds and a total time distance of 100,000 miles.

The situation then is if we do a U-turn and travel back at light speed or under, the situation in getting back to earth at a physical 200,000 miles away is 200,000 miles/100 mps = 2000 seconds. The time distance is the exact same because we are traveling back at a speed that is again fully time linked.

The result of this situation is that when we get back to earth location we will be 1000 seconds into the past. If you include some clock times in the calcs you can see the arrival time in getting back is actually befotre the time of leaving.

The reverse is also true where if you travel away from earth at c or below the calcs are 3000 seconds x 100 mps = 300,000 miles. And, returning the 300,000 miles above c is 300,000/200 = 1500 seconds. The "time distance" on the retrun leg is 300,000/100 = 3000 seconds. This results in arriving back on earth 1500 seconds into the future.

These calculations describe time travel, but it is the same exact time-shift that occurs in real science for the GPS situation. For earth, the situation is that an object in stationary orbit directly above a location on earth has the orbit object moving at a higher velocity than the surface location of earth is moving in the planet rotation. And, the true science is that even if both locations are moving over light speed there is an increase of decrease involved because of the difference in the two velocities.

I didn't get into the time calculations involved in GPS, but this is getting long and it shows the total calcs better anyway.

I will do the E=mc^2 in another post now.

[Lurker]

Uh... so he does not understand the addition of relativistic velocities...

[ToSeek]

In the end, they call this an einstein ring because they see curved warpings that look like the ring baloney about lensing. True science is factually that there isn't one single thing in the center that light is being lensed around, and the Einstein rings are total garbage.

It's not just that. The warped streaks can be shown to be distorted images of the same object (same spectrum, same redshift, same shape once you account for the distortion).

And you don't need "one single thing" in the center to do the lensing; a galactic cluster, with a bunch of scattered galaxies, will do just fine.

[StevenCrum]

The E=mc^2 real science calculations are as follows. E=mc^2 is factually wrong, and the following will use the correct form of E=1/2mc^2, which is right in most of the universe. For information, E=mc^2 is correct for neutron stars and universe energy equations that exist for objects that are formed before the two, energy collision events, and collisions that change science law from E=mc^2 to E=1/2mc^2. The huge magnetic energy of neutron stars is involved in the E=mc^2, and not the 1/2 version galaxies and everything else uses after the split.

And, the above is NOT what Einstein described at all, and it is just plain coincidence that it is the same.

The real science for changing energy into "matter" and the opposite, is that what our senses feel, see and detct as "matter" is actually energy balls in the lowest sub-atomic building block components. The "antimatter particles" and "regular matter partciles" that I described in making up sub-protons and sub-electrons are actually not solid matter at all, and are energy balls instead.

The situation is that the feeling we feel when we touch matter is the magnetic repelling charge between like-charged atoms in our finger and those in the object. What we see is radiated frequencies that are radiated by the electrons in the object and the receiving electrons in our eye receptors.

And yes, we are all REAL objects, but it is an ultra-complex reality that is all energy at the foundation of everything.

With that, the real kinetic energy equation is E= SE x c^2, with SE being stored energy, as in that in energy balls and similar situations, and E being the "moving energy" that is associated with kinetic energy.

The situation then is if a ball of stored energy is just sitting somewhere, its total energy is just SE. If the ball is moving at velocity c, then the kinetic energy is 1/2 SE x c^2. If the moving ball hits a stationary object a huge part of the kinetic part of the energy can be slammed inside the ball and then be stored energy. The equation for that would be roughly SE2 = (SE + (1/2SE x c^2) - some lost energy in the collison)

Going back to the original kinetic energy equation the situation is E = 1/2 SE x c^2. This is again just a stored energy "moving" at c. The reverse of the equation of SE = E/1/2 x c^2 is true in that if the stored energy ball is slowed down to stationary again, the end result is then just SE.

The point of the above slowing down part is that it also applies to the increased stored energy taht occurred in the impact collision. And, this is the type of energy that is contained inside all forms of matter, and exactly what Einstein was going for, but failed to accomplish.

The truth of the situation here is that ALL matter has kinetic energy rammed into the energy balls and exactly as described here by the real equation of E= 1/2SE x c^2.

So, this is another equation that is an example of real science math and fully involved in the real science here.

[jseefcoot]

I can't believe I'm actually reading some of the stuff in this thread. Must be nice to not have to worry about math and evidence when asserting a challenge to a theory that is nearly a hundred years old.

Your 'examples' seem to be based on very vague and broad interpretations. "For information, E=mc^2 is correct for neutron stars and universe energy equations that exist for objects that are formed before the two, energy collision events, and collisions that change science law from E=mc^2 to E=1/2mc^2." Could you offer an example of an observation that describes such a collision that would 'change science law'? How does any collision alter a law of physics? From what basis do you draw that assumption?

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you keep asserting these things without any proof? This is a forum where many members take the scientific method to heart, and you are practically ignoring it totally. Just wondering, Steve. And by the way, please stop using words like 'factually' and 'science'. So far you have shown us neither facts nor science, and you have demonstrated a rather poor understanding of their principles.

[StevenCrum]

To Phantom Wolf (#43)

Concerning the word "factually" you are right ro assume it is wrong to use the word UNLESS there is a point of science truth that is reached where it is undeniably true to be "factual". If you reach that point then it is then factual. Obviously if the point is not reached then it isn't.

