could relativity proof have been falsified?
 

in 1919 in a sun eclipse an stronomer verified an star by the sun has movd its position confirming realitivty and trun a guy with a very low iq according the iq tests he took into the most intelligent person of history

my question:

why they assumed the light bent due to gravity and not caused by teh sun helium huge atmosphere refraction?

confusing bs:

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/...ht_bending.jpg

clear fact:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._frequency.gif

edit:

well since now on due to poular demand ill keep my ramblings to one thread

10 points to who spot whats wrong with this picture and whats going on with me in every forum:

http://jankenbpm.files.wordpress.com...tion-whore.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3AxyrO7AfM

Do you think it would work with planet without atmosphere(given it has enough mass) too?
Or a black hole?

really im not sure if light is bent by gravity

in fact is a very touchy subject:

light should bent if looked at for being a particle and not bent when not looked at for being a wave

but what i find suspicious is why nobody brought down eisntein proof based on suns atmosphere refraction

i have two degrees and imo university kills the critic spirit and reinforces blind faith based on the authority criteria

i was taught one version here in spain on the maine incident that caused the american spanish war and the opposite in the states

posibly physics is the most subversive filed and the most manipulated by the stablishment

edit:

thinking about it better if light really bent by gravity shouldnt it be extreamly easy to locate blackholes by moving stars for bent starlight by the massive gravity of blackholes?

im not bumping this is at the top for sake of order:

i reached this theory of gravity which this guy tells

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd-QqKmVyfU

IF BLACKHOLES BENT LIGHT:

you and me are separated by a basketball that inflates

we tense a string by the edgeof the ball

the basketball inflating will hide the string light

then light is instant as the string

evrything is hapening now

causality is false both cause and effect are simultaneous

tt is posible, yesterday is now

Twitterrrrrrr!!!!.........faaaacceeebboooookk!!!!! !!

i have no friends in facebook or twiter:(

should i buy the book how to make friends to that dirty bald headed fatt dumbaes
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...d/raaaid-1.jpg

Why dont you ask people to friend you? even your family, now we know who to look for on FB I'm sure you will pick up some fans from here.

if you give me areasonable reason to leave illexpreess my ideas thruogh facebook instead of here

one to saty, i have old virtual friends here

other sentences here are not limited to easy short messages as in facebook

my tweat of 9:06

im stdying culomb law:

the force to beat friction is independent of surface

You will know that everyone who listens to you on facebook is doing it willingly and isn't getting annoyed by you.

PM them and ask them to join you on facebook/twitter if they have it, or just keep i touch via email, technically you could do all your ramblings by mass email to all your disciples.

Many people here are not and have no particular interest in your studies either.

im bending your mind into reading this so i annoy you

im limiting to a single thread ot dismulate

We'll see.

"You will know that everyone who listens to you on facebook is doing it willingly and isn't getting annoyed by you."


now you are asking me to leave cause readin me annoys you

does that amke any sense at all

and is not just you people reads me and gets annoyed and they keep on reading me and they get more annoyed

what if i go to facebook and eventually someone finds my link on the sky dome and he gets annoyed from reading me and he starts posting to tell me how annoying i am

something caught my attention:

im totally apolitical yet most right wingers cant stand me and the left wingers love my posts

edit:

you want to check out this really anoying troll

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

Well....yes, surely you can understand that?

You will find that it is now a case of just knowing you have posted again can make people rspond to you with disdain, it's not like any new post by you is going to be radically different to the other annoying stuff you post.

You can take them off of your friends list and block them, either way thats just life in the big scary world we live in.

I remember you telling me I should have been aborted once.

Just think, it could be your own little magical eutopia with no bullys and you are the administrator, even better there is a search function where you can type in all your whacky fantasies and as sure as the pope wears a dress you 'will' find other crazies into the same stuff, join their groups and frantically post your mental ejaculate to you hearts content.

tell the truth:

you dont read ALL oftopic section but you read ALL mine

why you do if it annoys you

i intend no harm, for example if you honestly tell me im leading you psicothic of course id styop posting

but why do you read me if annoyes you

If you find his posts annoying put him on the ignore list or don't enter threads with raaaid as the author. No point in being so hostile to someone whose only problem is making threads in the off topic section. If you find anything he says offensive thats what the ignore list is for.

raaaid don't change the subject, I read almost everything on the whole forum, I have given you extremely good and viable alternatives, why you chose forums dedicated to flight simulation to post about nothing relating to flight simulations and make sure it is always a contraversial conspiracy theory is a mystery, the simple fact is your mere presence is annoying to some on the basis that they know exactly what you are up to.

