The Fraud of E=mc²

[Torn Mind]

@Torn_Mind, As your last reply is rather complicated, I'll have to reply you piecemeal.
your link:


Indeed, you have found an interesting link showing how the Chinese Beidou system is based on General Relativity - Congratulations and Sorry at the same time.

But a google search of "Beijing Satellite Navigation Center" gives only an address, nothing else.

The only official government links on the Beidou system are as follow:
1) 中国卫星导航系统管理办公室测试评估研究中心
Test and Assessment Research Center of China Satellite Navigation Office

系统介绍

www.csno-tarc.cn

This is the official website of Beidou. There is no mentioned at all that Beidou needs Einstein's relativity.
2) COMPASS/BeiDou Coordinate and Time Reference Systems
YANG YUANXI and TANG JING
China National Administration of GNSS and Applications (CNAGA)
HAN CHUNHAO
Beijing Global Information Center of Application and Exploration

COMPASS/BeiDou Coordinate and Time Reference Systems--Yang Yuanxi, Tang Jing, and Han Chunhao | Global Navigation Satellite Systems: Report of a Joint Workshop of the National Academy of Engineering and the Chinese Academy of Engineering |The Nationa

Read chapter COMPASS/BeiDou Coordinate and Time Reference Systems--Yang Yuanxi, Tang Jing, and Han Chunhao: The Global Positioning System (GPS) has revolu...

nap.nationalacademies.org

Abstract: "Satellite navigation needs coordinate and time references. It is impossible to realize interoperability for multiple GNSS systems without a consistent reference coordinate system and time system. Compass/BeiDou satellite navigation system follows the rules of compatibility and interoperability defined by the International Committee of GNSS (ICG). The coordinate system of BeiDou is aligned to the China Geodetic Coordinate System 2000 (CGCS 2000), which is aligned to ITRS. BeiDou system time (BDT) is an internal, continuous navigation time scale, without leap second. BDT is linked to the national UTC(k), which is consistent to UTC. The status and existing problems and future developments are described.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Global Navigation Satellite Systems: Report of a Joint Workshop of the National Academy of Engineering and the Chinese Academy of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13292."
3) http://en.beidou.gov.cn/SYSTEMS/ICD/201902/P020190227702348791891.pdf
China Satellite Navigation Office, 2019

All these official documents on the Beidou navigation coordinate systems makes not a single mention about the need for any relativistic adjustments - not special relativity nor general relativity

You can live in your "winning-by-technicality" fantasies. It's still illogical nonsense.
It's a report, not a tell-all of how things work.

Indeed, it literally states:

"The status and existing problems and future developments are described."

Therefore, what is not described are the processes behind the operation of GPS because it's simply not within the scope of the paper. It describes the aforementioned things, it's not an instruction manual. Your reading comprehension is simply no better than typical humans(which not great).

It's not going to be a breakdown of how the system works, because everyone already knows and accepts how it works.

Indeed, we can break down your argument into a generalized form.

"Authority X did not provide information in an 'official' publications about how a thing (usually machine/appliance/etc) M works, therefore the thing doesn't use those physical processes".

Most products don't tell you the underpinnings behind their operation. Owning a car won't come with a detailed repair manual with things like what voltages to check. That doesn't mean the principles behind electricity, combustion, etc are not applied.

Lack of communicating underlying processes or calculations does not entail those underlying processes or calculation are not applied.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

You can live in your "winning-by-technicality" fantasies. It's still illogical nonsense.
It's a report, not a tell-all of how things work.

Indeed, it literally states:

"The status and existing problems and future developments are described."

Therefore, what is not described are the processes behind the operation of GPS because it's simply not within the scope of the paper. It describes the aforementioned things, it's not an instruction manual. Your reading comprehension is simply no better than typical humans(which not great).

It's not going to be a breakdown of how the system works, because everyone already knows and accepts how it works.

The paper you linked to is just one of hundreds of paper on the application of General relativity. Please! I have been clear that I do not accept general relativity to belong to our real world; it cannot be used in anything real in the world including GPS type navigation. I do not accept general relativity just because the professors at Tsinghua and Peking university write paper on general relativity.

Please tell me more IF AND ONLY IF you have found the official Beidou scientists telling how they have to refer to the theory of special and general relativity. Otherwise, this argument of GPS, etc.. will never ever end.

Indeed, we can break down your argument into a generalized form.

