Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #603076 > unrolled thread

The Emporer Has No Clothes

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Emporer Has No Clothes Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> - 2023-03-05 22:20 -0800
    Re: The Emporer Has No Clothes Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-06 10:41 -0800
      Re: The Emporer Has No Clothes Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-07 01:43 -0500
        Re: The Emporer Has No Clothes Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-07 06:08 -0800
    Re: Al Foos Has No Clues "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-03-06 10:48 -0800
      Re: Al Foos Has No Clues nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-06 22:23 +0100
    Re: The Emporer Has No Clothes Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-06 15:54 -0800
    Re: The Emporer Has No Clothes Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-06 15:58 -0800
    Re: The Emporer Has No Clothes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-07 12:10 -0800
      Re: The Emporer Has No Clothes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-08 22:30 -0800
    Re: The Emporer Has No Clothes Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 08:16 -0800
      Re: The Emporer Has No Clothes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-10 10:52 -0800
      Re: The Emporer Has No Clothes Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 20:24 -0800

#603076 — The Emporer Has No Clothes

Was it a mistake to post the obvious fraudulent claims in the wiki article that the PR experiment validates relativity? This group being infested with malicious little Einstein cultists, within a week one of them amended the waded in and amended the article by deleting Einstein's fake equation along with other several other obvious attempts to mislead readers. The only possible motive behind this action is deception, even criminal intent, insofar as outright attempts to conceal the fraudulent basis of Pound-Rebka's claims may be considered criminal, no matter that the fraud is upheld by a government stranglehold on real science. My first web site on this topic was in 2007 and also centered on the same wiki Pound-Rebka site. For sixteen years no noticeable changes to the text were made, only references cited. These recent changes betray deliberate deception and proof of guilt.  
You can no longer match the claims made in my book with the current wiki article. The good news is that the original website was saved as a PDF and will be appended to the book PDF. I will update the current Amazon book if allowed, which I think won't be a problem. Meanwhile, the anti Einsteins in the group have been emboldened and are speaking up.  Here you have the correct cause of gravity and redshift: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRDCP3RB

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#603144

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 10:20:58 PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
> Was it a mistake to post the obvious fraudulent claims in the wiki article that the PR experiment validates relativity? This group being infested with malicious little Einstein cultists, within a week one of them amended the waded in and amended the article by deleting Einstein's fake equation along with other several other obvious attempts to mislead readers. The only possible motive behind this action is deception, even criminal intent, insofar as outright attempts to conceal the fraudulent basis of Pound-Rebka's claims may be considered criminal, no matter that the fraud is upheld by a government stranglehold on real science. My first web site on this topic was in 2007 and also centered on the same wiki Pound-Rebka site. For sixteen years no noticeable changes to the text were made, only references cited. These recent changes betray deliberate deception and proof of guilt. 
> You can no longer match the claims made in my book with the current wiki article. The good news is that the original website was saved as a PDF and will be appended to the book PDF. I will update the current Amazon book if allowed, which I think won't be a problem. Meanwhile, the anti Einsteins in the group have been emboldened and are speaking up. Here you have the correct cause of gravity and redshift: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRDCP3RB
Yes, I think it was  Prokaryotic Capase Homolog who updated the Wikipedia article in response to Richard Hertz's criticisms so it's good to know you saved the previous version. Einstein had no physics!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603190

On 3/6/2023 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Yes, I think it was  Prokaryotic Capase Homolog who updated the Wikipedia article in response to Richard Hertz's criticisms so it's good to know you saved the previous version. Einstein had no physics!

Wikipedia always saves old versions, all the way back to the page's 
creation. Additionally, you can directly compare any two versions from 
Wikipedia, such as PCH's updates and the previous version.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603232

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 10:43:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> Wikipedia always saves old versions, all the way back to the page's 
> creation. Additionally, you can directly compare any two versions from 
> Wikipedia, such as PCH's updates and the previous version.
Thank you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603145 — Re: Al Foos Has No Clues

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 10:20:58 PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
>  Here you have a collection of my crankeries https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRDCP3RB

Is Rachel Foos your wife or your daughter? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRDCP3RB#customerReviews

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603157 — Re: Al Foos Has No Clues

Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 10:20:58?PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
> >  Here you have a collection of my crankeries https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRD
CP3RB
> 
> Is Rachel Foos your wife or your daughter?
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRDCP3RB#customerReviews

Guess she is himself,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603163

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 10:20:58 PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
> Was it a mistake to post the obvious fraudulent claims in the wiki article that the PR experiment validates relativity? This group being infested with malicious little Einstein cultists, within a week one of them amended the waded in and amended the article by deleting Einstein's fake equation along with other several other obvious attempts to mislead readers. The only possible motive behind this action is deception, even criminal intent, insofar as outright attempts to conceal the fraudulent basis of Pound-Rebka's claims may be considered criminal, no matter that the fraud is upheld by a government stranglehold on real science. My first web site on this topic was in 2007 and also centered on the same wiki Pound-Rebka site. For sixteen years no noticeable changes to the text were made, only references cited. These recent changes betray deliberate deception and proof of guilt. 
> You can no longer match the claims made in my book with the current wiki article. The good news is that the original website was saved as a PDF and will be appended to the book PDF. I will update the current Amazon book if allowed, which I think won't be a problem. Meanwhile, the anti Einsteins in the group have been emboldened and are speaking up. Here you have the correct cause of gravity and redshift: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRDCP3RB
Never mind them. They have to tear down others to make their idol look better. I don't waste time listening to them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603164

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 10:20:58 PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
> Was it a mistake to post the obvious fraudulent claims in the wiki article that the PR experiment validates relativity? This group being infested with malicious little Einstein cultists, within a week one of them amended the waded in and amended the article by deleting Einstein's fake equation along with other several other obvious attempts to mislead readers. The only possible motive behind this action is deception, even criminal intent, insofar as outright attempts to conceal the fraudulent basis of Pound-Rebka's claims may be considered criminal, no matter that the fraud is upheld by a government stranglehold on real science. My first web site on this topic was in 2007 and also centered on the same wiki Pound-Rebka site. For sixteen years no noticeable changes to the text were made, only references cited. These recent changes betray deliberate deception and proof of guilt. 
> You can no longer match the claims made in my book with the current wiki article. The good news is that the original website was saved as a PDF and will be appended to the book PDF. I will update the current Amazon book if allowed, which I think won't be a problem. Meanwhile, the anti Einsteins in the group have been emboldened and are speaking up. Here you have the correct cause of gravity and redshift: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRDCP3RB
The most worthwhile to listen to are Pentcho Valev and Richard Hertz. Only a few of the relativists have any substance. All ad hominem, chest-beating, throwing shit like howler monkeys.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603257

Foos Research wrote:
> 
> 
> You can no longer match the claims made in my book with the current wiki article. The good news is that the original website was saved as a PDF and will be appended to the book PDF. I will update the current Amazon book if allowed, which I think won't be a problem. Meanwhile, the anti Einsteins in the group have been emboldened and are speaking up.  Here you have the correct cause of gravity and redshift:


The cause of redshift has nothing to do with shift of red...

redshift is simply a sign of death.

any shift of red means ...dying.

For example, all planets with a red suface means that planet is dead.

I know that this is differcult for yous to understand..
but the redshift is caused by ...decay, death of stars.
Inbetween all galaxies are only red stars. (decay, death)
All surfaces of planets out there are only one color...Red. They are all
dead planets. 

Pluto is a red planet. It's dead.

 You bleed Red..you bleed red to death.

 Red is dead. 


Know your colors.

Which color means ...Life?

Red is dead. 




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603397

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Foos Research wrote:
> >
> >
> > You can no longer match the claims made in my book with the current wiki article. The good news is that the original website was saved as a PDF and will be appended to the book PDF. I will update the current Amazon book if allowed, which I think won't be a problem. Meanwhile, the anti Einsteins in the group have been emboldened and are speaking up.  Here you have the correct cause of gravity and redshift:
> 
> The cause of redshift has nothing to do with shift of red...
> 
> redshift is simply a sign of death.
> 
> any shift of red means ...dying.
> 
> For example, all planets with a red suface means that planet is dead.
> 
> I know that this is differcult for yous to understand..
> but the redshift is caused by ...decay, death of stars.
> Inbetween all galaxies are only red stars. (decay, death)
> All surfaces of planets out there are only one color...Red. They are all
> dead planets.
> 
> Pluto is a red planet. It's dead.
> 
>  You bleed Red..you bleed red to death.
> 
>  Red is dead.
> 
> Know your colors.
> 
> Which color means ...Life?
> 
> Red is dead.



I forgot to make it clear...*All* the surfaces of the planets out there
are only one color...Red. They are all dead planets.