Like that hasn't been said before, OK lets make an example, it seems it bothers you that I am engaging with raaaid in this way, despite the fact it is my right to engage in any way I choose on an open forum, it's down to moderation to police it, I have made it clear many times I think raaaid is a troll and no matter how many times he admits it with the clause of being a friendly troll he is still a troll seeking attention, I find raaaid as annoying as you find me complaining about him annoying, everyone has the right to reply or ignore.

if you think im a troll why you keep baiting?

i think what you find annoying is my ideas:

the media lie to us hugely

university is a fraud

fluoride is mind control

and probably you dont know why but i think you get annoyed because you have a high standing and you dont want to question what put you there

well today i realized im not the artifice of any revolution im just one more claiming for it as i can and now i undersatnd econmoic collapse is bringing that PEACEFULL revolution, now im going to enjoy tv on the 100000000000 lend to sapin and how greeze is leaving the euro

edit:

and you havent answered my question:

why do you read what i write if it annoys you?

10 years ago i started posting ot in the ubizoo in the general discussion

they kept it civil with the rule of no personal attacks

now that comunity scinded in rof and cod both have an ot section

why do most men dress in grey if most men like colours?

I don't read any of it, I just reply to you to say what I think of you.

yeah I have a few friends from the Ubizoo who all have the same feelings about you.

it's their business

I'm guessing the one you claim to have attended is

Oh but it is such minty fresh mind control

Like I said, I met your ex prime ministers daughter once ;)

Grey men?

the inflating model is equivalent to shriniking space

if light is instant it shouldnt bend by gravity

if it has a speed limit it will appear as a curve in the shrinking space

but again could be einsteing proof have been light bending by the sun refraction caused by its atmosphere?

No dont buy the book... Its by retards for retards. Your crazy, you need a different book :-P ;)

I dislike facebook and that other one you said...

If 'Black Hole' theory is correct then light is subjected to gravity.

yes the problem is what info is to trust?

i need to know not high maths to know relativity proof of the sun gravity bending the starlight is TOTALLY invalid because is expected sun atmosphere will do that

are they hiding light is instant because doesnt bend and tt is posible?

why am i being lied so badly?

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

You're doing it wrong.

If you can't and/or won't attack his assinine posts, then ignore him. You're wasting space that could be full of imaginative, bulletin board worthy, and bet winning posts. I had to pay for my own lunch three times during the period he was banned. I can't afford that!


--Outlaw.

OK, if that's the case, PROVE it. How much will the sun's atmosphere bend the light and is that what was observed?

--Outlaw.

Raaaid, if light is instant then how could it refract? Refraction occurs due to differing speeds of the light.

i dont know as eisntein didnt know for not knowing thickness and density of suns atmosphere

they did it as if the sun had no atmosphere at all

the starlight moved so it was concluded it was gravity period, what about the atmosphere

if that was true then negative refraction would implied negative refracted light is faster than normal light

refraction is very misterious i dont take mainstream interpretation

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

edit:

anyway the only prove i have light is instant and therefore cause and affect is simultaneous allowing tt is that the bending of light that proves light is slow is false because of sun atmosphere refraction

if something is fake the opposite is truth

Refraction of light through a gas and liquids is caused by a change of speed. We see a 'rainbow' effect because each wavelength (in the spectrum of light) the speed is affected differently and splits.

However, If all the wavelengths that make the spectrum of light were to bend at the same speed then refraction will not occur. This is probably why atmospheric interference was discounted.

not what they found out its a star was out of place in an eclipse

as a pencil point is out of place when in water and gets refracted

point one:
they couldnt account for suns atmosphere refraction

point two:

they couldnt account for earths atmosphere refraction that varies with the angle

point 3:

they could account on the solar winds refraction

point 4:

they couldnt account on the milky way stellar dust refraction

without acounting this all they were able to conclude a star moved position by gravitational lensing confirming CAUSALITY and making a guy totally unable for maths in school and with a very low IQ according the tests the most intelligent man of mans history, oh and confirming causality which confirms we are just predictable machines with no soul nor free will just as stones so if eisntein was a psicological mistreater it was not his fault, just as guilty as a stone which falls and kills someone

The above is a totally worthless and completely useless statement.

