"jcon" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Sep 27, 9:15 am, Randy Poe wrote:
: I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,
: but I invite all of the anti-Einsteinians to contribute.
: (You know you will anyway. You're here because
: you couldn't resist the title.)
:
: Androcles in particular believes that Einstein's 1905
: SR paper is full of nonsensical statements and
: elementary errors that any child should catch. Yet
: we have the indisputable fact that the version of the
: paper we know was accepted and published in
: Annalen der Physik, one of the premier physics
: journals of the day.
:
: So I invite you to imagine what the editorial process
: was. How did a paper with such obvious errors end
: up being blessed by the editors and referees and
: published in a research journal?
:
:
: Just to be clear, I think Einstein's 1905 paper is
: a masterpiece, and is one of the few original works
: I can think of that is still very readable to a modern
: audience (as opposed to, say, Maxwell's papers).
:
: On the other hand, merely getting published in 1905
: isn't evidence of being correct. If you've ever
: gone through the exercise of reading old
: scientific papers, you'll realize standards
: were a *lot* lower back then.
:
: In particular, peer review did not become common until
: the middle of the 20th century, and 1905 Annalen der Physik
: was definitely not reviewed by anyone but the editors.
:
: In fact, Einstein's first recorded interaction with
: a reviewer was in 1936, when he was so insulted that
: that the Physical Review had the audacity to show his
: paper to an "outside specialist" without his
: express permission that he *withdrew it in disgust*:
: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html
: It's clear from his indignation that he believed
: anything he wrote should be published without
: question. For the record, in the paper, Einstein
: concluded that gravitational waves could not
: exist (!!), so it would have been a permanent
: embarrassment if it had been published.
:
: As far as experimental papers go, you don't have to
: go back very far before error analysis gets shoddy
: and then non-existent.
:
: Of course, you're correct that the editors of
: A d. Phys. would never have missed the sort of
: silly errors the kooks on this NG regularly bring
: up, but they could certainly have missed some
: logical flaws, had they been there.
:
: -jc

They missed this one:

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif


Just to be clear, you think Einstein's 1905 paper is a masterpiece.
Just to be clear, you are a kook who missed a silly error in Einstein's
masterpiece.

On Sep 28, 1:19 pm, jcon wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:15 am, Randy Poe wrote:



I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,
but I invite all of the anti-Einsteinians to contribute.
(You know you will anyway. You're here because
you couldn't resist the title.)

Androcles in particular believes that Einstein's 1905
SR paper is full of nonsensical statements and
elementary errors that any child should catch. Yet
we have the indisputable fact that the version of the
paper we know was accepted and published in
Annalen der Physik, one of the premier physics
journals of the day.

So I invite you to imagine what the editorial process
was. How did a paper with such obvious errors end
up being blessed by the editors and referees and
published in a research journal?

Just to be clear, I think Einstein's 1905 paper is
a masterpiece, and is one of the few original works
I can think of that is still very readable to a modern
audience (as opposed to, say, Maxwell's papers).

On the other hand, merely getting published in 1905
isn't evidence of being correct. If you've ever
gone through the exercise of reading old
scientific papers, you'll realize standards
were a *lot* lower back then.


So your theory then is that just about anything
could have gotten through? Then why so few papers
published per year? Were they were desperate
for content, like the specialty cable TV channels
are today?

In particular, peer review did not become common until
the middle of the 20th century, and 1905 Annalen der Physik
was definitely not reviewed by anyone but the editors.

Ah, so at least there were editors. But you don't
think editors ever rejected anything?

In fact, Einstein's first recorded interaction with
a reviewer was in 1936, when he was so insulted that
that the Physical Review had the audacity to show his
paper to an "outside specialist" without his
express permission that he *withdrew it in disgust*:http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html
It's clear from his indignation that he believed
anything he wrote should be published without
question. For the record, in the paper, Einstein
concluded that gravitational waves could not
exist (!!), so it would have been a permanent
embarrassment if it had been published.

