FARKEL, need $ 50,000 ??

by BATHORY 6 Replies latest jw friends


    G'Day ol' Fark.

    Mate i got this from an old math teacher from uni, he knows i always liked this stuff and could solve it, but to be honest it would take me about 2 solid weeks to do that, and well if i didnt work for 2 weeks and won the 50 grand, id be down about 13 grand on my wage, so as i know that you have been hard up of late, and i KNOW that you are a mathematical wiz, capable of this simple proof and its father, what ya reakon, give it a go ????

    Keep us posted on your progress, and hey mate, i think it fair that when you receive the 50 grand, you give Simon the ol' Yidish 10 % of it, seeing it came through his forum.

    Godspeed in your work my son !


    Dear jo, thought this may be of interest to you and your team.

    Awards of up to US.$50,000.00 each are hereby offered by the author, Cameron Y. Rebigsol, to people who can successfully defend Relativity - the most dominating theory in physics - in mathematical terms, and thus disprove the mathematical arguments made against relativity shown in Rebigsol's text MATHEMATICAL INVALIDITY OF RELATIVITY.

    At two separate symposiums, Rebigsol presented 3 papers at each of the meetings challenging 3 most popular beliefs that dominate the modern physics. Rebigsol also openly announced the above awards at these meetings.

    Symposium sites:

    1. NPA conference, Storrs 2000, Connecticut University, U.S.A., June 5-9, 2000
    2. Congress 2000, St. Petersburg State University, Russia, July 3-8, 2000

    Papers published:

    1. MATHEMATICAL INVALIDITY OF RELATIVITY (The US.$50,000.00 award paper)

    * The Lorentzian transformation equations are here proven invalid in mathematical terms.

    * General relativity is here shown totally incompetent in explaining the movement of the heavenly objects.

    * The famous twin paradox should have never been there to make people feel mystified; it lacks any validity to puzzle people right at its birth. It has only the same mental value as the following "paradoxes":

    Paradox one: General relativity claims that it "discovers" ( circumference/diameter)>3.1415926... for a spinning circle. With the method it advocates, however, calculation shows ( circumference/diameter)<3.1415926... for the same spinning circle.
    Paradox two: It has been overwhelmingly announced that Newton's Third Law must be subordinated to relativity in accuracy. At the same time, however, with its own mathematics, relativity "confirms" that the accuracy of Newton's Third Law is indisputable.
    Paradox three: 1= 0.2= 0, 0.6=0.48, 3=5=2 ,... all can be derived with relativity!
    A special challenge for relativity: What is the definition of speed and how should it be expressed in mathematical terms?

    Hubbles’s Law is shown potentially existing, both in mathematical terms and physical deduction in this paper. However, the potential existence of Hubble's Law is by no means a support to the Big Bang Theory. On the contrary, its existence contradicts the believes that lead to the formulation of the Big Bang Theory. This paper also offers answers to

    1. The energy source of rotation of all rotational galaxies,
    2. The reason of the co-existence of red shift and blue shift of celestial objects,
    3. Why distribution of heavenly objects appearing in layers,
    4. The reason of the isotropic characteristics of background noise and its mathematical limit.
    After all, the cosmological model presented in this paper also offers a consistent explanation about the formation of the solar system and the various phenomena observed with respect to the solar system.
    **Before you start reading this paper, please answer to yourself this question: What is the reason for a train to move away from a station? You may say the reason is the train running on the railroad track. The Bing Bang supporters will say you are wrong, but the reason is that the track is expanding in length.


    As a coherent extension of the idea concerning the above cosmological model, this paper presents the explanation to the following:
    1. Where each member of the system came from and why the outer planets get far more satellites than the inner planets,
    2. Why Venus has a retrograding spinning while rotating in the same orbital direction as the other planets,
    3. Why the Sun possesses so little angular momentum in the system while having concentrated so much mass of this system,
    4. Why the Moon must face the Earth with the same side all the time and why this side must also be full of maria (frozen lava),
    5. The periodicity of the sunspot activity,
    6. Why, as a spinning body of fluid, the Sun appears perfectly spherical and it has differential rotation,
    7. Why Earth had its magnetic field reversed several times in her history.

    To win the awards of maximumUS.$50,000.00 each, all you have to do is to examine the arguments in the text MATHEMATICAL INVALIDITY OF RELATIVITY and then spend some time to disprove Rebigsol's calculations. Details regarding how a paper to be qualified in presenting arguments against Rebigsol's calcualtions for the awards are listed at the end of the simplified versions of both of the following papers: (The materials contained in the following papers, unless where specified by this author, do not belong to the text of MATHEMATICAL INVALIDITY OF RELATIVITY)



    For more articles containing theoretical and factual disagreement with relativity, Rebigsol suggests the following web sites. Although Rebigsol found some outstanding argument or facts against relativity in each of these pages, it does not necessarily mean that Rebigsol has agreed on every point of view from them.

    Doc Wolton

  • spender

    lorentz transformations seemed pretty concrete to me. There have been many experiments proving it to be true. In fact, a nobel prize winner is visiting here at Bucknell shortly to talk about just that.


    FARKEL only $50,000??? Since I am female Minum $500,000 and not a penny less for US around here -- I am materialist what can I say !?

  • spender

    or you could prove reimann's hypothesis and win $1,000,000 farkel have fun with that!!

  • Prisca


  • Farkel

    Forget it. I'm weary of your games, Bathory.


Share this