Einstein's first paper contained no explicit reference to previous
work by others, and the math in the paper was not arduous.

This set of circumstances has given by-standers the impression that
this is all he had to go on. People make the erroneous conclusion
therefore that he invented this out of whole cloth; that he was not
familiar with experimental or theoretical findings to date, or that he
in no way relied on them; and that he did all of his preparatory work
in his spare time while he had another day job using simple arguments
and mathematics.

The easy leap that the by-stander will make is, "I can do that."

This, however, would be a dreadful mistake.

This is akin to watching a free-climber scaling a cliff with nothing
but what looks to be sneakers on his feet and chalk on the fingers,
and remarking, "Heck, I've got a pair of sneakers and I know where to
get chalk. I can do that. If it were hard, where is all of his fancy
equipment?" Of course, it usually only takes about a 4-foot climb to
realize that there's more to it than it appears.

Just a word of caution: If you have happened to read Lisa Randall's
"Warped Passages", Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos", Stephen
Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", or Albert Einstein's "Explaining
Relativity", and you think that what you have read is the depth of
what they've done, then you are about to attempt a cliff climb with
poor equipment, no practice, no skills, and worst of all, no sense of
your own limitations. Your only saving grace is that you stand little
chance of climbing high enough to be dangerous to yourself or others.

PD

"PD" wrote in message
...
: Einstein's first paper contained no explicit reference to previous
: work by others, and the math in the paper was not arduous.

Just idiotically wrong.
You and Blind Poe get full marks for stating what things are not.


Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson, Tom & Jeery et. al. fail to realise is
the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'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

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...

"PD" wrote in message
...
: Einstein's first paper contained no explicit reference to previous
: work by others, and the math in the paper was not arduous.
[snip irrelevance]
In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Einstien never use light have a speed of c+v or c-v. It was always c

[snip more irrelevance]
c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'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

That is a definition of what it means for two clocks to be synchronised.

[snip more crap]

nothing left

"PD" wrote in message
...
Einstein's first paper contained no explicit reference to previous
work by others,

That appears to have been on purpose... As far as I know, that was highly
irregular for Einstein as well as for the journal he published in.

and the math in the paper was not arduous.

It was mostly OK. :-)

This set of circumstances has given by-standers the impression that
this is all he had to go on. People make the erroneous conclusion
therefore that he invented this out of whole cloth; that he was not
familiar with experimental or theoretical findings to date, or that he
in no way relied on them; and that he did all of his preparatory work
in his spare time while he had another day job using simple arguments
and mathematics.

That was apparently the intended effect; and in part it was highly
succesful!

The easy leap that the by-stander will make is, "I can do that."

This, however, would be a dreadful mistake.

This is akin to watching a free-climber scaling a cliff with nothing
but what looks to be sneakers on his feet and chalk on the fingers,
and remarking, "Heck, I've got a pair of sneakers and I know where to
get chalk. I can do that. If it were hard, where is all of his fancy
equipment?" Of course, it usually only takes about a 4-foot climb to
realize that there's more to it than it appears.

Just a word of caution: If you have happened to read Lisa Randall's
"Warped Passages", Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos", Stephen
Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", or Albert Einstein's "Explaining
Relativity",

I'm afraid that I gave all of them a miss ;-)

and you think that what you have read is the depth of
what they've done, then you are about to attempt a cliff climb with
poor equipment, no practice, no skills, and worst of all, no sense of
your own limitations. Your only saving grace is that you stand little
chance of climbing high enough to be dangerous to yourself or others.

What kind of cliff would they want to climb? Derive another theory perhaps?

Harald