Well, we have on the record a number of opinions
Einstein had that later changed, or that didn't
and turned out to be incorrect. He didn't believe
in black holes, and he had the well-known philosophical
aversion to the probabilistic view of nature in QM.
He also introduced the cosmological constant, then
later decided that was a blunder (but as I understand
it, he might have been right in the first place).

I think these kind of things just help point out
that we was, after all, human. Something the
crackpots just don't want to hear anyone say.

As far as experimental papers go, you don't have to
go back very far before error analysis gets shoddy
and then non-existent.

Of course, you're correct that the editors of
A d. Phys. would never have missed the sort of
silly errors the kooks on this NG regularly bring
up, but they could certainly have missed some
logical flaws, had they been there.

Even with peer review, some flaws get published. But
we've had a century to review Einstein's work, and
I'm not aware of any sane person finding a problem
with it.

- Randy

On Sep 28, 3:13 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"jcon" wrote in message

ups.com...
: On Sep 27, 9:15 am, Randy Poe wrote:
: I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,
: but I invite all of the anti-Einsteinians to contribute.
: (You know you will anyway. You're here because
: you couldn't resist the title.)
:
: Androcles in particular believes that Einstein's 1905
: SR paper is full of nonsensical statements and
: elementary errors that any child should catch. Yet
: we have the indisputable fact that the version of the
: paper we know was accepted and published in
: Annalen der Physik, one of the premier physics
: journals of the day.
:
: So I invite you to imagine what the editorial process
: was. How did a paper with such obvious errors end
: up being blessed by the editors and referees and
: published in a research journal?
:
:
: Just to be clear, I think Einstein's 1905 paper is
: a masterpiece, and is one of the few original works
: I can think of that is still very readable to a modern
: audience (as opposed to, say, Maxwell's papers).
:
: On the other hand, merely getting published in 1905
: isn't evidence of being correct. If you've ever
: gone through the exercise of reading old
: scientific papers, you'll realize standards
: were a *lot* lower back then.
:
: In particular, peer review did not become common until
: the middle of the 20th century, and 1905 Annalen der Physik
: was definitely not reviewed by anyone but the editors.
:
: In fact, Einstein's first recorded interaction with
: a reviewer was in 1936, when he was so insulted that
: that the Physical Review had the audacity to show his
: paper to an "outside specialist" without his
: express permission that he *withdrew it in disgust*:
:http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html
: It's clear from his indignation that he believed
: anything he wrote should be published without
: question. For the record, in the paper, Einstein
: concluded that gravitational waves could not
: exist (!!), so it would have been a permanent
: embarrassment if it had been published.
:
: As far as experimental papers go, you don't have to
: go back very far before error analysis gets shoddy
: and then non-existent.
:
: Of course, you're correct that the editors of
: A d. Phys. would never have missed the sort of
: silly errors the kooks on this NG regularly bring
: up, but they could certainly have missed some
: logical flaws, had they been there.
:
: -jc

They missed this one:

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein


Strangely, I don't find that wording in the translation
I usually reference, nor do I find the title "Rabbi"
applied to Einstein. What translation are you using?


I usually reference this one:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

And the passage that most closely resembles that
strange one you wrote is this one:
"We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for
the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B
to A."

Which doesn't appear to have any error in it. It's
just a definition.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Sep 28, 1:19 pm, jcon wrote:
: On Sep 27, 9:15 am, Randy Poe wrote:
:
:
:
: I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,
: but I invite all of the anti-Einsteinians to contribute.
: (You know you will anyway. You're here because
: you couldn't resist the title.)
:
: Androcles in particular believes that Einstein's 1905
: SR paper is full of nonsensical statements and
: elementary errors that any child should catch. Yet
: we have the indisputable fact that the version of the
: paper we know was accepted and published in
: Annalen der Physik, one of the premier physics
: journals of the day.
:
: So I invite you to imagine what the editorial process
: was. How did a paper with such obvious errors end
: up being blessed by the editors and referees and
: published in a research journal?
:
: Just to be clear, I think Einstein's 1905 paper is
: a masterpiece, and is one of the few original works
: I can think of that is still very readable to a modern
: audience (as opposed to, say, Maxwell's papers).
:
: On the other hand, merely getting published in 1905
: isn't evidence of being correct. If you've ever
: gone through the exercise of reading old
: scientific papers, you'll realize standards
: were a *lot* lower back then.
:
:
: So your theory then is that just about anything
: could have gotten through? Then why so few papers
: published per year? Were they were desperate
: for content, like the specialty cable TV channels
: are today?
:
: In particular, peer review did not become common until
: the middle of the 20th century, and 1905 Annalen der Physik
: was definitely not reviewed by anyone but the editors.
:
: Ah, so at least there were editors. But you don't
: think editors ever rejected anything?
:
: In fact, Einstein's first recorded interaction with
: a reviewer was in 1936, when he was so insulted that
: that the Physical Review had the audacity to show his
: paper to an "outside specialist" without his
: express permission that he *withdrew it in
disgust*:http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html
: It's clear from his indignation that he believed
: anything he wrote should be published without
: question. For the record, in the paper, Einstein
: concluded that gravitational waves could not
: exist (!!), so it would have been a permanent
: embarrassment if it had been published.
:
: Well, we have on the record a number of opinions
: Einstein had that later changed, or that didn't
: and turned out to be incorrect. He didn't believe
: in black holes, and he had the well-known philosophical
: aversion to the probabilistic view of nature in QM.
: He also introduced the cosmological constant, then
: later decided that was a blunder (but as I understand
: it, he might have been right in the first place).
:
: I think these kind of things just help point out
: that we was, after all, human. Something the
: crackpots just don't want to hear anyone say.
:
: As far as experimental papers go, you don't have to
: go back very far before error analysis gets shoddy
: and then non-existent.
:
: Of course, you're correct that the editors of
: A d. Phys. would never have missed the sort of
: silly errors the kooks on this NG regularly bring
: up, but they could certainly have missed some
: logical flaws, had they been there.
:
: Even with peer review, some flaws get published. But
: we've had a century to review Einstein's work, and
: I'm not aware of any sane person finding a problem
: with it.
:
That says it all, Poe. You are not aware.

I'm aware of many insane people finding nothing wrong with it,
you are one of them. However, why it got published is non sequitur.
That fact is it did, and your defence of it is
"Eat ****, 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong"; you have no
mathematical or physical basis for its defence.

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...

: I usually reference this one:
: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
:
: And the passage that most closely resembles that
: strange one you wrote is this one:
: "We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for
: the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
: by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
: from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B
: to A."
:
: Which doesn't appear to have any error in it. It's
: just a definition.

You are squirming, Poe.

: I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to
: claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel
: times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are
: moving).

That IS what Einstein claims!!!
It is how the cuckoo malformations are derived.
In this equation you'll see x'/(c+v) added to x'/(c-v).
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
From that and after a long winded argument we eventually arrive at
tau = (t-vx/c^2) * gamma
xi = (x-vt) * gamma
But the error is in the equation given in img22.gif, which incidentally
doesn't balance with the RHS either.

Einstein wants you to believe BOTH
tAB = tBA AND tau_AB = tau_BA
and hence the ridiculous CONCLUSION that the speed of light is
the same in ALL frames of reference (which the jerk Fecal Jekyl
takes as a postulate and hence a circular argument).


: So I figured that was what the GIF was
: trying to illustrate.
:
: Hence my observation a couple of weeks ago that
: he seems to have real trouble figuring out the
: difference between what is measured in one frame
: vs. the other.

No I don't have trouble, Poe, you do.
Everyone "measures" one speed of light, or so they claim.
But they never do, Doppler shift proves otherwise.
Man, you are so ****in' slow it's pathetic. All you need
do is read the paper to see how the trick is done.
It's a ****in' confidence trick. Einstein was a brilliant con-artist
and he suckered you in.

On Sep 28, 11:53 am, "Juan R."
wrote:
On Sep 27, 4:15 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,
but I invite all of the anti-Einsteinians to contribute.

It is not about an imaginary pro-Einsteinian anti-Einstenian battle.
It is simply a question of checking facts.

You could be accused from being a pro-Einsteinian because below you
just promote a myth about how Einstein published in 1905.

Yet
we have the indisputable fact that the version of the
paper we know was accepted and published in
Annalen der Physik, one of the premier physics
journals of the day.

Hum!

Publication does not equals quality or correctness. Much of modern
relativistic literature (loop quantum gravity) is published but many
of particle physicists (if not 100%) strongly disagree with LQG.
Several consider LQG a crackpot theory (how many attended last loop
conference? Zero?), and some few string theorists even call LQG a
crackpot theory in public [1].

Just this year there was a polemic about massive plagiarism scandal on
ArXiv, With plagiarized papers being submitted to the archive. The
August updated list is on [2].

You can see most plagiarisms are on gr-qc branch. That is the General
Relativity and Quantum Cosmology branch. Wow!

The problem is poor because many of those preprints were published in
peer-revieved relativist literature. For instance the preprint (http://
arxiv.org/abs/0705.2930) cited on [2] got published on _General
Relativity and Gravitation_, Vol 39 (2007) 849-862.

This gives you an idea of quality of peer-review on use.

You see not large amounts of plagiarism on thermodynamics (i know none
case but assume may exist something), on quantum theory, on
nonstandard analysis, on biogeochemistry of Rias, or on chemical
synthesis. Just in Relativity. Why?

Well maybe it is related to fame of super-plagiarist Einstein got. You
do not find that fame in other physicists and chemists like Newton,
Feynman, Carnot, Boltzman, Pauling, Lavoisier, etc.

Lorentz and Poincare did most of the work on special relativity.
Several important physicists agree SR is outcome from Poincare and
Einstein. Still Lorentz and Poincare are not called plagiarists in the
way that Einstein is.

So I invite you to imagine what the editorial process
was.

Why? Why do not just follow historical data?

How did a paper with such obvious errors end
up being blessed by the editors and referees and
published in a research journal?

Editors and referees? I can see you want to maintain this myth during
another 100 years.

i} The journal had not referees board. Published papers were not peer-
review.

ii} Einstein papers were directly accepted by editor Planck, who has
been acused from promoting his own research agenda. The process was
extremely fast since the manuscript was sent in the 30th of June and
published three months later.

iii} When Einstein submitted his first paper to a *peer-reviewed*
journal by 1936. He got a strong rejection because his paper was
wrong. But the interesting part was the angry letter Einstein sent to
the editor of the journal:

{BLOCKQUOTE

Dear Sir,

We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and
had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed.
I see no reason to address the-in any case erroneous-comments of your
anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish
the paper elsewhere.

}

Obviously the referee comments were right, Einstein had no idea. The
anonymous referee was also more familiar with gravitational waves that
own Einstein. The whole joke is well-known and reported in physics
today [3].

iv} Einstein 1905 paper contains zero references to previous work.
Today, a paper with zero references would almost sure be rejected for
publication unless an adequate list of references provided.

v} Einstein paper would be today rejected for publication in top
journals like Physical review by pure political questions. The
'current' editorial policy rejects papers (either correct or wrong)
reviewing editors call "stablished theories". The own editors in chief
recommend you submision on other journals (they gave some list of
journals: e.g. Foundations of physics).

Also Einstein would probably be rejected by current ArXiv policies as
suggested by Nobel winner Robertson [4]:

{BLOCKQUOTE

Some "reader complaints" have come in regarding preprints posted to
the archive by Drs. Einstein and Yang. Dr. Einstein, who is not even
an academic, claims to have shown in his preprint that mass and energy
are equivalent, while Professor Yang is suggesting, on the basis of an
argument I find completely unconvincing, that parity is not conserved
in weak interactions. What action shall I take?

Abject nonsense! Just call up their records and set their 'barred'
flags to TRUE.

}
I freely admit that my hope is to see a whole bunch
of wacky statements in one place. Hopefully both
sides will get plenty of amusement from the exchange.

I would like to see your face when knowing that in the Einstein epoch
the publishing literature was exactly the *contrary* to current one
[5]:

{BLOCKQUOTE

in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the
opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas.

}
- Randy

[1] http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/wh...qg-expert.html

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/03/th...-from-trinions....

[2] http://arxiv.org/new/withdrawals.aug.07.html

[3] http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html

[4] http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/...edom/main.html

[5] http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/425645a

================================================== ========
Note for readers]
Because some past episodes of flamming in sci.physics.relativity, both
comments in my blog and my newsgroup e-mail are disabled.

Note for Bilge, Bill Hobba, Dono (once Karandash2), Eric Gisse, and
Tim Shuba]
Avoid to reply this message. The capacity of any human for correcting
your endless conceptual nonsenses and foolish mathematical mistakes
is, unfortunately, just finite. Also my occupations do not include to
teach you to read others, not to teach you dimensional analysis or
even pre-university physics.

Since you will be sanely ignored here in thereafter you are open to
misread, misquote, or misinterpret me in any way you want, specially
when that adds some light to your grey existence. You are open to
write any triviality; to invent any mistake I did not really did. You
can cite discredited, outdated, or wrong references. You can
manipulate or misread references. You are also open to address any
insult you consider supports your points and you can, of course,
extend your insults to any poster, institution, colleague, friend,
theories, or journal discrediting you.

You can also try to falsify ratings, voting against me dozens or
several hundred of times simulating different people. You can use the
same dishonest tactic for increasing the rating of your akins.

good post Juan, again, thanks,

i mean, worth reading

these selfestablished relativists never post
somthin like this

On Sep 28, 6:55 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Sep 28, 8:47 am, watchs wrote:
...

Einstein's paper even did not carry even Single Reference in the end.

Hi Watch
Don't know what you're implying, but
anyway his 1905 SR paper is reasonably
well referenced throughout.
Example, Maxwell's equation in introduction.
A footnote in Chp.3 to Lorentz Transformation.
etc.
Nothing wrong with "in text" refs, just as
good or better than an "end list".

Today's "peer reviewed" publications are
profit driven, and want to see a bunch of
refs to their pet journal, for advertising,
it's a business that sells rags, that's the
system.
Regards
Ken

right

your references you put in your paper are grate

On Sep 28, 12:13 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

: In fact, Einstein's first recorded interaction with
: a reviewer was in 1936, when he was so insulted that
: that the Physical Review had the audacity to show his
: paper to an "outside specialist" without his
: express permission that he *withdrew it in disgust*:
:http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html

Very interesting paper, I happen to know the author, he is a very good
physicist and an expert in physics history.

On Sep 28, 2:09 pm, core duo wrote:
On Sep 28, 6:55 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Sep 28, 8:47 am, watchs wrote:
...

Einstein's paper even did not carry even Single Reference in the end.

Hi Watch
Don't know what you're implying, but
anyway his 1905 SR paper is reasonably
well referenced throughout.
Example, Maxwell's equation in introduction.
A footnote in Chp.3 to Lorentz Transformation.
etc.
Nothing wrong with "in text" refs, just as
good or better than an "end list".

Today's "peer reviewed" publications are
profit driven, and want to see a bunch of
refs to their pet journal, for advertising,
it's a business that sells rags, that's the
system.
Regards
Ken

right

your references you put in your paper are grate

Thanks, yeah, look at the partial diff's
in Part II, "Maxwell-Hertz equations",
then in Chp. 7 "Doppler", then in a footnote
in Chp. 10, about M. Planck's work.
Seems AE gave a reasonable account of his
sources, and admitted issues, where Planck
is concerned. This I now find to be an good
basis for the General Theory of Relativity,
that is, that Planck's "h" is an invariant
constant.

Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Sep 28, 2:42 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Sep 28, 1:19 pm, jcon wrote:



On Sep 27, 9:15 am, Randy Poe wrote:

I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,
but I invite all of the anti-Einsteinians to contribute.
(You know you will anyway. You're here because
you couldn't resist the title.)

Androcles in particular believes that Einstein's 1905
SR paper is full of nonsensical statements and
elementary errors that any child should catch. Yet
we have the indisputable fact that the version of the
paper we know was accepted and published in
Annalen der Physik, one of the premier physics
journals of the day.

So I invite you to imagine what the editorial process
was. How did a paper with such obvious errors end
up being blessed by the editors and referees and
published in a research journal?

Just to be clear, I think Einstein's 1905 paper is
a masterpiece, and is one of the few original works
I can think of that is still very readable to a modern
audience (as opposed to, say, Maxwell's papers).

On the other hand, merely getting published in 1905
isn't evidence of being correct. If you've ever
gone through the exercise of reading old
scientific papers, you'll realize standards
were a *lot* lower back then.

So your theory then is that just about anything
could have gotten through? Then why so few papers
published per year? Were they were desperate
for content, like the specialty cable TV channels
are today?


I believe I made clear that the sort of simple
arithmetic errors that nuts like Androcles, Wilson, etc
get excited about would not have gotten through.

I was arguing that merely getting published, in 1905
is not proof that the paper is correct.

Indeed, I think if you do a search of theoretical
papers published in 1905, you will find many of them
wrong, and some of them "silly".

I'll admit I've never made a study of old theory
papers, but I've spent some time perusing old
experimental results, and there's some remarkable
crap published up until well into the latter half
of the 20th century.

In particular, peer review did not become common until
the middle of the 20th century, and 1905 Annalen der Physik
was definitely not reviewed by anyone but the editors.

Ah, so at least there were editors. But you don't
think editors ever rejected anything?


I was refuting your phrase "editors and referees".
There were no referees. There's no particular
reason to believe there were editors (plural).
It's entirely possible that the paper was only
read by one person before being published.

In fact, Einstein's first recorded interaction with
a reviewer was in 1936, when he was so insulted that
that the Physical Review had the audacity to show his
paper to an "outside specialist" without his
express permission that he *withdrew it in disgust*:http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html
It's clear from his indignation that he believed
anything he wrote should be published without
question. For the record, in the paper, Einstein
concluded that gravitational waves could not
exist (!!), so it would have been a permanent
embarrassment if it had been published.

Well, we have on the record a number of opinions
Einstein had that later changed, or that didn't
and turned out to be incorrect. He didn't believe
in black holes, and he had the well-known philosophical
aversion to the probabilistic view of nature in QM.
He also introduced the cosmological constant, then
later decided that was a blunder (but as I understand
it, he might have been right in the first place).

I think these kind of things just help point out
that we was, after all, human. Something the
crackpots just don't want to hear anyone say.


My point was that as late as 1936, Einstein was
(unpleasantly) surprised to find his work
peer-reviewed. Many journals at that time would
have published the incorrect paper verbatim.
In fact, one did, but by that time Einstein
had found the mistake himself.


As far as experimental papers go, you don't have to
go back very far before error analysis gets shoddy
and then non-existent.

Of course, you're correct that the editors of
A d. Phys. would never have missed the sort of
silly errors the kooks on this NG regularly bring
up, but they could certainly have missed some
logical flaws, had they been there.

Even with peer review, some flaws get published. But
we've had a century to review Einstein's work, and
I'm not aware of any sane person finding a problem
with it.


No argument, but the same could not be said for
everything published in 1905.

-jc

- Randy