Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: THE HOLY GRAIL ~ CANTOR DISPROOF
Next: NWO is the Old World Order - dying bushite grunting enemy traitorrobbing Humanity for the escape of the evil peenackers said 'I don't care.'- NWO is the Old World Order
From: cosmojoe on 24 May 2010 19:22 Re: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud? By the looks of it, yes. So it was said (Encyclopedia Brittanica 1937), the advent of relativity required the absence of luminiferous ether, yet once ether was observed and measured, proponents of relativity claim that luminiferous ether is accommodated by relativity. So ether way, in their judgment, relativity is "necessitated", or in the least permitted. But what about the possibility of Maxwell's field expression operating quite well in a relativity free inertial region moving near the speed of light, or a completely relativity free explanation for the aberration of starlight? Is not then, that simply relativity not essential at all to the Standard Model, or has a malevolent hoax been committed shackling mankind to religious doctrine, since all Jewish scientists are religious?
From: Androcles on 24 May 2010 19:53 "cosmojoe" <cosmojoe(a)hawaiiantel.net> wrote in message news:4BFB0A30.5070900(a)hawaiiantel.net... | Re: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud? | | By the looks of it, yes. Yes, but one-speed-of-light-only aerialists like you are just as fraudulent. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
From: J. Clarke on 24 May 2010 19:58 On 5/24/2010 7:22 PM, cosmojoe wrote: > Re: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud? > > By the looks of it, yes. So it was said (Encyclopedia Brittanica 1937), > the advent of relativity required the absence of luminiferous ether, yet > once ether was observed and measured, proponents of relativity claim > that luminiferous ether is accommodated by relativity. So ether way, in > their judgment, relativity is "necessitated", or in the least permitted. > But what about the possibility of Maxwell's field expression operating > quite well in a relativity free inertial region moving near the speed of > light, or a completely relativity free explanation for the aberration of > starlight? Is not then, that simply relativity not essential at all to > the Standard Model, or has a malevolent hoax been committed shackling > mankind to religious doctrine, since all Jewish scientists are religious? Take a physics class. Maybe you'll meet someone who will buy you a life.
From: jimp on 24 May 2010 20:45
In sci.physics cosmojoe <cosmojoe(a)hawaiiantel.net> wrote: > Re: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud? > > By the looks of it, yes. So it was said (Encyclopedia Brittanica 1937), > the advent of relativity required the absence of luminiferous ether, yet > once ether was observed and measured, proponents of relativity claim > that luminiferous ether is accommodated by relativity. 1. No "ether" has ever been observed. 2. 2010 - 1937 = 73 years 3. You are an idiot. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |