Science > Physics > What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2003 08:00:38 PM |
| Object: |
What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
--
Nate Hill <vugdeox@freeshell.org>
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
12 Oct 2003 12:44:21 PM |
|
|
Nathaniel A. A. Hill:
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
It's the same deal as the armchair quarterback who has never played
professional football. The armchair quarter believes the real quarterback
is a talentless bum and constantly criticizes him for every minor error
(in hindsight). At the same time he is oblivious to the fact the real
quarterback was chosen for logical reason. The real quarterback was chosen
for the position because he makes correct decisions and executes them more
often than not as well as doing so more often than other candidates for
the position. Place the armchair quarterback on the field and you'll see
the same thing happen there as you have witnessed on the newsgroups
regarding einstein. It will be apparent that the only quarterbacking
skill the armchair quarterback had was the ability to spot a mistake
after the fact and after it has been pointed out via the outcome of
the play.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
12 Oct 2003 01:08:48 PM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrnboj5q9.9h.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Nathaniel A. A. Hill:
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
It's the same deal as the armchair quarterback who has never played
professional football. The armchair quarter believes the real quarterback
is a talentless bum and constantly criticizes him for every minor error
(in hindsight). At the same time he is oblivious to the fact the real
quarterback was chosen for logical reason. The real quarterback was chosen
for the position because he makes correct decisions and executes them more
often than not as well as doing so more often than other candidates for
the position. Place the armchair quarterback on the field and you'll see
the same thing happen there as you have witnessed on the newsgroups
regarding einstein. It will be apparent that the only quarterbacking
skill the armchair quarterback had was the ability to spot a mistake
after the fact and after it has been pointed out via the outcome of
the play.
Brilliant analogy.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Australopithecus Afarensis" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
12 Oct 2003 09:50:12 PM |
|
|
I like the analogy of:
"Hey, look, mom! The emperor has no clothes!"
* * *
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnboj5q9.9h.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Nathaniel A. A. Hill:
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it
seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
It's the same deal as the armchair quarterback who has never played
professional football. The armchair quarter believes the real quarterback
is a talentless bum and constantly criticizes him for every minor error
(in hindsight). At the same time he is oblivious to the fact the real
quarterback was chosen for logical reason. The real quarterback was chosen
for the position because he makes correct decisions and executes them more
often than not as well as doing so more often than other candidates for
the position. Place the armchair quarterback on the field and you'll see
the same thing happen there as you have witnessed on the newsgroups
regarding einstein. It will be apparent that the only quarterbacking
skill the armchair quarterback had was the ability to spot a mistake
after the fact and after it has been pointed out via the outcome of
the play.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon D. Pusch" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
11 Oct 2003 11:40:19 PM |
|
|
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> writes:
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
They are all from the same person, who writes under the pseudonym of "Retiche."
He is using daily nym-shifting in a futile attempt to evade both KILLfiles
and the cancelbots. He SPAMs the same old crap, day after day, week afetr week,
on a rotating schedule that he believes technically complies to the letter of
AOL's anti-SPAM policy, even though it clearly violating its spirit in entirety.
(One of "Retiche's" SPAMs is a SPAM explaining why his SPAM is not in fact SPAM,
and that there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with his daily nym-shifting
in a blatant attempt to try to shove his SPAM down the throats of people who
have KILLfiled him because they are sick and tired of his SPAMming crap daily;
the fact of the matter is that SPAM is still SPAM, regardless of whether AOL
considers it SPAM or not, and that furthermore, as another poster has noted,
the Breidbart Index of "Retiche's" SPAMs exceeds 20, so that his SPAMs are
not only officially SPAM, but _CANCELABLE_ SPAM.)
I have filed over thirty complaints with AOL about "Retiche's" cancelable SPAM
and his blatant use of num-shifgting to evade KILLfiles and cancelbots, and so far,
they have not even done me the courtesy of an auto-reply, like most reputable ISPs.
I have therefore concluded that AOL is =NOT= a reputable ISP, and that it does not
give a rat's @$$ about aiding and abetting SPAMmers --- and since virtually
no one I _respect_ uses AOL as their ISP, I have KILLfiled their entire domain.
