http://interestalert.com/story/07170...alifornia.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 25, 7:30 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://interestalert.com/story/07170...?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

Pentcho Valev

If you see cine film of Einstein, you see he had a funny walk.

Bob-ity-bob-ity-bob!

I Was A Teenage Queerwolf wrote:
On Jul 25, 7:30 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://interestalert.com/story/07170...?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

Pentcho Valev

If you see cine film of Einstein, you see he had a funny walk.

Bob-ity-bob-ity-bob!

The green-eyed monster lives in physics, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w
http://www.univie.ac.at/cga/art/tv.html

La Marche Futile:

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/memb...ein_Damour.pdf
Einstein et la physique du vingtieme siecle
Thibault Damour
Membre de l'Academie des sciences
"Einstein pose, a la place, une nouvelle cinematique des mesures de
longueur et de duree dans laquelle une horloge en mouvement SEMBLE,
quand on la compare a une horloge au repos, battre plus lentement («
dilatation du temps »), alors qu'une regle en mouvement longitudinal
SEMBLE, quand on la compare a une regle au repos, etre plus courte («
contraction des longueurs »). La « contraction des longueurs » avait,
avant Einstein, ete consideree par George Fitzgerald et Hendrik
Lorentz. Cependant, ils la consideraient comme un effet « reel » de
contraction dans l'« espace absolu », alors que POUR EINSTEIN IL
S'AGIT D'UN EFFET DE PERSPECTIVE SPATIO-TEMPORELLE."

http://www-drfmc.cea.fr/Phocea/Vie_d...dex.php?id=343
Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji, EINSTEIN ET LA REFONDATION RELATIVISTE DE LA
PHYSIQUE: "Chez Poincare, la contraction des longueurs et la
dilatation des durees SONT REELLES......Chez Einstein, la contraction
des longueurs et la dilatation des durees NE SONT PAS REELLES..."

French silly walkers should consider Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the
stick"), p. 47 (solution on p. 54), in

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch10.pdf

French silly walkers could imagine that the mark seen "behind the
stick" possesses a pawl which, released by the back end of the stick,
erects so that the stick remains trapped between the pawl and the
wall. If one sees the mark, one sees the erection of the pawl and also
the SQUEEZED trapped stick as well. In Einstein's relativity length
contraction is REAL too.

French silly walkers should also learn what other silly walkers teach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search=

Pentcho Valev

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/370230...f_silly_walks/
http://www.univie.ac.at/cga/art/tv.html

La Marche Futile:

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/memb...ein_Damour.pdf
Einstein et la physique du vingtieme siecle
Thibault Damour
Membre de l'Academie des sciences
"Einstein pose, a la place, une nouvelle cinematique des mesures de
longueur et de duree dans laquelle une horloge en mouvement SEMBLE,
quand on la compare a une horloge au repos, battre plus lentement («
dilatation du temps »), alors qu'une regle en mouvement longitudinal
SEMBLE, quand on la compare a une regle au repos, etre plus courte («
contraction des longueurs »). La « contraction des longueurs » avait,
avant Einstein, ete consideree par George Fitzgerald et Hendrik
Lorentz. Cependant, ils la consideraient comme un effet « reel » de
contraction dans l'« espace absolu », alors que POUR EINSTEIN IL
S'AGIT D'UN EFFET DE PERSPECTIVE SPATIO-TEMPORELLE."

http://www-drfmc.cea.fr/Phocea/Vie_d...dex.php?id=343
Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji, EINSTEIN ET LA REFONDATION RELATIVISTE DE LA
PHYSIQUE: "Chez Poincare, la contraction des longueurs et la
dilatation des durees SONT REELLES......Chez Einstein, la contraction
des longueurs et la dilatation des durees NE SONT PAS REELLES..."

French silly walkers should consider Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the
stick"), p. 47 (solution on p. 54), in

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch10.pdf

French silly walkers could imagine that the mark seen "behind the
stick" possesses a pawl which, released by the back end of the stick,
erects so that the stick remains trapped between the pawl and the
wall. If one sees the mark, one sees the erection of the pawl and also
the SQUEEZED trapped stick as well. In Einstein's relativity length
contraction is REAL too.

French silly walkers should also learn what other silly walkers teach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search=

The silly walker from the above video who applies Einstein's
relativity in order to trap a train inside a tunnel much shorter than
the train is called The Boldest Shopkeeper:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...3f36a9696739e?

Silly walkers Thibault Damour and Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji, authors of
"La Marche Futile", should prove that, although the tunnel is much
shorter than the train, when the train is trapped inside the tunnel,
it is not REALLY contracted; it is only APPARENTLY contracted or, in
other words, the spatio-temporal perspective has changed. Then the
proof should be taught to budding young Einsteins in the Ministry of
Silly Walks:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/370230...f_silly_walks/

So budding young Einsteins will become flourished young Einsteins.

