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

John Farrell wrote: "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."

Red herrings. The real problems with Einstein's relativity were
formulated by Einstein himself at the end of his life:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

John Farrell also wrote: "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."

Michelson had any reason not to accept relativity:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 20, 8:23?am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

John Farrell wrote: "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."

Red herrings. The real problems with Einstein's relativity were
formulated by Einstein himself at the end of his life:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

John Farrell also wrote: "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."

Michelson had any reason not to accept relativity:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...Norton.pdfJohn
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

The reason I know this is because I worked for a videographics editing house
in the West Hills in LA, and I happen to know that %90 of all midget porn
stars are in fact virtual.

On Apr 20, 3:23 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

John Farrell wrote: "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."

Red herrings. The real problems with Einstein's relativity were
formulated by Einstein himself at the end of his life:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

John Farrell also wrote: "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."

Michelson had any reason not to accept relativity:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...Norton.pdfJohn
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

No. Einstein was real. If he was fake, don't you think they'd have
given him better hair?

AHAHAHA...ahaha... "Pentcho Valev" wrote in
ups.com...
Discussion: Was Einstein a fake?

[hanson]
Yes, Einstein was a fake on SR/GR, by his own admission, saying with
good reason:
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." - A.E.
See Albert's own source, his Mileva Maric,.. in he
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c7fb13a66d2439
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...751183b18b8367

But Einstein did great work on Sedimentation/Brownian movement
-Avogadro and on his Photoelectric XPs for which he got his Nobel.
Respect him for that... unmitigated... but also unmitigated do continue
to beat on his Einstein Dingleberries that pervade these NGs with
their fanaticism... ahahaha...

[Pentcho citing Farrell]
John Farrell wrote:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
"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."

[Pentcho]
Red herrings. The real problems with Einstein's relativity were
formulated by Einstein himself at the end of his life:

John Farrell wrote:
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

John Farrell also wrote: "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."

[Pentcho]
Michelson had any reason not to accept relativity:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton:
"Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost for the universally
use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......
THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE
LIGHT POSTULATE."
Pentcho Valev

[hanson]
ahahaha... but Pentcho, with/thru & by your message you are disturbing
the minds of all those fanatical Einstein Dingleberries again and you
make the NG resident fanatics of "Einstein's Criminal Cult" very irate...

So, to add some more light to the candle that you have lit for the benenfit
of the Einstein Dingleberries who do sulk in the darkness at the sphincter
of their idol Albert, do consider an even wider swath with your light by
using or adding some additional info as seen in he
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4e2af5427ad4cb
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...791b665437c857

Keep up the good work and enlighten these recalcitrant, left behind
Einstein Dingleberries who are so blind not the see what has occured
.... even more than a full century later ... All of'em still behaving and
believing like religious fundamentalists sticking to their SR-GR catechism.
ahahahaha.... Thanks for the laughs, Pentcho
ahahaha... ahahahanson

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

John Farrell wrote: "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."

Red herrings. The real problems with Einstein's relativity were
formulated by Einstein himself at the end of his life:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

John Farrell also wrote: "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."

Michelson had any reason not to accept relativity:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity,

There is some evidence he was not even, or only vaguely aware of it.

whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity

Whoever wrote that obviously doesn't read modern physics texts. It is
usually only mentioned in passing; not as central to it.

......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

It is fully compatible with all sorts of things, including the existence of
an aether. People with a bit of common sense however know what it implies,
just as those same people know what the evidence the earth in not flat
implies, and the correct conclusion to draw about flat earth nuts, even
though one can not prove it is all not one giant conspiracy like they claim.

Bill


Pentcho Valev

..

On Apr 20, 8:23 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

John Farrell wrote: "The anti-relativity movement got underway as soon

as Einstein's first paper on special relativity was published, in
1905.

I started the anti-relativity movement in 1876.

On Apr 20, 12:00 pm, "Dr. V I Plankenstein"
wrote:
The reason I know this is because I worked for a videographics editing house
in the West Hills in LA, and I happen to know that %90 of all midget porn
stars are in fact virtual.

I have further proof. In an old National Lampoon they have some guy
buy a child porn magazine and he gets it home and he gets all comfy
with some vaseline and a blow-up (NOTE HOMELAND SECURITY "blow-up"
there doesnot mean what urine looking for!) child doll and he looks
carefully at the "children" in the magazine and then he exclaims:

"THESE AREN'T CHILDREN, THEY'RE GODDAMN MIDGET PORN STARS......

jUST A MINUTE...

jUST A MINUTE......

Don, Dr. vi was talking about midget porn not child porn...

I'm so ashamed, Don.

that's OK, Don, you got all confused by Hofstadterian self-reference
and the midget/child problem ENDLESS Discussion (ED) problem

Return to your lives, already in progress. That's an ardor.

On Apr 20, 8:00 am, "Dr. V I Plankenstein"
wrote:
The reason I know this is because I worked for a videographics editing house
in the West Hills in LA, and I happen to know that %90 of all midget porn
stars are in fact virtual.

100 - 90 is not zero.