Dastardly Fiend wrote:

"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pvv9p1l593u0jsliu80eqml3ds86pnlm7c@4ax.com...

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:55:22 GMT, "Dastardly Fiend" <*****@wacky.race>
wrote:

"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2j19p1trdjfjv96hfvmnp19tbjbgrbbgfu@4ax.com...

Here is the reason that Einstein had a poor understanding of his own
theories:

[snip, I did read]


Albert Einstein was better than Harry Houdini,
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/3487/
better than David Copperfield, Louis.
http://www.davidcopperfield.com/#

All three knew about smoke and mirrors, but Einstein's smoke and
mirrors is on paper. David Copperfield can make an elephant disappear.
Einstein could make time disappear. And he's more famous. At the age of
13
he got his first inspiration from
http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/every.htm
That's not dumb, that's pretty smart.

Androcles.

I think you're right. He was smarter at playing the con game than I
give him credit for. Heck, come to think of it, he was a genius.

He WAS a genius, Louis. I'd never play dice with him. Even God lost,
which is why God doesn't play dice anymore.
And like all of us, Einstein got better at it as he gained experience.
To catch him out you have to understand a little psychology,
look at his background and examine his writings.
The math is the con. To see through that takes a little knowledge,
but look at the psychology instead.
He got ***** at school because his teachers were poor and told
him he would never make it. That put his back up more than anything.
He was stuck in a job he didn't like, checking out patents for cuckoo
clocks,
which was the prime industry of Switzerland.
He's read H G Wells' "Time Machine", Lorentz on MMX, Rouse Ball on
triangles. So he gets a hard-on for time, sees a way to get ahead in
life,
writes
some papers. Lo and behold, he gets published.
Now he has a tiger by the tail, he can't let go or it will eat him alive.
He even tries to be honest, but that tiger tail stays firmly in his grip.
So he tells us:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain;
as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."--Albert
Einstein
Which means it was all a con.

Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing. -- Albert
Einstein
He has a conscience. He contributed nothing, got the good life.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
He made it all up. It worked.


"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would
make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a
Beethoven
symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein
He loves art, but art cannot be described. Art is subjective.

"If A equals success, then the formula is _ A = _ X + _ Y + _ Z. _ X is
work. _ Y is play. _ Z is keep your mouth shut." -- Albert Einstein
He's got a tiger by the tail.

"If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith." -- Albert Einstein

He's got a tiger by the tail.

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Albert
Einstein
The Magic Circle doesn't let on how the trick is done.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein
Tongue in cheek.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not
sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
You are all suckers.


"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment
and hope of reward after death." --Einstein, Albert
He doesn't give a rat's arse.

No question of it, he was a genius and a class act.
I DO admire him.
His physics are fucking hopeless, he knew it, but it floated his boat and
made him as
wealthy as he needed. Pure Genius.

Androcles

Quite right, Androcles. Yet don't underestimate Einstein's zombies. I
think Bryan Wallace, one of their numerous victims, has characterised
them in the best way:

Bryan Wallace http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :

"There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is
sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest
profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and
well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex
had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive
knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the
same way as the dominant scientific and religious politicians of our
time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with Weart's argument that the
earliest scientists were the prehistoric shamans, and the argument of
Feyerabend that puts science on a par with religion and prostitution. I
also tend to agree with the argument of Ellis that states that both
science and theology have much in common, and both attempt to model
reality on arguments based on unprovable articles of faith. Using the
logic that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles
like a duck, it must be a duck: I support the argument that since there
is no significant difference between science and religion, science
should be considered a religion! I would also agree with Ellis'
argument of the obvious methodological differences between science and
the other religions. The other dominant religions are static because
their arguments are based on rigid doctrines set forth by their
founders, such as Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, who have died long ago.
Science on the other hand, is a dynamic religion that was developed by
many men over a long period of time, and it has a flexible doctrine,
the scientific method, that demands that the arguments change to
conform to the evolving observational and experimental evidence.

The word science was derived from the Latin word scientia, which means
knowledge, so we see that the word, in essence, is just another word
for knowledge. An associate of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a
Professor of Physics at Eckerd College, once told me that students in
his graduate school used to joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and
Deeper. If one considers the vast array of abstract theoretical garbage
that dominates modern physics and astronomy, this appears to be an
accurate description of the degree. Considering the results from
Mahoney's field trial that showed Protestant ministers were two to
three times more likely to use scientific methodology than Ph.D.
scientists, it seems reasonable to consider that they have two to three
times more right to be called scientists then the so-called Ph.D.
scientists. I would agree with Popper's argument that observations are
theory-laden, and there is no way to prove an argument beyond a
reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at the very least, the scientist
should do more than pay lip service to the scientific method. The true
scientist must have faith and believe in the scientific method of
testing theories, and not in the theories themselves. I agree with
Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is something that pretends to be a
science but does not obey the rules of good conduct common to all
sciences." Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not
follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled
pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in
the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence
against the theories they believe in, should be considered
pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the
professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or
political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes."

Pentcho Valev

Quite right, Androcles. Yet don't underestimate Einstein's zombies. I
think Bryan Wallace, one of their numerous victims, has characterised
them in the best way: