Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 28 Mar 2010 23:19 "cosmojoe" <cosmojoe(a)hawaiiantel.net> wrote in message news:4bb01283$0$16335$6d36acad(a)usenetnewsserver.com... > Inertial wrote: > >> >> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >> news:plnoq55acbl4fdce216re4g2lv81f6jek7(a)4ax.com... >> >>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:30:21 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>> news:lvgnq5hrg1c9bt7j1u3p94706a4povngq6(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:14:47 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>> <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 24, 3:55 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:13:37 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>>>> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >On Mar 24, 3:00 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>>>> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>>>> >> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >This is still not falsification of data or scientific fraud, >>>>>>> >especially since (as you say) the very same procedure would be used >>>>>>> >according to ballistic theory. This is why it was patently >>>>>>> obvious to >>>>>>> >anyone reading your post that it was ill-considered. You are >>>>>>> probably >>>>>>> >deeply embarrassed by having posted it in the first place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not at all Diaper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein plainly advocated the deliberate fabrication of >>>>>>> experimental >>>>>>> results >>>>>>> in order that his theory would appear to be correct. His concern was >>>>>>> that the >>>>>>> aether, in which he clearly believed, would render his concept of >>>>>>> relativity >>>>>>> inoperable. >>>>>>> Frankly, I cannot see why all the fuss when Lorentz had already >>>>>>> shown >>>>>>> that all >>>>>>> observers would measure OWLS as 'c' because of the LTs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein ended up with the same formulae...surprise, surprise...... >>>>>>> In other words, he didn't contribute anything new...and unwittingly, >>>>>>> he >>>>>>> managed >>>>>>> to get clock synching right because his definition was straight >>>>>>> BaTh. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein was nothing but a fraudulent con man..... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a typical retort, Henri. When confronted with the inanity of >>>>>> the content of your original post, you attempt to deflect attention >>>>>> from the inanity with a cloud of chaff, a barrage of propaganda and >>>>>> cavalier statements that are even more shamelessly outlandish. >>>>>> >>>>>> PD >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If the clocks don't give you the answer you want, just fake their >>>>> readings....Einstein 1905 >>>> >>>> >>>> Total lie .. as expected from the well known liar and fraud Henry >>> >>> >>> Aww! Did I upset the ratpack? >> >> >> No .. not at all. We're well used to you lying. >> >>> Einstein said "if two synched clocks DO NOT show that tAB =\= tBA, then >>> simply >>> change one of the clocks so it will. >> >> >> What he said was that the time tAB must be equal to the time tBA (and >> even you agree that that is the case .. even in ballistic theory). So if >> you have two clocks that do *not* show that, they cannot be in sync (ie >> they are showing something wrong). >> >> So .. if you want two clocks to be synchronised, then you need to adjust >> them to make them in sync. There is nothing fraudulent about doing that. >> It is simply a calibration. >> >>> "THEN MY THEORY WILL WORK AND THE DINGLEBERRIES WONT SEE THAT I HAVE >>> COMPLETELY >>> FOOLED THEM. Hooray!". >> >> >> Again. A total lie. >> >> > Having recently observed and measured luminiferous ether myself, I > understand that Einstein's mathematical approach is valid, though somewhat > hyperbolized in a few areas, but fundamentally flawed in premise as to why > nature behaves as it does. > > I doubt that he intentionally perpetrated a hoax, though the results of > his efforts prove to be as bad as a hoax, and a very big, serious one, > setting science back 75 years. Having recently observed and measured chocolate eggs laid by the Easter Bunny myself, I understand that Hershey's manufacturing approach is valid, though somewhat hyperbolized in a few areas, but fundamentally flawed in premise as to why nature behaves as it does. I doubt that Hershey intentionally perpetrated a hoax, though the results of their efforts prove to be as bad as a hoax, and a very big, serious one, setting Easter Bunny egg-laying back hundreds of years.