You can't PROVE anything. You THINK that atmospheric refraction should account for the bending. That's it, nothing more.

Why won't you show the observed refraction versus the calculated refraction?

--Outlaw.

einstein predicted the position of an star which was out of place due to space curving which he predicted with exactitude

the fact i cant know what starlight bending is expected from suns atmosphere is the very same problem eisntin had to face

i wont turn it the other way around and tell you to show me einstein calculations on sun atmosphere starbending

everything is a pantomine the blue screen on tv is massive

do you know what i think the future is now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17680904

http://images.tutorvista.com/content...-position.jpeg

edit:

how did eisntein account for this:

Light refraction by the Sun's atmosphere is calculated.As detected from the Earth, the refraction can deflect a light ray emitted from the Sun's limb by 13 arcseconds or a starlight ray grazing the solar limb by 26, an effect 15 times larger than the gravitational deflection.

edit:

check out this huge chromatic aberration caused by refracted light:

http://homepage.usask.ca/~dln136/ref...l_in_water.jpg

i take the impostors of this world seriously no more, they are just some crooks with no class, i foresee a peacefull revolution and they exposed for the low crooks they are

His (Einstein) theory was scoffed at at the time. It was the result of studies and scientific investigation that eventually confirmed his theory and thus accepted in the absence of an alternative theory.

Given the development and research into this, the development of 'Gravity Lenses' I think you are going to struggle with your argument that this is simply 'refraction'. Physicists don't just accept a theory without testing it and many theorys exist simply because there is no alternative at the time - Quantum theory, Domain Theory, etc.

His (Einstein) theory was scoffed at at the time. It was the result of studies and scientific investigation that eventually confirmed his theory and thus accepted in the absence of an alternative theory.

Given the development and research into this, the development of 'Gravity Lenses' I think you are going to struggle with your argument that this is simply 'refraction'. Physicists don't just accept a theory without testing it and many theorys exist simply because there is no alternative at the time - Quantum theory, Domain Theory, etc.

yeah i guess the same development china put into putting a man into space

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g

your argument its invalid its the authority criteria, the church says so then its true

But does the fridge light really go out when you close the door?

YOU are the one claiming that you are the smartest human being in the world and that everyone else is wrong. It is up to YOU to prove it.

I would suggest NOT following the same logic you used in the following instances....

The fornix "muscle"
Eyeball tracking in the Apache's targeting system
"Overunity" water pumps
"Infinite" velocity of water exiting a hose
"Inifinte" acceleration of spacecraft
etc.
etc.
etc.

Then why do you bother to post? If you believe everything is faked who are you talking to?

--Outlaw.

it doesnt even exist if you dont look at it

no i think the worlds staged by a MAJORITY with tt tech much smarter than me

can somebody please ban this troll for good? He hasn't learned his lesson, why do we have to keep on having this waste of server space going on?

4th hit on google:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/4th.jpg

bla bla bla freedom blabla liberty bla bla freedom of speech

will you censor that guy

Good find. It definitively proves you are wrong.

Yet another assinine "freedom of speech" statement. You have no such freedom here or on any other privately operated message board. Only a total and complete moron would believe they do.

As if that wasn't enough, to the best of my knowledge, this board is operated by a corporation who's country of origin has brutally crushed such freedoms in the past and probably continues such activity to a lesser extent today.

Those wanting to ban raaaid are as equally ridiculous as his claim to the right of free speech. If you don't like it, ignore it.

--Outlaw.

well being the 4th hit proves me kind of a pioneer

is not like im saying the queen of england is a reptilian

of course theres not free speech here nor do i expect it, i was just pointing to a guy who cant ignore me and want me to stop saying my ideas shouldnt have liberty in his sig

It only proves that the others abandoned the theory after reading the first 3 hits ;)

No. It's personal, and that's not okay. If we weren't allowed to have members of the forum banned for alternative, oftentimes vitriolic opinions and constant whining toward this game, then I see no reason to go off on raaaid.

I mentioned it yesterday, and I'll do it again today because a forum moderator consistently tells us if there is a problem with another poster - put him on ignore (complete with instructions on how to use it). I see no viable excuse for the hunting down raaid just to express your personal feelings of how he annoys you. The answer is obvious- IGNORE him.

Barring your unwillingness to ignore him, I'll ask the moderators to ban you. He's not bothering anyone, and unless it's a problem with bandwidth, breaking rules, or abusing other members, he's not bothering anyone who doesn't want to be bothered. This is an off topic forum. In raaaid's case sometimes they are as off topic as one can get, but they're harmless.

It's really that easy bongo. Nothing personal, and absolutely no animosity is directed toward you, bongo. I just don't get what appears to be a crusade.

I explained it several times, I think raaaid is an attention seeking troll, out of any of the regular raaaid bashers I tend to be one that at least gives a reasoned argument why I'd like him to politely move on instead of just demanding his banning.

Anyway, point noted and ignore list it is, if he really can keep it on one thread then great.

I've just noticed this thread.

I haven't read any of raaaids posts as he is on my ignore list, and has been for months.

Its a simple solution, I just wish the ignore feature would hide threads started by people on your ignore list, and not just posts.

No. raaaid has medical issues, and he's stated some of them in the past. While those may drive what seems like attention seeking, it is not. I don't know his specifics, but my brother is schizophrenic and I recognize many many many of the same traits of logic and theorizing. That may even be why I feel the need to back raaaid. I do find him a likable guy when not provoked.

EDIT: I know he takes his licks from others here and elsewhere too. Again. Nothing personal, bongo. ;)

check out this refraction in which theres no cromatic aberration

http://homepage.usask.ca/~dln136/ref...l_in_water.jpg

cromatic aberration or rainbow efect is just a minor part of refraction

the main problem with refraction is it moves stars, it has to be taken into acount with celestial navigation and it grows as stars get close to the horizon

in other words the rainbow effect caused by the atmosphere refracting starlight is neglible compared with the change of position of the star caused by that refraction

I think it's a smokescreen.

I wish I could believe it.

I had an aunt with the same condition, a well researched and cunning troll could emulate all of that behaviour or as I believe make it a trademark.

The flip side of the coin, either believe him and back him or not believe him and confront him.

No worries, I believe you at least.

oh so after all you believe im not crazy, well my clinical diagnose its im sane though im having antipsicotics(and i think those frag my head the most, hell everymonth when i get the shot i make the crazier threads)

well what makes me crazy is that in the 12 century i would belive in earth translation while everybody believed the stars were candles in a dome

today its the opposite

i had two nervous breakdowns as heartman

but what do you expect after having watched on tv an ufo attack on a plane in an aerial exhibition or that chicken meat gets his genetic pairs of proteins from millions to just two so the origin of the meat cant be determined

of course im crazy but my resentfull and what i aired as its posible to me is that for some unknown reason i was lead crazy

bongo what you percieve in a way its an excrazy guy

someone who yesterday was scared of certain things and now make him laugh

edit:

also bongo what doesnt fit to you is like when you find a gay guy who is not a butterfly like an ophiolite

im a totally wacky guy who still can fit perfectly in society and is in his perfect right TO THINK WHATEVER HE WANTS

you want me to cut out the crab?

prove me wrong

a good argument:

atmospheric lensing causes raimbow effect or chromatic aberration while gravitational lensing doesnt

link with fact:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/etwum62yqqhx8e6d/

Light refraction by the Sun's atmosphere is calculated.As detected from the Earth, the refraction can deflect a light ray emitted from the Sun's limb by 13" or a starlight ray grazing the solar limb by 26", an effect 15 times larger than the gravitational deflection.

edit:

also bongo you should know in 10 years i never was caught lying, i was caught cheating amerikas army though

am i very smart or telling the truth?

If you allow totally unscientific mumbo jumbo from creationists and climate change deniers, how can you then justify banning Raaaid? There is very little difference.

There is no such thing as social compulsion to be nice to loonies.
Especially if they harass you - bongo probably feels harassed.

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.

No, it just proves you are wrong. It clearly states why and how the measured gravity lensing effect is accurate and why and how it is NOT caused by refraction.

As usual you are completely WRONG about how Google ranks pages. There are many factors that go into ranking. In fact, I just repeated the search and it now shows up as the second link. It may be the 6th tomorrow.

And for the record, not having been caught lying on the Internet is not much of an accomplishment.


