At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

On Jan 31, 11:28 pm, wrote:
At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

what is lauraete?

On Jan 31, 6:17 pm, compiz wrote:
On Jan 31, 11:28 pm, wrote:

At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

what is lauraete?

It's the plant they get bay leaves from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_leaf

Mitch is saying he eats a lot of bay leaves.

- Randy

On Feb 1, 12:28 am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:17 pm, compiz wrote:

On Jan 31, 11:28 pm, wrote:

At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

what is lauraete?

It's the plant they get bay leaves from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_leaf

Mitch is saying he eats a lot of bay leaves.

- Randy

you mean laureate not lauraete

lauraete must be somthin complitly else

and einstine dident got noblel for his relaticity,
which is kinda downer for a so good stable
theory

hahahaa not even a nobel, hahaaha, thanks

On Jan 31, 6:32*pm, compiz wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:28 am, Randy Poe wrote:





On Jan 31, 6:17 pm, compiz wrote:

On Jan 31, 11:28 pm, wrote:

At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

what is lauraete?

It's the plant they get bay leaves from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_leaf

Mitch is saying he eats a lot of bay leaves.

* * * * * * * * * - Randy

you mean laureate not lauraete

lauraete must be somthin complitly else

and einstine dident got noblel for his relaticity,
which is kinda downer for a so good stable
theory

hahahaa not even a nobel, hahaaha, thanks- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right on! Post like the one you are responding to is somewhat
indicative of the ignorance most of Einstein's critics post.

Funny too, since among physicists, Einstein's name is held with the
same reverance which was previously accorded Galaleo, Newton, and
Maxell.

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today. His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind. I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

What many lay posters to not realize (possible because they are
uneducated) is that Einsteins later work was on his Special Theory of
Relativity, which he neither completed or published by the time of his
death.

Fragmentary notes of his uncompleted work leaked into the hands of
somewhat desperate and unscrupulous people, which today form the basis
of laymen's understanding of Special Relativity. Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity", it is
easy to understand why laymen reading these bits and fragmentary
pieces of an ongoing throught process, and believing that Einstein
published it, become critical of Einstein.
I can understand the basis for that confusion.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics. (Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings, when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity, not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Oh, I headed into a rant, but it stops here.

Harry C.










Harry C.

On Jan 31, 4:24*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:32*pm, compiz wrote:





On Feb 1, 12:28 am, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jan 31, 6:17 pm, compiz wrote:

On Jan 31, 11:28 pm, wrote:

At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

what is lauraete?

It's the plant they get bay leaves from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_leaf

Mitch is saying he eats a lot of bay leaves.

* * * * * * * * * - Randy

you mean laureate not lauraete

lauraete must be somthin complitly else

and einstine dident got noblel for his relaticity,
which is kinda downer for a so good stable
theory

hahahaa not even a nobel, hahaaha, thanks- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right on! *Post like the one you are responding to is somewhat
indicative of the ignorance most of Einstein's critics post.

Funny too, since among physicists, Einstein's name is held with the
same reverance which was previously accorded *Galaleo, Newton, and
Maxell.

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today. His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind. I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

What many lay posters to not realize (possible because they are
uneducated) is that Einsteins later work was on his Special Theory of
Relativity, which he neither completed or published by the time of his
death.

Fragmentary notes of his uncompleted work leaked into the hands of
somewhat desperate and unscrupulous people, which today form the basis
of laymen's understanding of Special Relativity. Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity", it is
easy to understand why laymen reading these bits and fragmentary
pieces of an ongoing throught process, and believing that Einstein
published it, become critical of Einstein.
I can understand the basis for that confusion.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics. (Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings, when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity, not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Oh, I headed into a rant, but it stops here.

Harry C.

Harry C.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good one :-)

On Jan 31, 5:28*pm, wrote:
At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

xxein: The idiots gave him the Nobel because they liked the way
elevator doors worked. It was just a mumbo-jumbo they bought at the
time.

Tell me about "Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008".

"xxein" wrote in message
...
On Jan 31, 5:28 pm, wrote:
At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

xxein: The idiots gave him the Nobel because they liked the way
elevator doors worked. It was just a mumbo-jumbo they bought at the
time.

Tell me about "Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008".

You know nothing, geez you stupid ****.

On Jan 31, 3:17*pm, compiz wrote:
On Jan 31, 11:28 pm, wrote:

At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

what is lauraete?

It is what a Nobel prize winner is known as.

On Jan 31, 2:28 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:17 pm, compiz wrote:

On Jan 31, 11:28 pm, wrote:

At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

what is lauraete?

It's the plant they get bay leaves from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_leaf

Mitch is saying he eats a lot of bay leaves.

- Randy

I had a macaroni and cheese recipe that called for bay leaves.

I couldn't tell the difference between "bay leaves" and "no bay
leaves".