Pentcho Valev

The problem with the 100 budding young Einsteins

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/New...ung_Einsteins/

is that they are all obsessed with Harry Potter and don't care at all
about Einstein's miracles (sometimes they simulate care but that is
because they want to become members of Einstein criminal cult). The
only person in the world who could offer something comparable to Harry
Potter's stuff is Ronald Mallett, "professor at one of the country's
leading universities":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65
"The real life Doctor Who who believes he can build a time
machine.....You would not only be able to meet the dead - but to save
them as well. A new book tells the story of an extraordinary man whose
life work is inspired by a longing to do just that. It was the
devastating sudden death of Ronald Mallett's beloved father which
sparked his obsession with time-travel....Ronald simply could not
accept that he would never see his father again. And he began to
wonder if there was a way they could be reunited.....From that day,
Mallet became obsessed with time travel, despite having no clear idea
of how it could be accomplished.....Mallett became obsessed with the
German scientist - who had died in 1955, the same year as his father.
Most importantly, Mallett realised - as Einstein had himself - that
the new way of thinking about gravity, space and time contained in the
physicist's Special and General theories of relativity meant that a
time machine was at least possible in theory. Einstein's equations
showed that by twisting spacetime around, it is possible in theory to
make a connection from future to past. Step into this timeloop, and
you could emerge years later or earlier.....Mallett's time machine
went public in 2001, when New Scientist magazine ran an article about
his design, and TV appearances followed. "Mallett isn't mad," the New
Scientist article said. "None of the known laws of physics forbids
time-travel. "In theory, shunting matter back and forth through time
shouldn't be that difficult."....Mallett's solution is much simpler.
He thinks he can reverse time by using just a circulating beam of
light. Light is energy, and energy can cause spacetime to warp and
bend, just like gigantic spinning cylinders, he explains.....He thinks
he can build a prototype machine in the lab, using today's technology,
with funds of just $250,000 (£120,000). However, Prof Mallett is fussy
about who gives him the money.....Just think: a time-traveller could
go back and meet himself....What, for example, would happen if you
killed your past self? Would both versions of 'you' die at the same
time?.....But, while some physicists have questioned Mallett's
approach, no one has yet proved with absolute certainty that the
machine would not work."

The Ministry of Silly Walks

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/370230...f_silly_walks/

should offer to the 100 budding young Einsteins the following problem:
Does the fact that "while some physicists have questioned Mallett's
approach, no one has yet proved with absolute certainty that the
machine would not work" anything to do with the fact that, while some
biologists question the statement that the greenness of the crocodile
exceeds its length, no one has yet proved with absolute certainty that
it is the length that exceeds the greenness? In the process of
resolving the problem budding young Einsteins will forget completely
Harry Potter.

Pentcho Valev

Early education of budding young Einsteins:

http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/TYSaDTW.asp
"Einstein! Einstein!....The lecture was followed by a rousing game of
"That's my Theory!" Herr Doctor introduced three scientists who all
claimed to be Einstein....Professor Chanteuse led the audience in
singing "Divine Einstein" while the scientists changed into their real
costumes.....When the scientists returned, they signed in and
explained who they really were.....Einstein explains that imagination
is more important than knowledge....Einstein! Einstein! He's our man!
Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! If he can't solve it, no one can!"

Pentcho Valev

Budding young Einsteins are regularly exposed to the following
problems:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Out...SSYP_Overview/
"The 20 select students from across Canada - 10 girls and 10 boys -
were exposed to a wide range of fundamental scientific concepts, from
the bizarre quantum world of atoms and subatomic particles to black
holes, warped spacetime and the expanding universe."

According to hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult, budding young
Einsteins should never be exposed to the following problems:

Does the speed of light vary with the gravitational potential? If yes,
does this variability obey Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)?
This equation is equivalent to c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed
of the light source and the observer, in the absence of a
gravitational field. So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
correct, budding young Einsteins, together with their masters, should
sing "Adieu Einstein" instead of "Divine Einstein". If Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is wrong, budding young Einsteins' masters
should give the correct equation. Almost all masters admit the speed
of light does vary with the gravitational potential V, so if c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong, there must be some other equation of the type c'=f(V)
which is correct. The problem is that Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) is the only equation of the type c'=f(V) consistent with
Pound and Rebka's result f'=f(1+V/c^2). Also, c'=c(1+V/c^2), through
its equivalent c'=c+v, is the only equation of the type c'=f(V)
consistent with the negative result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment. Where can budding young Einsteins find the lyric and the
tune of "Adieu Einstein"?

Pentcho Valev

If you see cine film of Einstein, you see he had a funny walk.

Fallacy of confusing the substrate with the emergent phenomena.

Budding young Einsteins are regularly exposed to the following
problems:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Out...SSYP_Overview/
"The 20 select students from across Canada - 10 girls and 10 boys -
were exposed to a wide range of fundamental scientific concepts, from
the bizarre quantum world of atoms and subatomic particles to black
holes, warped spacetime and the expanding universe."

According to hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult, budding young
Einsteins should never be exposed to the following problems:

Does the speed of light vary with the gravitational potential? If yes,
does this variability obey Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)?
This equation is equivalent to c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed
of the light source and the observer, in the absence of a
gravitational field. So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
correct, budding young Einsteins, together with their masters, should
sing "Adieu Einstein" instead of "Divine Einstein". If Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is wrong, budding young Einsteins' masters
should give the correct equation. Almost all masters admit the speed
of light does vary with the gravitational potential V, so if c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong, there must be some other equation of the type c'=f(V)
which is correct. The problem is that Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) is the only equation of the type c'=f(V) consistent with
Pound and Rebka's result f'=f(1+V/c^2). Also, c'=c(1+V/c^2), through
its equivalent c'=c+v, is the only equation of the type c'=f(V)
consistent with the negative result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment. Where can budding young Einsteins find the lyric and the
tune of "Adieu Einstein"?

Pentcho Valev