As usual, your two "degrees" still don't help you read English. The sample page you link to as supporting you assinine argument STATES THAT GRAVITATIONAL LENSING HAS BEEN VERIFIED.


--Outlaw.

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 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

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?!

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

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?

yes but why did you tell me that?

is not that i have them like smoking

was it to break my trust in my family?

why did you tell me to commit suicide thats an extreamly rude joke

edit:

a pic worth a thousand worths

me the gay guy

you the captioner

http://www.itusozluk.com/image/atten...ore_138504.jpg

edit:

the lie was that my family is giving something that damages me

its true that damages me but they do it with the best intentions you wanted to me questioning my family intentions

what was the point of telling me the side effects of the meds my family give me

so i grow aware of them and stop having them for my good or so i distrust my family and only support that keeps me seeing life fair? cause certainly i cant trust this society that give me fluoride to calcify my brain so im docile and dumb

when youre down ill be there to break your trust and ravage all your lust for life

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

and the suicide yourself thing its old well i got thick skinned about it



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

There's THAT much activity in the forums (pilot's lounge) that he's clogging the boards? Really? C'mon. I come here daily and see the same ten topics on the front page for a week or more.

Let the moderators take care of the issue. I'm sure they're aware of the opinions expressed and will act accordingly. If he gets a few more warnings then it'll be over. I just don't like the idea of pushing someone out who in all reality isn't hurting anyone. I appreciate your sentiments and feelings, Sternjaeger. We're all big enough to not let this get to us.

http://www.ultrafeel.tv/wp-content/u...allen-over.jpg

Why do you tell children, when they grow up - there is no santa clause?
Because sooner or later you have to face reality, simple as that.

Now, I suggest you get drunk really bad and then go collect some "percebe".



You can be sure I would find... "more precise" words. :evil:


Pretty sure Mengele used the same argument. lol

Of course there is no santa clause! Santa Claus (aka Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, the fat man in the red suit) came a whipped his arse for being an imposter! Need a lesson in reality? Nothing says it better than a 'buch of Fives'!

1. I'm already scared.
2. How would know the right moment?
3. What makes you think I feel any "lust for life" at all?

thats whats being doing to me and you did telling me the side effects of my meds

how do you take the song your beautifull video but an invitation to suicide if you have a broken part

watch the end as he jumps to the vacuum saying i will never be with you

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

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

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.


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.

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

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

The following link, provided by you...

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


I did not call you asinine.


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



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.




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.

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.



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?

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.

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.

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:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...30612-1834.jpg

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

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

Everything you said is wrong.

The static friction coefficient (μ) between two solid surfaces is defined as the ratio of the tangential force (F) required to produce sliding divided by the normal force between the surfaces (N)

μ = F /N


So, the coefficient of friction is determined experimentally and DEPENDS ON THE SURFACES INVOLVED. That includes EVERYTHING about the surfaces and the bodies used in the aforementioned experiment.

The example coefficients of friction used in textbooks and even in industry are VERY BROAD. For example, for steel on steel sliding pipe supports we use a 0.3 coefficient of friction. This works because all of our supports conform to similar specifications AND they are about the same size. If we started using a support with a contact area on the order of 50'x50' instead of the order of 4"x6" we would need to look at our friction coefficients again.

So, THE EQUATION IS INDEPENDENT OF THE AREA OF CONTACT, but determining the coefficient of friction is not.

That is why, as I said before, the rolling and sliding friction equations are gross simplifications and must be used within their limitations.


--Outlaw.

...I dunno who of the two is sadder...
Outlaw, by know even the tiles on the floor would agree with you, don't you see there's no dialogue with this guy?! He keeps on doing the same thing: hops here and there, posts a random video and take all with a laugh..

you dint bring down my high level link in atmospheric lensing of the sun atmosphere not being taken into account till the 90s

i win my point of einstein and the generally accepted truth a fraud

i provide two links saying force of friction is independent of surface are you rebating them

incidentally are the only links on which that non surface dpendancy is named coulombs law

ALL THE REST OF THE NET LABELS IT AS montomom

doesnt that back up my delusion of people messing with tt travel and my unwanted attention due to my inmunity to tt?

So now we know the truth. Raaaaid has been driven insane by listening to James Blunt. Now it all becomes clear.