"Authority X did not provide information in an 'official' publications about how a thing (usually machine/appliance/etc) M works, therefore the thing doesn't use those physical processes".

Most products don't tell you the underpinnings behind their operation. Owning a car won't come with a detailed repair manual with things like what voltages to check. That doesn't mean the principles behind electricity, combustion, etc are not applied.

Lack of communicating underlying processes or calculations does not entail those underlying processes or calculation are not applied.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

@Torn_Mind, before I proceed further, I have a question for you.
Question: "If we put F=d/dt(γm₀v) in: W= ∫ Fds, what is the unit of force F in SI units?"
I hope you would give an answer. This is important as I have to be clear about your position with respect to some fundamental aspect of the physics needed to debate my 24-line refutation of E=mc².

Your proof is not based on experimentation. It's based on a priori reasoning, and very fallacious reasoning at that. Basically, you're doing nothing more than typical human thinking, which is more irrational than rational. Now, this "irrationality" has a certain cadence based on emotions, mental schema, psychology, hormones etc, but it's not what is called logical.

What is the SI unit of force?

Historically, there have been a variety of units of force and conversion factors.

www.npl.co.uk

Consider the excerpt from above. The writer takes great care in specifying that "for unchanging mass", implying the the acceptance of relativity and that mass is not actually unchanging.

For a changing mass, then mass also becomes a function and thus a derivative of it can be taken. Hence, the "adjustment". The "change" is a logical extension of the concept. It still represents mass, but more accurately than previously assumed. Just that with sig figs, that degree of accuracy usually doesn't apply in real life...but for something like GPS, it's a very important and influential application. For the matter of convenience of calcuation, it's better to teach a bit of the classical version. It takes a lot of brain power to fully comprehend the relativistic paradigm.

"Force is defined as the rate of change of momentum. For an unchanging mass, this is equivalent to mass x acceleration. So, 1 N = 1 kg m s-2, or 1 kg m/s2."

But your premium site does not clarify what is the unit when mass is changing relativistically. Is it still F=ma newton? Neither does your site show what is momentum and the SI unit for momentum. Is momentum p = invariant-mass x velocity? Or p=γm₀v.

Bolded are false premises.

https://www.physics.unlv.edu/~lenz/PHYS%20180.F10/Chap9.sum.pdf

Then you make the fallacy of "appeal to nature".
In addition, you try to use equivocation again by using "invariant". Your sense is the colloquial sense of invariant but perhaps a physicist would read it as the proper physics sense. Then that spawns a giant windbag of text as two different senses are used.

You really think that's sound reasoning? It's a deliberate attempt to cause confusion.

Don't know how to comment.

Complex numbers can be integrated, not sure where you got the statement "integration works only on real numbers". There is the question of whether your use of the term "real numbers" refers to the mathematical sense or the colloquial sense of "real" because you have a very frequent habit of using ambiguous sense of a word in a sentence, which is equivocation.

Don't know how to comment. Can someone help.

The Second Law is the rate of change of momentum. It's been discovered mass is not constant.

In addition, your use of "law" another example of using different senses of the same term in an argument. "Law" has many definitions and context matters. Here, you switch between the scientific sense and the "legal sense", akin to a violation of law. Indeed, you try argue relativity is false because it doesn't correspond with F=ma. But F=ma is not the actual definition, as explained above. It's the result of taking the derivative of momentum assuming mass is constant, which has been disproven by experimental observation, independent of human meddling.

The very broad conceptualization of Newton's 2nd Law is not contradicted or discarded by relativity, merely an adjustment to mass is introduced to make calculations that correspond to the actual behavior of mass. As already stated, all of your windbag sentences boils down to not accepting mass as changing.

Scientific laws are a more "practical" manifestation to obtain correct calculations, where as "legal laws" can be violated and punishment or relief obtained. It's clear; the calculations are more accurate in more situations with relativity than without. Similar to the "approximate of circles" vs heliocentric-based calculations; the reality corresponds with the better measurements.
In addition, under relatively, mass still is recognized as part of the equation, just that the equation has to reflect the nature of mass as changing depending on velocity.

I will answer the rest when you reply to the top question I pose here for you.

 

[nakedfrog]

I don't understand your message.

It seems you are the super moderator here. I am surprised this thread of mine could survive this long without being removed.

