Prev: Quantum Gravity 398.0: USA Proves Flexagons Related to Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: The Necessity of an experiment (classical electrodynamics) that should have been done 100 years ago
From: PD on 2 Jun 2010 01:05
On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:
> > I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and
> > General Theory of Relativity are wrong.
>
> > What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect
> > (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for which
> > he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion (which
> > virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ?
>
> > Was he wrong about them as well?
>
> Was Einstein right or wrong?
>
> What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, vs.
> ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of noise,
> more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people.
>

I really don't care much for schools of thought. After all, there is
still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years
old, but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any
credibility.

I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti-
Einstein school of thought feel that way.
Some candidate ideas:
- The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and
these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it
cannot possibly be considered right.
- The theory is wrong, though it is right by the metrics by which
science judges theories. But this points to the fundamental problem
with how science is done, and this theory being wrong is just a
symptom of that problem.
- The theory is probably right, but the credit is wrongly given to
Einstein, as it properly belongs to other people.
- The theory's correctness is completely uncertain at this point, and
the issue is that scientists insist that it must be accepted as right.
- Even if the theory is right, voice needs to be given to the contrary
proposal with equal weight, for the sake of maintaining debate.

Which of these represents your position?

From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jun 2010 02:04
On Jun 1, 7:15 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:

> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and
> General Theory of Relativity are wrong.

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>

> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect
> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for
> which he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion
> (which virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ?

That represented the first time that plagiarism was awarded with a
Nobel Prize. <shrug.

> Was he wrong about them as well?

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.
From: Peter Webb on 2 Jun 2010 03:29

"Me, ...again!" <arthures(a)mv.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006012359350.37356(a)osmium.mv.net...


On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:

> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and
> General Theory of Relativity are wrong.
>
> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect
> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for
> which
> he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion
> (which
> virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ?
>
> Was he wrong about them as well?

Was Einstein right or wrong?

What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, vs.
ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of noise,
more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people.

______________________________________________

<SNIP stuff about Relativity>

Why won't you answer the question? Do you think Einstein's explanations of
the photoelectric effect and Brownian motion are right or wrong?

The reason I am asking is that a lot of cranks seem to believe that
Relativity is false, but they state that "Einstein" is wrong rather than
"Relativity" is wrong. This appears to be because they somehow or for some
reason hate Einstein, so its an attack on Einstein disguised as an attack on
Relativity. In some cases it is because Einstein was Jewish; in other cases
it is not clear why they hate Einstein.

So one easy way of working out whether the problem is that they disbelieve
Relativity or have some axe to grind against Einstein is to ask about some
of Einstein's other towering achievements which have nothing to do with
Relativity. Like the photoelectric effect and Brownian motion. This will
give an indication of whether your problem really is with Relativity, or
whether its some personal thing to do with Einstein (and presumably the fact
that he had a Jewish background).

Hence my question.

Why won't you answer it?

From: Peter Webb on 2 Jun 2010 03:31

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2321ba17-bd19-4965-93cc-e45ab4b2067b(a)z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 1, 7:15 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>
>> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and
>> General Theory of Relativity are wrong.
>
> 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>
>
>> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect
>> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for
>> which he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian
>> motion
>> (which virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ?
>
> That represented the first time that plagiarism was awarded with a
> Nobel Prize. <shrug.
>
>> Was he wrong about them as well?
>
> 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.

I understand that you don't believe in Relativity as explained by Einstein.
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.

So?


From: J.H.Boersema on 2 Jun 2010 04:54
On 2010-06-01, hanson <hanson(a)quick.net> wrote:
> "Einstein was right?" yields 148,000 Google hits, posted by
> disciples of Einstein's cult, known as Einstein Dingleberries.
>>
> When googling for "Einstein was wrong, stupid, a plagiarist, fraud,
> liar, thief, nitwit, fool & idiot" in 9 individual Google searches with
> the above attributes (all of which appeared in sci.physics) then the
> accumultated sum shows 5'165'800 Google hits... ahahahAHAHA