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603549

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 10:20:58 PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
> Was it a mistake to post the obvious fraudulent claims in the wiki article that the PR experiment validates relativity? This group being infested with malicious little Einstein cultists, within a week one of them amended the waded in and amended the article by deleting Einstein's fake equation along with other several other obvious attempts to mislead readers. The only possible motive behind this action is deception, even criminal intent, insofar as outright attempts to conceal the fraudulent basis of Pound-Rebka's claims may be considered criminal, no matter that the fraud is upheld by a government stranglehold on real science. My first web site on this topic was in 2007 and also centered on the same wiki Pound-Rebka site. For sixteen years no noticeable changes to the text were made, only references cited. These recent changes betray deliberate deception and proof of guilt. 
> You can no longer match the claims made in my book with the current wiki article. The good news is that the original website was saved as a PDF and will be appended to the book PDF. I will update the current Amazon book if allowed, which I think won't be a problem. Meanwhile, the anti Einsteins in the group have been emboldened and are speaking up. Here you have the correct cause of gravity and redshift: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRDCP3RB
I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R. This does not follow because the unit of measure is based on the normal speed of light in a vacuum of outer space. Otherwise, it would have to be adjusted for the speed of light in air and water. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603573

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 10:20:58 PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
> 
> > You can no longer match the claims made in my book with the current wiki article. The good news is that the original website was saved as a PDF and will be appended to the book PDF. I will update the current Amazon book if allowed, which I think won't be a problem. Meanwhile, the anti Einsteins in the group have been emboldened and are speaking up. Here you have the correct cause of gravity and redshift:
> I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R. This does not follow because the unit of measure is based o

"consensus of authorities"???? There is no such thing as a consensus of
authorities, ...you must be talking about Yourself.


(fascinating book)...and then he cuts his throat. same MO.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603640

On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 9:16 AM Foos Research  wrote:
Laurence made a comment I'd like to address, but it doesn't show on the group site. I'm not
sure why many of the comments I receive on email vanish shortly after, but Mr. Crossen, much
to his credit and unlike many others expresses an honest opinion that deserves a good answer.
Mr. Crossen says:
"I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing
his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the
expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of
authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light
requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R. This does not follow because the
unit of measure is based on the normal speed of light in a vacuum of outer space. Otherwise, it
would have to be adjusted for the speed of light in air and water."
Thank you so much for your interest, Laurence. Hopefully, I can set you straight. This is a very
important point of confusion, so please think... Of course, when light passes through gas or
glass, etc, it is slowed and bent and split into different frequencies, but that has no bearing on
meter length. The gravitational effect on frequency that occurs with redshift occurs in a
vacuum and is a different matter. The PR experiment shows the decreased wavelength at a
lower elevation and is correctly inferred by Einstein et al as a slower clock speed, of course, in
the sense that if a meter is half as long it takes half the time for light to traverse it WHEN
observed remotely. If the apparatus using a spectral line for measuring a meter is raised 22.5
meters, it will still measure a meter, but since a remote observer sees that light waves have
expanded (redshift), then he is correct in concluding that space has expanded by the same
degree. Indeed, the PR article does not address the fact that if clock speed or wavelength
diminish, the length of a meter must in fact diminish accordingly by natural definition.
Indeed, this is why LIGO pundits (incorrectly) claim Einstein proved that the arms shrink in
response to a gravitational "wave." In a remote sense, of course, they do, but locally speaking,
per PR et al, wavelength shrinks to the same degree and hence there is NO locally perceived
change in meter length, clock speed or frequency.
Nevertheless, my point is still valid, and it was Einstein himself who made these inferences but
used them falsely to convince others that his theory predicted them. So, I make a billion dollar
bet that a meter remains locally the same wherever it is placed, even in a black hole and this
can be demonstrated using the apparatus used to define it. However, a remote observer can
observe the wavelength used to make this determination has shifted towards the red an hence the meter has expanded as its properties are unchanged and even as unbeknown to
itself. It is also easily inferred that the rate of redshift is equivalent to the rate of expansion
which is equal to the opposite rate of falling bodies, not my idea but the way that gravitational
redshift works and is is so observed. I stake my life, my wife and everything I have on that fact.
And so, gravitational redshift is equivalent to spatial expansion, but effects of transparent
substances are NOT. This is the key error missed by Einstein's fake theories, it is vitally
important to science and so I dare anyone to seriously prove it wrong. ONE more thing... since
comments so easily vanish, if this is important to you, that you consider saving them
elsewhere. I earnestly hope I've cleared up this point. Let me emphasize that the extent to
which you study the book, you will will see that I'm correct in all respects and the true nature
of spatial expansion will make perfect sense. THANK YOU, Al Foos

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web