Then tell me boy genius, how is it that my site is listed at #1 for that search when that site has not seen more than 5 or 6 hits in the last 6 months, maybe even more?????

How do they know how much traffic the Palo Alto web server is serving?

How do they know the traffic of ANY servers, except their own?

We all know the answer, they don't.

If you had bothered to look for 3 minutes you would have learned that the number of other sites that link to your site is the most significant factor in determining Google ranking. However, that factor is applied AFTER relevance of the keywords is calculated so you must still have a high relevance for the keywords. Without that, it does not matter how many people link to your site.

--Outlaw.

Oh yes, I am fully aware. There is a reason for my madness, mostly free lunches.

--Outlaw.

youre both baddies in my world the difference the class

also you dint bring out my main argumants

solar refraction not studied till 90s

two links saying friction is INDEPENDANT of surface

are the only links IN THE WHOLE WORLD atributting this to coulombs not montomom

edit:

also the ranking of this thread in google as using relativity falsified that my dad a fisicist and mathematician believe and many believe gives away the relevance of this apparently inocnet deluded ramblings thread have since your words instead are cherry picked

edit:

im also sure mods will take this company best interests and take into account that relativity falsified ranks this place 4th while cliffs of dover ranks it 8th :)

Once again, you can't even maintain a level of understanding in your own thread. Look at the title!!! It clearly indicated the lie of relativity. It does not mention ANYTHING about the '90s. Furthermore, you didn't bring up the '90s until halfway through the thread! As usual, you attempted to change the topic partway through the thread.

In the words of your heroine...

EPIC FAIL.

I already noted how the equations should be used and their limitations. Just because you can't understand it does not mean it isn't true.

Wow, NOTHING in the above can even remotely be associated with anything resembling a sentence. A truly awesome example of assininity.

--Outlaw.

Are you going to respond to any of the above questions or just ignore them?

--Outlaw.

i already answered cause they are cherry picked words

your ignoring the fact that i provided a high level link claiming refraction light bending WASNT TAKEN INOT ACCOUNT till the 90s, what means eisntein didnt acount for what means einstein is a farce as the stablishment truths

culombs or montomon laws im not sure any more what to wrtie when asked in physics exam about friction

according in the non affected by tt

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...30612-1834.jpg

and ill translate:

the force strictly necesary to make that a body slides over other is INDEPENDENT of the area of contact and its proportional to the normal reaction

edit:

oh and the true fundamental law of physics its in that link on starlight bending:

nature does as it pleases

edit:

http://www.tribology-abc.com/abc/history.htm

do you realize how history MAY have been rewritten?

even outlaw says friction is DPENDANT on surface

of course its counterintuitive, as counterituivtive as all false things

oh but no way can we both outlaw and me be samrter than those HISTORIC genious who are conspiring and reading this at this very same moment 500 years ago

edit:

hey "they" could tt and eliminate races

if there are no races people will believe friction is NOT dependant of surfaces

those huge tyres may make those who are not conspiring believe galileleo montamas and cuolombs were just crooks

edit:

otlaw your a smart guy try this one:

what happens if you have a double ramp like this ^ in which two identical weights are united through a pulley by an string

the coeficient of friction of the left is 0.1 while in the right 0.9, both weights produce a tangential force to the ramp bigger than friction for being very heavy

heart?
I dont have one, not for humans at least.
Now, for christ's sake: Jump already!


Thank lord!
What were I supposed to do with a fag like him?

oh but i have a rmemebrance of yourself being nice to me

could that have been posible?

http://alaguillotina.files.wordpress...owardly21.jpeg

you know my theory is im an alien who after winning a wormhole dogfight jumped himself to a blcakhole with a big horizont event enough as to cross it alive

people with no heart get sent to it so they got their spirit frozen in time forever so they ruled by fear but i DEMONSTARTED that was false since im here

whats the chance of living now in a 100 year live in trillions of years maybe infinite?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMqsWc8muj8

edit:

oh and plz i hope you LEARN some class form outlaw

what your asking me is your self admitance im so uber in front of you so if i could pity plz let you win ;)

Raaid, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to 'falsify' this or any other Physical theory in the 21st Century! What on earth would be the 'motive' and, even if you presented some form of 'conspiracy theory' - the problem is - who cares and what does it matter? The fact is, no one cares, it doesn't matter and it doesn't make any difference -except to you for some strange reason.

