could relativity proof have been falsified?

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Robert, if he really had medical issues (which seem to be there and then they're gone, according to his mood), he shouldn't be here, not because of his condition mind you, but simply cos this is not a healthy place to be. Schizophrenics shouldn't even be allowed near the internet.

If he doesn't, he's just a troll.

I think the truth is in the middle, as he admitted himself to be a "good" troll (if there was something as such). As fruitbat said, the ignore feature seems to work only on posts, not on threads started by members, and god knows if raaaid started more useless topics than anybody else.

The situation is so ludicrous that it's starting to get surreal. He's been banned for trolling lately, and he's relentlessly back at it.

Understood, and if he truly is a troll then moderators are the ones to cure the problem. Right? Regarding topics created by members you are ignoring? Topics clearly state who the author is - easy enough to not enter. Capice?

Other than that, I don't think I have anything more substantive to say regarding this, and don't really need to drag this out any more than it already is.

[raaaid]

it says atmospheric lensing its 15 times bigger than gravitational lensing, how could eisntein have accounted for this, i dont say relativity is wrong i say einstein proof its invalid since he had no way to account for sun atmospheric lensin

dont you think my being fourth hit on relativity+ sun+ atmosphere proves i have original ideas which would be a shame censoring for being quite unique?

my discovery:

rounded lenses as planets atmosphere hardly cause any raimbow effect only triangular lenses do

the kind of refraction depends weather the lens is poligonal or rounded

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by raaaid

it says atmospheric lensing its 15 times bigger than gravitational lensing, how could eisntein have accounted for this, i dont say relativity is wrong i say einstein proof its invalid since he had no way to account for sun atmospheric lensin

If the above is true then why did you say the following...

Originally Posted by raaaid

really im not sure if light is bent by gravity

Regardless, if you don't believe the 1919 methods were accurate SHOW THE DETAILS OF THE EXPERIMENT THAT PROVE IT DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT REFRACTION.

Originally Posted by raaaid

dont you think my being fourth hit on relativity+ sun+ atmosphere proves i have original ideas which would be a shame censoring for being quite unique?

No, not at all, and even the most clueless person among us would agree with me. All it means that the words in your search string scored a high relevance factor in Google's calculation and that is it.

As far as censoring, no subject you have every posted about has ever been censored. If it were censored, your posts would be removed by the matrix MCP. Yet they are not.

By far, the most ridiculous arguments you have made on this board are the ones where you post a link about something in the same sentence in which you claim that it is censored. If it were censored then the link would fail. Yet, they do not fail. Thus, you are, once again, proven wrong.

The best example of this was your ludicrous "fornix muscle" thread where you posted the link to the, "censored", video about the doctor who invented the machine to strengthen the eye muscles.

THERE WAS A LINK TO THE DOCTOR'S WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ON THE DOCTOR'S WEBSITE WAS A LINK TO THE NASA STUDY HE PARTICIPATED IN!!!!!!!

So, here we have....

A youtube video freely available
The doctor's website freely available
NASA (the freaking government!!!!!!!) published a study about his methods

Yeah, lots of censorship there.

As usual you are wrong about everything.

--Outlaw.

[raaaid]

thatsnks outlaw id never thought i would be apreciating being called asinine, hey but if its given with reason....

http://paias.org/Science/Einstein/Ein1Summary.htm

It turns out that the bending of light by the Sun due to atmospheric refraction — which we know exists more certainly than we think gravitational lensing exists, Newton, again — is approximately of the same order of magnitude as current estimates for “gravitational lensing”, but no one (as of the late 1990s) has taken it into account, at least not with any publicity. When taken into account (especially along with Einstein’s estimate for the effective Newtonian mass and associated deflection of photons), what is left over deviates unacceptably from the value needed to fully support Einstein’s gravitational lensing.

edit:

oh and on censorship: i see no censorship at all in this forum yet some antiliberty people want me censored for being a free thinker

edit:

yeah outlaw i admitt we live in a free world people paid with blood so people like me could say his NO OFENSIVE IDEAS FREELY, but our freedom is slowly being taken away

EDIT:

of course what makes it being a 4th hit its my free thinking

very few people question what theyre told, i do

seems my free thinking unveild the relativity scam, and few were able to

and i did so with FREE THINKING not regurgitating propagandistic conspiracy theory made to seed terror and hopelessness or fox ultraright wings ideas as we can keep destroying our planet cause we are making huge printed paper

edit:

searching relativity falsified gets me on the 1st page of google

am i a free thinking pioneer?

or 1c is falsifying the hits this thread is really getting

maybe what im doing which is so annoying fo the stablishment why they drove me crazy with tv is the revolutionary seeds im planting like for examp0le the huge lies of education as relativity or coulombs law on friction being independent of surface?