(At some point, I intend write AOL's President and CEO a registered letter
explaining that I have KILLfiled =ALL= of their customers because their
policy of allowing unlimited nym-shifting aids and abets SPAMmers, and
because their refusal to reply to SPAM complaints clearly send the message
that they do _not_ in fact care if their customers send SPAM, regardless of
what they claim their "Official Policy" is; perhaps _that_ will get some action...)
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
11 Oct 2003 11:58:57 PM |
|
|
"Gordon D. Pusch" <gdpusch@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:gi8ynrcbm4.fsf@pusch.xnet.com...
They are all from the same person, who writes under
the pseudonym of "Retiche."
I have filed over thirty complaints with AOL about "Retiche's" ...)
-- Gordon D. Pusch
AHahahahahah..........ahahahahaha.........
Grodi Gordy........it appears that you have to address much more
severe mental problems then "Retiche" does:
++ = Complaining for 30+ times about a fart in cyber space......
and then to be such a chicken ***** to redirect your own turd
to alt.falme....AHhahahahahaha........ahahahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Minor Crank" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
11 Oct 2003 10:54:17 PM |
|
|
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering
if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
Unfortunately yes. Anti-relativity crackpots abound on these newsgroups.
There's no stopping them in the unmoderated newsgroups. They post because
they are unable to publish in reputable journals. Responses here, even
negative responses, feed some need in them to be heard.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it
seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
A fair fraction our most persistent crackpots do seem to originate from AOL,
including "Retic" who posts under ever-changing screen names to defeat
newsreader filters, "Smart" who thinks he's an archangel inspired by God,
and Thomas whatever-his-last-name-is, starts with an "L", who hasn't kept up
with the literature but thinks he knows all about neutrinos. I don't think
it's really anything about AOL, it's just that AOL has a lot of members.
There are some good guys here with bona fide professional qualifications
whose posts are always worth reading. If you're interested in relativity,
for example, look out for posts by Steve Carlip, Tom Roberts, "Bilge," and
John Anderson.
Try not to engage the crackpots in debate. You can really waste lots of time
here doing so. I'm trying to kick the habit myself. Believe me, there is no
way to get your point across to these guys.
Minor Crank
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
12 Oct 2003 07:07:16 AM |
|
|
In article <Jf4ib.543937$cF.211918@rwcrnsc53>,
Minor Crank <blue_whaleANTISPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering
if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
Unfortunately yes. Anti-relativity crackpots abound on these newsgroups.
There's no stopping them in the unmoderated newsgroups. They post because
they are unable to publish in reputable journals. Responses here, even
negative responses, feed some need in them to be heard.
If Van Flandern can get published in Foundations of Physics and twice in
Phys Lett A, any anti-relativity crackpots that are ***** because
they can't get published should seriously consider the possibility that
their articles were rejected not because of the ideas contained within,
but because the development and support of those ideas was utter crap.
Try not to engage the crackpots in debate. You can really waste lots of time
here doing so. I'm trying to kick the habit myself. Believe me, there is no
way to get your point across to these guys.
I used to think their problem was a misunderstanding of the theory or the
evidence. But after wasting a lot of time I realized it's deeper and more
philosophical than that -- they think they know something about how the
universe REALLY works, and relativity ain't it. And any evidence they
see, like mesons living longer when they go faster, will be interpreted
in their preferred way. E.g. Spaceman's "The clock goofed" due to
undiscovered forces and influences that we know must be there because
Newton was right and Einstein was wrong, I believe it, that settles it.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
08 Nov 2003 01:33:36 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bmbg5k$vdt$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <Jf4ib.543937$cF.211918@rwcrnsc53>,
Minor Crank <blue_whaleANTISPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm
wondering
if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre.
[...]
I used to think their problem was a misunderstanding of the theory or the
evidence.
That's one theory. My theory is that, if a rational/obvious (ah ha) kind of
principle were available to the "free-thinkers" that they would be willing
to accept its consequences. That principle would explain why the speed of
light is "absolute" wrt to any frame.
I have one such theory in the making...