Count on Raaaid to explore the road less traveled...bordering on poetry.

But does the proximity to Raaaid's head deviate the trajectory of thought ?

It would seem so !

the point is lifes beautiful and the worlds perfect though is staged as to look horrible

THIS IS AN UNCERTAINITY

do i want to have the certainty?

really not maybe we live in different universes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y9aKqawdUQ

Now that is a far more interesting idea - quantom theory and the possibility of parallel universes.....give this one up and have a crack at that, CloD in a perfect state exists.....there you go, start a topic on that!

oh what im sure of is that when the patch comes in two weeks it will be undoable but i bet its the same from your perspective

im begining to believe the many limited benign worlds in which from YOUR perspective you always have a happy life but from the perspective of others you are miserable

honestly as i weather quantum inmortality is true i pray to god is not i far rather eincarnation, anhedonia its a terrible thing though im still a child in what bulletins refer

But people like me are here too - shouldn't I be beyond the event horizon? :grin:

Actually it's the other way around, still there are many options for the individual to "adjust" his own life, doesn't change the whole though.


Can't remember - or was it when I suggested you should study art?
I still think that's best for you. Seriously, you're a 12 year old in the body of an adult.
Artists are usually more tolerant, so you have a real chance of survival in their community.


Whom are you talking to?
Me?
If so, you got it wrong again.

So what? You claimed that ranking is based on traffic. Show me ANYWHERE that states Google knows the traffic level of every server it indexes and how it uses that information in the ranking.

As usual, you just ignore and/or deflect the questions that prove you are wrong.


It said that AS FAR AS THE AUTHOR KNOWS no one took it into account. That does not mean that it was never taken into account.

Regardless, just because it was not taken into account does not mean that it was not addressed. It may not have been possible to take it into account at that time and thus it was chosen to ignore it until the technology was capable of more accurate measurements. That's why I said you should find out exactly what the experiment was and how it was done.

But you didn't do that. Instead you just regurgitated the same stuff that others had been saying for years.

Of course, NONE OF THAT MATTERS because, thanks to your magic "4th hit on google", we now know that Einstein has been shown to be accurate.


You should write that you will not be taking anymore physics classes because it is obvious to even the most dessicated pile of howler monkey feces that you will never be able to pass.

How can you not understand something so simple?

The EQUATION is NOT a function of the surfaces.
The coefficient of friction IS A FUNCTION OF THE SURFACES.

So it is true that, when manipulating the equation there is no dependence on the surface, BUT, when determining the coefficient of friction it is dependent on the surface.





There is nothing false or counter intuitive about it. Little kids and 108 year old fresh out of the amazon tribal elders can understand the above. Why do you refuse to learn it?


The above statement is so stupid it can't be described by any language currently existing on this planet. I do not discount, however, the possibility of some alien language being able to adequately express the aforementioned level of the statement's stupidity.



You have failed to completely describe the system, however, it can still be answered...

The acceleration of each body will be equal to the sum of the forces acting upon it divided by its mass.

--Outlaw.

"The coefficient of friction IS A FUNCTION OF THE SURFACES."

of course since the friction coeficient is the tangent of the angle of the ramp when the box starts to move

so then you admitt those links saying friction being INDEPENDENT OF SURFACE are wrong

also you admit einstein couldnt have measured atmospheric starlight bending

then how COULD that eclipse have proof him and give him the nobel prize, maybe a fraud?

edit:

thsi thread is very RELEVANT in gravity falsified

yours as well for those planes and that year but who would search your words while mine are very common

edit:

outlaw youre the perfect exmplae of sophist with slight trolling for your slight personal attacaks

seems you want to convince somebody else not me for your ridiculous arguments

will you plz answer me this clear question with yes or no plz?

is force of friction dependant of apparent area of contact?
a)YES
b)NO
c)snoopy discovered america

No, I do not admit that. I have clearly shown how both statements can be true at the same time.

What is so hard to understand about the above statement?

No, I NEVER admitted anything about the specifics of that experiment.

Because you work with the tools & technology available at the time and make the best decisions based on that. A roundup infused rosebush has the brain power required to understand that.

You could say, "maybe", about EVERYTHING...

Maybe we are in a matrix
Maybe we are in a truman show
Maybe we are all jellyfish like beings living in a big vat of mind altering drugs in an alien kids version of a fish tank
Maybe we are all just tiny little specks about the size of Mickey Rooney
Maybe every third person we see is a time traveler
Maybe your black hole has a huge event horizon

None of it can be proven yet you talk as if it's fact.

By definition the above can't be proven except in the brain damaged mind of a drug addict so what is the point of even talking about it?


Once again, DEFLECTION on your part. Your original statement said NOTHING about relevance. You didn't even know what the word meant until I said it.

So why won't you back up your statement that Google ranks based on traffic or admit that you are wrong? You have claimed many times that you admit when you are wrong but it is clear now that you were lying.

--Outlaw.

nope how google ranks webs its a mistery i wathced on tv that traffic influenced a lot

so to my question if force of friction is dependant of surface your answer is yes and no both

tell me how could have einstein accounted for sun atmosphere star light bending being this 15 time bigger than gravitational lensing

you could save words like drug adict damged mind, more stupid than a plant

you know too well thats what a child does when losing an argument

how did eisntein account for atmospheric starlight bending

is howed you one link that explain this wasnt account till the 90s show me one where shows he did account for this eeffect

the balls in your side since every knows he couldnt know what the sun atmosphere was like

edit:


galileo tomamas and culomb and my teacher have a very clear answer for this:

is force of friction(not coeficient of friction) dpendant of surface?


a)yes
b)no
c)yes and no ;)

wrong answer will be 3.333333..... negative points

edit:

outlaw you brough up an interesting point:

i have a damage mind cause i take my ramblings as FACT

wel in this thread i havemention i DIDNT KNOW if relativity was true or not, in fact in the graviational lensing or not happening is the key on causality, although this was brought down imo by INSTANT quantum entanglement

so im QUESTIONING relativity

while you take relativity as FACT

who has the damaged mind then?

me who question and realizes i know nothing for sure

or you who takes OTHERS experiences and stories as FACT

If that is true, the person who stated that is incorrect. You claim you question everything but you accept that TV show as FACT! Why have you not researched it? You can find the answer easily if you take a few minutes. Yet you refuse. Why is that?

We all know the answer but please enlighten us anyway.

I have clearly shown the answer and even asked what part you don't understand. In response you just regurgitate the same garbage you have been spouting.

Why won't you respond to my specific question?

I already said I don't know the specifics of the experiment. Furthermore, I have NEVER stated that he did account for it.

I have no interest in finding out the specifics of the experiment. If you want to know, YOU go find out.

You are arguing a point THAT I NEVER MADE.

And you could have avoided calling engineers and scientists stupid. You could have avoided calling everyone that did not believe you stupid. But you didn't.

You are incapable of understanding the context of their answers or even of your question. That...is why you fail.

Besides, I already answered this one above.


You will NEVER be able to experimentally determine ANYTHING so, by your logic, NOTHING WILL EVER BE TRUE.

I take relativity as fact not because of an experiment in 1919, but because of recent experiments. You act as if nothing has been done since 1919.

And to reiterate, I NEVER stated that the 1919 experiment(s) took refraction into account.

--Outlaw.

to my question is the force necesary to beat friction surface dependant?

your answer: yes and no it depends

you see how youre a chip sophist who dont mind the truth how can a thing be and not be?

next questions:

do you THINK einstein took into acount atmospheric starlight bending when he got the nobel prize for light bending?

yes-no

do you think he should?

yes-no

No, that was NOT my answer. I have ALWAYS said YES. I have NEVER said no or it depends.

I'm sorry that you can't understand what I'm saying but that's your problem and does not make it false.

I can't possibly answer that with a yes or no. I know absolutely nothing about the experiment. Only a total and complete idiot would give a yes or no answer to that question without researching the experiment.

Once again, that's not a yes or no question.

If the experimenter had the capability to do so then he/she should have. If not, then there should be no expectation for them to do so. If the knowledge that refraction was a possibility in the experiment it should, of course, be addressed by the experimenter.

--Outlaw.

http://www.tribology-abc.com/abc/history.htm

then science history is a farce

Da Vinci simply stated that:

the areas in contact have no effect on friction.
if the load of an object is doubled, its friction will also be doubled.
Note that the first statement is counterintuitive; most of us would assume that friction does depend upon the cross-sectional area.