Al Zenner wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:

Albert E meets (say Humboldt coming back from the New World):
"May I have one of those seeds? What are they?"
(plants seed)
"Hey World, look what _I_ have produced!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not only was AE a plagiarist, he was too bloody dumb to notice the
mistakes and contradictions in the stuff he was stealing!


I don't care if AE or someone else noticed that apple seed in
horse**** and picked it out, or whose hands it was in enroute
or who actually planted it to make the tree which bears apples
I use today.

That your opinion is based on something other than the usefulness
of the apples (tools) isn't a problem to me. But I am not going
to get all wrapped up in your nonissue.

If AE had ANY intelligence, other than that which he used to fool the
gullible, he would have perceived that his apples (actually conceived
in BULL****, not fertiliser), were rotten (infused with their own
diet).
That a "peer group review" (read coven of the indoctrined) spends it
time in ritual and mutual self-congratulation (at their cleverness in
"understanding" SR/GR), is quite entertaining for the thinkers.

Jim G
c'=c+v

wrote:
Al Zenner wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:

Albert E meets (say Humboldt coming back from the New World):
"May I have one of those seeds? What are they?"
(plants seed)
"Hey World, look what _I_ have produced!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not only was AE a plagiarist, he was too bloody dumb to notice the
mistakes and contradictions in the stuff he was stealing!


I don't care if AE or someone else noticed that apple seed in
horse**** and picked it out, or whose hands it was in enroute
or who actually planted it to make the tree which bears apples
I use today.

That your opinion is based on something other than the usefulness
of the apples (tools) isn't a problem to me. But I am not going
to get all wrapped up in your nonissue.

If AE had ANY intelligence, other than that which he used to fool the
gullible, he would have perceived that his apples (actually conceived
in BULL****, not fertiliser), were rotten (infused with their own
diet).

I wonder if you know about Einstein's other contributions to physics,
namely to quantum theory and statistical mechanics.

That a "peer group review" (read coven of the indoctrined) spends it
time in ritual and mutual self-congratulation (at their cleverness in
"understanding" SR/GR), is quite entertaining for the thinkers.

You know what else is quite entertaining? The ravings of an old person
who believes ferevently that relativity is wrong yet who cannot himself
grasp the abstract concept of negative numbers.


Jim G
c'=c+v

"Eric Gisse" wrote in
ups.com:

wrote:

That a "peer group review" (read coven of the indoctrined) spends it
time in ritual and mutual self-congratulation (at their cleverness in
"understanding" SR/GR), is quite entertaining for the thinkers.

You know what else is quite entertaining? The ravings of an old person
who believes ferevently that relativity is wrong yet who cannot himself
grasp the abstract concept of negative numbers.

I also don't care he doesn't like what the man was, and he doesn't like
what the review process was, but I find it amusing that I was discussing
the tools, the work product, and he hasn't been able to figure out any
way to attack those because despite his outrage about them he hasn't a
clue as to what they're about!

Same old same old.

Eric Gisse wrote:
wrote:
Al Zenner wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:

Albert E meets (say Humboldt coming back from the New World):
"May I have one of those seeds? What are they?"
(plants seed)
"Hey World, look what _I_ have produced!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not only was AE a plagiarist, he was too bloody dumb to notice the
mistakes and contradictions in the stuff he was stealing!


I don't care if AE or someone else noticed that apple seed in
horse**** and picked it out, or whose hands it was in enroute
or who actually planted it to make the tree which bears apples
I use today.

That your opinion is based on something other than the usefulness
of the apples (tools) isn't a problem to me. But I am not going
to get all wrapped up in your nonissue.

If AE had ANY intelligence, other than that which he used to fool the
gullible, he would have perceived that his apples (actually conceived
in BULL****, not fertiliser), were rotten (infused with their own
diet).

I wonder if you know about Einstein's other contributions to physics,
namely to quantum theory and statistical mechanics.

That a "peer group review" (read coven of the indoctrined) spends it
time in ritual and mutual self-congratulation (at their cleverness in
"understanding" SR/GR), is quite entertaining for the thinkers.

You know what else is quite entertaining? The ravings of an old person
who believes ferevently that relativity is wrong yet who cannot himself
grasp the abstract concept of negative numbers.

And what is funnier still?????
The whining of a pathetic adolescent who cannot "grasp" the difference
between WHAT something is (eg larger or smaller), and WHERE it is
(coordinate).
Once said Alice in Wonderlander "grasped" that NON abstract, he MIGHT
recognise the AE bull**** for what it is.
Meanwhile said sandpitter has also revealed himself an indoctrinated
accolyte, by failing once AGAIN to give an example of ANY physical
entity of less than zero (nothing)

Jim G
c'=c+v

Al Zenner wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in
ups.com:

wrote:

That a "peer group review" (read coven of the indoctrined) spends it
time in ritual and mutual self-congratulation (at their cleverness in
"understanding" SR/GR), is quite entertaining for the thinkers.

