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?

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.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message ups.com...
I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,

That makes you either a saint or a machochist.

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.)

Good one :-)


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?

Secret conspirary, set up and financed by the Joint
Committee of Patent Holders of the Bern Office.


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.

Yes.
Can't wait!

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...

"Randy Poe" wrote in message ups.com...
I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,

That makes you either a saint or a machochist.

heh... this was a type, but it looks even better than
the correction :-)

Dirk Vdm

"Randy Poe" escreveu na mensagem
ups.com...


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?


Easy.
By the time (1905) there was a lot of practial and
actual problems that need to be solved.
All of them depend on the light speed and how
such problems should be presented and understood,
since light takes time to travel.

And Einstein get it perfectly.

There are a set of typical and limited problems that
can be perfectly understood by means of relativity.

The evolution pos-Einstein, taken be those who
couldn't understand the limitation of the theory,
somehow created all this mess.

On Sep 27, 12:33 pm, "JM Albuquerque" [snip crap]
.... taken be those who
couldn't understand the theory, created all this mess.


Yes, you have created a mess. It streams out from your skull.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:33:54 +0100, "JM Albuquerque"
wrote:


"Randy Poe" escreveu na mensagem
oups.com...


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?


Easy.
By the time (1905) there was a lot of practial and
actual problems that need to be solved.
All of them depend on the light speed and how
such problems should be presented and understood,
since light takes time to travel.

And Einstein get it perfectly.

There are a set of typical and limited problems that
can be perfectly understood by means of relativity.

The evolution pos-Einstein, taken be those who
couldn't understand the limitation of the theory,
somehow created all this mess.


What mess?

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.
(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?

as a joke?


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.

- Randy

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...-trinions.html

[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.

"Juan R." wrote in message oups.com...
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.
[snip]
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.

[snip Juan's usual rant]

Excellent catch, Randy.
Juan spent a LOT of time here ;-)

Dirk Vdm

On Sep 28, 12:09 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Juan R." wrote in ooglegroups.com...
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.
[snip]
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.

[snip Juan's usual rant]

Sure Dirk sure I sound your alerts...

It is interesting you also deleted *without commenting* references i
cited. Do not worry i add they again below giving you a second try.

E.g. the ArXiv page [2] containing dozens of plagiarized works on
General relativity and cosmology...

You avoid about the plagiarized _General Relativity and Gravitation_,
Vol 39 (2007) 849-862 passing peer-review...

You avoid the physics today article explaining how confused and angry
Einstein was when peer-reviewed by the first time [3]...

Of course, Dirk, you will avoid comment here that Randy was not right
when he *supposed* that Einstein 1905 papers were peer-reviewed. They
were not. First time Einstein found peer-review policy was so latter
like 1936.

Yes, it may be hard for your Dirk and maybe for Randy, but it means
that since 1905 until 1936, Einstein never published in peer-review
literature!

Of course, you also avoid to comment Einstein first reviewed paper was
rejected because being wrong. You can avoid how wrong Einstein was and
how right the referee was, knowing more about relativity and waves
than Einstein did.

Of course, you also avoided to comment on recent Nature article,
explaining that in 1905 it was customary to publish almost anything
revolutionary, even when contradicting stablished theories [5]:

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

I will explain you in plain message:

In 1905, You were assumed to be right unless a Newtonian proved you
wrong.

In 2007, It is just contrary. You are assumed to be wrong unless you
can prove *all* relativists wrong.

It is more, if referee A says "This theory is fine" and referee B says
"This theory may be wrong", probably the Editor will reject the paper
because political and economical reasons. Because impact factors
issues editors prefer not publish polemic papers even if no referee
find mistakes.


[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


Excellent catch, Randy.
Juan spent a LOT of time here ;-)

Wow! Fine criticism.

Dirk Vdm



================================================== ========
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.