"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. "
It seems that we do, because the only reason that he would think he could subtract masses to get energy is because his equation, E=mc^2, said he could. That's a completely theoretical calculation. How else would he know to use that equation to convert mass into energy? His theory of relativity was formulated decades before his work with the fission bomb.
"Einstein didn't know the difference between
weight and mass"
I very strongly doubt that.
"I respect the man; you friggin' well worship him."
No, I'm just humble enough to realize that I'm not yet educated enough to challenge him. Perhaps someday I will be. I doubt that you will ever be, especially if you're still learning from the "Idiot's Guide".
"not based upon measurements of energy, measurements of mass, and measurements of the speed of light?"
They were motivated by observations (like MM exp.), but not derived from observations. There is a big difference.
"do you think that the precession of Mercury was not "generally" observed astronomically before
Einstein came up with his formula? "
It was, and it turned out that his formula fit the data. Are you suggesting that he cheated and just invented a formula to fit the data? Considering that his formulae have worked for things that had not been observed when he created his theory (like the bending of light around the sun), I seriously doubt that.
"And if not that, then the professionally generated Dark Matter hallucination screws him and his formula. "
I don't think you understand science very well. Even if dark matter turns out to be a problem with gravity, that doesn't mean his other calculations (like mercury precession of binary NS degradation) are invalid. All it would mean would be that his theory was incomplete. It might even turn out that dark matter exists.
"How would you like to meet me on a public debate on television"
"Are you telling me that Pierre Curie died of radiation poisoning because of "pilot error" and not his lack of understanding?"
The Curies were studying radiation, of course he died from lack of understanding. Nuclear plants are the result of his (and others') studies. I can't believe you don't see that difference. Particle accelerators are not experimenting on relativity, they are experimenting on particles, as the name implies. They use relativity to do their calculations.
"Are you telling me that the current zoo of subatomic "particles" just popped out of someone's formulae fully formed? "
Some particles were predicted, some were not. That is not, however, relativity.
"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."
So you're arguing that because I can't solve all of the problems of physics, you are exempt from using formulae? That's pretty silly.
"They make statments justifying paradoxes."
Imagine their nerve, solving paradoxes with statements! Try this one on for size: http://mathforum.org/isaac/problems/zeno1.html.
No relativity there. Would you argue that people never move anywhere? Are the solutions just a justification?
" I defy you to find anything contradictory or absurd in any of my work on aether physics."
I don't need to read your work. Everything you say is either contradictory or absurd.