You know what else is quite entertaining? The ravings of an old person
who believes ferevently that relativity is wrong yet who cannot himself
grasp the abstract concept of negative numbers.

I also don't care he doesn't like what the man was, and he doesn't like
what the review process was, but I find it amusing that I was discussing
the tools, the work product, and he hasn't been able to figure out any
way to attack those because despite his outrage about them he hasn't a
clue as to what they're about!

Same old same old.

No worries! All you need do to convince me of SR/GR, is to explain why
atomic clocks do NOT alter their time rate when moon above/moon below
(ie in alterring gravity).

One day someone (NOT indoctrinated) who is not dependent on the HOLY
GRANT, will perform a REAL experiment about c'=c+v ie a race
between two slugs of light from say distance to Saturn, emitted
simultaneously (or at a known interval), one from a source retreating
from earth, and the other source approaching, while in close proximity.
The pulse from the approaching source will arrive at earth first (the
order of a second difference), I will gleefully **** on AE's grave, and
his worshippers can all have their Jonestown.

As for "work product", what a joke. Do you mean a bunch of DHR's
spending millions of man hours (and $) feverishly devising explanations
(and inventing math on the run to back it up), to explain the
contradictions which are observed (almost weekly with the improved
telescopes)?

(Note: don't read about observations of material 30 X c ; it might
bring a tear)

Jim G
c'=c+v

Juan R. wrote:
[snip]

Great article. One of the best I've read on usenet for some time.

wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
wrote:
Al Zenner wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:

Albert E meets (say Humboldt coming back from the New World):
"May I have one of those seeds? What are they?"
(plants seed)
"Hey World, look what _I_ have produced!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not only was AE a plagiarist, he was too bloody dumb to notice the
mistakes and contradictions in the stuff he was stealing!


I don't care if AE or someone else noticed that apple seed in
horse**** and picked it out, or whose hands it was in enroute
or who actually planted it to make the tree which bears apples
I use today.

That your opinion is based on something other than the usefulness
of the apples (tools) isn't a problem to me. But I am not going
to get all wrapped up in your nonissue.

If AE had ANY intelligence, other than that which he used to fool the
gullible, he would have perceived that his apples (actually conceived
in BULL****, not fertiliser), were rotten (infused with their own
diet).

I wonder if you know about Einstein's other contributions to physics,
namely to quantum theory and statistical mechanics.

That a "peer group review" (read coven of the indoctrined) spends it
time in ritual and mutual self-congratulation (at their cleverness in
"understanding" SR/GR), is quite entertaining for the thinkers.

You know what else is quite entertaining? The ravings of an old person
who believes ferevently that relativity is wrong yet who cannot himself
grasp the abstract concept of negative numbers.

And what is funnier still?????
The whining of a pathetic adolescent who cannot "grasp" the difference
between WHAT something is (eg larger or smaller), and WHERE it is
(coordinate).
Once said Alice in Wonderlander "grasped" that NON abstract, he MIGHT
recognise the AE bull**** for what it is.
Meanwhile said sandpitter has also revealed himself an indoctrinated
accolyte, by failing once AGAIN to give an example of ANY physical
entity of less than zero (nothing)

You cannot even grasp negative numbers and you have the stones to say
relativity is false.

Guess what Jim? If you cannot grasp simple algebra of reals, then you
don't have any hope of undersatnding anything else. I see any number of
topics that are entirely unrelated to relativity that you would
dislike, like complex analysis for example.

Jim G
c'=c+v

Juan R. wrote:
Lin Xiong, . Dirk Van de moortel,

Curiously, a debate was launched in sci.physics.research about EinsteIn
supposed priorities and nobody was able to *prove* with ***data*** that
Einstein was the father of special or general relativity. Many people
there agree with 'my' point of view.

The work also received interesting comments from several historians of
science who contacted with me.

The new revised and amplied version contains more data and very recent
references [more than 30]. The paper is in press.

For example in the October news journal of the AMS [2005, 52, (9),
1036-1044] Mawhin, Jean states about Poincaré.

"His books on Maxwell theory contain the germs of special relativity
and led him to
analyze, correct, and name the Lorentz transformations. Poincaré
published in 1905 a
note (followed by an extended memoir) on the dynamics of the electron,
containing the
whole mathematics of special relativity. Historians of science still
passionately discuss
the priority between Einstein and Poincaré, and if one follows some
recent
publications, one might conclude that Hercule Poireau might be the only
one able to
uncover the whole story. [...] But it is unquestionable that Poincaré
anticipated the so called Minkowski space-time."

In a new paper (after of polemic article on /Science/), the respected
historian J. Stachel claims that Hilbert obtained the correct GR
lagrangian before Einstein, etc.

Which is also supported by Nobel Fundation

http://nobelprize.org/physics/educat...history-1.html

Moreover, they admit that Poincaré was the first one proving absence
of absolute motion, etc.

Such cannot be proved.

Regarding the supposed failure of Poincaré
for obtaining full relativity is precisely that has been shown
incorrect in recent research. I and others have proved that Poincaré
obtained SR before Einstein...

