"JanPB" wrote in message
ups.com...
: Note to "nill": the above technical post is a perfect example of what
: I was talking about: mostly nonsense dressed up to look like science.
: Unfortunately for a person not well-versed into the subject, it is
: next to impossible to tell nonsense like this from the genuine
: article.

Oh, you mean "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
Yes, it is mostly nonsense dressed up to look like science.

On Oct 7, 2:19 pm, JanPB wrote:
On Oct 7, 6:11 am, " wrote:

On Oct 6, 7:19 pm, JanPB wrote:

On Oct 6, 12:15 pm, nill wrote:

1. for all practical purposes all claims that relativity has an error
in it or that Einstein didn't create relativity can be safely ignored
Jan Bielawski

SNIFF. That was BeeUteeFULL JAN just like u.

Thank you.

I am so happy to know that if JAN or Poincare ever finds out through
her extensive research that M = E/C^2, all I need to do is write E =
MC^2 and I'M no longer a PLAGIARIST!!!

Writing down a formula is one thing, creating a new theory which
reproduces this formula is another thing.

Obviously, if the formula was correct, the new theory must necessarily
reproduce it if it's to be any good.

Both authors deserve credit for what they did.

[snip]

--
Jan Bielawski

Snipping the lipstick, now that's one lucky hubby!

"nill" wrote in message
ups.com...
i hear a lot of people around me telling
that it wasnt einstein inventing relativity,
but some other guys before him

exactly what was einsteins contributon
to relativity, did he stole his tensors?

- For general relativity: see pmb's reply.

- In case you meant special relativity (do you know the difference?): that
was the outcome of the work of several people and originally it was known as
"the theory of Einstein and Lorentz". Some important contributions by
Einstein: he derived the Lorentz transformation equations directly from the
principle of relativity and he pointed out that time dilation can be
measured as a physical phenomenon.

- "The Principle of Relativity":
http://tinyurl.com/28hkc6

- The New York Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive... E&oref=slogin

But note: It's obvious that you're a troll. I only replied because some
others replied and therewith gave value to this thread.

Harald

"Dave Cook" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-06, nill wrote:
i hear a lot of people around me telling
that it wasnt einstein inventing relativity,
but some other guys before him

Lorentz and Poincare did important work but were never able to make
the final leap that Einstein made. Also, I don't believe they had
that much influence on Einstein's 1905 paper.

What leap do you mean - a leap of faith perhaps? If so, I agree. Einstein
was perhaps the first one to fully *believe* in the principle of relativity,
without reservations. It is open for debate if that is a good scientific
attitude; fact is that he bet on a Winner.

Cheers,
Harald

On Oct 6, 10:08 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Note to "nill".

Mr. Bielawski is a professional film commentator. He criticizes on
films that deem fit in degrees of politically correctness. He is part
of the problem that promotes the lies in history.

Your posts about me have the same content as your posts about physics:
random guesswork.

Fortunately to the scholars who seek the truth, no matter how much
these guys can foul up historical accounts or mutilate historic
documents such as Hilbert's original paper on the derivation of field
equations, the forensic evidences still remain in the very mathematics
involved. Math can never lie. Although math can be manipulated to
fool the ignorance or the ones subjected to tremendous peer pressure,
anyone with great regards to the mathematics can easily see through
these lies.

That's all very nice but you do not understand the basics behind all
this mathematics so why you think anyone should pay any attention to
your claims about physics or Einstein's contributions to it is a
mystery.

--
Jan Bielawski

On Oct 6, 9:57 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Oct 6, 9:50 pm, JanPB wrote:



Exactly. And this has always been the case, e.g. Newton didn't pull
calculus out of thin air,

Well, Newton and Leibniz independent did just pull calculus out of
thin air. Calculus was a quantum jump. shrug

Just like relativity. But it was based partially on what went on
before.

Maxwell didn't just write down his four equations, and so on.

Maxwell's original works were based on potentials that spread out into
several more equations. It was Heaviside who condensed and went
beyond Maxwell's works into these four equations known as Maxwell's
equations today.

He didn't get them out of nowhere.

--
Jan Bielawski

"JanPB" wrote in message
s.com...
On Oct 7, 6:11 am, " wrote:
On Oct 6, 7:19 pm, JanPB wrote:

On Oct 6, 12:15 pm, nill wrote:

1. for all practical purposes all claims that relativity has an error
in it or that Einstein didn't create relativity can be safely ignored
Jan Bielawski

SNIFF. That was BeeUteeFULL JAN just like u.

Thank you.

I am so happy to know that if JAN or Poincare ever finds out through
her extensive research that M = E/C^2, all I need to do is write E =
MC^2 and I'M no longer a PLAGIARIST!!!

Writing down a formula is one thing, creating a new theory which
reproduces this formula is another thing.

Obviously, if the formula was correct, the new theory must necessarily
reproduce it if it's to be any good.

Both authors deserve credit for what they did.

And they have it, although the naysayers of relativity would never accept
that fact. Lack of knowledge is what gets them into trouble.

Pete

"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..

"JanPB" wrote in message
s.com...
On Oct 7, 6:11 am, " wrote:
On Oct 6, 7:19 pm, JanPB wrote:

On Oct 6, 12:15 pm, nill wrote:

1. for all practical purposes all claims that relativity has an error
in it or that Einstein didn't create relativity can be safely ignored
Jan Bielawski

SNIFF. That was BeeUteeFULL JAN just like u.

Thank you.

I am so happy to know that if JAN or Poincare ever finds out through
her extensive research that M = E/C^2, all I need to do is write E =
MC^2 and I'M no longer a PLAGIARIST!!!

Writing down a formula is one thing, creating a new theory which
reproduces this formula is another thing.

Obviously, if the formula was correct, the new theory must necessarily
reproduce it if it's to be any good.

Both authors deserve credit for what they did.

And they have it, although the naysayers of relativity would never accept
that fact. Lack of knowledge is what gets them into trouble.

Pete

By the way, who was it that started this lie about Einstein plagerizing
Poincare or anyone else? And what are they using as a source of their
information. It sure can't be the American Journal of Physics because that
Journal, through the articles it publishes, demonstraits otherwise, i.e.
that Poincare had an impact on SR but never took it to the level of a
principle, never mind constructing a theory of relativity. Actually I mean
that he never constructed a theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies,
since that was what the area of research was bing done in. Hence the titles
of Einstein's famous 1905 paper on SR, i.e. "On The Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies."

I will soon make available AJP articles on my other website so that those
who have been calling Einstein a plagerist can get the true story.
Regardless if they want to believe the truth or not. In return I'd like to
know what they used as source material and "logic" to conclude that Einstein
was a "plagerist." Only seems fair, right?

Best regards

Pete