lol, great

> One can argue about this anyway one wishes, but the hand writing
> is on the wall. --- Einstein's con has run its course. His 15 minutes
> are up... ... "You can fool all the people some of the time, and
> some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people
> all the time. -- by Abraham Lincoln.
>>
> Albert's Dingleberries will moan, groan & howl over this... ahahaha
> Details of this trend is shown below in Arthur's post who wrote:
>>
> "Me, ...again!" <arthures(a)mv.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1005250817140.61930(a)osmium.mv.net...
>
> Was Einstein right or wrong?
>
> What we have are two schools of thought:
> i) Einstein did something, vs.
> ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of noise,
> more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people.
>
> Here, below, are many more books which cast much doubt on
> Einstein's "contributions"......
>
> (all dug up by searches on Amazon.com under: au=einstein)
>
> Note that most of these books were written in the last decade or two. If
> we do a search going back to the beginnings of SR, GR, then I'm sure
> there will be found many many dozens of books written by equally smart
> people who challenge and/or do not accept Einstein.
>
> I think it would be foolish to think the story is over, final, and
> finished.
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////
>
> Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius [Paperback]
> Hans C. Ohanian (Author)
>
>================================
>
> Einstein's Greatest Mistake: Abandonment of the Aether
> by Sid Deutsch
>
>==================================================
>
> Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary?
> by, Tom Bethell
>
> Review....
> That a book by a great and established writer like Tom Bethell,
> who is a long-time science writer and political columnist at The
> American Spectator, hasn't been officially reviewed yet, says
> more about those who pose as the intellectual and editorial
> guardians of literature than it does about the quality of this
> book or the stature of its author. In fact, it is an engaging,
> well researched book about one of the most interesting paradigm
> struggles of the twentieth century (and still ongoing today).
> That Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR) was influenced
> by and made quickly popular by the relativistic ideologies of
> its time (1905) seems to this writer a foregone conclusion.
> But it was the Michelson-Morley experiment that failed to
> detect a "luminiferous ether," which gave SR scientific credibility.
> But Michelson himself soon doubted its conclusions and proved it in
> the later Michelson-Gale experiment which did detect an ether.
>
> H. Lorentz, a contemporary of Einstein, and a scientist of equal
> stature, argued in numerous debates with Einstein that all
> "relativistic effects" (such as the bending of starlight as it
> passes near the sun) were the result of light traveling through
> an "entrained ether" which surrounds and moves with planetary
> bodies--otherwise known as the gravitational field. Other
> well-known physicists of the day also doubted the veracity of
> SR, especially its principle of space-time distortion. A few
> were: Herbert Dingle, whose "paradox" asked the question of
> which "clock" would run slow (and thus experience time dilation
> predicted by SR) of two relativistic travelers; as for example two
> rocket ships in different inertial frames (i.e., going at different
> speeds relative to each other). Another physicist, H. Ives, of the
> famous Ives-Stillwell experiment to test the Doppler effect of
> fast moving mesons, became a lifelong enemy of Einstein because
> he felt that his results were being misinterpreted. And there were
> many others who disagreed with Einstein's fundamental conclusions.
>
> Even Einstein himself, as Bethell points out, later in life admitted
> that forces propagating through empty space without a medium in
> which they could be conveyed, was a logical absurdity--a fact never
> mentioned in textbooks, or in other "easy Einstein" books. In the
> later part of the twentieth century, other scientific critics picked
> up where Lorentz and his contemporaries had left off. Among them were
> Tom Van Flandern, Carver Mead, and Petr Beckmann. Bethell concentrates
> on Beckmann's critique, written in a technical book called Einstein
> Plus Two, in which the author claims that all the effects of both
> Special and General Relativity can be explained using classical
> physics. Bethell brings Beckmann's book down to earth from the arcane
> heights of Mt. Olympus by rendering Beckmann's mathematical descriptions
> understandable to the layman.
>
> If you are interested in the history of one of the most pivotal scientific
> ideas of our time, if you have always believed that the world should
> make sense but would still like to know about the mysteries of relativity,
> this book may be for you. And this reviewer might add that although
> Bethell might not know it yet, this may be his most significant book.
>=====================================================
>
> Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity
> Theories by Al Kelly
>
> review...
> Al Kelly is right, July 3, 2009 By Alvin D. Heindel "another patent
> examiner" (USA) - See all my reviews
>
>
> This review is from: Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's
> Relativity Theories (Paperback)
> Al Kelly should be commended for his courage in standing up to the
> Einsteinian science mafia. The twin paradox proves Einsteinian relativity
> is impossible. Einstein's theories should be called absolutivity which is
> another logical contradiction. It was created when scientists believed in
> the steady state theory of the universe. Now that scientists accept Hubble's
> big bang theory and the fact that the earth's velocity has been measured
> relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the
> big bang, it shows you can measure an absolute velocity based on Einstein's
> theories. Also, scientists believe there's nothing outside the event horizon
> around our universe. This provides us with another means for measuring a
> velocity relative to a point in space which is an absolute velocity based