In a recent Physics Today [December 2001 Volume 54, Number 12], the
historian of science Stephen G. Brush said

"The French mathematician Henri Poincaré provided inspiration for both
Einstein and Picasso. Einstein read Poincaré's Science and Hypothesis
(French edition 1902, German translation 1904) and discussed it with
his friends in Bern. He might also have read Poincaré's 1898 article
on the measurement of time, in which the synchronization of clocks was
discussed--a topic of professional interest to Einstein as a patent
examiner."

We will never know the extent to which Einstein drew on the work of
Poincaré in the development of SR. Einstein was adamant that what held
up his effort to rid the ether from the foundation of physics was his
trouble with finding a place for absolute time in the new theory. He
claimed that he found the solution only when it became clear to him
that time cannot be absolutely defined (yes, that's how he stated it --
no hype at all). If anyone had access to Poincaré's work it was
Poincaré, yet Poincaré did not come up with SR. SR is a theory, not a
farrago of discoveries and popular headlines.


Curoiusly years after Einstein claimed that newer read Poincaré and
that his theory of relativity was totally new...

How would we name to a guy who read and copy the work of others and
after claim that his work is novel and revolutionary and that NEWER
read works of Poincaré? C. Jon Bjerknes choosed the word
"plagiarism"...

If anyone want do some serious criticism on the current view Einstein
copied his works from others can do via providing serious evidence and
data and submiting a serious paper to any journal on history of
science.

For example, if you claim that Einstein obtained GR before Hilbert,
present us a published paper by einstien before Hilbert one. If you
wanty claim that Einstein was the first claiming constancy of c or that
time was relative, present us a Einstein's paper published before 1902.

This is a perfect example of what goes around comes around. Relativists
and relativity polularists have done immense harm to relativity by
stressing the bizarre aspects of relativity. Einstein was not impressed
by those flashy aspects at all. He was a minimalist-theory hunter, not
a headline hunter.

Einstein found no personal reward to be found in claiming priority of
the constancy of the speed of light. He certainly wasn't the first to
say it, because he claimed it was an existing empirical result known to
physics on which he based SR. Einstein was not out to prove relative
time or E = mc^2. He considered those as VERY minor to his real
accomplishment: All he wanted to do was to reduce the number of
independent ontological objects in the foundation to physics by
eliminating ether (a nonempirical space of absolute rest) as an
irreducible object, distinct from mass particle and EM field. Einstein
regarded the luminiferous ether in Lorentz's theory as violating his
sense of the PoR. What Einstein accomplished ontologically in his two
theories of relativity is apparently so esoteric that few physicists
even appreciate it.

Einstein's motive to generalize SR had nothing to do with black holes
or anything else that the popular media thinks about. He was motivated
to further cleanup the foundation to physics. He thought that the
duality between inertial and noninertial motion was troubling, and he
thought the dualism between particle, with its total diff equation of
motion, and field, with its PDEs, was annoying (the basis of his
unified field theory after GR). Einstein was also bothered by Newton's
absolute rest space by which acceleration was to make sense in Newton's
mechanics. But none of that was interesting to popular audiences.

Thus, SR eliminated from the foundation of physics the use of absolute
velocity and the rest space of the ether. GR eliminated absolute
acceleration and action-at-a-distance gravity.

" wrote in
oups.com:

One day someone (NOT indoctrinated) who is not dependent on the HOLY
GRANT, will perform a REAL experiment about c'=c+v ie a race
between two slugs of light

Implying mass? Don, set this guy straight! LOL

from say distance to Saturn, emitted
simultaneously (or at a known interval), one from a source retreating
from earth, and the other source approaching, while in close proximity.
The pulse from the approaching source will arrive at earth first (the
order of a second difference),

Well if you're as smart as you think you are you could just set up an
experiment of your own. Measure the velocity of sunlight as the earth
is approaching the sun and then measure it again as the earth is
receding from the sun, with no "HOLY GRANT" involved. Report back
here once you've done that.

I will gleefully **** on AE's grave, and
his worshippers can all have their Jonestown.

You already have your own Jonestown and we're not following. How's the
punch?

Eric Gisse kissed ass thus:

I wonder if you know about Einstein's other contributions to physics,
namely to quantum theory and statistical mechanics.

Einstein was also the idiot who wrote that God does not play dice
with the universe. ahahaha...

But that's not all, Einstein also believed the rantings of his
crackpot friend, Kurt "lunatic" Godel, who announced to the world in
1949 that GR's spacetime allows time travel to past via closed
time-like loops. Einstein became depressed about it because he could
not fathom how his crown achievement would allow something as
ridiculous as time travel. Still Godel convinced him that it was
possible. And this, after several other thinkers, including Sir Karl
Popper (Conjectures), had already pointed out to him that nothing can
move in spacetime.

Obviously Einstein had a poor understanding of his own theories. Or he
was a fraud. Take your pick. ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm