On Apr 26, 6:51 pm, Shubee wrote:


****bert,

Are you upset that the article didn't mention you ?

“Was Einstein a fake?” asked John Farrell.

Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. You can consider him
a fake I suppose.

Under the special theory of relativity (SR), the principle of
relativity was already pointed out by Galileo almost three hundred
years before Einstein. The constancy in the speed of light was
already proposed by Voigt in 1887 to explain the null results of
Michelson’s 1881 experiment. In doing so, Voigt abandoned the
principle of relativity and derived the Voigt transform. By 1897, the
Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor after a modification
to the Lorentz transform to allow for the principle of relativity. By
1904, Poincare had already pointed out the most important concept of
SR. That is the relative simultaneity. Thus, what Einstein’s
contribution is in SR is still vague unless discussing Einstein’s many
obvious plagiarisms. The special theory cannot be Einstein’s.
However, he did name the hypothesis SR. That would make him a good
marketing person or advertisement specialist at best. shrug

Farrell said “A burgeoning underground of 'dissident' scientists and
self-described experts publish their theories in newsletters and blogs
on the Net, exchanging ideas in a great battle against 'the temple of
relativity'. According to these critics, relativity is not only
wrong, it's an affront to common sense, ...”

Well, the hypotheses known as the special and general (GR) theories of
relativity are merely two such crackpot conjectures. shrug GR has
tons of self-conflicts. SR’s problem is the relative simultaneity
which manifests the twin’s paradox. Believing in the resolution to
the twin’s paradox really requires a lot of faith. Each proposed
resolution is contradictory of the others. There is no favored
resolution.

Bryan Gaensler said "The anti-relativity cranks are not nearly as well-
organised as the creationists. Probably none of them would get along
well enough to form a serious threat to science."

He is quite right. For the crackpots, it is easy to deal with. For
the more serious challenges, all they have to do is to keep silent.
In doing so, they just shove these challenges to the next
generations. To keep the faiths of SR and GR alive, all they need to
do is to brainwash the next generations before the generation get
exposed to any serious challenges.

Farrell said “The anti-relativity movement got underway as soon as
Einstein's first paper on special relativity was published, in 1905.
Some scientists disputed its assertion that the old Newtonian concepts
of absolute space and time — which had never been scientifically
established — were superfluous. Indeed, the attempt to restore these
concepts to mainstream physics has been the essential foundation of
almost every crank theory since.”

This is total nonsense. All Newton’s work is based on the expansion
of the two principles that Galileo discovered. They are the
principles of relativity and equivalence. Newton’s work does not
require absolute space and time. shrug

Farrell said “Even more enraging to some scientists and engineers was
the worldwide fame Einstein attained with the 1916 publication of his
General Theory of Relativity, which extended special relativity and
offered a radically new explanation for gravity.”

Apparently, Farrell did not know of Riemann’s work. By the middle of
the nineteenth century, Riemann had already suggesting curved space as
a possible cause of gravity. After Minkowski wrote down the concise
equation describing flat spacetime from the Lorentz transform, it is
suddenly possible to extend Riemann’s work into four dimensions. Only
the curvature in the temporal dimension yields the effect of gravity.
shrug The first team to study the curvature in spacetime was not
Einstein. The Goettingen group of mathematicians included all the
known characters such as Klein, Hilbert, Schwarzschild, and Minkowski
himself. The Einstein field equations can only be derived after
Hilbert pulled out of the Lagrangian from his *ss. By taking the
partial derivative of this so-called Lagrangian with respect to each
element of the metric, the field equations reveal themselves.

Farrell said “A number of Germans, many of them anti-Semites, despised
Einstein's socialist views and envied his fame.”

Ha ha ha. Who would be jealous of or resentful to a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. Farrel’s comment involves faith. Only after
establishing Einstein as the Messiah to the faiths of SR and GR, he
can state that groundless statement. shrug

Farrell said “Albert Michelson, famous as the American who devised the
failed Michelson-Morley experiment to detect aether, the invisible
medium that 19th century scientists supposed responsible for the
propagation of light waves through space, never accepted relativity
and he politely admitted this to Einstein when they met.”

Yes, that is because Michelson was very smart. He also saw the
ridiculous religious icon known as the relative simultaneity which
manifests the twin’s paradox. Voigt himself probably did also
discover the Lorentz transform in 1887. However, realizing the
ridiculous nature in relative simultaneity, he opted to discard it in
favor of the Voigt transform.

Farrell said “According to him [Tom Van Flandern], the confusing
‘rigmarole’ of relativity isn't needed to maintain the GPS, even
though in theory it should be.”

