Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
Next: Ohm's Law and Maxwell on Relativity !
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 1 Jun 2010 09:21 On 01/06/2010 13:57, Me, ...again! wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > >> On 01/06/2010 09:30, hanson wrote: >>> "Einstein was right?" yields 148,000 Google hits, posted by >> >> Aether = quantum vacuum. >> Plus, if the equations governing the aether are the same as STR and >> GTR, what's the point? Do any aether theories predict neutron star >> slow-down and time dilation in a gravitational field to the same >> accuracy? > > You can easily find in even the popular literature (the magazines > "Astronomy" and "Sky and Telescope") plenty of comments about the > inadequacies of black hole models, theories, etc. > > If this ever gets sorted out, its not going to be for decades. True, but all the measurements we can make concerning neutron stars etc confirm GTR to the limits of measurement. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Peter Webb on 3 Jun 2010 08:04 > You are still trapped in an interpretation paradigm. ROFL. Perfect. 100% crank, 100% pretentious, 0% physics.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 3 Jun 2010 08:53 On 03/06/2010 12:28, Me, ...again! wrote: > > > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: > >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1dfb7710-9c79-4d74-b0a9-6f263afe872a(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> On Jun 2, 7:22 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> wrote: >>> "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006020714190.11116(a)osmium.mv.net... >>> >>> >>> >>> > I wrote a long extended response to "PD" and I'll refer you to that. >>> >>> > It has been decades since I studied these phenomena and >>> read/learned > from >>> > classes and books. I switched to biology long ago and can speak with >>> > authority in the field I specialized in, membrane biophysics. >>> >>> > I do not mean to castigate Einstein, but rather to recognize that a >>> lot > of >>> > very bright people who know a lot more than I do about the subject are >>> > trying to say that Einstein is getting more credit and attention >>> than he >>> > deserves. >>> >>> Who? >>> >>> Some other nutter? >>> >>> What public figure or scientist in the last 50 years has said that >>> Einstein >>> is getting more credit than he deserves for his contribution to physics? >>> >>> And do you think that Einstein gets enough credit for his explanation of >>> (say) the photo-electric effect? I bet not one person in 100 would >>> know that >>> this paper oh is was instrumental in the development of quantum >>> mechanics. >>> Nobody gives him any credit for that. And I bet that not one person in a >>> thousand would be aware that his explanation of Brownian motion >>> created the >>> field of statistical mechanics. >>> >>> He seems to get a lot less credit for these other things than he >>> deserves, >>> wouldn't you agree? >> >> AE won the Nobel Prize for >> >> He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to >> Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of >> the photoelectric effect."[3] - Wikipedia >> >> Actually I could say that it does not matter if he is right or wrong >> or was right or wrong or whatever, His theory is ingrained into the >> fabric of modern day science, it is a tradition and a doctrine, a >> change to which will require millions of years of scientific >> evolution. >> >> ___________________________ >> >> The question was whether he received too much credit for those >> discoveries. Given that almost nobody outside the physics community >> knows about his huge contributions to QM, statistical mechanics and >> other parts of physics I think the answer is pretty obviously "no". >> Einstein clearly receives too little credit for the work he did >> outside of Relativity theory. >> >> You can help in this. Whenever you discuss Einstein's contributions to >> Relativity theory, it would be helpful if you also pointed out his >> contributions to other parts of physics. Credit where credit is due, >> after all. > > The simplest response I could give was what I did do. In response to > what looked like too much credit, I listed the books written by other > experts who doubted Einstein. I found more books than I thought I would > find. I've found even more on alien abductions and Atlantis -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: J.H.Boersema on 3 Jun 2010 11:29 On 2010-06-02, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 12:31 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> SR was built on a mathematical mistake by Poincare, and that had >>> nothing to do with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. >>> <shrug> GR was built on a man-made mathematical icon created by Ricci/ >>> Levi-Civita, and that also had nothing to do with Einstein the same >>> nitwit, the same plagiarist, and the same liar. <shrug> >> >>> That represented the first time that plagiarism was awarded with a >>> Nobel Prize. <shrug. >> >>> So far, Planck's work in which Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, >>> and the liar plagiarized seem to be working for all observations so >>> far. <shrug> >> >>> Happy worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. >> >> You haven't answered my question. > > Yes, I have. See the above quoted text. <shrug> > >> I understand that you don't believe in Relativity as explained by Einstein. > > It is not that I believe in or not believe in. Study of science is > not about believe in. <shrug> > > Relativity was already explained by Galileo. So, a regurgitation of > the so-called explanation to pass has its own counts as plagiarism. > Your hero Einstein was in reality a mere nitwit, a mere plagiarist, > and a mere liar. The nitwit was nobody. <shrug> > >> What I want to know is whether you also believe his explanation of the >> photo-electric effect and the dynamics of Brownian motion are correct. > > Again, your argument is totally based on belief in which I don?t do so > in science. <shrug> > >> So? > ><shrug> These days will probably live in infamy in the future, heroes and villains will be remembered (correctly) in the end, one would hope. But that day seems far off: just today I was making conversation trying to let others share in the fun that in Qinhuangdao (large city near Peking, Heibei) where also working against the Big Lie of physics and making progress. But the people I talked to started defending The Lie ! Did they know even that relativity is about light speed ? Nope. Did they know what Michelson/Morley experiment was ? Nope. Did they know anything ? I guess they knew that