Patrick Reany wrote:

ueb wrote in message ...

Patrick Reany wrote:

You should be more observant about the Einstein defaming that DOES go
on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick.

Very little (most days none) of what transpires in the sci.*
newsgroups is worthy of the serious attention of anyone with
a significant interest in science.

Why is Einstein singled out for such irrational hatred and obvious
defamation? Why not Feynman or Heisenberg of Bohr? I would defend
these physicists as well from obvious defamation were it necessary to
do so. Feynman's QED theory is much more "non-classical" than anything
Einstein ever proposed!

There is only one Everest.

Therefore Einstein seemed to have been
motivated to remove the crutch of the absolute rest space of the ether
because Nature itself did not seem to motivate its inclusion into the
foundations of physics!

Well, Patrick, if space is curved by matter/gravity then the natural
question which follows is what is standard against which we can say
it is curved? Can you answer without conflicting with your statement
above?

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
ueb wrote in message
...
Patrick Reany wrote:
Some defamers of Einstein wrongfully charge him with being a nitwit
pretender who stole his work from others. Einstein's own generation of
physicists did not believe that. How is this contradiction to be
resolved? Simple. The defamers are liars.

Dear Patrick,
your efforts to defend Einstein against defamers are honourable.
But that may have been a problem during the Nazi time, i.e. 70 to 60
years ago. Nowadays, no serious human, neither in Germany nor
elsewhere, will doubt in Einstein as the essential originator
of SR/GR, and contributor of parts of QM.

You should be more observant about the Einstein defaming that DOES go
on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick.

I'll never understand Einstein hatred. Is it race hatred? Is it
jealousy? Is it a combination of things? Of course, the Einstein
haters will just turn around and scoff at the "Einstein lovers." This
is a typical counterclaim and a red herring for sure.

Which is the "red herring"?
That people worship Einstein,
or that people hate Einstein.

Paraphrasing "Patrick Reany's" statement:
"You should be more observant about God defaming that DOES go
on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick."

Frankly, I see far more worship of Einstein
than I do hatred, and it seems to me that the people
who worship Einstein, are the ones who use ad hominem,
when some idea associated with their God is challenged,
or when someone points out that their God was not the
first to elucidate some concept.

The fact of the matter is,
that rational, intelligent folks,
with no race, religion, or national origin bias,
are offended by the worship of anything except hard facts.

For example, I object to the use of the word "Sir" when referring to
great people, as this glorifies the British monarchy,
rather than the idea, and I object to ideas in science
being associated with races, religions, nations, and
particular institutions, as this puts the emphasis on
something other than the idea.

It is my perception
that many people try to identify themselves with
people of note (Singers, scientists, actors, you name it.)
by putting the emphasis on the person, rather than the works
of the person, and I assert that certainly when speaking about
science, that personalities, races, religions, nations, organizations, etc.
should not enter into the discussion.

Also note, that many people try to identify themselves with
accomplishments of note (Transistors, electronics, the Internet, etc.)
by claiming that their race, religion, nation, occupation, political party,
etc.
was responsible for the accomplishment.

To attach a person, race, religion, nation, political party, etc.
to a work is the promotion of ones personal agenda.

Truth can stand on its' own.

--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

Bill Vajk wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany wrote:

ueb wrote in message ...

Patrick Reany wrote:

You should be more observant about the Einstein defaming that DOES go
on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick.

Very little (most days none) of what transpires in the sci.*
newsgroups is worthy of the serious attention of anyone with
a significant interest in science.

Why is Einstein singled out for such irrational hatred and obvious
defamation? Why not Feynman or Heisenberg of Bohr? I would defend
these physicists as well from obvious defamation were it necessary to
do so. Feynman's QED theory is much more "non-classical" than anything
Einstein ever proposed!

There is only one Everest.

Therefore Einstein seemed to have been
motivated to remove the crutch of the absolute rest space of the ether
because Nature itself did not seem to motivate its inclusion into the
foundations of physics!

Well, Patrick, if space is curved by matter/gravity then the natural
question which follows is what is standard against which we can say
it is curved? Can you answer without conflicting with your statement
above?

You editted out the parts that would have helped to answer your own
question, and you didn't even indicate that you editted out stuff. I
can't answer your question because it is too vague. I was referring to
the luminiferous ether, which has a definite state of motion at all
points relative to its overall average motion frame. How did you get
to curved space from what I posted?

Patrick

"Tom Potter" wrote in message ...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
ueb wrote in message
...
Patrick Reany wrote:
Some defamers of Einstein wrongfully charge him with being a nitwit
pretender who stole his work from others. Einstein's own generation of
physicists did not believe that. How is this contradiction to be
resolved? Simple. The defamers are liars.

Dear Patrick,
your efforts to defend Einstein against defamers are honourable.
But that may have been a problem during the Nazi time, i.e. 70 to 60
years ago. Nowadays, no serious human, neither in Germany nor
elsewhere, will doubt in Einstein as the essential originator
of SR/GR, and contributor of parts of QM.

You should be more observant about the Einstein defaming that DOES go
on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick.

I'll never understand Einstein hatred. Is it race hatred? Is it
jealousy? Is it a combination of things? Of course, the Einstein
haters will just turn around and scoff at the "Einstein lovers." This
is a typical counterclaim and a red herring for sure.

Which is the "red herring"?
That people worship Einstein,
or that people hate Einstein.

Paraphrasing "Patrick Reany's" statement:
"You should be more observant about God defaming that DOES go
on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick."

Frankly, I see far more worship of Einstein
than I do hatred, and it seems to me that the people
who worship Einstein, are the ones who use ad hominem,
when some idea associated with their God is challenged,
or when someone points out that their God was not the
first to elucidate some concept.

I did not use the phrase "Einstein worship." What precisely is
"Einstein worship." I ask YOU because YOU used it. How did God get
into the discussion? I did say that I admire what Einstein
accomplished, but that's not the same as worship. I also didn't refer
to God. Explain.


The fact of the matter is,
that rational, intelligent folks,
with no race, religion, or national origin bias,
are offended by the worship of anything except hard facts.

What "worship"? What is the objective evidence of "Einstein worship"
here? You didn't paraphrase what I said, you distorted it for your own
purposes. Paraphrasing is not supposed to add new elements.

Patrick

To Patrick Reany: What do you mean by "objective" in your post
immediately above?

Tom Potter wrote:

To some people questioning God is heresy,
and to some people questioning Einstein is heresy.


A least Einstein was real and made substantial contributions to
our understanding of the world around us.

To quote verbatim from:
L. de Broglie: "L'Oeuvre d"Einstein et la Dualite des Ondes at des
Corpuscles," Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 21, No 3. July 1949, pp345-347:

"M. Albert Einstein dont tout le monde savant celebre aujourd'hui le
soixante-dixieme anniversaire a accompli une oeuvre scientifique d'une
immense porteee: en dehors de ces importants travaux sur la theorie
des fluctuations et sur le mouvements Brownien, il a cree entierement
la theorie de la Relativite qui a tenu a juste titre une si grande
place dans la Physique contemporaine et il a, a plusieurs reprises,
apporte des contributions essentielles au developpement de la theorie
des Quanta. C'est lui en particulier qui a le premier souligne la
dulaite d'aspect onde-corpuscule dans le cas de la lumiere et qui en a
tres finement analyse quelques unes des consequences les plus
importantes. Nous voudrions montrer dans les pages qui suivent le lien
qui existe entre les deux parties essentielles de l'oeuvre d'Einstein;
ce n'est pas par hasard que le createur de la theorie de la Relativite
a ete aussi le precurseur de la Mecanique ondulatoire et des theories
quantiques actuelles..."

de Broglie, fairly capable and talented younger colleague with some
recognized contribution to the subject matter himself, did not have to
write this, he volunteered.

ueb wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany wrote:
ueb wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany wrote:
Some defamers of Einstein wrongfully charge him with being a nitwit
pretender who stole his work from others. Einstein's own generation of
physicists did not believe that. How is this contradiction to be
resolved? Simple. The defamers are liars.

Dear Patrick,
your efforts to defend Einstein against defamers are honourable.
But that may have been a problem during the Nazi time, i.e. 70 to 60
years ago. Nowadays, no serious human, neither in Germany nor
elsewhere, will doubt in Einstein as the essential originator
of SR/GR, and contributor of parts of QM.

You should be more observant about the Einstein defaming that DOES go
on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick.

I observed that too. You overlooked the word "serious" in my text.
Do you take seriously these postings ?

I'll never understand Einstein hatred. Is it race hatred? Is it
jealousy? Is it a combination of things?

Jealousy of course. (In which, race hatred comes from jealousy too.)
That concerns Einstein not alone, but all persons who have achieved
anything. I must notice it with my own results, in which even
good-willing persons like Patrick Reany meticulously avoid to
mention them.

..
Why is Einstein singled out for such irrational hatred and obvious
defamation? Why not Feynman or Heisenberg of Bohr? I would defend
these physicists as well from obvious defamation were it necessary to
do so. Feynman's QED theory is much more "non-classical" than anything
Einstein ever proposed!