I mean, we get a lot of really dumb shit here, this doesn't even scratch the top 100, I think.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them" — Galileo Galilei.
“Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things” — Sir Isaac Newton

It is said that the two greatest unsolved mysteries of physics are gravity and mass. If the intuition of Galileo and Newton were correct, then, when the two mysteries are finally solved, they should be easy to understand.

In 1830, O.F. Mossotti a French physics teacher at the University of Buenos Aires proposed that gravitation is simply the excess of the attractive forces between unlike charges over the repulsive forces between like charges. It was said Faraday and Weber gave serious consideration to the Mossotti hypothesis. Neither Faraday’s experiments nor Weber’s could have found any connection between electricity and gravity as gravity is only 10^-37 times that of the electrical forces. Furthermore, the structure of matter as atoms had not been discovered. Only after the work of J.J. Thomson, Rutherford and others that we know of atoms as having a nucleus of protons and neutrons with electrons orbiting about the nucleus. With our newfound knowledge of the atomic nature of atoms and their masses, the final understanding of gravity and mass seems to be within reach. But difficulties appeared which delayed this unraveling of the two mysteries.

The early chemists discovered the law of conservation of mass. Also the masses of atoms seems to follow a whole number rules - the Proust's hypothesis, that the atomic weights for the elements are whole multiples of the atomic weight of hydrogen. But this was "disproved" when mass spectrometry was invented as a means to measure atomic masses; mass spectrometry could measure with ever higher and higher resolutions then what the chemists could do with their scale balance. The weight measurements of atomic masses always show a slight difference with the atomic mass whole number. Finally Arthur Eddington proposed the "mass defect" concept. He used the small mass defect difference as input into the 'm' of E=mc² to explain how the sun converts mass to energy. Mass defect, E=mc² and mass to energy transformation is now mainstream physics.

Unbeknown to the physicists of the time - and also today's - the mass defect came about because mass spectrometry (the high end Penning trap of today) cannot measure mass accurately; mass spectrometry gives highly precise but inaccurate weights. This is because the weighing technique of mass spectrometry has not been calibrated! So all the NIST data of atomic nuclide masses are of no use. In fact, there is no need to measure atomic masses. The atomic mass of a nuclide is simply its mass number in atomic mass unit (amu).

The last piece of the puzzle needed to solve the twin mysteries of gravity and mass is the law of conservation of mass - free of energy as with E=mc². With this law being revived, the mass of the neutron is simply the mass of proton + mass of electron. If we take the neutron within the nucleus of atoms to be just another extra proton and a nuclear electron, then the nature of mass is easily explained:
The mass of a neutral atom is proportional to its protons and electrons.
If we have a piece of metal of mass 1 kg and a quantity of tomatoes of mass 1 kg, both have the same number of protons and electrons. This is the mystery of the nature of mass. With the nature of mass found, the inverse square gravitational law is nicely deduced from the Coulomb's law.

The mysteries of gravity and the nature of mass is now found. The intuitions of Galileo and Newton were right that "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered".

"Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory (SUT)"

E=mc2 Relativistic Mechanics Invalid, 相对论错误

E=mc2 kinetic energy fictitious; relativistic mechanics has no defined force unit; the SI Newton only valid for Newtonian mechanics. 爱因斯坦的相对论是错误的; E = mc2 没有真正的物理单位。

www.emc2fails.com

 

[Torn Mind]

You want simplicity? Your entire worldview(assuming you are are not a ridiculously passionate troll who spends money on a website) is founded on fallacies.

Your writings are not science; but just unsourced imitations of the form. Thus; it's clear you didn't learn the proper citation form.

Two of the underpinnings of your dis-reasoning.

Appeal to Intuition

Evaluating an argument based on "intuition" or "gut feeling" that is unable to be articulated, rather than evaluating the argument using reason.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Appeal to Authority Fallacy: Definition and Examples

When you need to support a claim, it can be tempting to support it with a statement from an authority figure. But if…

www.grammarly.com

.
Genetic fallacy

Along with outright contradicting established observations.

Also, I don't think you learned calculus. Does u-substitution sound familiar to you?

And in fact, Newton's outlook isn't actually intuitive. "Intuitive" physics is more akin to the Aristotelian outlook because it's what monkeys would think is normal with no formal education to separate friction from motion.

Relativistic Effects on Satellite–Ground Two–Way Precise Time Synchronization

An ultrahigh precise clock (space optical clock) will be installed onboard a low-orbit spacecraft (a usual expression for a low-orbit satellite operating on an orbit at an altitude of less than 1000 km) in the future, which will be expected to obtain better time-frequency performance in a...

www.mdpi.com

------------
I did read the Foundation trilogy way back when. The opening parts of Slavor Hardin logically shredding the wordy nonsense of whatever that planet that started with an A stuck to my mind.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

You want simplicity? Your entire worldview(assuming you are are not a ridiculously passionate troll who spends money on a website) is founded on fallacies.

Your writings are not science; but just unsourced imitations of the form. Thus; it's clear you didn't learn the proper citation form.

Two of the underpinnings of your dis-reasoning.

Appeal to Intuition

Evaluating an argument based on "intuition" or "gut feeling" that is unable to be articulated, rather than evaluating the argument using reason.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Appeal to Authority Fallacy: Definition and Examples

When you need to support a claim, it can be tempting to support it with a statement from an authority figure. But if…

www.grammarly.com

.
Genetic fallacy

Along with outright contradicting established observations.

Also, I don't think you learned calculus. Does u-substitution sound familiar to you?

And in fact, Newton's outlook isn't actually intuitive. "Intuitive" physics is more akin to the Aristotelian outlook because it's what monkeys would think is normal with no formal education to separate friction from motion.

I accept that you do not consider the twenty physics papers uploaded at my website to be of any scientific worth. I will not comment on how you reach the conclusion.

Relativistic Effects on Satellite–Ground Two–Way Precise Time Synchronization

An ultrahigh precise clock (space optical clock) will be installed onboard a low-orbit spacecraft (a usual expression for a low-orbit satellite operating on an orbit at an altitude of less than 1000 km) in the future, which will be expected to obtain better time-frequency performance in a...

www.mdpi.com

------------
I did read the Foundation trilogy way back when. The opening parts of Slavor Hardin logically shredding the wordy nonsense of whatever that planet that started with an A stuck to my mind.

Again, I do not agree about your insistence that space global positioning needs relativistic adjustments. I will not accept any suggestions that the Beidou system implemented any relativistic correction UNTIL AND UNLESS there is official acknowledgment from the Beidou designers.

You should be aware that anybody can write about how general relativity may be used to give a better positioning system. As long as they pass peer review, it would be published. Any physicists in China are free to write papers in general relativity and have them published. The question is, has the Beidou system implemented any of the suggested relativistic corrections?

The paper you linked to:" Relativistic Effects on Satellite–Ground Two–Way Precise Time Synchronization " only gave their method to do relativistic corrections, but they did not mention if the Beidou system has implemented their method.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I accept that you do not consider the twenty physics papers uploaded at my website to be of any scientific worth.

What are you working on right now?

Have any other interests in life?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Again, I do not agree about your insistence that space global positioning needs relativistic adjustments.

You can think that all you want, doesn't change the fact that if you don't adjust it, it'll eventually stop working. Note that this isn't limited to gps, any telecommunications satellite that depends on any form of encrypted traffic needs adjustments or their internal clock will eventually skew to the 5m limit that breaks ssl. This has been a thing for actual decades.

 

[RLGL]

A bunch of flat earthers put this together.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

What are you working on right now?

Have any other interests in life?

You asked the wrong question. You should have asked: "If you were the emperor of China, what would you be now doing?"

Kublai Khan failed badly in his last two campaigns, one to conquer Japan and the other to punish Java. Man finally had to admit to human limits in life. In his final years, he left the running of the Yuan dynasty to his ministers. He only relaxed and enjoyed his last years...

The founder of the Ming dynasty after the Mongols was Zhu Yuanzhang. In his youths, he was once a Buddhist monk of convenience. When he became emperor, it was said he had a harem of 20,000 women; he enjoyed life being emperor.

If I were now the emperor of China, I would likely be a good and wise emperor and...

I am not an emperor. My main interests is still physics. Besides physics, I ponder on the meaning of life and death. As a Muslim (converted at 24), I do believe as a plain Muslim does in the teaching of Islam. A question that beats me is why most people with a high IQ usually do not believe in an Omniscient God.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

You can think that all you want, doesn't change the fact that if you don't adjust it, it'll eventually stop working. Note that this isn't limited to gps, any telecommunications satellite that depends on any form of encrypted traffic needs adjustments or their internal clock will eventually skew to the 5m limit that breaks ssl. This has been a thing for actual decades.

