|
I have a book here, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Einstein, that says he subtracted the "mass" of the products of fission from the "mass" of the original uranium, to arrive at the "mass" of the matter converted to energy. If that isn't empirical, than you and I have a different definition of the word.
I had purchased it in an attitude of humbleness, but that's when I quit reading it. Know why?- because Einstein didn't know the difference between weight and mass. He performed a completely illegitimate holy math calculation. And I'm sure wherever he is now with his red face, that if he could, he'd throw it into the round filing cabinet with his CosmosCon, complete with apologies.
I respect the man; you friggin' well worship him. What do you think; that as long as one speaks from the Chair of St Einstein, his words are infallible? Einstein himself never claimed that. He was confused 'til the end, and freely admitted it, in spite of his accomplishments.
"Do you seriously think that equations like E=mc^2 and the Lorentz transformations were", not based upon measurements of energy, measurements of mass, and measurements of the speed of light? do you think that the precession of Mercury was not "generally" observed astronomically before Einstein came up with his formula?
Does Relativity give you an exact reason for the space probe's unexpected trajectory? No? How about the unexpected Stars' Orbital Velocity Distribution Curve in a Spiral Galaxy? No? Then GD it, the same unexplained force throws an error into Einstein's calculation for Mercury's precession, OR HE CHEATED!!!! And if not that, then the professionally generated Dark Matter hallucination screws him and his formula.
YOU STF up!!! You think your professionally generated BS intimidates me? How would you like to meet me on a public debate on television? If yes; I'll see if I can arrange it on the Discovery Channel. Or in a worse case scenario, Art Bell. And I'll tell you what let's do: you get some of your "experts" to back you up, and I'll get some professional rogues like Halton Arp (book Seeing Red) to back me up.
Are you telling me that Pierre Curie died of radiation poisoning because of "pilot error" and not his lack of understanding? And are you telling me that the Manhattan Project was not experimental development? Are you telling me that ongoing High Energy Physics in accelerators are not experiments to see what is there? Are you telling me that the current zoo of subatomic "particles" just popped out of someone's formulae fully formed? Are you telling me that Renormalization Math is not used blatantly to fudge results to agree with cockamamie theories?
Why don't you "formulize" neutrinos and solve all their problems? Neither you nor anyone else in this world can put together an "explanatory" formula for the stars' orbital velocities. If you could, you would be entered for this year's Nobel Prize.
The only reason I have to refute modern physics, is because the professionals are getting away with the murder of Classical Physics. They do it partly by commission and partly by omission.
They make statments justifying paradoxes. Funk and Wagnalls: 1. A statment seemingly absurd or contradictory, yet in fact true. "Seemingly" is the operative word there, because no true paradox can exist. If one is apparently observed, it will eventually be resolved by the discovery of previously unknown information.
2. A statement essentially self-contradictory, false or absurd. 3. One whose character or behaviour is inconsistent or contradictory. 4. An opinion or statement conflicting with received opinion.
Whoops, got to go. But as a parting shot; I defy you to find anything contradictory or absurd in any of my work on aether physics. |
