now with EMBEDDED VIDEOS!

FINAL DRAFT FOR MASS CIRCULATION:

please FWD your appreciations to randi@randi.org and
richard.dawkins@oum.ox.ac.uk

SEE HOW WE CAUSED THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN ATHEISTS, ELLEN JOHNSON,
TO QUIT HER JOB AND STOPPED RANDI'S MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL
CHALLENGE:

for randi & dawkins and all the so-called "critical thinkers"

the ORIGINAL *KING OF TERROR* VIDEO.....

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

the *MODEL* of mental health:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zBEbfiaZTfc

"Look at the ANGLE OF THE KEY....see that, see that...."

what an idiot this Randi is.....a REAL CRITICAL THINKER....

Visit:

http://nostradamus-usa.netfirms.com

to see how we stopped the MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL challenge.....
watch carefully the consequences of Randi's *idea*.....

Space geometry is defined by the null geodesic of light. Matter
travels with less velocity and does not follow this curve of space.
Instead it follows a steeper or a more magnified curve due to its
slower motion.

Throw things around and you will see motion geometry in action. Those
curved paths are not following actual space-time curvature but rather
a "motion geometry" extension of it.

Mitch Raemsch

The first is that it is spread out everywhere through space. Space is
not empty of time. space-time.

The other continuum aspect of time is duration that is divisable to
the infinitely small.

Mitch Raemsch; Two time continuums

Weight in gravity is how we measure mass,. But how do we define it?

Mass is the energy content of matter in motion. The equation is a
combination of the Gamma factor and E=-mc squared.

Mass in motion is Energy= Gamma MC^2

Mass = Energy divided by Gamma C squared

Mass in motion is infinitely dense energy concentrated in a point
particle.

Mass is infinitely dense point of Gamma energy. Gamma*C squared

Mitch Raemsch

From running these hydrogen simulations, I think I understand why the
observed value of hydrogen's Rydberg constant R_H is non-relativistic. All
of the relativistic effects are relatively minor, and even a small amount of
fracturing the electron's orbit will wash them out. The averaged out vales
of energy, angular momentum and radii still must adhere to the n*h_bar
quantization rule, and with the relativistic effects averaged out due to the
fractured chaotic motion of the electron in a shell, the shell a hydrogen
atom presents to the outside world is non-relativistic in signature. The
basic Dirac energy equation produces a prediction of energy and a
corresponding radius that is too small, and according to these simulations,
the QED effects that "relax" the base-Dirac binding energy do not nearly...

Dirk Van insist to not understand the question about OOS in
this thread here

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/6bd9a9d9...#

The only way to go further and perpetuate is by
reproduction. The only elementary entity which
reproduces are viruses. These viruses evolves in
more sophisticated viruses called humans or also
intelligent aliens in UFOs from other planets.

Basically all life forms are viruses.

The only way to do make a virus, which reproduces,
is by engineering, which is programming. More
specific, by adding more sophisticated info to already
existing info.

According to many science and religions, gravity, EM,
matter and forces does not really exists, but are merely
artifacts based on other artifacts, which again, they are
nothing but raw info. This leads to the conclusion that
this universe must be a virtual reality simulation.

What other possibilities are there according to relativity?

In the file linked below, I have written out a particular calculation of
a Gaussian integral, and would like to know if (6) in this file is is
correct. (If link does not work, right click to download and then
open.)

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/is-this-calculation-of-the-gaussian...

This is not rocket science nor is it particularly earthshaking. But, I
am having some conceptual trouble thinking about this integral (6) in
which the plane wave coefficient B=0, and would appreciate if someone
can help me straighten out my thinking about this.

Best regards,

Jay.
____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email: jyablon@nycap.rr.com
co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations
Weblog: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/
Web Site: http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm

"Are Unified Field Theories Justified?"

Modern physics seems to be searching for ways to incorporate all
physical phenomena into a single unified theory. The question that comes to
mind is why? The question arises as to the conceptual need for such an
activity and whether the activity only adds to the complexity involved in
achieving an understanding of nature. The only apparent need for the
activity seems to be a quasi-religious motivation among mathematical
theorists to make the Science of Physics "elegant" (whatever that means). No
objective reason seems to have been presented to preclude the likelihood
that Nature operates through multiple independent mechanisms which may or
may not interact with each other to produce more complex phenomena.

Consider first the phenomena described by Maxwell's Equations. These
equations describe the manner in which electric and magnetic fields interact
to produce the electromagnetic field. They show...

I have a proof that SR is inconsistent using a generalized version of
the twin/barn-pole/bug-rivet paradox that does not involve any
debatable physical situations.

You can think of your own. It is easy. SR generates prediction p but
also prediction ~p in many occassions.

This is because PoR and constancy of c, together lead to a paradoxical
world.

However, you will be surprised with my resolution. I do not suggest
dropping the constancy of c. I suggest dropping the PoR.

Pretty soon I will publish here details for a final refutation of SR,
as it is taught in schools. It will be an irrefutable proof. However,
I do not mind if someone else does it first. This time threats will
not stop me as they did before.

As Roberts said, this is a hobby. We do not get paid to falsify
theories. Although some get paid to keep them validated in any way
possible.

Mike