I tried to post a message at the following moderated newsgroup.

** sci.physics.research

The message is appended at the bottom. The response I got back from
Igor Khavkine, the co-moderator, is the following.

Could anyone point out where the personal attack is? The closest would
be Einstein himself, but he is dead and ceased to be a person anymore.
His ideology is what I am discussing.

This incidence is merely a form of censorship.

================================================== =

Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it contains personal attacks.
Please keep the discussion civil.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive.
If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you email a
moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive, causing an
unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,

Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

================================================== =

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:10:11PM +0000, Koobee Wublee wrote:

"Murray Arnow" wrote in message
.com...

Einstein didn't plagiarize. He did reference others. His most important
ideas weren't plagiarized: the Principle of Relativity (a concept accepted
by most physicists) and the constancy of the speed of light as measured by
all observers in inertial reference frames (an idea unique to Einstein).

Principle of Relativity started with Galileo. Constancy of the speed
of
light was first proposed by Voigt. Lorentz Transform was first written
down
by Larmor. I still don't see your claim of Einstein's originality in
this.

These two remarkably simple postulates are responsible for the derivation
of the Lorentz transformation. Till Einstein, there wasn't a physical
basis for using the LT to connect the physical laws between observers in
different reference frames (before SR, the transformations connecting
different observers moving relative to each other were thought to be
Galilean).

If Larmor was able to derive LT, according to you, he must have used up

these two postulates. Your claim is so subjective. SR and LET remain
merely independent interpretations to the mathematics of LT.

Using the LT in conjunction with how an observer on a uniformly radiating
body, such as a star, measures the energy radiated by that body and the
energy seen radiated from the body by a uniformly moving observer,
Einstein was able to derive the now-famous E=mc^2.

Please show how Einstein derived (E = m c^2). I claim he did so by
making a
series of errors in which he must have known the answer before hand.
This
would make him a plagiarist.

I have over simplified here, but this is what Einstein did in his two 1905
papers. He also discussed how time was impacted--a new concept. The
meaning of simultaneity was no longer simple. (Galelean transformations
assume all observers measure the same time.)

Relative simultaneity was actually Poincare's idea. That led to the
absurdity of Twin's Paradox.

[...]
An excellent book on this subject is "Einstein 1905, The Standard of
Greatness", John S. Rigden, Harvard University Press, 2005. Rigden
disposes of the Einstein detractors in this very interesting read. It's
written for to be readily understood by the non-specialist.

Or best yet, truly understanding LT will unlock the mystery. The so
called
historians can foul the history and mutilate historic documents, but
they
cannot change the mathematics. The forensic of the history is indeed
residing in the very mathematics.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
I tried to post a message at the following moderated newsgroup.

** sci.physics.research

The message is appended at the bottom. The response I got back from
Igor Khavkine, the co-moderator, is the following.

Could anyone point out where the personal attack is? The closest would
be Einstein himself, but he is dead and ceased to be a person anymore.
His ideology is what I am discussing.

This incidence is merely a form of censorship.

If by censorship you mean that a moderated NG can define its domain of
applicability and enforce it, yes. But that's the way it goes with
moderated NGs.

You clearly violated the purpose of that NG by your submission (at
bottom). By your own admission your submission was about a person and
his ideolgy and how he framed his theory for publication and, lastly,
on a historical perspective of the published paper, but all of that is
outside the domain of sci.physics.research, and none of that is about
the theory presented only, which is all that that NG might care to read
about (it might not even want that much as that paper is 100 years old
at this point).

sci.physics.research appears to want submissions only about current
physical research that is testable, not historical "research" and not
polemical writings.

Furthermore, you claimed:
1) Principle of Relativity started with Galileo.
2) Constancy of the speed of light was first proposed by Voigt.
3) Lorentz Transform was first written down by Larmor.

You claimed that Einstein was unscholarly, yet you refused to give any
scholarly support to back up these claims you made. Your failure to do
so, besides being hypocritical, is bad enough for
sci.physics.relativity and twice as bad for sci.physics.research,
demonstrating that you have no concept of what that NG is designed for.