> on Einstein's theories. Obviously, space and aether are infinite and gravity
> is an aether density gradient, not curved space. Kelly doesn't mention
> G. BURNISTON BROWN's discussion of the twin paradox in the Bulletin of
> the Institute of Physics and Physical Society, Vol. 18 (March, 1967) pp.
> 71--77, easily found on the internet. He provides another good
> anti-Einstein argument based on the twin paradox. I tend to think H. A.
> Lorentz's theory might be the best one. Also, Einstein insisted relativity
> depends on the existence of the aether which is denied by the physics
> establishment. SRT depends on the existence of the aether, the same way
> Newtonian relativity depends on the existence of space. In Lorentz's
> theory, the aether is NOT at absolute rest. A. J. Kox gives a translation
> of one paragraph from one of Lorentz's articles: 37 It should be emphasized
> that LORENTZ did not adhere to the idea of absolute space. In LORENTZ (1895)
> (sect. 2), for instance, he states that it is meaningless to talk about
> absolute rest of the ether and that the expression 'the ether is at rest'
> only means that the different parts of the ether do not move with respect to
> each other (AHESc-1988 pages 67-78).
> This is given as a reference:
> 1895 Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in
> bewegten K�rpern (Leiden: Brill, 1895); repr. in CP, Vol. 5, pp. 1-138.
> The 1906 reprint can be downloaded from Google books.
>
>========================================================
>
> Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist by Christopher Jon
> Bjerknes (Paperback - July 2002)
>
>======================================
>
> Einstein's Riddle: Riddles, Paradoxes, and Conundrums to Stretch
> Your Mind by Jeremy Stangroom (Hardcover - Apr. 28, 2009)
>
>=================================================
>
> Reinventing Gravity: A Physicist Goes Beyond Einstein
> by John W. Moffat (Hardcover - Sept. 30, 2008)
>
>====================================
>
> What Einstein Did Not See: Redefining Time to Understand
> Space by Thomas W. Sills (Paperback - June 1, 2009)
>
>=============================================
>
> Einstein's Greatest Blunder?: The Cosmological Constant and
> Other Fudge Factors in the Physics of the Universe
> (Questions of Science) by Donald Goldsmith (Paperback - Oct. 15, 1997)
>
>=============================================
>
> Dialog About Objections Against the Theory of Relativity
> by Albert Einstein (Paperback - Nov. 12, 2009)
>
>============================================================
>
> The Quantum Theory of Planck, Einstein, Bohr and
> Sommerfeld: Its Foundation and the Rise of Its Difficulties
> 1900-1925 1 (The Historical Development of ... and the
> Rise of Its Difficulties 1900-1925)
> by Jagdish Mehra and H. Rechenberg (Paperback - Dec. 28, 2000)
>
>======================================
>
> The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers: A Counter-Revolution in
> Physics by Dean Turner; Richard Hazelett (Paperback - Oct. 1, 2005)
>
>==========================================================
>
> Einstein on Trial or Metaphysical Principles of Natural
> Philosophy by Jorge Cespedes-Cure (Paperback - July 1, 2002)
>
>=======================================================
>
> Einstein as Myth and Muse by Alan J. Friedman and
> Carol C. Donley (Paperback - Apr. 28, 1989)
>
>========================================
>
> Space, Time, And Matter And The Falsity of Einstein's Theory
> Of Relativity (Paperback)
> ~ Kamen George Kamenov (Author), Kamen G. Kamenov (Illustrator
>
> 1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
> A classic book.!!!, December 4, 2008 By Peter Stone (USA) - See all
> my reviews
>
> This review is from: Space, Time, And Matter And The Falsity of
> Einstein's Theory Of Relativity (Paperback)
> In 1972 the famous British professor Herbert Dingle,
> an ex-relativist who turned into antirelativist, published
> a book against relativity titled: Science at the crossroads.
> Because of that he was gradually removed from the "scientiffic"
> establishment. Kamen Kamenov's book is one of the books, alongside
> those of Herbert Dingle, Harald Nordenson and Henri Bergson,
> highly recommendable to those who really want to understand how
> incurably flawed and useless the "theory" in question is and
> why it should be abandoned in its entirety. Some books are hard
> to find. Look in "bookfinder.com" and read about the above
> mentionned autors in Wikipedia.
>
> 7 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
> A revolutionary new book !, May 30, 2001 By
> Robert (Berkeley,California) - See all my reviews
>
> This review is from: Space, Time and Matter, and the Falsity of
> Einstein's Theory of Relativity (Paperback)
> Provocative and fascinating. Mr. Kamenov provides the clearest
> possible nonmathematical explanation of the present day understanding
> of the theory of relativity and then unmistakably disproves it. His
> logic is undeniable . I think that after reading the book nobody
> can believe in the validity of the theory of relatvity any longer
> but quite the opposite is true,the theory is wrong. Mr. Kamenov
> explains in plain langauge the real nature of relity and offers
> alternative solution to the theory of relativity. He proves
> the existence of ether. The book deals not only with theory of
> relativity but also with the philosophy of space, time and physical
> matter and explains in a plain , nonmathematical way the nature
> of electricity , magnetism and gravitation. This book is realy
> easy to understand but it requires an abstract thinking . It
> is a great exercise for the mind and Mr. Kamenov is a great mind.
> I read the book several times and every time it was even more
> interesting. I could not stop reading it. I believe that this
> book will revolutionize the modern science. It is a real treasure.
>
>=============================
>
> Einstein, the Aether & Variable Rest Mass (Paperback)
> ~ Jack Heighway (Author)
>
>=================================
>
> Einstein's Relativity Theory: Correct, Paradoxical, and Wrong
> by Lyubomir, T. Gruyitch (Hardcover - Dec. 6, 2006)
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////
> /////////////////////////////////////
>
>
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---