edit:

googling relativity falsified gives you 4.630.000 hits

this thread appears on 10th position

doesnt this proof the annoying noise im making and the real reason why this guys want me out

edit:

also one of my haters avoids to mention he is greek yet he is swiming in money

edit:

bongodriver and sternjaegr as themsleves admitted are the elite of this planet, making huge money while uneducated while myself with two universities degrees im making 6 euro per hour and dont have money even for cigarretes

no wonder they hate me for questioning their elititist status quo with things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64Oh3qEVgBQ

[Outlaw]

This link, provided by you, definitively explains that refraction is accounted for...

http://einstein.stanford.edu/content...vity/q793.html

The following link, provided by you...

http://paias.org/Science/Einstein/Ein1Summary.htm

Simply notes that, as far as the author was aware, refraction had not been taken into account.

Originally Posted by raaaid

thatsnks outlaw id never thought i would be apreciating being called asinine, hey but if its given with reason....

I did not call you asinine.

Originally Posted by raaaid

oh and on censorship: i see no censorship at all in this forum yet some antiliberty people want me censored for being a free thinker

Incorrect. They want you censored because they think you are an annoying idiot.

Originally Posted by raaaid

of course what makes it being a 4th hit its my free thinking

No, what makes it 4th is the fact that invisible tribbles are taking over the Google server farms.

My statement is 100% as valid as yours.

Of course, the fact that it is not always 4th makes both statements totally incorrect.

Originally Posted by raaaid

very few people question what theyre told, i do

How many physics students have you interviewed to determine whether or not they question what they are told? We both know the answer.

Knowing that the answer is zero, your claim that very few people question what they are told is 100% invalid.

Originally Posted by raaaid

seems my free thinking unveild the relativity scam, and few were able to

and i did so with FREE THINKING not regurgitating propagandistic conspiracy theory made to seed terror and hopelessness or fox ultraright wings ideas as we can keep destroying our planet cause we are making huge printed paper

Except that your "free thinking" was backed up by numerous links that were posted BEFORE YOU MADE YOUR CLAIM. Thus, all you did was regurgitate what other people HAVE ALREADY SAID. You said NOTHING that had not been said already.

Originally Posted by raaaid

searching relativity falsified gets me on the 1st page of google

am i a free thinking pioneer?

Your lack of cognitive ability is truly astounding. Google the following...

I-16 vs. 109E - 3 min. 12 sec.


One of my websites will be first. What does it mean?

Originally Posted by raaaid

maybe what im doing which is so annoying fo the stablishment why they drove me crazy with tv is the revolutionary seeds im planting like for examp0le the huge lies of education as relativity or coulombs law on friction being independent of surface?

Coulomb never claimed the friction force was independent of the surface (and this has already been noted to you).

You already said you don't believe that relativity is wrong so how can it be a lie. Regardless, a link PROVIDED BY YOU has already shown that your statements about relativity are incorrect.

Thus, it is obvious to even a dead rat that you are not annoying the "stablishment", and they are not trying to drive you crazy. The OVERDOSE of DRUGS has already done that.

Originally Posted by raaaid

googling relativity falsified gives you 4.630.000 hits

this thread appears on 10th position

doesnt this proof the annoying noise im making and the real reason why this guys want me out

No, it does not give you 4,630,000 "hits". It gives you, "about 4,630,000 RESULTS". It has nothing to do with hit count. Furthermore, I just goggled it with and without quotes and this thread was in the 11th position without quotes and did not appear in the first 3 pages with quotes.

Which PROVES that you are incapable of understanding how search engine indexing works.

--Outlaw.

[raaaid]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

This link, provided by you, definitively explains that refraction is accounted for...

--Outlaw.

http://paias.org/Science/Einstein/Ein1Summary.htm

what that link says is that sun atmosphre refraction was not accounted til the 90s

It turns out that the bending of light by the Sun due to atmospheric refraction — which we know exists more certainly than we think gravitational lensing exists, Newton, again — is approximately of the same order of magnitude as current estimates for “gravitational lensing”, but no one (as of the late 1990s) has taken it into account, at least not with any publicity.


the rest are cheap sophisms

edit:

for what i watched in tv the order of the results are given by the amount of traffic

that means this thread is in the top 0.000001% in traffic revelance on relaivity being falsified

edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction

The elementary properties of sliding (kinetic) friction were discovered by experiment in the 15th to 18th centuries and were expressed as three empirical laws:
Amontons' First Law: The force of friction is directly proportional to the applied load.
Amontons' Second Law: The force of friction is independent of the apparent area of contact.
Coulomb's Law of Friction: Kinetic friction is independent of the sliding velocity.

edit:

yesterdy it was cuolombs law today its amontons law, useless tt messing you knowe whatever i DID you cant change

edit:



you just change all science history on friction, yet why my notes didnt change

[raaaid]

wow thanks a lot outlaw as the goodie you are fighting for a bad cause you just gave it away:

baddies with tt tech are taking over the world and im on their way since im inmune to timetravel:

all the web says that the law of friction being indepependent of surface is by amonton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction

Amontons' First Law: The force of friction is directly proportional to the applied load.
Amontons' Second Law: The force of friction is independent of the apparent area of contact.
Coulomb's Law of Friction: Kinetic friction is independent of the sliding velocity.

ALL?

NOPE CHECK THIS OUT:

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0208025

and why is this?

cause i did that and you cant undo it

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...surface&page=5

Every ‘complete’ course in basic physics treats Coulomb’s famous inverse square law of electrostatic force. Few courses, however, associate his name with the law of sliding friction, also treated. Perhaps influenced by the work of Leonardo DaVinci, Coulomb provided in 1779 a treatment of sliding friction that has stood the test of time.

His law is expressed in terms of two constant coefficients, one being of kinetic type, the other static, with the latter being larger than the former. Surprising to most, the magnitude of the force of friction between two surfaces is to first order independent of both speed and the area of contact—depending only on the normal force N between the surfaces."


so outlaw you realize uncounciously you treason your bad cause cause youre a good guy

shame you cant undo it since im inmune to tt

well dont worry the nuremeberg trial which will judge the 2/3 of the world population for conspiring for mankind extintion with tt tech in excahnage to live life surgically extended these nobility will be taken into account

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZ8EkK3eWY

edit:

my physics notes say culombs law calims friction independent of surface

that link I COPY PAST say culomb laws claim friction independent of surface

yesterday all i looked said that was coulomb laws, now all i look says its amomtons law

everything changed except what i did

edit:

call me crazy but...

everything in the world says friction being independent of surface is amontons law

except a link i copy past and my physics notes which call it coulombs law

so the only merit of einstein was conspire agaisnt mankind unscrupulously with tt

go figures your the shadow that makes the light beautifull

edit:

everybody knows google rank the pages by traffic

this thread is the firts among millions

then it has some of the highest traffic on the net

well dont worry i hate responsability but i realize the one i have

but well then since im inmune to timetravel all i have to do is keep alive so the allies and freedom always win so i can exist thing they cant change since i seem to be inmune to tt

and like they cant change my free will they influence my free will planting suicidal ideas in my mind by just mentioning

or telling my story and telling me subliminally what to do

god i really love this song i wonder what the lyrics said in that past life and what this tune meant to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oofSnsGkops

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Robert

Understood, and if he truly is a troll then moderators are the ones to cure the problem. Right? Regarding topics created by members you are ignoring? Topics clearly state who the author is - easy enough to not enter. Capice?

Other than that, I don't think I have anything more substantive to say regarding this, and don't really need to drag this out any more than it already is.

it clogs the threads list, and I am tired of having to skim through his nonsense, I suppose that as a forum member I have the same right of expressing my opinion as he does.. besides he's just been readmitted after being banned for trolling and he hasn't changed one bit, what does this tell you?
It's clear that he's not gonna change, and sooner or later he'll be banned again, and after several bans for the same reason you're banned for good.. I say let's ban him for good now so we're over and done with it. Is common sense not that common anymore?!

[raaaid]

so you want to post your regurgitated fox news and not let me post my ot original metaphysics

sternjager and bongodriver are harrassing me to provocke my own banning

6. Personal attacks - Name calling, insulting others, including cynical, sarcastic and condescending discussion focused on other persons, members, 1C developers and/or their work.

7. Malicious personal attacks - and stalking are considered serious violations.

edit:

i ignore his political threads but they caome to mine on questioning relativity to stalk me to get me pieced off and get myself banned

really how means got to be telling me the side effects of the antipsicotics my family give me with the agenda to break my trust for them , curiously the same person who sauugest me to commit suicide twice

they even admitted their agenda of getting me banned

you know well in the old ubizoo they wouldnt last a second with this attitude of personal stalking and personal attack with mskleaneasy

[swiss]

Originally Posted by raaaid

really how means got to be telling me the side effects of the antipsicotics my family give me with the agenda to break my trust for them , curiously the same person who sauugest me to commit suicide twice

You're talking about me?
Nothing wrong with telling the side effects of your meds - it's like telling a smoker he will eventually die of cancer.
Can't stand the truth?
What about your quest for philosopher's stone and your "no more lies" ideal?