The truth is found in knowing when it IS or IS NOT reached.

In your case, truth in science is to make sure you don't say something is NOT factual IF it is by science fully shown to be right. And, I think in your case the situation is fully taht you are not looking to see the facts involved and are just assuming Einstein was right.

[peter eldergill]

E=mc^2 is factually wrong, and the following will use the correct form of E=1/2mc^2

This is the very first thing stated in your proof. If your first statement is false, the rest of your argument is not valid.

I'm sure that everyone here except you agree there is overwhelming evidence that your first statment is false...I'll let you work out the rest

Pete

[Jim]

Concerning the word "factually" you are right ro assume it is wrong to use the word UNLESS there is a point of science truth that is reached where it is undeniably true to be "factual". If you reach that point then it is then factual. Obviously if the point is not reached then it isn't.

Is anyone else waiting for the little duck to stagger out of the barber shop and quack, "Aflac!"?

Steven, all you have presented so far is just so much word salad, and by itself is meaningless.

[StevenCrum]

To JimTKirk (#49)

Concening your thing about our galaxy being slip out from the SMC, the situation is that scientists don't know theb real science about the energy bubbles hitting head-on and the resulting ultra-hot situation that exists in the universe. The accretion wrong science isn't even close to the ultra-hot, liquid rock and materials that go into universe objects formation.

The situation instead of your splitting off is that our galaxy started in ahuge explosion that blasted our galaxy material out into the universe and from a spot in the LMC.

I obviously need to go get a few tons of pictures from Hubble and other shots that fully show this right in front of their noses, and which they are clueless about. I can show you a pictrue in our own galaxy where it shows hundreds of the streaking collisions going on.

As I said I need to go get a ton of them.

[Lurker]

I can't believe I'm actually reading some of the stuff in this thread. Must be nice to not have to worry about math and evidence when asserting a challenge to a theory that is nearly a hundred years old.


I challenge Mr. Crum to write an equation. Any equation. I want proof that he can add before I'll accept anything he's posted thus far.
Oh please don't challenge him... he has come up with equations already... he just neglects to offer evidence that they represent reality.

uh... as far as his ability to add, it appears that he has provided substantial evidence to the contrary already.

[jseefcoot]

Oh please don't challenge him... he has come up with equations already... he just neglects to offer evidence that they represent reality.

uh... as far as his ability to add, it appears that he has provided substantial evidence to the contrary already.

Wow, you're quick. . . . I posted that reply, saw that he had indeed posted some equations, then edited to make a new response. The one you quoted no longer exists. Which surprises me because it was only up for about forty five seconds. Small world.

[StevenCrum]

To Captain Swoop (#52)

Concerning the einstein ring url I posted, there is no need at all for math to prove the point involved. The picture and the true description was to show what was actually involved in the situation instaed of the false einstein ring.

The description written was accurate in describing the central light object and the radiated cone shape that fully exists and is seen as that in the picture.

The purpose was to show that there is "OBVIOUSLY not something in the center that lenses things in the far distance around the object. And, there is absolutely no need at all for math to be added. Instead, a CLEAR example of what is real science is right in front of anyone's eyes that wants to look.

Math is then just an excuse to avoid the truth involved.

[peter eldergill]

Math is then just an excuse to avoid the truth involved.

Well I better just quit my job as a math teacher then!:surprised

Pete

[StevenCrum]

To Lurker (#54)

It isn't that I don't understand about farcical relativistic velocities, but the true science situation that I do understand fully that relativity is fantasy instead of real science.

Relativity is factually dead because of the killing foundational ERROR that Einstein made and as described in the first post in this thread.

The situation is that it is you that doesn't understand velocities here, and it is a fact that the farcical relativistic velocities don't exist in true science at all. So, you might not be looking at the factual proof in the first post, but in front of the entire wolrd it is now fully solid FACT whether anyone agrees with the science truth or not. And denial is simply bad science at its worst. The true science about Einstein's huge error is UNDENIABLE by anyone understanding science truth.

[StevenCrum]

To Peter Eldergil (#59)

Your error in reading a first line and then assuming a false statement to be true, and that then causing a closed mind to read anything further is exactly the total situation here.

This gets into the full truth that once a first "excuse thing" is seen then reading fully stops, and entirely because the person reading is NOT looking at science and for any possible truth in science, but INSTEAD only to find out what is wrong.

The wrong searching situation is entirely from denail of anything being right except for what the person approves of first in his preconceived beliefs.

So, what's the point, you didn't have any intention to look for any science truths at all, and didn't.

[jseefcoot]

Following your logic, this statement is true: "The orange tree in my yard will snow tomorrow after I feed some muriatic acid to its potatoes."

I have offered just as much proof for my statement as you have for yours. I have even offered the same amount of evidence.

I challenge you, stevecrum, to disprove my statement.

And please stop using words like 'factually', 'truth', and 'undeniable'. Nothing you've said is true, or factual, and the only person so far in denial is you. we've been looking for your 'truths' and all we're getting is rhetoric.

[StevenCrum]

See ya' guys. Your loss. You can believe any false Einstein slop you want. It still doesn't change the solid fact that doing so only shows ignoarnce and denial of real science.