From: Jerry on 29 Mar 2010 10:57 On Mar 28, 9:42 pm, cosmojoe <cosmo...(a)hawaiiantel.net> wrote: > Having recently observed and measured luminiferous ether myself, I > understand that Einstein's mathematical approach is valid, though > somewhat hyperbolized in a few areas, but fundamentally flawed in > premise as to why nature behaves as it does. > > I doubt that he intentionally perpetrated a hoax, though the results of > his efforts prove to be as bad as a hoax, and a very big, serious one, > setting science back 75 years. I took a look at your data. It's not as complete as Miller's work, but there is enough there to say that, like Miller's work, it does not satisfy the Lorentz- Thirring criterion. Thirring pointed out that Miller's results failed the simplest and most basic criteria required for one to believe in a celestial origin for the diurnal displacements in measured "aether drift" that he measured. Basically, the azimuth of supposed drift should show daily variations consistent with the motion of of the source about the celestial pole. Instead, 95 percent of Miller's observations showed an apparent drift pointing towards the northwest quadrant of the compass. http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Thirring_1926_A.pdf Your measured diurnal "drifts" likewise show magnitudes and directions inconsistent with motion of the source about the celestial pole. Your computed directions are also in disagreement with Miller's directions, and Miller did zillions of times more measurements than you did, so how come nobody who has ever claimed to have measured aether drift has ever agreed with anybody else???? Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 29 Mar 2010 16:31 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:43:07 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"cosmojoe" <cosmojoe(a)hawaiiantel.net> wrote in message >news:4bb01283$0$16335$6d36acad(a)usenetnewsserver.com... >> Inertial wrote: >> >>> So .. if you want two clocks to be synchronised, then you need to adjust >>> them to make them in sync. There is nothing fraudulent about doing that. >>> It is simply a calibration. >>> >>>> "THEN MY THEORY WILL WORK AND THE DINGLEBERRIES WONT SEE THAT I HAVE >>>> COMPLETELY >>>> FOOLED THEM. Hooray!". >>> >>> >>> Again. A total lie. >>> >>> >> Having recently observed and measured luminiferous ether myself, > >BAHAHAHA .. you're funny. no 'funnier ' than you. >> I understand that Einstein's mathematical approach is valid, though >> somewhat hyperbolized in a few areas, but fundamentally flawed in premise >> as to why nature behaves as it does. >> >> I doubt that he intentionally perpetrated a hoax, though the results of >> his efforts prove to be as bad as a hoax, and a very big, serious one, >> setting science back 75 years. > >Hardly .. it advanced greatly due to his work and the other physicists of >his time. What about all those floundering astronomers who try to formulate ridiculous theories based on the fairytale that all starlight travels towards little planet Earth at precisely c? Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 29 Mar 2010 16:33 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:39:35 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >On Mar 24, 6:01�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> Einstein effectively said to do exactly this. >> >> Take two presynched clocks A and B and separate them by a distance D. >> >> Send time signals from A to B and from B to A. >> >> If tAB =\= tBA then....don't worry about it. Just change one of the clocks so >> tAB DOES equal tBA....then my whole theory becomes true. >> >> Now, as any scientist knows, the deliberate falsification of experimental >> results to fit the theory is a crime that would normally see the perpetrator >> expelled for life. >> > >================= > >> I want to know how Einstein has been let off the hook for so long..... > >Well... Firstly he wrote a paper that seemed >to embrace some the same notions you hold. They >were widely accepted in his time so that pacified >most of his detractors. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect#Modern_view > >But it was pure stroke of luck, no effort at all on >his part, they were breaking up the last of the >guillotines and had no way to execute him even >if they secured a conviction. > >Today, of course, he would simply be prosecuted >and executed in the state of Texas and you would >be free to attend to more pressing issues. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein I wonder what hitler would have done with his theory. >Sue... > >> >> Henry Wilson... >> > Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on 29 Mar 2010 18:41
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > What about all those floundering astronomers who try to formulate > ridiculous theories based on the fairytale that all starlight travels > towards little planet Earth at precisely c? Did you ever ask that question when you supposedly worked at an observatory? > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. |