================================================== =

Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it contains personal attacks.
Please keep the discussion civil.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive.
If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you email a
moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive, causing an
unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,

Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

================================================== =

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:10:11PM +0000, Koobee Wublee wrote:

"Murray Arnow" wrote in message
.com...

Einstein didn't plagiarize. He did reference others. His most important
ideas weren't plagiarized: the Principle of Relativity (a concept accepted
by most physicists) and the constancy of the speed of light as measured by
all observers in inertial reference frames (an idea unique to Einstein).

Principle of Relativity started with Galileo. Constancy of the speed
of
light was first proposed by Voigt. Lorentz Transform was first written
down
by Larmor. I still don't see your claim of Einstein's originality in
this.

These two remarkably simple postulates are responsible for the derivation
of the Lorentz transformation. Till Einstein, there wasn't a physical
basis for using the LT to connect the physical laws between observers in
different reference frames (before SR, the transformations connecting
different observers moving relative to each other were thought to be
Galilean).

If Larmor was able to derive LT, according to you, he must have used up

these two postulates. Your claim is so subjective. SR and LET remain
merely independent interpretations to the mathematics of LT.

Using the LT in conjunction with how an observer on a uniformly radiating
body, such as a star, measures the energy radiated by that body and the
energy seen radiated from the body by a uniformly moving observer,
Einstein was able to derive the now-famous E=mc^2.

Please show how Einstein derived (E = m c^2). I claim he did so by
making a
series of errors in which he must have known the answer before hand.
This
would make him a plagiarist.

I have over simplified here, but this is what Einstein did in his two 1905
papers. He also discussed how time was impacted--a new concept. The
meaning of simultaneity was no longer simple. (Galelean transformations
assume all observers measure the same time.)

Relative simultaneity was actually Poincare's idea. That led to the
absurdity of Twin's Paradox.

[...]
An excellent book on this subject is "Einstein 1905, The Standard of
Greatness", John S. Rigden, Harvard University Press, 2005. Rigden
disposes of the Einstein detractors in this very interesting read. It's
written for to be readily understood by the non-specialist.

Or best yet, truly understanding LT will unlock the mystery. The so
called
historians can foul the history and mutilate historic documents, but
they
cannot change the mathematics. The forensic of the history is indeed
residing in the very mathematics.

wrote:

You clearly violated the purpose of that NG by your submission (at
bottom). By your own admission your submission was about a person and
his ideolgy and how he framed his theory for publication and, lastly,
on a historical perspective of the published paper, but all of that is
outside the domain of sci.physics.research, and none of that is about
the theory presented only, which is all that that NG might care to read
about (it might not even want that much as that paper is 100 years old
at this point).

Hello! Einstein ceased to be a person when he died. You are talking
as if he is still alive. You are talkinig as if he lives within you.

Einstein's 1905 paper has been regarded as the bible. Without
carefully going through the math, you assume that paper is still the
bible, and this is not what science is about. You challenged me
earlier to find holes in Einstein's argument regarding (E = m c^2), and
I did. I pointed out Einstein's first mistake. There are more. It is
time to let the world know about this.

sci.physics.research appears to want submissions only about current
physical research that is testable, not historical "research" and not
polemical writings.

Again, this is BS. Did you even look at the title of this post? How
were the previous posts not censored? That is hypocritical.

Furthermore, you claimed:
1) Principle of Relativity started with Galileo.
2) Constancy of the speed of light was first proposed by Voigt.
3) Lorentz Transform was first written down by Larmor.

Yes, these are all historical facts.

You claimed that Einstein was unscholarly, yet you refused to give any
scholarly support to back up these claims you made. Your failure to do
so, besides being hypocritical, is bad enough for
sci.physics.relativity and twice as bad for sci.physics.research,
demonstrating that you have no concept of what that NG is designed for.

