Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 29 Mar 2010 18:56 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:3h32r51havo2auhjqfb3h2f06najt4mf63(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:43:07 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"cosmojoe" <cosmojoe(a)hawaiiantel.net> wrote in message >>news:4bb01283$0$16335$6d36acad(a)usenetnewsserver.com... >>> Inertial wrote: >>> > >>>> 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. > > no 'funnier ' than you. > >>> 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. > > What about all those floundering astronomers who try to formulate > ridiculous > theories based on the fairytale that all starlight travels towards little > planet Earth at precisely c? Why would you expect it to travel any differently toward earth than any other planet?
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 30 Mar 2010 18:15 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:56:39 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:3h32r51havo2auhjqfb3h2f06najt4mf63(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:43:07 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>>> 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. >> >> What about all those floundering astronomers who try to formulate >> ridiculous >> theories based on the fairytale that all starlight travels towards little >> planet Earth at precisely c? > >Why would you expect it to travel any differently toward earth than any >other planet? Because light moves at c wrt its source. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 30 Mar 2010 18:16 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:41:28 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >[...] > >> What about all those floundering astronomers who try to formulate >> ridiculous theories based on the fairytale that all starlight travels >> towards little planet Earth at precisely c? > >Did you ever ask that question when you supposedly worked at an observatory? We only observed the sun's surface. Willusions are negligible at that range. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on 30 Mar 2010 18:46 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:41:28 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>> What about all those floundering astronomers who try to formulate >>> ridiculous theories based on the fairytale that all starlight travels >>> towards little planet Earth at precisely c? >> >>Did you ever ask that question when you supposedly worked at an >>observatory? > > We only observed the sun's surface. Willusions are negligible at that > range. So that would be a "no" then. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Inertial on 30 Mar 2010 06:25
"Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message news:hos3d8$2f5$6(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message > news:4badec3f$0$27813$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> "Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message >> news:hoiilb$gsh$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message >>> news:4babeeb9$0$8832$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>> >>>> "Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message >>>> news:hofi7l$qq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> >>>>> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:4baacb25$0$8848$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>>>> "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:d52259ff-9ab7-4997-92c5-b9982c781f55(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2:08 pm, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>< The 'v' is based on the (definition) of time. This is why that >>>>>>>>even >>>>>>>>though the out and in speed of light may be different, the TWLS is >>>>>>>>always >>>>>>>>insured to be constant due to the definition. > >>>>>> >>>>>> In the 1905 paper, isotropic light speed is a postulate. It is >>>>>> assumed >>>>>> true throughout the paper (as it should be) >>>>> >>>>> Events propagate >>>> >>>> Events don't propagate. >>>> >>>>> at a constant speed ONLY in >>>>> lossless homogeneous media. >>>> >>>> Or empty space .. which is lossless and homogenous >>>> >>>>> The velocity of an electro-magnetic wave >>>>> is a function of the permeability and permittivity of the medium, >>>>> and many lossless homogeneous medium exist. >>>> >>>> Noone is saying they don't >>>> >>>> You post does not seem to address anything that I'd said that you >>>> appear >>>> to be replying to. >>>> >>>>> I suggest that the poster do a BING search on "slow glass". >>>> >>>> Which poster is that .. the OP? There's certainly no need for me to do >>>> it, as I'm already familiar with the term. >>> >>> I am pleased to see that my pal "Inertial" >>> comprehends that unlike Maxwell's model, >>> which works with space, sparse matter, liquids, >>> solids, and crystals, >>> >>> Relativity only works with space devoid of matter. >> >> Nope >> >>> My pal "Inertial" did make a good point when he pointed out >>> that "Events < Like the fictional photon.> don't propagate." >> >> A photon is not an event >> >>> The fictional photon being simply an event >>> associated with a change in the energy level of >>> an electron. >> >> Nope >> >>> Les lesser minds than "Inertial" miss the point, >>> photons are fictional and photon propagation is fictional, >> >> Yet they seem to get from point A to point B >> >>> and the ONLY thing that can be measured between >>> two events is an interaction time. >> >> Wrong >> >> Gees .. do you know ANY physics at all? > > I will be looking forward to seeing "Inertial" explain what > "can be measured between two events <other than> an interaction time. Distance Thanks for playing. |