the media had instructed them to believe The Lie. Then they started asking me what the scientific method was, at first I thought they where wondering about the old liar Einstein. But they where asking me. The people are COMPLETELY controlled by the media. It is almost like one of those movies, the body snatchers, milder version but still. It would be a big joke if it didn't mean that these sheeple are not ready for democracy, and that you get tyranny and war without democracy. I guess this can only one thing: the bosses of the world rule this world at will, no problem (the money power). This means tehre will be another big war, they merely ahve to trumpet some lies through the media and hte sheeple will order in lines for the slaughter and cheering on their own demise ... Yes, it is that bad. No, it will be worse then ever (my guess). Dig in while you can, the sheeple are going to the slaughter once more. In fact one of them doubted that wars where still fought to distract the sheeple ... do the math, buy what you can while your money has value. If you haven't already. The sheeple have no brain, the elites have said there are too many sheeple for them to effectively control, and since they already said so and agreed to do something about it perhaps, I guess i can safely say that I have to agree. You can't run a tyranny with this many people, even if most / all of them are idiots. It is the sad truth. If tehy where smarter we could easily live on this world with 20 billion I guess, it isn't a capacity problem but a problem for central control, that's all (combined with limitless greed by those in control, a system run on greed needs more room per person I guess, and more of a natural buffer.) Since the people are still idolators, my guess is the enemy is going to launch their strategic culling in not too distant future, probably our lifetimes. You've been warned. Remember it when it happens. It seems the ultimate target isn't geo-strategic now, it is the peoples themselves, culling the herd. It makes too much sense to ignore it. I say to the sheeple: do my program and get rid of the money power, or you may well end up dead by that power. The way is there, it isn't too hard at all. Merely a matter of getting off that lazy behind. Sheesh, amazing. A routine operation to defunct credibility to test whether there is intelligence on the planet actually fell through. They really *are* idolators, and only so. Amazing. Einstein and the golden .... bull, are some of their gods. Guess where the stock exchange is located ? In an actual Greek temple 'where the gods lived.' There is nothing allegorical about it, the money power is litterally their god, in the building that they call by its shape the 'house of a god' a temple. You think this is modern times ? Think again, we are deep down in the idiosyncratic deep history ... Has someone been fiddling with the timewarp machine again ? (sigh) ;) -- _ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.SOCIALISM.nl Free markets and democracy, \ /v`vvv\ / but now: properly. /_\_#_#_/_\ \ / Day 37 of the revolution.
From: Me, ...again! on 3 Jun 2010 16:01
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > On 03/06/2010 12:28, Me, ...again! wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: >> >>> >>> "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1dfb7710-9c79-4d74-b0a9-6f263afe872a(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >>> On Jun 2, 7:22 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >>> wrote: >>>> "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006020714190.11116(a)osmium.mv.net... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > I wrote a long extended response to "PD" and I'll refer you to that. >>>> >>>> > It has been decades since I studied these phenomena and >>>> read/learned > from >>>> > classes and books. I switched to biology long ago and can speak with >>>> > authority in the field I specialized in, membrane biophysics. >>>> >>>> > I do not mean to castigate Einstein, but rather to recognize that a >>>> lot > of >>>> > very bright people who know a lot more than I do about the subject are >>>> > trying to say that Einstein is getting more credit and attention >>>> than he >>>> > deserves. >>>> >>>> Who? >>>> >>>> Some other nutter? >>>> >>>> What public figure or scientist in the last 50 years has said that >>>> Einstein >>>> is getting more credit than he deserves for his contribution to physics? >>>> >>>> And do you think that Einstein gets enough credit for his explanation of >>>> (say) the photo-electric effect? I bet not one person in 100 would >>>> know that >>>> this paper oh is was instrumental in the development of quantum >>>> mechanics. >>>> Nobody gives him any credit for that. And I bet that not one person in a >>>> thousand would be aware that his explanation of Brownian motion >>>> created the >>>> field of statistical mechanics. >>>> >>>> He seems to get a lot less credit for these other things than he >>>> deserves, >>>> wouldn't you agree? >>> >>> AE won the Nobel Prize for >>> >>> He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to >>> Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of >>> the photoelectric effect."[3] - Wikipedia >>> >>> Actually I could say that it does not matter if he is right or wrong >>> or was right or wrong or whatever, His theory is ingrained into the >>> fabric of modern day science, it is a tradition and a doctrine, a >>> change to which will require millions of years of scientific >>> evolution. >>> >>> ___________________________ >>> >>> The question was whether he received too much credit for those >>> discoveries. Given that almost nobody outside the physics community >>> knows about his huge contributions to QM, statistical mechanics and >>> other parts of physics I think the answer is pretty obviously "no". >>> Einstein clearly receives too little credit for the work he did >>> outside of Relativity theory. >>> >>> You can help in this. Whenever you discuss Einstein's contributions to >>> Relativity theory, it would be helpful if you also pointed out his >>> contributions to other parts of physics. Credit where credit is due, >>> after all. >> >> The simplest response I could give was what I did do. In response to >> what looked like too much credit, I listed the books written by other >> experts who doubted Einstein. I found more books than I thought I would >> find. > > I've found even more on alien abductions and Atlantis But I'll bet a smaller fraction of people "believe in" alien abductions, etc., than Einstein/Relativity. > > -- > Dirk > > http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK > http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show > |