Regards
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
12 Oct 2003 07:53:14 AM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
In article <Jf4ib.543937$cF.211918@rwcrnsc53>,
Minor Crank <blue_whaleANTISPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering
if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
Unfortunately yes. Anti-relativity crackpots abound on these newsgroups.
There's no stopping them in the unmoderated newsgroups. They post because
they are unable to publish in reputable journals. Responses here, even
negative responses, feed some need in them to be heard.
If Van Flandern can get published in Foundations of Physics and twice in
Phys Lett A, any anti-relativity crackpots that are ***** because
they can't get published should seriously consider the possibility that
their articles were rejected not because of the ideas contained within,
but because the development and support of those ideas was utter crap.
Try not to engage the crackpots in debate. You can really waste lots of time
here doing so. I'm trying to kick the habit myself. Believe me, there is no
way to get your point across to these guys.
I used to think their problem was a misunderstanding of the theory or the
evidence. But after wasting a lot of time I realized it's deeper and more
philosophical than that -- they think they know something about how the
universe REALLY works, and relativity ain't it. And any evidence they
see, like mesons living longer when they go faster, will be interpreted
in their preferred way. E.g. Spaceman's "The clock goofed" due to
undiscovered forces and influences that we know must be there because
Newton was right and Einstein was wrong, I believe it, that settles it.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
Key words: development and support
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
12 Oct 2003 12:33:39 PM |
|
|
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings?
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but,
I'm wondering if anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre.
Nate Hill
For some they obviously suck.
For some they are obviously succulent.
To the author Retiche@aol it is a true success.
See, that way everybody succumbs........
Nate, don't take the bait.
ahahaha.......ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
13 Oct 2003 09:40:08 AM |
|
|
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:<WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
It's simple. Those people are very stupid. They also have huge egos.
They're so stupid and so egotistical that they think they're
brilliant. Their stupidity prevents them from understanding
relativity and their egos prevent them from realizing that their lack
of understanding is due to their own limitations. Thus the only
possibility acceptable to their pathetic little minds is that
relativity is wrong.
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
14 Oct 2003 09:27:42 PM |
|
|
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:<WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
Nate, by now you have seen the degree of support from the DHRists, and
at first glance the arrogance and condescension shown towards
dissenters of "The Belief" might be inclined to sway you towards their
position. But have a closer look at their arguements and agendas, and
generally a different picture emerges. These are the type of people
who would have held as strong a view of their beliefs had they been
raised and taught as devout Muslims, Christians, Brahmins, etc. Also,
in many cases their livelihoods and reputations are inexorably
entwined in the desperate need to maintain "The Theory". A Cardinal
isn't about to get up before the congregation, and say, "Sorry, on
further thought on the theory of Christ's Resurrection, I've changed
my mind". Neither can a DHR whose life depends on it, review the
faulty maths and mind pictures of AE, and declare terminal error.
The scary part is that zealots of the calibre of Gordon P, not content
with blanket censorship of that which would enlighten an
un-brainwashed mind, is intent on burning at the stake anyone with the
imagination and intelligence to see and point to the contradictions in
AE's work.
"Open minds"
Jim G
PS: Although AOLs may appear from 'observers' in the northern
hemisphere to be standing on our heads, it is only to make it easier
for arrogant and abusive DHR's the better to kiss our arse!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
15 Oct 2003 05:07:39 AM |
|
|
"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c4afb26.0310141827.14798047@posting.google.com...
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:<WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
Nate, by now you have seen the degree of support from the DHRists,
I wonder why you so suddenly stopped responding to the
rather interesting chat we had on thread
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=cfydb.45240$J%3.2002974@phobos.telenet-ops.be
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
16 Oct 2003 12:03:58 AM |
|
|
Actually, I thought that it was you dropped the ball.
Give me time to get through some interesting stuff on "Popping the Big Bang",
and I'll get back to you
Jim G
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
16 Oct 2003 09:27:42 AM |
|
|
(Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0310141827.14798047@posting.google.com>...