And yes, I have loads of science that was to be provided, but I sure as beans am not going to write it here in front of anyone who doesn't have any science ethics or truth in them for good science at all.

So, enjoy the view coming to your eyes, and where you are going to be proven to be the fools you are.

[peter eldergill]

So you're taking your ball and going home because people disagree with your assertations to which you provide no verfication (capitol letters do not make a statement true)? Well then, we must be fools...

Oh well

Pete

[nutant gene 71]

To Lurker (#54)

It isn't that I don't understand about farcical relativistic velocities, but the true science situation that I do understand fully that relativity is fantasy instead of real science.

Relativity is factually dead because of the killing foundational ERROR that Einstein made and as described in the first post in this thread.

The situation is that it is you that doesn't understand velocities here, and it is a fact that the farcical relativistic velocities don't exist in true science at all. So, you might not be looking at the factual proof in the first post, but in front of the entire wolrd it is now fully solid FACT whether anyone agrees with the science truth or not. And denial is simply bad science at its worst. The true science about Einstein's huge error is UNDENIABLE by anyone understanding science truth.
I wouldn't write off Einstein as 'bad science' quite so easily. Perhaps his approach to science is mathematically complex, and someday there may be a simplification of complexity by some alternative (i.e., measuring time-delayed redshift, for example), but the math is pretty much right on. Here's an example of where it is tested again: Dead stars provide Einstein test (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5356910.stm), from BBC Science News. I wouldn't call the people using Einstein math to measure these two neutron stars and their light beacons 2000 LYs away are dummies. Matter of fact, these two fast stars might be a good LIGO test for gravity waves, since their shrinking orbits of 7 mm per day is measuable.

Einstein might have been a fuddyduddy old man in his later years, but he was brilliant in his younger days. A hundred years later, he's yet to be beat.

[StevenCrum]

To everyone of this thread

I sit here laughing over the truly interesting situation that has occurred in this thread, and laughing because of a huge percentage of so-called people who think they know something and trult don't know what is completely right in front of their beaks. And, I will tell you exactly what totally ignorant situation is.

It is a FACT, and whether even one of you pea-brains understand the truth involved or NOT, that the great genius Einstein led a WHOLE HERD OD SO-CALLED EXPERTS right into a totally dead-end alley of false science slop. And, not a single one of you has brains enough to figure this dead-on right fact out. And, isn't THAT interesting?

Yes, it TRULY is. And, the entire lot of you have absolutely no idea at all as to how much damage Einstein's ignorant slop has caused.

Just one of those is that since E=mc^2 is factually wrong and proven as such, this little gem of ignorance makes every single one of the so-called masses of atomic particles all total science slop.

And, the total list of incredibly ignorant slop results from Einstein slop goes on and on.

So, go hug something "Einstein" and be fully seen in the end to be the fools you are. And BOY, is this ever going to be a CRASH when all of the total slop comes crashing down. Justice.

[hhEb09'1]

Einstein might have been a fuddyduddy old man in his later years, but he was brilliant in his younger days. He was also a fuddyduddy in his younger days, and brilliant in his later years. :)

[jseefcoot]

Please introduce something new, verifiable, factual, repeatable, and/or testable. Your opinions and guesses at science are causing discomfort in certain parts of my anatomy. Mainly my head, but my face hurts too from laughing.

[korjik]

relativity has been observed. cosmic ray muon decay, and any high energy particle accelerator are the easiest checks. There are probably alot more. The speed of light being constant has been observed too.

There have been many experiments that show relativity to be a good theory and none that disprove it. Are you really so smart as to be better than one hundred years of physicists?

[ToSeek]

To everyone of this thread

...

It is a FACT, and whether even one of you pea-brains understand the truth involved or NOT, that the great genius Einstein led a WHOLE HERD OD SO-CALLED EXPERTS right into a totally dead-end alley of false science slop. And, not a single one of you has brains enough to figure this dead-on right fact out. And, isn't THAT interesting?

...

So, go hug something "Einstein" and be fully seen in the end to be the fools you are. ...

StevenCrum, calling people names like "pea-brains" and "fools" is not allowed on this forum. Note our rule 2:

2. Civility and Decorum

Politeness is the top rule here. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That’s fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be nice.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators via private message or e-mail. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take swift and appropriate action, so please behave accordingly.

Note in particular the sentences I have bolded. Call people names here one more time, and you'll get a temporary ban. Do it again after that, and you will no longer be allowed to post here.

[Doodler]

To everyone of this thread

I sit here laughing over the truly interesting situation that has occurred in this thread, and laughing because of a huge percentage of so-called people who think they know something and trult don't know what is completely right in front of their beaks. And, I will tell you exactly what totally ignorant situation is.

It is a FACT, and whether even one of you pea-brains understand the truth involved or NOT, that the great genius Einstein led a WHOLE HERD OD SO-CALLED EXPERTS right into a totally dead-end alley of false science slop. And, not a single one of you has brains enough to figure this dead-on right fact out. And, isn't THAT interesting?

Yes, it TRULY is. And, the entire lot of you have absolutely no idea at all as to how much damage Einstein's ignorant slop has caused.

Just one of those is that since E=mc^2 is factually wrong and proven as such, this little gem of ignorance makes every single one of the so-called masses of atomic particles all total science slop.

And, the total list of incredibly ignorant slop results from Einstein slop goes on and on.

So, go hug something "Einstein" and be fully seen in the end to be the fools you are. And BOY, is this ever going to be a CRASH when all of the total slop comes crashing down. Justice.

You haven't proven anything. Your essential point in all this has been to toss the calculators and buy into your cult of personality. You say its wrong, it must be so.

Sorry, that's worse than a hard sell around here, it just isn't going to happen.

Whether you happen to like the math or not, it works, its faced the test of disproof and, aside from a few hiccups that don't undermine the foundation, won. You haven't given us anything to compare to the old numbers. You've got nothing without that.

If what we know doesn't work, show us what does.

[swansont]

See ya' guys. Your loss. You can believe any false Einstein slop you want. It still doesn't change the solid fact that doing so only shows ignoarnce and denial of real science.


Boy do I feel the fool. I fell for all of that "experimental confirmation" nonsense.

But I have this question, if you're still around: if GPS relies on the speed with respect to some location outside the galaxy, why does it work just as well six months later, when your local velocity has reversed?

[korjik]

To everyone of this thread


Just one of those is that since E=mc^2 is factually wrong and proven as such, this little gem of ignorance makes every single one of the so-called masses of atomic particles all total science slop.



Where? What has been seen to violate E=mc^2?

This is a specific question about your ATM assertion. According to board rules, not answering is a banning offence. I want to know one specific example of where E=mc^2 has been violated.

[StevenCrum]

To nutant gene 71 (#71)

Concening the url address posted, the situation involved in the article is that they don't know how pulsars factually exists and all that is causing the pulses they detect. That factually is NOT the Einstein trash either.

The real science involved with the two pulars is that they are neutron stars that are in their early formation and where they are spinning wildly inside cocoon structures as their inner parts are made.

The situation starts with two huge energy bubbles colliding head-on and the new neutron star then being formed in the exact collision point. The collision creates an unbelievably high heat situation where all materials for the stars are molten liquid.

Inside the cocoon the core is made first and has mostly antimatter and metal that is spun into the ball-shaped object that also has high magnetic negative charge created in the metal.

The outer shell of the star is added next, and it has high positive cahrge involved. And, as the star grows in its formation its electromagnetic entire form is also set in operation.

The point of all of this is the pulsing situation in the article is from the star-forming science as to it pulsing photons radidly all during the formation after when it has enough magnetic parts available to balst out the photon pulses.

The situation with the two stars forming near each other is that the pulses go out in all directions when they pulse. This then causes each star's pulsed photons, which are like-charged to affect those of the other star.

The true science is their farcical slop about Einstein's warped space causing the delays described is pathetic as it gets.

By the way, concerning the recent space debri near the space shuttle, do you want to know what the deflated "plastic bag" they got a picture of really is?

It is factually a photon ball that was radiated from earth's photon radiation location in north central South America, and true science that is beyond the "experts", in that the lead-end ball, that connects with the sun's oppositely charged energy string of photons, deflated when the sun and earth photon balls ripped apart. This then left the deflated so-called "palstic bag that floated out of the shuttle bay".

What the "bag" really is is it is an antimatter shell that contains all of the built-up energy that was inside during its time inside earth and the total electromagnetic process involved there.

There is a whole lot more about the photons and the strings they are in, but that is true science that the best-of-the-best have not one single clue about. And, they think it's just a plastic bag. My gosh, what a load of totally ignorant slop that is.

It's cluelessness and total ignorance in science.

So, that article is nothing more than the clueless not knowing beans about the real science involved. What a joke!

[jseefcoot]

Where? What has been seen to violate E=mc^2?

This is a specific question about your ATM assertion. According to board rules, not answering is a banning offence. I want to know one specific example of where E=mc^2 has been violated.

Hear Hear!!

I second that.

[jseefcoot]

To nutant gene 71 (#71)

By the way, concerning the recent space debri near the space shuttle, do you want to know what the deflated "plastic bag" they got a picture of really is?

It is factually a photon ball that was radiated from earth's photon radiation location in north central South America, and true science that is beyond the "experts", in that the lead-end ball, that connects with the sun's oppositely charged energy string of photons, deflated when the sun and earth photon balls ripped apart. This then left the deflated so-called "palstic bag that floated out of the shuttle bay".

What a joke!

The only jokes here are your statements. Where do you think you are? Wonderland? On this side of the looking glass we have to support what we say with evidence. You don't have any. Please offer some, or you can expect this thread to pretty much continue as it has been doing, with no one taking you very seriously.

[StevenCrum]

To Korjik (#75)

For information, the real science for muon decay is first that muons aren't waht they describe at all, and are instead sub-electrons that have cores and electron-types in their orbits. The cores have two regular matter and one anitmatter ball-shaped objects in their makeup, and those are smaller versions of two protons and one electron. The orbiting parts are two antimatter objects and one regualr matter.

The point of this is that when cosmic radiation hits an atmosphere atom the muon slop decay is actually the cosmic hit then breaking sub-electrons apart from the electron structure, and the sub-electron also flies apart in the impact. The so-called decaying into an electron, an electron-antineutrino and a muon-neutrino is factually just the three component parts of the sub-electron core. And, that is one regular matter object which they are describing as an electron, the second regular matter object described as the elctron-antineutrino, and the last antimatter object as a muon-neutrino.

In the end, they don't know what the beans they are even looking at. And, THAT is their moronic slop, muon decay.

And, whether you believe the situation or not, their so-called experimanets that are proving anything as you described is all baloney in real science. And yes, since I do factually know more that world-calss physics it is then a fact that I factually do know more than the 100 year thing you wrote.

In factual truth, there have been scientists by tghe dorve that have fallen hook, line and sinker, sompletely into the total false slop of Einstein's junk science. That facat makes me one up on the entuire herd of those who fell for the garbage science. And, whether you understand the truth of that or not, it is still dead-on right fact anyway it gets sliced.

[ToSeek]

To Korjik (#75)

For information, the real science for muon decay is first that muons aren't waht they describe at all, and are instead sub-electrons that have cores and electron-types in their orbits. The cores have two regular matter and one anitmatter ball-shaped objects in their makeup, and those are smaller versions of two protons and one electron. The orbiting parts are two antimatter objects and one regualr matter.



It would be nice if you would produce some actual evidence for what you're calling "real science." Why should we believe what you're saying over the mainstream viewpoint, when the mainstream viewpoint has a coherent theory and mathematical predictions down to the sixth decimal place, and all you have is a word salad?

[StevenCrum]

To SwansonT (#78)

It doesn't take six months for the situation to reverse, or anywhere near that, so you obviously didn't understand the science.

[Lurker]

Where? What has been seen to violate E=mc^2?

This is a specific question about your ATM assertion. According to board rules, not answering is a banning offence. I want to know one specific example of where E=mc^2 has been violated.

Hear Hear!!

I second that.
I saw some waving of hands on this issue, but no evidence... Did I miss something, or are we still waiting here...

[Gillianren]

Sigh. It's time for my "why looking at pictures is a bad basis for all your science" argument, isn't it?

I have, somewhere around here, a picture of myself in shades of orange and purple. Now, if all you knew about me was that this picture existed, would you assume that I was, in fact, actually orange and purple? No! You'd assume there was something unusual about the camera or picture-taking process.

And, of course, you'd be right--it was taken long ago at a JPL open house using the artificial colour technology that's aboard Voyager (which, correct me if I'm wrong, makes substantial use of Einsteinian principles). Now, I have no idea what the colour system means; my first guess--infrared--is probably wrong. And since I have no idea, it's foolish of me to make any assumptions about myself based on this one picture, or even people in general adding in the ones of my family from the same day. I simply don't know enough about the process.

Unless you start showing evidence to the contrary, Steven Crum, that is what we will all know about you. And, of course, assertions that things are "slop" are not evidence. You must explain why you consider them slop, and a lot of comparisons with real-world events would help, as would numbers.

[StevenCrum]

To Korjik (#79)

E=mc^2 was proven factually in the very first post I wrote in this thread, and involves the factual situation that if Einstein's synchronization description is wrong, WHICH IT IS FACTUALLY PROVEN IN THE POST THE BE EXACTLY THAT, then EVERYTHING aafter the synchronization THAT RELIES TOTALLY on the synchronization to be true, IS THEN PROVEN TO ALSO BE COMPLETELY WRONG AND FALSE also.

That truth-in-science undeniably proves E=mc^2 DEAD WRONG. If you don't understand the full truth of this then you just plainly aren't looking and seeing the facts in front of you. Take it or leave it. Its' still factual truth in science whether you do or don't.

[SirThoreth]

Steven,

Simple question:

The San Onofre nuclear power plant expects a certain level of power output from their fission plants, along with a certain level of "fuel usage". These values match the expected results from Einstein's E = mc2 equation. The same holds true for reactors on the US Navy's ships.

Now, why, if Einstein is wrong, and your E = 1/2 mc2 equation is correct, does their output matches Einstein's, and not yours?

[Lurker]

Sigh. It's time for my "why looking at pictures is a bad basis for all your science" argument, isn't it?

Gillianren -- When I was a boy back in the sovereign state of Indiana... we use to have a bit of wisdom that I think covers this situation....

Ah think yor dropin yor buket down a dryyyyyyyyy welllllllllll.....

[Lurker]

Steven,

Simple question:

The San Onofre nuclear power plant expects a certain level of power output from their fission plants, along with a certain level of "fuel usage". These values match the expected results from Einstein's E = mc2 equation. The same holds true for reactors on the US Navy's ships.

Now, why, if Einstein is wrong, and your E = 1/2 mc2 equation is correct, does their output matches Einstein's, and not yours?
shear coincidence maybe?? :think:

[StevenCrum]

To Seek (#84)

You keep stating wrongly that I have not provided any proof for what I am describing, and yet the first post written in this thread is factual proof that doesn't ned one single other thing provided to confirm the undeniable proof that shows the impossibility of Einstein synchronization.

The science PROOF provided in that post is clearly fact to anyone who actually reads the writing and sees for themselves the impossibility taht is clearly and factually right their in front of anyone who actually LOOKS at it and THINKS about the truth about Einstein being wrong there.

It isn't ME that is not providing the proof in this main thread post and point, but everyone who is not looking at the proof in good science practice.

The science truth instead involved here is that the first post, and the entire point of this thread, is that Einstein has been FACTUALLY proven to be completely wrong in his synchronization. That isn't even close to being just opinion or unsupported truth, but the calcualations and science logic truth staed make it a complete science fact in full science truth.

It is also a FACT then that every single OTHER THING that Einstein wrote after his failure in the synchronization and WHICH DEPENED FULLY ON THE SYNCH part to be TRUE, then fails completely in science truth BECAUSE ALL OF THEM depended entirely on the first part being TRUE. It wasn't, and they then aren't. It's solid dead-on right FACT.

This means, whether anyone wants to believe the fact or not, that Einstein's E=mc^2 is total garbage in real science. It's wrong, Bad science, and anyother way sliced, just plainly unbelievable that anyone cannot understand this incredibly simple science truth.

[StevenCrum]

To Gillianren (#87)

As I wrote in the last post, the original post in this thread described science fact that is totally seen as true fact. There isn't even one shred of ability for anyone to counter it otherwise, and all because right there in front of the world here, the calculations and science truth proves the situation of Einstein's blundering error.

And, if you cann't understand the calcualtions and the science facts involved, and that they are fully and obviosly factual, then that is your error and failure, and not even close to being anything about my error or wrongness in any way.

The error is yours totally.

[StevenCrum]

To Sir Thoreth (#89)

First of all, if you read Einstein's 1905 paper and go through the calcualtions you will factually find that he wrote the synchronization equations and description first. He then continued on his foundational truth he thought to be true in the synch part and then used that so-called established fact as the basis for all of the following calculations. The end result of the calculations was E=mc^2.

I am going to give you a string of calculations that have the situation where each following math calculations depends entirely on the previous calculation answer being true. And, this is what Einstein did.

2 x 2 = 6
6^2 =36
36 /3 = 12
12^2 =144
144/72 = 2

So, the answer in the end proves the string of equations goes from 2 to 2.

Now, is that correct?

The science fact is that since the first, fundational calculation is WRONG, then the entire string end is TOTALY WRONG also.

In Einstein's 1905 paper the first synch, foundational conclusion is DEAD WRONG, and totally seen to be factually THAT.

Since E=mc^2 depending ENTIRELY on everything in the calcualtions being true up to that point is at the end of the string, it is FACTUALLY WRONG in any way it can be manipulated by anyone on the planet and it is still dead-on WRONG. It is impossible to then be right, or even close to being right.

As for your description of nuclear ships or whatever, that's their error or whatever, but the facts are that E=mc^2 is still totally and completely as wrong as wrong gets.

[Lurker]

To Gillianren (#87)
<snip>
The error is yours totally.

Gillianren -- I won't say, "I told you so..."

well... ok... I guess I just did... :whistle:

[antoniseb]

To Gillianren (#87)

As I wrote in the last post, the original post in this thread described science fact that is totally seen as true fact.

The original setup is a rod 200 feet long and the left end is A and the right end B. After sketching that the rod is moving to the right and a light image of the clock at A is also moving at 100 ft/sec right also.

You can then sketch an overlaying rod image just to the right and at the exact point when the light image reaches the mirror at B. Rod end B will have moved right 50 feet by the time the light gets to the mirror, and you can label the new B end B1 for further description here. Rod end A will have also moved right the same 50 feet and it can be labeled A1.

At this time the rod is still moving right at 20 ft/sec. and the light is reflected back by the mirror toward A1. By the time the light and the original light image of A reaches the A1 bar end the rod will have moved to the right another 33.33 feet, and the distance from B1, where the mirror was when the reflection occurred, back to the new location of the A bar end is 166.67 feet.

The final ends of the bar should then be labeled A2 and B2.

This has already been commented on, but just to remind you: In the frame of reference of the rod and the two watches, the light travels 200 feet one way, and then 200 hundred feet the other.

In the case of an observer watching the rod and watches, who is moving at 10% the speed of light to the left, there is a correction for a Lorentz transformation, which you have left out of your example for some reason. Your original post in this thread says that you've proved Einstein wrong, but you really only showed a place where if only a part of his work is used, there are some gaps in the rest of his work.

Perhaps it is the case that you have a more detailed and complete proof that he is in error on this synchronization issue. If so, I think we'd all like to see it. If not, I think none of us believe you've proved anything.

[jseefcoot]

Since I can't resort to name calling, I'll just say that it appears to me that Steve currently resides in a nuthouse somewhere. I say this because he seems to be extremely detached from reality. My three-year-old cousin puts up better arguments than this, with more evidence, with more fact, and with a whole lot more truth.

I have to say that the entertainment value for this thread has been very high. However, its learning value gets a negative number. I think I have lost some I.Q. points just by participating. Maybe Steve would let me borrow some of his: since in his presumptuousness he essentially classifies every scientist in the world as a crackpot, he must be very smart indeed to have outdone three hundred years worth of physics knowledge in just the years he has been alive.

Steve, when you see Jimmy Hoffa again, tell him I found his keys.

[ToSeek]

Since I can't resort to name calling, I'll just say that it appears to me that Steve currently resides in a nuthouse somewhere. I say this because he seems to be extremely detached from reality. My three-year-old cousin puts up better arguments than this, with more evidence, with more fact, and with a whole lot more truth.


