Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 25 Mar 2010 17:40 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > 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 Really Henri, you think so? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Androcles on 25 Mar 2010 17:58 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:q3knq5t1kudrddcmp83uce48u3rhalcfdn(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:52:28 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:qcgnq5tcjc15phnvn7me38f18a89gd8lk1(a)4ax.com... > >>> You are talking here about an entirely different situation. WE ARE >>> discussing >>> two clocks that are MAR. >> >>Bullshit! >>"We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot >>be >>defined at all unless 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. " >> >>There is nothing about any fuckin' "MAR" in that, so you have no hook to >>hang Einstein on, you babbling cretin. You can only hang him for what he >>said, not what he didn't say. He's off the hook because you have no hook, >>you don't know what he said. He's not even discussing clocks, let alone >>"MAR" clocks, your argument is marred. >> >> > > Androcles, with a 0.13E+07 IQ on the Awilson's snipping scale. > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his MARred brain. -- Androcles ........provider of expensive physics lessons Awilson (my pet chimp) can't afford.
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 18:02 On Mar 25, 3:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:14:47 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(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 Aaaaaaand your back to claiming that calibrating a pH meter is faking the meter's readings. You're a hoot, Henri. You fill a clown car all by yourself. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 18:03 On Mar 25, 3:13 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:03:11 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I don't see how can you consider here a variable v in a definition of > >> "time" compatible with human intuition > > >The definition of 'time' does not depend on v nor the speed of light. > >The definition of 'time' does depend on light (or EM) but not on its > >speed. > > >Simplifying: 'Time' at a location is the value indicated by the > >(synched) clock at the location of the event. This clock has been > >synched as follows: Send an EM From Master_clock to Synched_clock, > >reflected_back to the Master_clock. Note the value (interval) > >indicated by the master clock. Divide this value by two. This is the > >value that the synched clock will take (as it has received the EM). > > Hahahhahaha! > > thanks for pointing out that because light is balistic, this is indeed a valid > way to absolutely synch clocks. > > > > >There are equivalent variants/formulation of this definition of time. > >Note that the role of the speed of light is not part of the definition > >nor does it play any role. 'speed' is defined *after* the definition > >of 'time'. > > >Human intuition has nothing to do with the "modern" definition of > >time. That is a reason why SR is so unintuitive for the Lay ( and > >"experts" ). > > SR is indeed unintuiutive..and completely wrong. Gee. SR is simple and intuitive. Why do you have a problem? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 25 Mar 2010 18:29
"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. |