Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Physics]
|
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: train on 2 Jun 2010 11:22 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.
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jun 2010 14:21 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 dont do so in science. <shrug> > So? <shrug>
From: Me, ...again! on 2 Jun 2010 14:44 On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Koobee Wublee 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 dont do so > in science. <shrug> > >> So? > > <shrug> > > > For, KW: I think names like "nitwit" etc., are a wee bit too strong. This is why I just chose the word "doubter(s)" or "doubt" as an appropriate hedge (just in case Einstein really is right, OR, nobody can come up with anything better somewhere down the road.).
From: Martin Brown on 2 Jun 2010 15:12 On 02/06/2010 19:44, Me, ...again! wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >> On Jun 2, 12:31 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: >>> 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> Galileo didn't know about Maxwells equations and the speed of light being a constant for all observers in an inertial frame. >> >>> 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> You seem totally obsessed with your anti-Einstein delusions. > > For, KW: I think names like "nitwit" etc., are a wee bit too strong. A *BIT* too strong? By any reasonable definition Einstein was a genius and greatly simplified the laws of physics which is exactly what makes him a target for every delusional half baked nutter and netkook on the planet. > This is why I just chose the word "doubter(s)" or "doubt" as an > appropriate hedge (just in case Einstein really is right, OR, nobody can > come up with anything better somewhere down the road.). Eventually I have no doubt that someone will come up with a theory that is more complete than SR & GR in much the same way as Einstein supplanted Newton and Galileo. But I expect we may have to wait a couple of centuries for another breakthrough of similar magnitude. And whatever theory replaces SR & GR will have to match them in the limiting cases since the experimental evidence is so strong. Having said that I am aware of several times when people have said that physics will be solved in a couple of decades only to see an experiment that gives an unexpected result throw everything up in the air again. The onus is on experimentalists to disprove a prediction and not on some numbers game of counting nutters with books on Amazon. Basically counting the number of people with books on Amazon who don't properly understand relativity tells you absolutely nothing about the validity or otherwise of Einsteins contributions to physics. Regards, Martin Brown
From: Me, ...again! on 2 Jun 2010 15:16
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, mpc755 wrote: > On Jun 1, 6:59 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> > 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? >> >> -- >> Dirk >> >> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UK >> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show > > With aether, the physics of nature are easily understood. > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > The material is mæther. > Mæther has mass. > Aether and matter have mass. > Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. > Aether is displaced by matter. > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. > The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring > places, ...disregarding the causes which condition its state" - Albert > Einstein > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the > aether's state of displacement. > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. The aether wave enters > and exits multiple slits. The aether wave creates interference upon > exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule > travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the aether > wave and there is not interference. > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN' > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. > > Mass does not convert to energy. Matter converts to aether. As the > mæther transitions from matter to aether it increases in volume. The > physical effect the increase in volume has on the neighboring matter > and aether is energy. > > The physical effect of mæther decompressing is energy. > > Mass is conserved. > > The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether > pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS > satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether > and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS > satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest > with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to > "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated > with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS > satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS > clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure > associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with > respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the > aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites > [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." > (quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). > Thanks for bringing this to the NGs. |