I tell what I know and tell what I don't know.

I don't know a thing about how clocks in the world are synchronized to run correct. My Linux system has a clock that is accurate to the second as there is something called NTP...network time protocaol daemon...Don't expect me to know a thing about how the Beidou system keeps time synchronized between the satellite clocks and the earth bound clocks. I have read others who explained that time synchronization is purely an engineering problem - albeit complicated. Some refuted the claims about any need for relativistic adjustments.

I don't know a thing about the practical aspect of clock synchronization, but I do know special relativity, time dilation,etc are fictions. I know because I examined the physics of special relativity myself, not just the taking words of others.

If you know the physics behind clock synchronization, I have no comment on your views on it.

 

[igor_kavinski]

A question that beats me is why most people with a high IQ usually do not believe in an Omniscient God.

Because their IQ tells them that a game like choosing the best people for Heaven and throwing the rest in Hell, just seems absurd for someone who is All Knowing and Most Wise.

I think a lot of people forget that the Devil made a wish to allow him to lead astray the children of Adam so he could take revenge for his fall from grace because he blames Adam for it and not his own arrogance. God granted him that wish. And so now we have to deal with the damn Devil and his underlings (the evil Djinn) whispering bad thoughts in our ears and we are most susceptible to these whisperings when we go around satisfying the desires of the flesh instead of praying and meditating and asking for forgiveness and asking to be guided to the right path.

Have you considered that it is the Devil who is making you come up with these weird theories? You do know that Einstein believed in God so perhaps he was divinely guided? Or are you of the opinion that the Devil put

in Einstein's head specifically to lead to the creation of the Atom Bomb, especially since it was Einstein's letter to Roosevelt that accelerated the development in that direction?

 

[igor_kavinski]

I do know special relativity, time dilation,etc are fictions. I know because I examined the physics of special relativity myself, not just the taking words of others.

Mi’raj (Ascension) and the New Physics – The Pen Magazine

thepenmagazine.net

That article is supporting Einstein. Are you also going to disagree with your fellow Muslims?

 

[Arx Allemand]

Everything everywhere all at once!

 

[Chan Rasjid]

Because their IQ tells them that a game like choosing the best people for Heaven and throwing the rest in Hell, just seems absurd for someone who is All Knowing and Most Wise.

I think a lot of people forget that the Devil made a wish to allow him to lead astray the children of Adam so he could take revenge for his fall from grace because he blames Adam for it and not his own arrogance. God granted him that wish. And so now we have to deal with the damn Devil and his underlings (the evil Djinn) whispering bad thoughts in our ears and we are most susceptible to these whisperings when we go around satisfying the desires of the flesh instead of praying and meditating and asking for forgiveness and asking to be guided to the right path.

Have you considered that it is the Devil who is making you come up with these weird theories? You do know that Einstein believed in God so perhaps he was divinely guided? Or are you of the opinion that the Devil put

in Einstein's head specifically to lead to the creation of the Atom Bomb, especially since it was Einstein's letter to Roosevelt that accelerated the development in that direction?

You do now make some sense in your comments, "perhaps..."

There is another big question that is always in my mind. Do people really know what they are doing?

We all know what is happening in the world. We know who is wrong and who is right... Putin invaded Ukraine...we know everything. Xi Jinping is a dictator ... no human rights, freedom of speech... in China, stealing technology, etc.

It seems to me all our opinions of things are just imaginings of the human mind. The reality,who knows? The world gets on whether we like Putin or hates him. If the Russia Ukraine war is to lead to WW III and a nuclear one at that, it would happen despite all the talks of the worlds superpowers.

Things that is "destined" to happen will happen respecting nought of what you and me think.

Debating about E=mc² is NOT IMPORTANT. But still, I follow what I need to do for the moment in my life.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

Mi’raj (Ascension) and the New Physics – The Pen Magazine

thepenmagazine.net

That article is supporting Einstein. Are you also going to disagree with your fellow Muslims?

No comment. I have a severe headache.

 

[igor_kavinski]

No comment. I have a severe headache.

Get well soon!

When you feel better, here's two more articles to help you understand where you might be wrong:

The Three Meanings Of E=mc^2, Einstein's Most Famous Equation

From matter, antimatter and energy to the fundamental truths about existence, Einstein's most famous equation is the link you can't forget.

www.forbes.com

Why Does E=mc^2?