I expect the flamers to come after me with challenges within the
confine of mathematics and logic. I expect that newsgroup to censor
all the body parts thrown at me.

sci.physics.research is merely a group similar to a political rally
where one speaker says something and all others applaud to no end.
Yes, I am greatly disappointed.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
wrote:

You clearly violated the purpose of that NG by your submission (at
bottom). By your own admission your submission was about a person and
his ideolgy and how he framed his theory for publication and, lastly,
on a historical perspective of the published paper, but all of that is
outside the domain of sci.physics.research, and none of that is about
the theory presented only, which is all that that NG might care to read
about (it might not even want that much as that paper is 100 years old
at this point).

Hello! Einstein ceased to be a person when he died. You are talking
as if he is still alive. You are talkinig as if he lives within you.

That is pure sophistry and you know it! If you wish I will substitue
another word for "person." How about "historical figure"? The point is
that Einstein, the historical figure, is not a testable physical
theory.


Einstein's 1905 paper has been regarded as the bible. Without
carefully going through the math, you assume that paper is still the
bible, and this is not what science is about. You challenged me
earlier to find holes in Einstein's argument regarding (E = m c^2), and
I did. I pointed out Einstein's first mistake. There are more. It is
time to let the world know about this.

This is also not about a physical theory. Letting the world know about
Einstein's "mistakes" is not a testable physical theory, and the
moderators of sci.physics.research do not find merit in your claim that
Einstein made mistakes. They find your claims either preposterous or
specious or just speculative, anyone of which is sufficient to violate
their stated parameters of the NG..


sci.physics.research appears to want submissions only about current
physical research that is testable, not historical "research" and not
polemical writings.

Again, this is BS. Did you even look at the title of this post? How
were the previous posts not censored? That is hypocritical.

Maybe it is, or maybe they do allow for posts of a slightly broader
aspect, but they claimed that your submission was speculative, as I
remember. Historical research is far less certain than logic or math,
as you say. Whether it is hypocritical or not is none of my interest,
since I almost never post there. The decision of the moderators are
final, so why pursue this further?

As an author of technical papers myself, I know the disappointment of
having my submissions rejected. My first submitted paper was rudely
rejected as being "off topic" for the journal. But I got over it. So,
deal with the sour grapes and get on with better things.


Furthermore, you claimed:
1) Principle of Relativity started with Galileo.
2) Constancy of the speed of light was first proposed by Voigt.
3) Lorentz Transform was first written down by Larmor.

Yes, these are all historical facts.

Then it should be easy for you to give references to them, shouldn't
it.

In any case, you miss the point on all three points.

First, Einstein never claimed to have invented or discovered the PoR.
He claimed to have converted it from an incidental principle of dubious
use in physics to a (heuristic) postulate of a physical theory. That
was novel in SR.

Second, even if Voigt did claim the Light Principle before Einstein,
that doesn't mean that Einstein knew of it. Einstein claimed to
consider the LP as an empirical fact in 1905. In fact, he made it a
point afterwards to specify the distinction he made between a
constuctive theory and a principle theory in an essay he wrote years
later to help clarify the importance he made of principles in the
foundation to SR. He claimed that his principles were emprically
founded.

Third, whoever gets to claim priority in the LT is irrelevant to the
issue of SR because the LT there are derived, not postulated.

It seems quite obvious to me that you have no appreciation for the role
a physical theory plays in physics. Once you understand that a lot of
your misconceptions will disappear.



You claimed that Einstein was unscholarly, yet you refused to give any
scholarly support to back up these claims you made. Your failure to do
so, besides being hypocritical, is bad enough for
sci.physics.relativity and twice as bad for sci.physics.research,
demonstrating that you have no concept of what that NG is designed for.

I expect the flamers to come after me with challenges within the
confine of mathematics and logic. I expect that newsgroup to censor
all the body parts thrown at me.


I expect that one day you will realize that not every forum is right
for your new religion of anti-Einstein. sci.physics.research certainly
isn't. If there is ever the NG sci.physics.historicalresearch, that's
your forum.

wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

That is pure sophistry and you know it! If you wish I will substitue
another word for "person." How about "historical figure"? The point is
that Einstein, the historical figure, is not a testable physical
theory.

You have blown this incidence out of proportion. The discussion still
centers on Einstein's derivation of (E = m c^2).