Saying that you think someone resides in a nuthouse is close enough to name-calling for the purposes of this forum - it's certainly an ad hominem, which is expressly prohibited. Please don't do it again, or one of us will be required to impose the same sanctions that I have already threatened the OP with. If you can't focus on discussing the issues on this thread, then just stay away.

[jseefcoot]

Saying that you think someone resides in a nuthouse is close enough to name-calling for the purposes of this forum - it's certainly an ad hominem, which is expressly prohibited. Please don't do it again, or one of us will be required to impose the same sanctions that I have already threatened the OP with. If you can't focus on discussing the issues on this thread, then just stay away.

So noted. . . I actually was wondering about that, but thought that offering why I held that opinion would be enough. So thanks for clearing that up, and I will look over the rules again.

[Lurker]

jseefcoot -- I have to agree with ToSeek. I should also point out that I actually had more "raw intelligence" when suffering from mental illness that I have now. I now have difficulty with some of the concepts that I easily mastered while ill.

[korjik]

To Korjik (#75)

For information, the real science for muon decay is first that muons aren't waht they describe at all, and are instead sub-electrons that have cores and electron-types in their orbits. The cores have two regular matter and one anitmatter ball-shaped objects in their makeup, and those are smaller versions of two protons and one electron. The orbiting parts are two antimatter objects and one regualr matter.

The point of this is that when cosmic radiation hits an atmosphere atom the muon slop decay is actually the cosmic hit then breaking sub-electrons apart from the electron structure, and the sub-electron also flies apart in the impact. The so-called decaying into an electron, an electron-antineutrino and a muon-neutrino is factually just the three component parts of the sub-electron core. And, that is one regular matter object which they are describing as an electron, the second regular matter object described as the elctron-antineutrino, and the last antimatter object as a muon-neutrino.

In the end, they don't know what the beans they are even looking at. And, THAT is their moronic slop, muon decay.

And, whether you believe the situation or not, their so-called experimanets that are proving anything as you described is all baloney in real science. And yes, since I do factually know more that world-calss physics it is then a fact that I factually do know more than the 100 year thing you wrote.

In factual truth, there have been scientists by tghe dorve that have fallen hook, line and sinker, sompletely into the total false slop of Einstein's junk science. That facat makes me one up on the entuire herd of those who fell for the garbage science. And, whether you understand the truth of that or not, it is still dead-on right fact anyway it gets sliced.

I am not asking what a muon is, or what muon decay is, I am asking why a muon moving faster takes longer to decay. This is a well documented fact, repeated many times in many places.

What experiment have you heared of or seen that shows this structure to a muon?

[Van Rijn]

Sigh. It's time for my "why looking at pictures is a bad basis for all your science" argument, isn't it?

I have, somewhere around here, a picture of myself in shades of orange and purple. Now, if all you knew about me was that this picture existed, would you assume that I was, in fact, actually orange and purple? No! You'd assume there was something unusual about the camera or picture-taking process.


Yup. An astronomical image can't be treated as you would a straightforward photograph of somebody's backyard. Further, even photographs require context. You can't just say "Look at the picture!" Back here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=829711&postcount=41) I said:

And subjective image interpretation (what an image looks like to you) is not evidence. An image as a part of evidence, with supporting physics, numbers and math explained is another thing, but we rarely see that here.

Of course, we get more subjective image interpretation. :wall:

[SirThoreth]

As for your description of nuclear ships or whatever, that's their error or whatever, but the facts are that E=mc^2 is still totally and completely as wrong as wrong gets.

Wrong.

Nuclear engineers know how much uranium goes into a given reactor. They know the amount of radioactive waste products. Knowing the mass of both, they know how much mass is lost. Obviously, they know the power output of a reactor.

These values match Einstein. They don't match your concept.

Now, kindly explain why they're getting twice the energy out of these reactors than what you're predicting. I'm not asking you why Einstein is wrong. I'm asking why, in the face of contrary evidence, you're right.

[RussT]

I am not at all sure I want to do this, but figure I better before this thread is closed.

Steven Crum, the fact that you brought 'both' of the threads that you did to the table at the same time, speaks volumes about your conviction, and several other things that I will leave up to you and the audience to decide.

But I do have a couple of questions.

1. How does the baryonic Matter become part of our universe (you did say you knew this)?
2. What makes you think that our galaxy (and I presume you means all the rest) is/are traveling through/with space at the speed of light?

If our galaxy is traveling through/with space at the speed of light, how is it anchored to space to be able to do this?

And if this is the case, sure all the stars and planets are gravitationally locked into their orbits and thus locked into the galaxy, but what then of any of our spoce missions, where we have space vehicles traveling in free space, not 'locked in', wouldn't we just go flying right past them?

Since 'space' does not interact with baryonic matter, how is 'space' keeping them going with the solar system?

[StevenCrum]

To Lurker (#91)

The answer to your question about how do nuclear plants use E=mc^2 to figure the energy output is simply that they falsely used E=mc^2 in the first place to come up with their wrong electron volt masses that they have for the atom parts involved in the fission. This then makes the false electron volt masses match the false E=mc^2 equation, since the eqaution was where the mass figures came from.

So, that is the answer to your question and is the factual science involved whether believed or not.