Einstein's most famous equation could have turned out very differently. But our Universe has a compelling reason that E = mc^2 is the only option.

www.forbes.com

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I tell what I know and tell what I don't know.

I don't know a thing about how clocks in the world are synchronized to run correct. My Linux system has a clock that is accurate to the second as there is something called NTP...network time protocaol daemon...Don't expect me to know a thing about how the Beidou system keeps time synchronized between the satellite clocks and the earth bound clocks. I have read others who explained that time synchronization is purely an engineering problem - albeit complicated. Some refuted the claims about any need for relativistic adjustments.

I don't know a thing about the practical aspect of clock synchronization, but I do know special relativity, time dilation,etc are fictions. I know because I examined the physics of special relativity myself, not just the taking words of others.

If you know the physics behind clock synchronization, I have no comment on your views on it.

There's a lot more you don't know than do, physics included. NTP is necessary earth-bound because making precise clocks is hard. It's also necessary at higher elevations, including space, because of time dilation. Do you have an alternate theory as to how time can run slower in space compared to earth that isn't just a re-wording of 'time dilation'?

You get negative points if you just repeat 'i don't know anything about that' when faced with someone pointing out your ignorance.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

There's a lot more you don't know than do, physics included. NTP is necessary earth-bound because making precise clocks is hard. It's also necessary at higher elevations, including space, because of time dilation. Do you have an alternate theory as to how time can run slower in space compared to earth that isn't just a re-wording of 'time dilation'?

You get negative points if you just repeat 'i don't know anything about that' when faced with someone pointing out your ignorance.

What should I do when I don't know? You say one thing, they say another thing. Should I toss a coin or consult the I Qing?

 

[igor_kavinski]

What should I do when I don't know? You say one thing, they say another thing. Should I toss a coin or consult the I Qing?

How did you choose Islam? You based your decision on reliable sources of information (all of those 1500 years ago).

Yet here you are questioning sources from the 20th century.

Or maybe you just thought, hey! 70 virgins! Too good a deal to pass up!

 

[Pohemi]

I tell what I know and tell what I don't know.

You either are not honest about it, or you greatly overestimate your own intellect (not to mention being delusional.)

You've said a number of times that you don't know how to answer something, but the majority of your responses to others linking very specific and accepted scientific papers are, "Nope. I don't believe that." Or, "I won't accept that as reality" when that's precisely what it is.

You are like a child stomping their feet without even knowing the reason they are stomping their feet. You are arguing against accepted science for the sake of arguing, and you have NO reviewed scientific data to back up your claims. That doesn't stop your foot-stomping, though.

What you are doing is refusing to consider other possibilities (aka reality) because of twisted opinions based on nothing in reality.

I don't know a thing about how clocks in the world are synchronized to run correct....
...I don't know a thing about the practical aspect of clock synchronization, but I do know special relativity, time dilation,etc are fictions.

No, no you don't.
You sit here saying you know nothing about clocks and synchronization, time dilation, etc...then proceed to dismiss the related science out of hand.

I know because I examined the physics of special relativity myself, not just the taking words of others.

No, no you didn't...or you misunderstood them entirely.

If you know the physics behind clock synchronization, I have no comment on your views on it.

And yet, you'll continue telling others that the science behind how it ACTUALLY works is all "fictions".

In summary, you're either a good troll, or truly imbecilic. But your "sciency" speak really means nothing, because it's BASED ON nothing.

"The Fraud of E=mc²" is more like 'The Fraud trying to argue against relativity'.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What should I do when I don't know? You say one thing, they say another thing. Should I toss a coin or consult the I Qing?

You realize it's possible you're just wrong, yes? I know it's hard for your ego to accept but it really is possible that at this point in your life you've accomplished little more than not becoming a physicist and written some technobabble that you've placed on website.

That's not all bad though, it's been a journey and you'll have a fun story to tell to a therapist one day, but you really should try to reach a little further. Consider competing your degree so you can rearrange all the terms you use in a way that is actually correct.

 

[skyking]

I mean, we get a lot of really dumb shit here, this doesn't even scratch the top 100, I think.

It IS respectably wordy.

 

[Pohemi]

It IS respectably wordy.

And somehow, even with all the false science and nonsensical claims...it remains more entertaining to read than 95% of Moonpie's posts.