Einstein's 1905 paper has been regarded as the bible. Without
carefully going through the math, you assume that paper is still the
bible, and this is not what science is about. You challenged me
earlier to find holes in Einstein's argument regarding (E = m c^2), and
I did. I pointed out Einstein's first mistake. There are more. It is
time to let the world know about this.

This is also not about a physical theory. Letting the world know about
Einstein's "mistakes" is not a testable physical theory, and the
moderators of sci.physics.research do not find merit in your claim that
Einstein made mistakes. They find your claims either preposterous or
specious or just speculative, anyone of which is sufficient to violate
their stated parameters of the NG..

If Einstein's derivation of (E = m c^2) is wrong, what is the chance of
(E = m c^2) being wrong too? If (E = m c^2) is valid, how did Einstein
get (E = m c^2) from?

Again, this is BS. Did you even look at the title of this post? How
were the previous posts not censored? That is hypocritical.

Maybe it is, or maybe they do allow for posts of a slightly broader
aspect, but they claimed that your submission was speculative, as I
remember. Historical research is far less certain than logic or math,
as you say. Whether it is hypocritical or not is none of my interest,
since I almost never post there. The decision of the moderators are
final, so why pursue this further?

Just letting others know. The hidden purpose of a moderated group is
censorship. They do not care about discussing reality and actual
history but distorted reality and distorted history.

As an author of technical papers myself, I know the disappointment of
having my submissions rejected. My first submitted paper was rudely
rejected as being "off topic" for the journal. But I got over it. So,
deal with the sour grapes and get on with better things.

Believe me. This rejection is no big deal to me. And I will get on
better things and remove erase and ignore all moderated groups. They
are symbols of wasting time.

Furthermore, you claimed:
1) Principle of Relativity started with Galileo.
2) Constancy of the speed of light was first proposed by Voigt.
3) Lorentz Transform was first written down by Larmor.

Yes, these are all historical facts.

Then it should be easy for you to give references to them, shouldn't
it.

It is easy. It is also very easy for you to get references to them.

In any case, you miss the point on all three points.

First, Einstein never claimed to have invented or discovered the PoR.
He claimed to have converted it from an incidental principle of dubious
use in physics to a (heuristic) postulate of a physical theory. That
was novel in SR.

PoR is PoR. PoR works great for Newtonian physics, but unfortunately
it introduces Twin's Paradox in moder physics including relativity.

Second, even if Voigt did claim the Light Principle before Einstein,
that doesn't mean that Einstein knew of it. Einstein claimed to
consider the LP as an empirical fact in 1905. In fact, he made it a
point afterwards to specify the distinction he made between a
constuctive theory and a principle theory in an essay he wrote years
later to help clarify the importance he made of principles in the
foundation to SR. He claimed that his principles were emprically
founded.

Einstein might be the 3rd person (or more) after Voigt and Poincare to
claim a constancy in the speed of light. However, this postulate
stands on no firm ground. MMX does not indicate a constancy in speed
of light but isotropic in the speed of light.

Third, whoever gets to claim priority in the LT is irrelevant to the
issue of SR because the LT there are derived, not postulated.

It was derived in very ad hoc fashion by Larmor. Again, less ad hoc by
Lorentz. Finally, by Einstein derived from two equations of (0 = 0).
LT as you have correctly identified is not a postulate but relativant
to the subject of discussion.

It seems quite obvious to me that you have no appreciation for the role
a physical theory plays in physics. Once you understand that a lot of
your misconceptions will disappear.

On the contrary, you are wrong about me. You enjoy having the big
brothers doing the thinking for you. This does not mean you are
studying actual physics although you might appreciate that.

I expect that one day you will realize that not every forum is right
for your new religion of anti-Einstein. sci.physics.research certainly
isn't. If there is ever the NG sci.physics.historicalresearch, that's
your forum.

Since I have no religion affiliation, that one day does not apply. On
the other hand, maybe one day your religious belief in Einstein's every
word as gospel may come to pass. The spirit of Einstein may finally
one day exorcised from your soul. Mean, hurry back to
sci.physics.research. Another sermon on glory to Einstein is just
about to begin.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
The hidden purpose of a moderated group is
censorship.

No. You need to learn about the sociology and process of science, as as
well as basic physics.

Moderated groups are the USENET equivalent of peer-reviewed journals.
The purpose of both is to save their readers' time by omitting garbage
and nonsense, and by ensuring that articles adhere to basic principles
of style, scholarship, and civil discourse. Scientists do not have an
infinite amount of time, and these institutions have evolved to serve a
real need of the community: the ability to read relevant communications
in the field without wasting time on nonsense and irrelevancies. There
exist journals that span a continuum of style and scholarship
requirements, from the Physical Review (etc.) at the top, to Apeiron
(etc.) and moderated groups at the bottom; unmoderated groups like this
one are not even on the scale.

You and a number of others around here repeatedly claim "censorship",
when the truth is simply that you are unable to meet the requirements of
journals or moderated groups. Those requirements are precisely why
physicists (etc.) read those journals and groups, and not the "National
Inquirer" or unmoderated groups. The fault is yours, not of the journal
or moderated group -- they are simply performing their desired function.
Apparently unknown to you, MANY dissident articles get published, but by
authors who know and follow the rules of the relevant journal or
newsgroup. shrug

BTW it is rarely the actual content of articles and messages that gets
them rejected, it is usually style and/or incompetence on the part of
the author. In the case of the article you tried to post in the
moderated group, it is written in an abrasive and disrespectful style,
and makes numerous errors of historical fact; you state personal
opinions as if they were facts, ignoring a well-known and large body of
scholarly work that contradicts your claims.


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

The hidden purpose of a moderated group is
censorship.

No. You need to learn about the sociology and process of science, as as
well as basic physics.

Good adivce. My advice to you is to seek a psychiatrist and get rid of
that zealous admiration for Einstein. You are very blind with that
worship. It is clouding your ability to do actual physics. Oh, also,
please back up with what you are saying with some mathematics. Your
word salad most of the time just don't digest very well with me.

Moderated groups are the USENET equivalent of peer-reviewed journals.
The purpose of both is to save their readers' time by omitting garbage
and nonsense, and by ensuring that articles adhere to basic principles
of style, scholarship, and civil discourse. Scientists do not have an
infinite amount of time, and these institutions have evolved to serve a
real need of the community: the ability to read relevant communications
in the field without wasting time on nonsense and irrelevancies. There
exist journals that span a continuum of style and scholarship
requirements, from the Physical Review (etc.) at the top, to Apeiron
(etc.) and moderated groups at the bottom; unmoderated groups like this
one are not even on the scale.

Garbage and nonsense are all subjective. It is no diiferent from your
subjective experimental interpretations. So, subjectively, you can
also point your experimental result towards your core belief. In
science, there should never be any core believes.

You and a number of others around here repeatedly claim "censorship",
when the truth is simply that you are unable to meet the requirements of
journals or moderated groups. Those requirements are precisely why
physicists (etc.) read those journals and groups, and not the "National
Inquirer" or unmoderated groups. The fault is yours, not of the journal
or moderated group -- they are simply performing their desired function.
Apparently unknown to you, MANY dissident articles get published, but by
authors who know and follow the rules of the relevant journal or
newsgroup. shrug

It is because of my style. I only go after the jugular veins when the
"proper" belief is truly corrupted.

BTW it is rarely the actual content of articles and messages that gets
them rejected, it is usually style and/or incompetence on the part of
the author. In the case of the article you tried to post in the
moderated group, it is written in an abrasive and disrespectful style,
and makes numerous errors of historical fact; you state personal
opinions as if they were facts, ignoring a well-known and large body of
scholarly work that contradicts your claims.

Abrasive and disrespect styles are all subjective. I don't believe I
have insulted anyone personally. As far as historic errors, please
point them out. Did you not have said that you really don't care much
about history. History is best left for historians to sort out.

My post points out in a very point-blank fashion that Einstein fumbled
on his derivation of (E = m c^2). There is no need to reference other
large body of unscholarly works. This is a point to prove history
wrong as well as a point to prove Einstein's plagiarism.

If I am wrong, it should have no problems for the moderators to post my
message. And then, it will be torn to pieces by others. So, what do
you have to be afraid of? The moderated group rejects any personal
attacks, and the discussion should then be concentrated on logic and
sound physics. However, when the moderators see something that I have
a great point, they just rejected on grounds totally ridiculous. This
is a tried tatics in the media. As long as it is not reported, it is
not news.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

The hidden purpose of a moderated group is
censorship.

No. You need to learn about the sociology and process of science, as as
well as basic physics.

Good adivce. My advice to you is to seek a psychiatrist and get rid of
that zealous admiration for Einstein.

My advice to you is to seek a psychiatrist and get rid of that zealous
belief you have that the moon is made of cheese.

You are very blind with that
worship. It is clouding your ability to do actual physics.

Believing that the moon is made of cheese isn't going to get you very
far in physics either.

Oh, also,
please back up with what you are saying with some mathematics. Your
word salad most of the time just don't digest very well with me.

It doesn't take mathematics to tell you that your abrasive and
polemical style of writing is going to get your submissions rejected on
a moderated NGs. You're simply spoiled by being a regular poster to
unmoderated NGs.


Moderated groups are the USENET equivalent of peer-reviewed journals.
The purpose of both is to save their readers' time by omitting garbage
and nonsense, and by ensuring that articles adhere to basic principles
of style, scholarship, and civil discourse. Scientists do not have an
infinite amount of time, and these institutions have evolved to serve a
real need of the community: the ability to read relevant communications
in the field without wasting time on nonsense and irrelevancies. There
exist journals that span a continuum of style and scholarship
requirements, from the Physical Review (etc.) at the top, to Apeiron
(etc.) and moderated groups at the bottom; unmoderated groups like this
one are not even on the scale.

Garbage and nonsense are all subjective. It is no diiferent from your
subjective experimental interpretations. So, subjectively, you can
also point your experimental result towards your core belief. In
science, there should never be any core believes.

What do you mean by a "core belief," and why can't science have any of
them?


You and a number of others around here repeatedly claim "censorship",
when the truth is simply that you are unable to meet the requirements of
journals or moderated groups. Those requirements are precisely why
physicists (etc.) read those journals and groups, and not the "National
Inquirer" or unmoderated groups. The fault is yours, not of the journal
or moderated group -- they are simply performing their desired function.
Apparently unknown to you, MANY dissident articles get published, but by
authors who know and follow the rules of the relevant journal or
newsgroup. shrug

It is because of my style. I only go after the jugular veins when the
"proper" belief is truly corrupted.

Then do it here, which, unfortunately, does not require posts to be
rational and without demagoguery that are required conditions in
moderated NGs.


BTW it is rarely the actual content of articles and messages that gets
them rejected, it is usually style and/or incompetence on the part of
the author. In the case of the article you tried to post in the
moderated group, it is written in an abrasive and disrespectful style,
and makes numerous errors of historical fact; you state personal
opinions as if they were facts, ignoring a well-known and large body of
scholarly work that contradicts your claims.

Abrasive and disrespect styles are all subjective. I don't believe I
have insulted anyone personally. As far as historic errors, please
point them out. Did you not have said that you really don't care much
about history. History is best left for historians to sort out.

My post points out in a very point-blank fashion that Einstein fumbled
on his derivation of (E = m c^2). There is no need to reference other
large body of unscholarly works. This is a point to prove history
wrong as well as a point to prove Einstein's plagiarism.

Even if your accusations were true, which they aren't, they have
nothing to do with sci.physics.research, which is NOT about historical
research.


If I am wrong, it should have no problems for the moderators to post my
message. And then, it will be torn to pieces by others.

That's like saying: If my dress is inappropriate for a particular
restaurant, the doorman should still let me in and let the owner throw
me out later. If you don't belong in, you should go in, in the first
place.

But fear not, all cranks, nutcases, christian fascists, and deluded
morons have a home here at sci.physics.relativity --- unfortunately.

So, what do
you have to be afraid of? The moderated group rejects any personal
attacks, and the discussion should then be concentrated on logic and
sound physics.