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:<WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
Nate, by now you have seen the degree of support from the DHRists, and
at first glance the arrogance and condescension shown towards
dissenters of "The Belief" might be inclined to sway you towards their
position. But have a closer look at their arguements and agendas, and
generally a different picture emerges. These are the type of people
who would have held as strong a view of their beliefs had they been
raised and taught as devout Muslims, Christians, Brahmins, etc. Also,
in many cases their livelihoods and reputations are inexorably
entwined in the desperate need to maintain "The Theory". A Cardinal
isn't about to get up before the congregation, and say, "Sorry, on
further thought on the theory of Christ's Resurrection, I've changed
my mind".
Perhaps not. However, a researcher, who makes his reputation
by the newness of his ideas, would become an instant star
if he were to stand up at a conference, proclaim errors
in relativity, and then provide rigorous proof.
Neither can a DHR whose life depends on it, review the
faulty maths and mind pictures of AE,
There is nobody in scientific research whose "life depends"
on holding up progress. However, if they were to stand
up and claim "faulty maths of AE" and then "illustrate" their
proof with an incoherent series of trivial algebra
mistakes, they would indeed lose their livelihood. Rightly
so.
The problem is not in criticism per se, in other words,
but in the sanity of the criticism. You have nothing
to say. Just because you are not the right person to
find any faults in relativity does not mean relativity
is perfect.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Coreleus Corneleus" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
12 Oct 2003 06:28:21 AM |
|
|
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:<WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
Television says that Einstein invented all of physics.
No one can be smart unless they 'prove Einstein wrong'.
They are just re-enforcing suppositions and inferences that they see
and hear on television.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Reany" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
12 Oct 2003 02:44:08 PM |
|
|
(Coreleus Corneleus) wrote in message news:<97d1d750.0310120328.3e939385@posting.google.com>...
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:<WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
Television says that Einstein invented all of physics.
Could you elaborate on this claim? Got any specific examples? I
haven't witnessed this myself, which is why I ask. In fact, I have
seen recent shows on cable that mention contributions from many many
physicists of the last 4 centuries.
No one can be smart unless they 'prove Einstein wrong'.
I don't see the logic in this thinking. Lot's of people have shown
themselves to be smart by building on top of what Einstein
accomplished.
They are just re-enforcing suppositions and inferences that they see
and hear on television.
Patrick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Coreleus Corneleus" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
12 Oct 2003 07:31:57 PM |
|
|
(Patrick Reany) wrote in message news:<844a1b64.0310121144.2a7943bf@posting.google.com>...
coreleus3@yahoo.com (Coreleus Corneleus) wrote in message news:<97d1d750.0310120328.3e939385@posting.google.com>...
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:<WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
Television says that Einstein invented all of physics.
Could you elaborate on this claim? Got any specific examples? I
haven't witnessed this myself, which is why I ask. In fact, I have
seen recent shows on cable that mention contributions from many many
physicists of the last 4 centuries.
Specific examples would not necessesarily be representative of the
general overview, and I do not necessesarily have time to go over all
of the portraysls of science in worthless publications and shows from
a wide array of sources.
If there are, however, a few good shows on physics, then that is a
good thing.
No one can be smart unless they 'prove Einstein wrong'.
I don't see the logic in this thinking. Lot's of people have shown
themselves to be smart by building on top of what Einstein
accomplished.
Neither do I, however not all thinking, necessesarily needs to be
logical.
They are just re-enforcing suppositions and inferences that they see
and hear on television.
Patrick
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Reany" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
12 Oct 2003 02:55:49 PM |
|
|
(Coreleus Corneleus) wrote in message news:<97d1d750.0310120328.3e939385@posting.google.com>...
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:<WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
Television says that Einstein invented all of physics.
Could you elaborate on this claim? Got any specific examples? I
haven't witnessed this myself, which is why I ask. In fact, I have
seen recent shows on cable that mention contributions from many many
physicists of the last 4 centuries.
No one can be smart unless they 'prove Einstein wrong'.
I don't see the logic in this thinking. Lot's of people have shown
themselves to be smart by building on top of what Einstein
accomplished.
They are just re-enforcing suppositions and inferences that they see
and hear on television.
Patrick
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Australopithecus Afarensis" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
13 Oct 2003 01:53:57 AM |
|
|
Or that some one is saying:
"Hey, look, Mom! The Emperor has no clothes on!"