Originally as perceived by the physicists, GPS receivers call out for
only three satellites to compute the four quantities of unknowns.
They are longitude, latitude, altitude, and time. Yes, it becomes
necessary to synchronize the clocks of the satellites and ground.
There suddenly opens up an opportunity for GR into the design of GPS.
However, someone most likely an engineer realized it takes four
equations to solve for four unknowns. Thus, if there are four
satellites to be incorporated into the computations, it becomes
unnecessary for the synchronization of the satellites and ground as
long as all satellites are synchronized themselves. This eliminates
the need to utilize GR. Is Farrell suggesting Van Flandern as this
genius to think about the very obvious that eluded the original group
of physicists?

Ashby said "Einstein has not been 'blown off'. On the contrary, a
great deal of thought has gone into the problem and all of the known
special and general relativistic effects have been accounted for if
they are predicted to be big enough to be important."

This is total nonsense. GPS proves relative simultaneity wrong. GPS
proves SR wrong. If anyone understands relative simultaneity as
faith, he will be asking how GPS falsifies relative simultaneity.
This proves all of them do not understand relative simultaneity and
SR. shrug

Farrell said “But the most interesting aspect of Van Flandern's
objections to relativity bears directly on Einstein himself and his
professional integrity. According to Van Flandern, Einstein cheated.
Van Flandern told Bethell that he has reason to believe Einstein
manipulated his field equations for one of his most momentous
predictions.”

Van Flandern is correct that Einstein cheated. However, this cheating
happened before the field equations. In the late summer or fall of
1915, Einstein with help from his buddies fudged Gerber’s work to
obtain the observed anomalous advance in Mercury’s perihelion. In
doing so, they also made a few mistakes. It was bragging about this
that caused Hilbert to expose the Lagrangian that yielded the field
equations.

Farrell said “...Carroll Alley, who received his degree in 1962. He
told me he had once hired Van Flandern to do some work in celestial
mechanics. As for knowing Einstein personally, Alley recounted how he
had had the pleasure of attending the last lecture given by the great
physicist before his death in 1955.”

This means Alley attended Einstein’s lectures while Alley was still a
freshman or a sophomore in high school. I believe Alley’s memory was
not as good as what it used to be.

Farrell said “He [Alley] went on to say that Einstein knew that
Mercury's observed perihelion was 43 arc seconds per century more than
Newton's theory predicted.” Thus, the suggestion of “knowing the
answer, Einstein had jiggered the arguments until they came out with
the right value" is very much the truth after all.

Farrell said “As far as I [Carlip] can tell, Van Flandern simply
doesn't understand the Einstein field equations."

I have shown how all physicists do not understand relative
simultaneity and thus SR. Most physicists also believed in the
dependence of the geodesic equations and the field equations besides
the elements to the metric. They also believed in the same divine
field equations as the mathematical model explaining exactly how
gravitational waves propagate. You can very much tell that most
physicists or even all physicists do not understand the field
equations. shrug

Farrell said “Janssen, in particular, worked closely on a review of
Einstein's Mercury paper, and he was not amused about the accusation
that there may have been fudging: ‘Not to put too fine a point on it,
that is crap.’”

The following was how Einstein obtained Mercury’s orbital advance
without using the field equations.

http://www.schulphysik.de/physik/perihel/Perihel.htm

Are Stachel and Janssen for real?

Smolin a specialist in GR said “I have ... personally checked the
calculations about the perihelion of Mercury, as have, I'm sure,
thousands of other people."

Has Smolin checked the math based on the geodesic model that the
geodesic path follows the one with the least amount of time instead of
spacetime?

Smolin said "Sometimes someone has been working for many years on an
idea, and has clearly a huge investment in it.”

Yes, for the physicists to accept the nonsense in SR and GR, it would
represent the greatest embarrassment. Therefore, the religions of SR
and GR must continue at all cost. shrug

Smolin said "I would insist that any proposal for a radically new
theory in physics, or in any other science, contain a clear
explanation of why the precedent science worked." Farrell added
“Einstein did this, as the first page of his paper on special
relativity, ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’, illustrates
perfectly.”

I need to puke. Einstein’s papers represent plagiarism to the max.
He fudged the derivation in the most nonsensical way to derive at the
Lorentz transform in which he already knew the works of others
before. He also made a series of mistakes to get to (E = m c^2 /
sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)). It is so obvious. What the f*ck are the
physicists doing?

Farrel said “...PSR 1913+16, whose orbital decay met predictions based
on the General Theory of Relativity, to the accuracy quoted above
(1000 or so), during a period of 20 years.”

We shall see in several hundred thousand years. The energy must be
conserved. This will cause the orbits of the stars into more
eccentric. Any nearby star will toss them into two independent
stars.

Gaensler said "I feel sorry for these people — because, after all,
there might be someone out there now like Einstein, working in
obscurity, who does have some truly new insight, but scientists just
won't take him seriously because of all these other crackpots we've
had to deal with."

I would agree on this point.

On Apr 27, 8:58 am, Koobee Wublee :


http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif

On Apr 27, 9:47*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, 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have a comprehension problem.

Mike

On Apr 27, 8:58 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
“Was Einstein a fake?” asked John Farrell.

Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. You can consider him
a fake I suppose.

Detailed responses to your claims (which are FAPP false) were posted
many times on this NG already.

For those unfamiliar with Koobee - he is a crank of the "technical
mumbo-jumbo" variety. Unlike those who got stuck early on some
elementary algebra or calculus issue, he got stuck at a bit higher
level: basic differential geometry. Because of that he can easily
generate reams of technical nonsense which "looks" reasonable to a
layman. Answering this sort of thing takes time so people who do know
this stuff usually don't bother. After all, it makes no difference.

--
Jan Bielawski

Androcles wrote:
tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to you.

This is not a function but a equation.

On Apr 27, 1:26*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
This message is brought to you by Androcles
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" wrote in message

...
On Apr 27, 9:47 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, 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.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

| You have a comprehension problem.

So you have no answer and do not comprehend mathematics, anencephalous
cretin, hoping to resort to a flame war in your extreme embarrassment.
Not much different to Dork Van de merde the local village idiot, are you?

When you flame everything is ok you say.


tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to you.


Yes it is linear function of x' = x -vt. Do you see your scrambled
egg head any non-linear term in x'?

I think you have it all messed up in your mind. There is nothing wrong
if you come back and concede do your mistakes. Then you can move on
and learn things the right way.

As far as I am concerned you are a good man who isntaed of using a
hammer tries instead to put the nail in the wall by banging it with
his head. Change that and everything will be fine.

I took relativity as a freshman against the protest of mayne
professors in the department because I was also taking intro physics
at the same time. I told them that if they do not let me rake the
course I will quit college.

My test was a fairly elementary one but taught that time in Senior
level, "Concepts of Modern Physics", 2nd ed. by Arthur Beiser.

To me Relativity was intuitive, contrary to Newtoniam Mechanics, which
was not. However, I do not agree with the mystical, onscure way it is
taught ins schools. Educational establishement wants the cake and the
dog fed. They want people to embrace relativity bu8t they do not want
to understand it at the same time. For reasons I and other understand,
but not you.

Mike



Mike




- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On Apr 27, 1:26 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" wrote in message

...
On Apr 27, 9:47 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, 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.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

| You have a comprehension problem.

So you have no answer and do not comprehend mathematics, anencephalous
cretin, hoping to resort to a flame war in your extreme embarrassment.
Not much different to Dork Van de merde the local village idiot, are you?

| When you flame everything is ok you say.


tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to
you.


| Yes it is linear function of x' = x -vt.

****ing idiot. It's a total waste of time even trying with you, you are
completely clueless. Learn Math 101, linear functions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_function

*plonk*

rbwinn wrote:
The Galilean transformation equations can be applied in any context.

And they describe the universe well in contexts where the motion
is uniform and the velocity is small.

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.

If clocks at rest in a coordinate system do not measure the time
in that coordinate system, what does?


--
--Bryan

Alen wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

Good grief! sci.physics.relativity actually got a direct
mention, no less!!! Imagine us having such an impact!

The article is about kookology, not physics. Enjoy your impact.

Never mind about the description of 'crackpots', 'cranks',
and the like.

Mind this bit:

"In all cases it is easy to distinguish them from other
members of the public who are interested in science and
even from the occasional layperson who has their own theory
about physics ... Such people are not surprised when you
tell them their idea is wrong, and are genuinely interested
to have the reasons explained to them."

That is nothing new. But a recognition of
the existence of a 'burgeoning' world of 'dissent', ourselves
included! That is really something!

Over 50 years ago, Martin Gardner gave the "Down with
Einstein" kooks a chapter in his /Fads and Fallacies in the
Name of Science/. As for 'burgeoning', few forms of kookery
have missed Usenet and the WWW.

And look at the final remarks in the article: that there
might actually be someone, working in obscurity, with
some valid new insight! A remarkable admission that
there might actually be someone who is
"NOT A CRACKPOT"!!!!! Incredible!

Except that the 'admission' is standard fare. Kooks commonly
suffer a self-inflicted deafness to the points against their
pet ideas. Take the time to read his bunkum and explain where
it goes wrong, and a kook will go on ranting about some
establishment automatically dismissing his ideas just because
he's an outsider.


--
--Bryan