Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 28 Mar 2010 17:39 On Mar 24, 6:01 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > Einstein effectively said to do exactly this. > > Take two presynched clocks A and B and separate them by a distance D. > > Send time signals from A to B and from B to A. > > If tAB =\= tBA then....don't worry about it. Just change one of the clocks so > tAB DOES equal tBA....then my whole theory becomes true. > > Now, as any scientist knows, the deliberate falsification of experimental > results to fit the theory is a crime that would normally see the perpetrator > expelled for life. > ================= > I want to know how Einstein has been let off the hook for so long..... Well... Firstly he wrote a paper that seemed to embrace some the same notions you hold. They were widely accepted in his time so that pacified most of his detractors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect#Modern_view But it was pure stroke of luck, no effort at all on his part, they were breaking up the last of the guillotines and had no way to execute him even if they secured a conviction. Today, of course, he would simply be prosecuted and executed in the state of Texas and you would be free to attend to more pressing issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein Sue... > > Henry Wilson... >
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 28 Mar 2010 21:13 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:33:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 24.03.2010 11:01, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> Einstein effectively said to do exactly this. >> >> Take two presynched clocks A and B and separate them by a distance D. >> >> Send time signals from A to B and from B to A. >> >> If tAB =\= tBA then....don't worry about it. Just change one of the clocks so >> tAB DOES equal tBA....then my whole theory becomes true. > >I see. A repetition of your claim that: >"Einstein's synchronization method can make the TWLS isotropic > even if it isn't." > >Which reminds me of our conversation back in 2003, where >Henry Wilson after being hard pressed, >ended up with this gem: >| Irrespective of what I might have said or what you claim that >| I might have said or what I might have been mistakenly interpreted >| to have said, my only claim is that a synch method can make >| TWLS appear isotropic along a particular axis. > >Hilarious, no? :-) No....but this is...: ....."If the clocks don't give the readings my theory requires, just change the clocks...."______ Einstein 1905 Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Inertial on 28 Mar 2010 22:31 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:2hvvq5difagifv5qm0296lj9u1fct2l78e(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:33:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <someone(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: > >>On 24.03.2010 11:01, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> Einstein effectively said to do exactly this. >>> >>> Take two presynched clocks A and B and separate them by a distance D. >>> >>> Send time signals from A to B and from B to A. >>> >>> If tAB =\= tBA then....don't worry about it. Just change one of the >>> clocks so >>> tAB DOES equal tBA....then my whole theory becomes true. >> >>I see. A repetition of your claim that: >>"Einstein's synchronization method can make the TWLS isotropic >> even if it isn't." >> >>Which reminds me of our conversation back in 2003, where >>Henry Wilson after being hard pressed, >>ended up with this gem: >>| Irrespective of what I might have said or what you claim that >>| I might have said or what I might have been mistakenly interpreted >>| to have said, my only claim is that a synch method can make >>| TWLS appear isotropic along a particular axis. >> >>Hilarious, no? :-) You can always set clocks in such a way as to give isotropic times for any signal or object etc travelling forward and back. Correctly set clocks, of course, will show equal times as equal, and unequal times as unequal. If clocks are not doing that, then they are not correctly set, and so if you WANT them to be correctly set, you need to adjust them. > No....but this is...: > > ...."If the clocks don't give the readings my theory requires, just change > the > clocks...."______ Einstein 1905 He never said that, of course. However, it is trivially true that correctly set clocks will show equal times as equal, and unequal times as unequal. If clocks are not doing that, then they are not correctly set, and so if you WANT them to be correctly set, you need to adjust them.
From: cosmojoe on 28 Mar 2010 22:42 Inertial wrote: > > "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message > news:plnoq55acbl4fdce216re4g2lv81f6jek7(a)4ax.com... > >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:30:21 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>> news:lvgnq5hrg1c9bt7j1u3p94706a4povngq6(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:14:47 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>> <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mar 24, 3:55 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:13:37 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>>> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >On Mar 24, 3:00 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>>> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>>> >> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >This is still not falsification of data or scientific fraud, >>>>>> >especially since (as you say) the very same procedure would be used >>>>>> >according to ballistic theory. This is why it was patently >>>>>> obvious to >>>>>> >anyone reading your post that it was ill-considered. You are >>>>>> probably >>>>>> >deeply embarrassed by having posted it in the first place. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not at all Diaper. >>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein plainly advocated the deliberate fabrication of experimental >>>>>> results >>>>>> in order that his theory would appear to be correct. His concern was >>>>>> that the >>>>>> aether, in which he clearly believed, would render his concept of >>>>>> relativity >>>>>> inoperable. >>>>>> Frankly, I cannot see why all the fuss when Lorentz had already shown >>>>>> that all >>>>>> observers would measure OWLS as 'c' because of the LTs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein ended up with the same formulae...surprise, surprise...... >>>>>> In other words, he didn't contribute anything new...and >>>>>> unwittingly, he >>>>>> managed >>>>>> to get clock synching right because his definition was straight BaTh. >>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein was nothing but a fraudulent con man..... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is a typical retort, Henri. When confronted with the inanity of >>>>> the content of your original post, you attempt to deflect attention >>>>> from the inanity with a cloud of chaff, a barrage of propaganda and >>>>> cavalier statements that are even more shamelessly outlandish. >>>>> >>>>> PD >>>> >>>> >>>> If the clocks don't give you the answer you want, just fake their >>>> readings....Einstein 1905 >>> >>> >>> Total lie .. as expected from the well known liar and fraud Henry >> >> >> Aww! Did I upset the ratpack? > > > No .. not at all. We're well used to you lying. > >> Einstein said "if two synched clocks DO NOT show that tAB =\= tBA, >> then simply >> change one of the clocks so it will. > > > What he said was that the time tAB must be equal to the time tBA (and > even you agree that that is the case .. even in ballistic theory). So > if you have two clocks that do *not* show that, they cannot be in sync > (ie they are showing something wrong). > > So .. if you want two clocks to be synchronised, then you need to adjust > them to make them in sync. There is nothing fraudulent about doing > that. It is simply a calibration. > >> "THEN MY THEORY WILL WORK AND THE DINGLEBERRIES WONT SEE THAT I HAVE >> COMPLETELY >> FOOLED THEM. Hooray!". > > > Again. A total lie. > > Having recently observed and measured luminiferous ether myself, I understand that Einstein's mathematical approach is valid, though somewhat hyperbolized in a few areas, but fundamentally flawed in premise as to why nature behaves as it does. I doubt that he intentionally perpetrated a hoax, though the results of his efforts prove to be as bad as a hoax, and a very big, serious one, setting science back 75 years.
From: Inertial on 28 Mar 2010 22:43
"cosmojoe" <cosmojoe(a)hawaiiantel.net> wrote in message news:4bb01283$0$16335$6d36acad(a)usenetnewsserver.com... > Inertial wrote: > >> >> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >> news:plnoq55acbl4fdce216re4g2lv81f6jek7(a)4ax.com... >> >>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:30:21 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>> news:lvgnq5hrg1c9bt7j1u3p94706a4povngq6(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:14:47 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>> <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 24, 3:55 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:13:37 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>>>> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >On Mar 24, 3:00 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>>>> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>>>> >> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >This is still not falsification of data or scientific fraud, >>>>>>> >especially since (as you say) the very same procedure would be used >>>>>>> >according to ballistic theory. This is why it was patently >>>>>>> obvious to >>>>>>> >anyone reading your post that it was ill-considered. You are >>>>>>> probably >>>>>>> >deeply embarrassed by having posted it in the first place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not at all Diaper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein plainly advocated the deliberate fabrication of >>>>>>> experimental >>>>>>> results >>>>>>> in order that his theory would appear to be correct. His concern was >>>>>>> that the >>>>>>> aether, in which he clearly believed, would render his concept of >>>>>>> relativity >>>>>>> inoperable. >>>>>>> Frankly, I cannot see why all the fuss when Lorentz had already >>>>>>> shown >>>>>>> that all >>>>>>> observers would measure OWLS as 'c' because of the LTs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein ended up with the same formulae...surprise, surprise...... >>>>>>> In other words, he didn't contribute anything new...and unwittingly, >>>>>>> he >>>>>>> managed >>>>>>> to get clock synching right because his definition was straight >>>>>>> BaTh. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein was nothing but a fraudulent con man..... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a typical retort, Henri. When confronted with the inanity of >>>>>> the content of your original post, you attempt to deflect attention >>>>>> from the inanity with a cloud of chaff, a barrage of propaganda and >>>>>> cavalier statements that are even more shamelessly outlandish. >>>>>> >>>>>> PD >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If the clocks don't give you the answer you want, just fake their >>>>> readings....Einstein 1905 >>>> >>>> >>>> Total lie .. as expected from the well known liar and fraud Henry >>> >>> >>> Aww! Did I upset the ratpack? >> >> >> No .. not at all. We're well used to you lying. >> >>> Einstein said "if two synched clocks DO NOT show that tAB =\= tBA, then >>> simply >>> change one of the clocks so it will. >> >> >> What he said was that the time tAB must be equal to the time tBA (and >> even you agree that that is the case .. even in ballistic theory). So if >> you have two clocks that do *not* show that, they cannot be in sync (ie >> they are showing something wrong). >> >> So .. if you want two clocks to be synchronised, then you need to adjust >> them to make them in sync. There is nothing fraudulent about doing that. >> It is simply a calibration. >> >>> "THEN MY THEORY WILL WORK AND THE DINGLEBERRIES WONT SEE THAT I HAVE >>> COMPLETELY >>> FOOLED THEM. Hooray!". >> >> >> Again. A total lie. >> >> > Having recently observed and measured luminiferous ether myself, BAHAHAHA .. you're funny. > I understand that Einstein's mathematical approach is valid, though > somewhat hyperbolized in a few areas, but fundamentally flawed in premise > as to why nature behaves as it does. > > I doubt that he intentionally perpetrated a hoax, though the results of > his efforts prove to be as bad as a hoax, and a very big, serious one, > setting science back 75 years. Hardly .. it advanced greatly due to his work and the other physicists of his time. |