Brilliant ... looks like it will be over soon ?
Some people in China are also happy it is over, apparently.
(I came here to dump some more anti-relativity propaganda, sorry ;).
They said people who fight relativity always in the end leave.
Maybe this time they will be leaving. I wonder what the People in
general will think about this ... chances aren't small they will
think nothing of it, completely controlled by the mass media for worse
or better ? The mass media caused it, and then can remove it, and
still be in power, I guess that shows who has the real power either
way ... the money power (who generally control the mass media through
money).

*

(Mail send back from me to Yanshan University who send happy mass
e-mail about anti-relativity ...)

Hello [...name withheld for privacy...], Yanshan University,
Qinhuangdao, China,

I feel honored that you would send me an e-mail about this issue,
because I am not working at any University (I attempted to write
a dis-proof of relativity theory and an alternative qualitative
explanation for stellar abberation,
http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/disproof.html ).

Perhaps you are also interested to learn that there are at least
2 more problems with "popular western" science and their ideas,
or perhaps 3:
1. The economics of capitalism and free trade is insufficient.
2. The theory of Darwinism, seems it might be incomplete for humans.
3. The (western) theories about state democracy may be underdeveloped
as well.

In fear of making advertizement for myself (without due reason):
If you are interested in these subjects - or perhaps the School of
Economics and Management at Yanshan University ? - perhaps you would
like to read about it here on my (free of course): web page
http://www.socialism.nl These things are very important I think, if
they are done properly they can make many families have a better income,
many children may have a better life, in Holland and in China.

One of the ways in which we can defeat relativity, is if we can make
great progress in other fields. That may increase the standing of the
contra-relativity field in general.

best regards & good luck,
jos boersema
(private citizen of Holland)
Wibenaheerd 351, 9736 PZ Groningen, Holland
http://www.socialism.nl


[...] wrote:
[...]
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/31/relativity-and-relativism/
[...]
> (http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com:81/kjrb/html/2010-03/13/content_55229.htm )
>
> (2) 2009-10-1, National Day Press-�д����˾���׷���ѧ����(inherit
> and transmit Iron Man spirit, seeking scientific
> innovation)��http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com:81/kjrb/html/2009-10/01/content_39847.htm��.
> Key point, ��Special relativity arising from a misunderstanding
> of experimental results on the constant speed of ligh����down load
> web��http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=FREESR&smode=results&maxdisp=10&possible1=Zifeng+Li&possible1zone=article&fromyear=1893&frommonth=Jan&toyear=2009&tomonth=Apr&OUTLOG=NO&viewabs=PHESEM&key=DISPLAY&docID=1&page=0&chapter=0
> ) ). The SR rejected the basic definitions of basic units in physics.
>
> Please pay attention: 1. this reports is on the National Day Press;
> B. Special Issue For Celebrating Foundation of New Chinese For 60
> Years; C. There is your gloss on the flag of PRC; D. Recently, in
> theoretical research, ��Science and Technology Daily�� only made
> reports on anti-relativity.
>
> (3) 2008-12-2, ���Ψ������ʱ�����ܹ�(Persist
> on materialistic views of space-time and
> mass-energy)��http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com:81/kjrb/html/2008-12/02/content_12181.htm��.
>
>
> (4) 2008-9-16, �Ҿ�Ҫ���������?(I insist this
> truth)��http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com:81/kjrb/html/2008-09/16/content_7022.htm��.
>
> (5) 2009-11-26, ����ո������ ���������� (Establishing
> perfect new theories, resolving age-old problems)
> (http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com:81/kjrb/html/2009-11/26/content_45587.htm)
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> [...]
>
> Yanshan University, China

--
_ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.SOCIALISM.nl Free markets and democracy,
\ /v`vvv\ / but now: properly.
/_\_#_#_/_\
\ / Day 36 of the revolution.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: Quantum Gravity 398.0: USA Proves Flexagons Related to Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: The Necessity of an experiment (classical electrodynamics) that should have been done 100 years ago