[StevenCrum]

To Antoniseb (#96)

The situation with the Lorenz transformation is that the transformation was factually NOT included in any form in Einstein's 1905 paper, and this being factual, then the rod description stood alone and still stands all alone in that E=mc^2 totally depends only and completely on the rod description described in my post and fully in Einstein's paper.

Beside that fact, the Lorenz transformation doesn't correct the problem in any case.

[StevenCrum]

To Korjik (#101)

As far as your thing about mouns taking longer to decay the situation is rellay simple to explain why that testable fact exists. I agree with that point fully. And, the science is that when a moun moves fatser it is all that mush harder for cosmic radiation to hit it. Just ask any living duck that has ever had to flap its feathery wings like mad in proving the point here.

[Lurker]

To Korjik (#101)

As far as your thing about mouns taking longer to decay the situation is rellay simple to explain why that testable fact exists. I agree with that point fully. And, the science is that when a moun moves fatser it is all that mush harder for cosmic radiation to hit it. Just ask any living duck that has ever had to flap its feathery wings like mad in proving the point here.
Ahhh so ducks flap their feathery wings like mad to avoid cosmic rays...

I did not know that... :think:

[korjik]

why does this increase in decay time fit the lorentz transformation? It fits with relativity quite well.

[Tensor]

To Lurker (#91)

The answer to your question about how do nuclear plants use E=mc^2 to figure the energy output is simply that they falsely used E=mc^2 in the first place to come up with their wrong electron volt masses that they have for the atom parts involved in the fission.

That's interesting, since those masses are measured, not calculated.

This then makes the false electron volt masses match the false E=mc^2 equation, since the eqaution was where the mass figures came from.

Explain how the measured masses are false.

So, that is the answer to your question and is the factual science involved whether believed or not.

Please provide the math showing your mass calculations for the electron, proton, neutron along with your calculations show what the energy release during a proton-anti-proton collision (using your mass calculations).

[Lurker]

That's interesting, since those masses are measured, not calculated.



Explain how the measured masses are false.



Please provide the math showing your mass calculations for the electron, proton, neutron along with your calculations show what the energy release during a proton-anti-proton collision (using your mass calculations).
oh... you beat me to this... I gotta quit my job and sit on here full time...

[StevenCrum]

To Russ (#104)

Concerning baryon matter, the situation of two up quarks and one down quark, or whatever the up and down is, is actually the three part formation that exists in all of the cores of all sub-atomic objects that I have described. Those are the protons, electrons, the next level down of the sub-protons and sub-electron, and the lowest and foundational on the level's proton and electron types there.

The point is that the natural system of all in their cores is to have the two/one ratio in each. And, this 2/1 ratio is what they are observing in the quark thinking.

The reason for the 2/1 ratio is because all atoms laso have a 2/1 ratio charge situation in the orbit around their equators, as all of the other objects I described have also do. And all of the objects have a combination of two electron and one proton, or the reverse of that in their orbiting parts. The three orbit objects are also bound to locations that are directly opposite of the core three objects, and orbit in unique locations of 120 degrees apart. This makes the orbit objects at 10:00, 2:00 and 6:00.

The last part that needs to be explained about the baryon arrangement is that it is foundationally required so orbiting object are locked into their orbit location by a force that pulls them toward the core while also repells them equally away from the core. In sub-atomic levels centrifugal force isn't involved.

The way this is accomplished in sub-atomic atom objects is that there are two + proton-types and one - electron in the core. The orbiting three parts are two - electrons and one + proton. With this unique arrangement this obciously pulls the elctrons into the core unless centrifugal force or something else repells equally to do the repelling. The "other" thing is what exists.

There are other purposes for this part, but the repelling is one of the functions involved. The situation is that atom components and all matter doesn't just have magnetic parts in them. They also have a second energy type and all the laws of physics that apply to then and which are very similar to electromagnetic laws and forces. The type involves antimatter and regular matter, and the smallest proton and electron types in the foundational level is where the 2/1 ratio of objects is two of regular matter energy balls, and one of antimatter, or the exact opposite. Both types exist.

The situation then is that while the 2/1 ratio of core and orbiting objects described before, the 2/1 ration that exists inside the parts at their lowest level carries an opposite combibnation that causes a repelling. By the way, this is why a hydrogen atom with one proton in its core can hold one electron orbiting. The hydrogen parts have the 2/1 ratio in their lower level parts.

The situation with this is the second physics force is also fully involved in the depths of the true baryon assembly of 2/1.

By the way, I don't know if I mentioned this, but the 2/1 situation exists all through large objects in the universe and the universe core itself. The universe core has the 2/1 ratio in its three objects also. By the way, the three object situation also has occurrences of several small parts in each of the three locations as well. So, that is involved as well, but the groups then still act as three objects in total.

As far as what are the indications of our galaxy traveling at light speed, I have already described that a fair amount, and it gets a little long in the descriptions. But, the GPS, redshift, star clusters and colliding stars occurring all around our galaxy, heat build-up in the galaxy from the exploding stars, color-shift from stars ahead, to the side and behind us, and time shift that occurs in two different types (one being GPS) all add up to a signifiacnt amount once you know the science and then see the endless pictures that show the situation. One of the things is that their is a cu