That's a quite simple reason. ;-) The other celebrities made building
block theories, and people willingly play with building blocks. In
return, people are fully unable to imagine anything of continuum.
And geometry is absolutely suspect to them.
- Did you not emphasize the difference of principle theories and
constructed theories ? That is an expression of this difference. :-)

The Einstein defamers treat Einstein a 100 times more special than I
ever treated him! After all, they claim that he was a dolt thief that
stole everything of importance he ever did in physics.

These persons do simply not grasp the essence of a genius. Even a
genius takes the best of all available, and makes the great new
_from it_ . - I don't take seriously these persons.

Dear Patrick, you have overlooked my actual message. Did you it
on purpose ? - I'll repeat the actual paragraph:

| Nevertheless, nearly all people misjudge and underestimate Einstein
| in an important point: the context of the continuum (represented
| by SR/GR with Maxwell's equations) with the quanta ! They all
| believe up to now that Einstein's great prediction (particles
| emerge from the continuum) be wrong. Are you all still not aware
| of the *fact* that the _results_ of my numerical simulations agree
| with Einstein in this very important point ???

People don't understand the greatest that Einstein (or a human at all)
ever did ! Up to now !
My results support even that greatest discovery ! Why should that be
not worth to be mentioned ? It were great if really competent persons
like Tom Roberts or Steve Carlip would help you to answer this
delicate question.

Ulrich Bruchholz

What Einstein's slavish supporters perceive to be slander, is often
the expression of frustration of those who see flaws in his theories,
towards those who blindly cling to the illogical conclusions of his
thought processes. Having (according to his supporters) found the
fountain of knowledge, and what should have been the Holy Grail to
human enlightenment and scientific and technological advancement,
Einstein spent the last many years of his life doing about f*a*. One
wonders if he recognised himself a fatal flaw, and went into 'damage
control' supporting his early work, when perhaps he should have had
the courage to say "whoops! sorry! back to the drawing board!"

If Relativity were 100% correct, long before now everything from a
cancer cure to no world food shortage (anywhere) should have been
achieved. Instead, 'scientific' advances seem to be wholly in the
hands of technicians, biologists, chemists, engineers etc- where are
the huge advances which should have come from such a pure and accurate
knowledge of physics? There were nuclear explosions, power plants--
and then???

Jim Greenfield wrote:

What Einstein's slavish supporters perceive to be slander, is often
the expression of frustration of those who see flaws in his theories,
towards those who blindly cling to the illogical conclusions of his
thought processes.

How do you know illogical conclusions ? What conclusions concretely
are illogical ?

Having (according to his supporters) found the
fountain of knowledge, and what should have been the Holy Grail to
human enlightenment and scientific and technological advancement,
Einstein spent the last many years of his life doing about f*a*. One
wonders if he recognised himself a fatal flaw, and went into 'damage
control' supporting his early work, when perhaps he should have had
the courage to say "whoops! sorry! back to the drawing board!"

What fatal flaw ?

If Relativity were 100% correct,

GR is correct in a far wider parameter space than people believe
up to now. But since even Einstein's alleged followers suppress
the most important support of his ideas (because it comes from an
engineer, and that may not be), they may not be surprised at all
the odd discussions.

Ulrich Bruchholz

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message om...

[snip]


What Einstein's slavish supporters perceive to be slander, is often
the expression of frustration of those who see flaws in his theories,
towards those who blindly cling to the illogical conclusions of his
thought processes. Having (according to his supporters) found the
fountain of knowledge, and what should have been the Holy Grail to
human enlightenment and scientific and technological advancement,
Einstein spent the last many years of his life doing about f*a*. One
wonders if he recognised himself a fatal flaw, and went into 'damage
control' supporting his early work, when perhaps he should have had
the courage to say "whoops! sorry! back to the drawing board!"

If Relativity were 100% correct, long before now everything from a
cancer cure to no world food shortage (anywhere) should have been
achieved.

Somewhere in the future you will develop a tumor and the
specialist will order an MRI scan. When the nurse will ask
you to be very still while the machine is doing its work,
remember that, if the engineers who designed it would have
had rejected relativity like you do, you would be toasted
on the spot.

Instead, 'scientific' advances seem to be wholly in the
hands of technicians, biologists, chemists, engineers etc- where are
the huge advances which should have come from such a pure and accurate
knowledge of physics? There were nuclear explosions, power plants--
and then???

Title: "Relativity should cure cancer and food shortage"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ityCancer.html
Welcome.

Dirk Vdm