When some one is brainwashed to think along one direction, it is rather
difficult to rectify that situation through self individual discipline. But
awakening due to outside logical stimulus lies in the intellectual might of
the same individual which most of the individuals lack.
Am I talking gibberish? Please let me know. Because after witnessing so
many sad stories, I cannot even tell if I am expressing BS or not.
* * *
"Coreleus Corneleus" <coreleus3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:97d1d750.0310120328.3e939385@posting.google.com...
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:<WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering
if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it
seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
Television says that Einstein invented all of physics.
No one can be smart unless they 'prove Einstein wrong'.
They are just re-enforcing suppositions and inferences that they see
and hear on television.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Big Bird" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
12 Oct 2003 11:44:14 PM |
|
|
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:<WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
To little children, all knowledge is revealed knowledge. They don't
know anything about reality by firsthand experience, but only form the
words of this or that authority. The reality of their world stands and
falls with the reliability of their authorities. If the authorities
can be shown in error, then their reality shatters.
There's a certain type person who'll retain this way of thinking all
their life -- everything is just dogma and the very idea of seeing
something by themselves is far from their capabilities.
To such a person, it is important to discredit the *person* who
figured something out that they don't like. They cannot grasp that
reality is independent of the people who write about it, that
relativity is a fact even if Einstein were a child molestor. That the
authority of people is worthless in physics.
These people cannot actually invalidate relativity of course -- that's
as absurd as an ant stepping in the way of a tractor in an attempt to
stop it.
So they attempt to discredit what they phantasize to the the authority
who created what they phantasize to be a dogma -- they do not
understand that all the bile spewed at this person isn't going to
change a thing in the universe, that nobody cares about relativity
because they like Einstein. They cannot fathom that others have
actually figured out how relativity works and THAT it works and that
the particular originator of its mathematical formulation is utterly
uninteresting in this context.
They fight, I guess, like ants would fight when the tractor has rolled
through their hill. And I'm sure they think themselves bold fighters,
and they fight the only way they know, the only way they're capable
of.
The farmer in the tractor, meanwhile, is unlikely even to notice. If
he does, hit most probable comment is going to be "oops".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
13 Oct 2003 04:07:15 AM |
|
|
"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0310122044.6a04c7ab@posting.google.com...
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" <vugdeox@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:<WI1ib.1108$gP6.524@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm
wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it
seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they
are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".
To little children, all knowledge is revealed knowledge. They don't
know anything about reality by firsthand experience, but only form the
words of this or that authority. The reality of their world stands and
falls with the reliability of their authorities. If the authorities
can be shown in error, then their reality shatters.
There's a certain type person who'll retain this way of thinking all
their life -- everything is just dogma and the very idea of seeing
something by themselves is far from their capabilities.
To such a person, it is important to discredit the *person* who
figured something out that they don't like. They cannot grasp that
reality is independent of the people who write about it, that
relativity is a fact even if Einstein were a child molestor. That the
authority of people is worthless in physics.
I think you are right about that; except that it works both ways!
To people who see Einstein as their prophet of science who revealed his
Knowledge to them, any other opinion is dangerous for their reality feeling.
The result is that there are fanatics in this newsgroup on both sides of the
scientific debate.
A number of books are available that are written by scientists who propose
alternatives to Einstein's version of SRT. Also the logic of SRT has been
part of a heated discussion in Nature, after which the editors decided to
ban the subject.
Harald.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
13 Oct 2003 10:51:46 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:<3f8a6aab@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0310122044.6a04c7ab@posting.google.com...
There's a certain type person who'll retain this way of thinking all
their life -- everything is just dogma and the very idea of seeing
something by themselves is far from their capabilities.
To such a person, it is important to discredit the *person* who
figured something out that they don't like. They cannot grasp that
reality is independent of the people who write about it, that
relativity is a fact even if Einstein were a child molestor. That the
authority of people is worthless in physics.
I think you are right about that; except that it works both ways!
To people who see Einstein as their prophet of science who revealed his
Knowledge to them, any other opinion is dangerous for their reality feeling.
I have not seen anyone I would characterize that way. Those who
believe that relativity is a so-far-correct theory do so on
the only basis that can possibly exist: It fits the data
so far.
