Einstein came up with “ e == m * c^2 � and General Relativity,
not Poincare ( nor Lorentz ).

Instrinsically, objectively ( i.e. not subjectively ),
the cosmos is most obviously 4 dimensional,
yet Quantum Mechanics can't explain it ! how sad.

The SI length is the same as the SI time length,
only the ( maser maxima ) count is different.

Even the SI unit of mass could, at least in theory,
be a count of maser ( or atom laser ) maxima.

Einstein's best teachers may have been
the patent applicants that he reviewed.

On Feb 11, 6:57 pm, Jeffâ˜*Relf wrote:

Einstein came up with “ e == m * c^2 �

In Einstein’s (or whoever the author was) 1905 paper on relativity, he
derived (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)) through a series of gross
mathematical errors. This means he knew the answer before hand.
Einstein was merely a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.

and General Relativity,

The only way to derive the field equations is through the quantity
misbelieved to be a Lagrangian pulled out of Hilbert’s own *ss. After
all, Hilbert did present the field equations at Goettingen five days
before Einstein’s plagiarized presentation in Berlin. This once again
made Einstein a plagiarist.

not Poincare ( nor Lorentz ).

Well, Larmor was the author of the Lorentz transform based on the
ground-breaking work of the Voigt transform. However, I think it was
Lorentz who first derived (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)). Please
correct me if I am wrong.

Instrinsically, objectively ( i.e. not subjectively ),
the cosmos is most obviously 4 dimensional,

Well, I disagree. According to the inverse square law of gravity, the
cosmos is the three-dimensional space with time to be the ruler to
describe how an event evolves in this three-dimensional space called
the cosmos. shrug

yet Quantum Mechanics can't explain it ! how sad.

There is no sadness about any discovery or yet discovered.

The SI length is the same as the SI time length,
only the ( maser maxima ) count is different.

Even the SI unit of mass could, at least in theory,
be a count of maser ( or atom laser ) maxima.

shrug

Einstein's best teachers may have been
the patent applicants that he reviewed.

You mean the victims of Einstein’s plagiarism. Yes, Einstein was a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.

On Feb 10, 10:57*pm, maxwell wrote:
On Feb 10, 9:53*am, pmb wrote:

Einstein's job at the Swiss patent Office involved being fully up to
date with all recent developments in science & technology. *He was
PAID to read all these books & papers.

Only as it applied to pattents he was assigned to.

Einstein's SRT paper was only
reviewed very briefly by Max Planck (the theoretical adviser to
Annalen in 1905), who should have insisted on citations.

Where did you find this information? I'd like to request the reference
to this if you please.

Pete

On Feb 11, 1:47*am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:53*am, Eric Gisse wrote:





On Feb 9, 2:25 am, pmb wrote:

On Feb 1, 4:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:24 pm, " wrote:

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

This proves you are ignorant of what Einstein actually was. *shrug

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

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. *Why is that? *Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. *Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. *Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. *The list goes
on. *This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. *shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. *He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

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.

Let's see. *The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. *The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). *The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. *It is stupid. *shrug

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.

No, it is accidental. *Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then..

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.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. *shrug

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.

Excuse not to understand SR. *I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on 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.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. *shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? *They only are interested in opposite ....
Come on. *You are I were once that age. *Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. *shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. *GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. *shrug

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

It is about time. *I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. *shrug

Now, good night.

So this stuff above is your so called "proof" that Einstein
plagerized? I see no proof whatsoever that Einstein was aware of the
work of Poincare. And arriving at the same transformation as a result
of two postulates doesn't mean that Einstein plagerized Lamor either.
Then again I see no proof above that Einstein was aware of Lamor's
derivation.

The burden of proof still remains on you to show that Einstein was
aware of Poincare and others results. A requirement that one has
plagerized is that they must have done so knowing that they did.

Plus he needs to explain why Poincare and such just sat by and let
Einstein do that assuming that's what happened.

This is like the arguments the Apollo deniers use. Oh wait, KW doesn't
think we landed on the moon either.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

About the math. Calculus in the case of intergration is just an
approximation. You can't intergrate a million times. And if you say
you can you can't intergrate an infinite ammount of times which is
required to produce an exact answer in the calculus. The same is true
of Differentiation. You cannot do it a million times. And you cannot
do it the infinite amount ofthe times required to produce the exact
derivitive of the curve. Calculus is only exact in derivatives of the
polynomials not real world problems. It is always an estimation in
real the world problems.

Huh? Where did you get an idea like this? e^x is not a polynomial
(although it has an infinite expansion in terms of powers of x) and
yet one can integrate this exactly, just like many other functions.

Pete

On Feb 12, 6:58*am, pmb wrote:
On Feb 10, 10:57*pm, maxwell wrote:

On Feb 10, 9:53*am, pmb wrote:
Einstein's job at the Swiss patent Office involved being fully up to
date with all recent developments in science & technology. *He was
PAID to read all these books & papers.

Only as it applied to pattents he was assigned to.

Einstein's SRT paper was only
reviewed very briefly by Max Planck (the theoretical adviser to
Annalen in 1905), who should have insisted on citations.

Where did you find this information? I'd like to request the reference
to this if you please.

Pete
See "Intellectual Mastery of Nature" by C. Jungnickel & R. McCormach
(Univ of Chicago (1986) vol 2, p. 248.

On Feb 12, 7:01*am, pmb wrote:
On Feb 11, 1:47*am, wrote:





On Feb 9, 4:53*am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 9, 2:25 am, pmb wrote:

On Feb 1, 4:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:24 pm, " wrote:

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

This proves you are ignorant of what Einstein actually was. *shrug

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

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. *Why is that? *Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. *Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. *Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. *The list goes
on. *This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. *shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. *He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

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.

Let's see. *The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. *The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). *The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. *It is stupid. *shrug

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.

No, it is accidental. *Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then.

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.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. *shrug

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.

Excuse not to understand SR. *I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on 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.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. *shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? *They only are interested in opposite ...
Come on. *You are I were once that age. *Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. *shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. *GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. *shrug

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

It is about time. *I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. *shrug

Now, good night.

So this stuff above is your so called "proof" that Einstein
plagerized? I see no proof whatsoever that Einstein was aware of the
work of Poincare. And arriving at the same transformation as a result
of two postulates doesn't mean that Einstein plagerized Lamor either..
Then again I see no proof above that Einstein was aware of Lamor's
derivation.

The burden of proof still remains on you to show that Einstein was
aware of Poincare and others results. A requirement that one has
plagerized is that they must have done so knowing that they did.

Plus he needs to explain why Poincare and such just sat by and let
Einstein do that assuming that's what happened.

This is like the arguments the Apollo deniers use. Oh wait, KW doesn't
think we landed on the moon either.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

About the math. Calculus in the case of intergration is just an
approximation. You can't intergrate a million times. And if you say
you can you can't intergrate an infinite ammount of times which is
required to produce an exact answer in the calculus. The same is true
of Differentiation. You cannot do it a million times. And you cannot
do it the infinite amount ofthe times required to produce the exact
derivitive of the curve. Calculus is only exact in derivatives of the
polynomials not real world problems. It is always an estimation in
real the world problems.

Huh? Where did you get an idea like this? e^x is not a polynomial
(although it has an infinite expansion in terms of powers of x) and
yet one can integrate this exactly, just like many other functions.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pete real world problems cannot be intergrated or differentiated
completely. Therfore calculus is only an approximation.
You mention the natural constant e and its curve. It is its own
derivitive true. These are the only things that are exact in the
calculus the rest aren't.

Mitch Reamsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Feb 12, 10:24*pm, maxwell wrote:
On Feb 12, 6:58*am, pmb wrote:



On Feb 10, 10:57*pm, maxwell wrote:

On Feb 10, 9:53*am, pmb wrote:
Einstein's job at the Swiss patent Office involved being fully up to
date with all recent developments in science & technology. *He was
PAID to read all these books & papers.

Only as it applied to pattents he was assigned to.

Einstein's SRT paper was only
reviewed very briefly by Max Planck (the theoretical adviser to
Annalen in 1905), who should have insisted on citations.

Where did you find this information? I'd like to request the reference
to this if you please.

Pete

See "Intellectual Mastery of Nature" by C. Jungnickel & R. McCormach
(Univ of Chicago (1986) vol 2, p. 248.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry but I don't have access to that book and I can't go to Cambridge
MA to look it up in the Library they have there since I do not read
every referenced source. I was hoping for a quote and an explanation.
For example, you neglected to respond to my inquiry, i.e.

Huh? Where did you get an idea like this? e^x is not a polynomial
(although it has an infinite expansion in terms of powers of x) and
yet one can integrate this exactly, just like many other functions.

This was asked in response to your claim "Calculus is only exact in
derivatives of the
polynomials not real world problems."

Any Calculus textbook will give numerous examples otherwise.

Pete

On Feb 12, 10:44*pm, wrote:
On Feb 12, wrote:





On Feb 11, 1:47*am, wrote:

On Feb 9, 4:53*am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 9, 2:25 wrote:

On Feb 1, 4:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:24 pm, " wrote:

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

This proves you are ignorant of what Einstein actually was. *shrug

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

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. *Why is that? *Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. *Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. *Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. *The list goes
on. *This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. *shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. *He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

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.

Let's see. *The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. *The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). *The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. *It is stupid. *shrug

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.

No, it is accidental. *Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then.

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.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. *shrug

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.

Excuse not to understand SR. *I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on 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.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. *shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? *They only are interested in opposite ...
Come on. *You are I were once that age. *Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. *shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. *GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. *shrug

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

It is about time. *I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. *shrug

Now, good night.

So this stuff above is your so called "proof" that Einstein
plagerized? I see no proof whatsoever that Einstein was aware of the
work of Poincare. And arriving at the same transformation as a result
of two postulates doesn't mean that Einstein plagerized Lamor either.
Then again I see no proof above that Einstein was aware of Lamor's
derivation.

The burden of proof still remains on you to show that Einstein was
aware of Poincare and others results. A requirement that one has
plagerized is that they must have done so knowing that they did.

Plus he needs to explain why Poincare and such just sat by and let
Einstein do that assuming that's what happened.

This is like the arguments the Apollo deniers use. Oh wait, KW doesn't
think we landed on the moon either.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

About the math. Calculus in the case of intergration is just an
approximation. You can't intergrate a million times. And if you say
you can you can't intergrate an infinite ammount of times which is
required to produce an exact answer in the calculus. The same is true
of Differentiation. You cannot do it a million times. And you cannot
do it the infinite amount ofthe times required to produce the exact
derivitive of the curve. Calculus is only exact in derivatives of the
polynomials not real world problems. It is always an estimation in
real the world problems.

Huh? Where did you get an idea like this? e^x is not a polynomial
(although it has an infinite expansion in terms of powers of x) and
yet one can integrate this exactly, just like many other functions.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pete real world problems cannot be intergrated or differentiated
completely. Therfore calculus is only an approximation.

I disagree. The comment you made and to which I was speaking of was
not about "real world problems." It was about math. Recall what you
posted (i.e. that which was was commenting on): "About the math.
Calculus in the case of intergration is just an approximation."

Your qualifier "About the math." tells me that you were not speaking
about real world problems but that you were speaking about math. And
any first year calculus student can tell you that there are more
functions that just polynomials which can be integrated exactly. Even
if I knew that you actually were referring to "real world problems"
then the polynomials which you said can be integrated exactly are
still approximations to the real world.

Best wishes

Pete