Then cut out of your submission everything that is not "logic and sound
physics" and re-submit it. For example, SR can be discussed without
any mention of Einstein or Minkowski.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

The hidden purpose of a moderated group is
censorship.

No. You need to learn about the sociology and process of science, as as
well as basic physics.

Good adivce. My advice to you is to seek a psychiatrist and get rid of
that zealous admiration for Einstein.

My advice to you is to seek a psychiatrist and get rid of that zealous
belief you have that the moon is made of cheese.

You are very blind with that
worship. It is clouding your ability to do actual physics.

Believing that the moon is made of cheese isn't going to get you very
far in physics either.

Oh, also,
please back up with what you are saying with some mathematics. Your
word salad most of the time just don't digest very well with me.

It doesn't take mathematics to tell you that your abrasive and
polemical style of writing is going to get your submissions rejected on
a moderated NGs. You're simply spoiled by being a regular poster to
unmoderated NGs.


Moderated groups are the USENET equivalent of peer-reviewed journals.
The purpose of both is to save their readers' time by omitting garbage
and nonsense, and by ensuring that articles adhere to basic principles
of style, scholarship, and civil discourse. Scientists do not have an
infinite amount of time, and these institutions have evolved to serve a
real need of the community: the ability to read relevant communications
in the field without wasting time on nonsense and irrelevancies. There
exist journals that span a continuum of style and scholarship
requirements, from the Physical Review (etc.) at the top, to Apeiron
(etc.) and moderated groups at the bottom; unmoderated groups like this
one are not even on the scale.

Garbage and nonsense are all subjective. It is no diiferent from your
subjective experimental interpretations. So, subjectively, you can
also point your experimental result towards your core belief. In
science, there should never be any core believes.

What do you mean by a "core belief," and why can't science have any of
them?


You and a number of others around here repeatedly claim "censorship",
when the truth is simply that you are unable to meet the requirements of
journals or moderated groups. Those requirements are precisely why
physicists (etc.) read those journals and groups, and not the "National
Inquirer" or unmoderated groups. The fault is yours, not of the journal
or moderated group -- they are simply performing their desired function.
Apparently unknown to you, MANY dissident articles get published, but by
authors who know and follow the rules of the relevant journal or
newsgroup. shrug

It is because of my style. I only go after the jugular veins when the
"proper" belief is truly corrupted.

Then do it here, which, unfortunately, does not require posts to be
rational and without demagoguery that are required conditions in
moderated NGs.


BTW it is rarely the actual content of articles and messages that gets
them rejected, it is usually style and/or incompetence on the part of
the author. In the case of the article you tried to post in the
moderated group, it is written in an abrasive and disrespectful style,
and makes numerous errors of historical fact; you state personal
opinions as if they were facts, ignoring a well-known and large body of
scholarly work that contradicts your claims.

Abrasive and disrespect styles are all subjective. I don't believe I
have insulted anyone personally. As far as historic errors, please
point them out. Did you not have said that you really don't care much
about history. History is best left for historians to sort out.

My post points out in a very point-blank fashion that Einstein fumbled
on his derivation of (E = m c^2). There is no need to reference other
large body of unscholarly works. This is a point to prove history
wrong as well as a point to prove Einstein's plagiarism.

Even if your accusations were true, which they aren't, they have
nothing to do with sci.physics.research, which is NOT about historical
research.


If I am wrong, it should have no problems for the moderators to post my
message. And then, it will be torn to pieces by others.

That's like saying: If my dress is inappropriate for a particular
restaurant, the doorman should still let me in and let the owner throw
me out later. If you don't belong in, you should go in, in the first
place.

But fear not, all cranks, nutcases, christian fascists, and deluded
morons have a home here at sci.physics.relativity --- unfortunately.

So, what do
you have to be afraid of? The moderated group rejects any personal
attacks, and the discussion should then be concentrated on logic and
sound physics.

Then cut out of your submission everything that is not "logic and sound
physics" and re-submit it. For example, SR can be discussed without
any mention of Einstein or Minkowski.