On Apr 26, 7:48*am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
* *http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

* *"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
* * relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
* * outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
* * a fake?"


Einstein was extremely good in understanding the foundational problems
of physics and that enabled him to unite already developed scattered
concepts into a theory by adding a couple postulates of his own.

Both his theories are brilliant but the failure of the academic
establishemnt has been to show how these theories connect to physical
reality. There are reasons this is not done, at the expense of the
theories getting attacked constantly. The reasons fall in the general
area of scientific obscurantism for purposes one can guess.

Most students I remmebr had poroblems vusualizing 3-D geometrical
objects and Einstein asks people to accept 4-D manifolds. Unless the
theories are popularized in a braod sense, they will die in the future
in lieu of some theistic creationist, teleological physics, like a new
scholastic philosophy, which has a lot of support in US by religious
groups.

I think Relativists are the ones who do the most harm to Relativity,
not the cranks and the cooks. String theopry is the new religion,
Relativity is dying.

Mike

P.S Dirt, after solving for the relativistic golden ration , this is
the best you could come up with? How about showing that according to
relativity, someone can know the lotto numbers before they are drawn?











The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
known names.

Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
newsgroup...

Enjoy reading,
Dirk Vdm

On Apr 26, 5:22Â*am, rbwinn wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:48�am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-





SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
� �http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

� �"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
� � relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
� � outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
� � a fake?"

The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
known names.

Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
newsgroup...

Enjoy reading,
Dirk Vdm

Einstein was just a typical scientist, not very good at mathematics.

And you're just a typical crackpot, ignorant to the bone [head].


Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 26, 4:48 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
a fake?"

The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
known names.

Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
newsgroup...

Enjoy reading,
Dirk Vdm



Wow, Tom van Flandern, David Thompson and some comments from Patchko
Velev, all the nutters in one place!

On Apr 26, 9:02 am, Shubee wrote:

http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictur...en-costume.jpg

On Apr 26, 5:19 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"rbwinn" wrote in message

Nonsense. Einstein was a very good mathematician. He simply wasn't a great
mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's the
very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
since Isaac Newton.

You worshipful reverence for Einstein is based on a lie.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...a1e855c9be269b

Shubee

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On Apr 27, 2:16 am, "Androcles" wrote:
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Alen" wrote in message

...
On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

"I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to explain
this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van Flandern
seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John Farrell.

I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " -
Einstein.

[misplaced comment moved to end of post]

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same ?

Where's your answer to my question?

It makes no sense at all, Einstein seems to have invented a free parameter
where none exists.
"Scientific method" ? Hahahaha!
John Farrell is a prejudiced journalist, not a mathematician or scientist.

Misplaced comment deleted. No answer to my question given,
no discussion possible with a bigot who refuses to respond.

On Apr 27, 8:27*am, "Androcles" wrote:
This message is brought to you by Androcles
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" wrote in message

...
On Apr 27, 2:16 am, "Androcles" wrote:





This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Alen" wrote in message

...
On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

"I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to explain
this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van Flandern
seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John Farrell..

I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " -
Einstein.

[misplaced comment moved to end of post]

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same ?

Where's your answer to my question?


He it is again because you have (intentionally) misplaced it.

He said actually: "We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B
time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the
latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that
the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the
``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. "

So he says the opposite than you think he says. He says that -- what
you say he says--- cannot be astablished unless one defines a common
"time" for A and B, something that is true only in Galilean
transformations.

If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
one pal.


Mike






It makes no sense at all, Einstein seems to have invented a free parameter
where none exists.
"Scientific method" ? Hahahaha!
John Farrell is a prejudiced journalist, not a mathematician or scientist.

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On Apr 27, 8:27 am, "Androcles" wrote:
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" wrote in message

...
On Apr 27, 2:16 am, "Androcles" wrote:





This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Alen" wrote in message

...
On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

"I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to
explain
this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van Flandern
seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John
Farrell.

I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to
travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " -
Einstein.

[misplaced comment moved to end of post]

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same ?

Where's your answer to my question?


| He it is again because you have (intentionally) misplaced it.

| He said actually: "We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B
| time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the
| latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that
| the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the
| ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. "

| So he says the opposite than you think he says. He says that -- what
| you say he says--- cannot be astablished unless one defines a common
| "time" for A and B, something that is true only in Galilean
| transformations.

| If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
| one pal.

"cannot be defined at all" after Newton defined it is a rather stupid lie.

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
a month, a year." -- Sir Isaac Newton -- Principia.

If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
one, cretin; and I'm not your pal, you are hugely mistaken there too.

So let's see...
tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to you,
is it?
If you can comprehend that you have a dead brain, moron.

On Apr 27, 2:45�am, Mike wrote:
On Apr 27, 2:16�am, "Androcles" wrote:





This message is brought to you by Androcles
�http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Alen" wrote in message

...
On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

"I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to explain
this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van Flandern
seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John Farrell..

I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " -
Einstein.

He said actually: "We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B
time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the
latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that
the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the
``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. "

So he says the opposite than you think he says. He says that -- what
you say --- cannot be astablished unless one defines a common "time"
for A and B, something that is true only in Galilean transformations.

Mike
The Galilean transformation equations can be applied in any context.
All it means is that a clock in the stationary frame of reference
represents the equation t'=t. Any clocks running at some other rate,
including cesium clocks in the moving frame of reference, have to be
represented by some other variable than t' because t' is already
defined to be t in the Galilean transformation equations.
Robert B. Winn

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:48:06 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
a fake?"


Relativity has worked well. However the following quotes show that
Einstein was open to other possibilties.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between
gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are
based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory
collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark
1971, p.328)

Einstein might be being too negative here. It seems to me that if
a formula for Miller's fringe shifts were to hold equally well
in all inertial frames of reference, then the principle of relativity
would not be directly violated. If that were the case I don't see
why SR shouldn't adapt by simply adopting a neo-Lorentzian
interpretation, but still retain the same formulae and maths.


"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should
the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of
relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its
current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the
equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they
would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm
satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a
single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I
feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice
Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and
Rebel 1972, p.328)

I think the formulae of SR will be with us for ever, but probably not
GR.

There are new trends. Eg

The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005 A Critical Review of the Evidence
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0412039

Derivation of the postulates of quantum mechanics from the first
principles of scale relativity
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2418