The result is that there are fanatics in this newsgroup on both sides of the
scientific debate.
My guess is you are characterizing anybody who is pro-relativity
as a "fanatic", "seeing Einstein as their prophet who revealed
his Knowledge", etc. I don't know of anybody who thinks
relativity will last forever as the last description
of the gravitation, space, and time.
A number of books are available that are written by scientists who propose
alternatives to Einstein's version of SRT.
Alternative theories can be offered on scientific grounds,
and tested against the same standard: Mother Nature. The
kinds of "alternate" theories that show up in spr are not
scientific theories, they are almagamations of mishmash
without equations or logic.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
14 Oct 2003 04:15:07 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <rpoepa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:585ab5d8.0310130751.8fb1152@posting.google.com...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:<3f8a6aab@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0310122044.6a04c7ab@posting.google.com...
There's a certain type person who'll retain this way of thinking all
their life -- everything is just dogma and the very idea of seeing
something by themselves is far from their capabilities.
To such a person, it is important to discredit the *person* who
figured something out that they don't like. They cannot grasp that
reality is independent of the people who write about it, that
relativity is a fact even if Einstein were a child molestor. That the
authority of people is worthless in physics.
I think you are right about that; except that it works both ways!
To people who see Einstein as their prophet of science who revealed his
Knowledge to them, any other opinion is dangerous for their reality
feeling.
I have not seen anyone I would characterize that way. Those who
believe that relativity is a so-far-correct theory do so on
the only basis that can possibly exist: It fits the data
so far.
The result is that there are fanatics in this newsgroup on both sides of
the
scientific debate.
My guess is you are characterizing anybody who is pro-relativity
as a "fanatic", "seeing Einstein as their prophet who revealed
his Knowledge", etc. I don't know of anybody who thinks
relativity will last forever as the last description
of the gravitation, space, and time.
You are not a good guesser!
A number of books are available that are written by scientists who
propose
alternatives to Einstein's version of SRT.
Alternative theories can be offered on scientific grounds,
and tested against the same standard: Mother Nature. The
kinds of "alternate" theories that show up in spr are not
scientific theories, they are almagamations of mishmash
without equations or logic.
You forgot LET?
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
14 Oct 2003 09:02:53 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:<3f8bbe02$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
"Randy Poe" <rpoepa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:585ab5d8.0310130751.8fb1152@posting.google.com...
My guess is you are characterizing anybody who is pro-relativity
as a "fanatic", "seeing Einstein as their prophet who revealed
his Knowledge", etc. I don't know of anybody who thinks
relativity will last forever as the last description
of the gravitation, space, and time.
Your entire response:
You are not a good guesser!
You forgot LET?
An unsurprising lack of substance. Post flame-bait,
get responses, say nothing in return.
Perhaps you're not a troll, but it certainly looks
like that so far.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
13 Oct 2003 11:17:52 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <rpoepa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:585ab5d8.0310130751.8fb1152@posting.google.com...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:<3f8a6aab@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0310122044.6a04c7ab@posting.google.com...
There's a certain type person who'll retain this way of thinking all
their life -- everything is just dogma and the very idea of seeing
something by themselves is far from their capabilities.
To such a person, it is important to discredit the *person* who
figured something out that they don't like. They cannot grasp that
reality is independent of the people who write about it, that
relativity is a fact even if Einstein were a child molestor. That the
authority of people is worthless in physics.
I think you are right about that; except that it works both ways!
To people who see Einstein as their prophet of science who revealed his
Knowledge to them, any other opinion is dangerous for their reality
feeling.
I have not seen anyone I would characterize that way. Those who
believe that relativity is a so-far-correct theory do so on
the only basis that can possibly exist: It fits the data
so far.
Could you post a few worked out examples of GTR
fitting the data for ionization potentials,
electro-negativity, antenna gain, a spring/mass/damper system,
a pendulum system, a gyro, or even a Moon shot?
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
13 Oct 2003 02:27:13 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter:
Could you post a few worked out examples of GTR
fitting the data for ionization potentials,
See: "Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation", Lightman, et al
for a worked out example of atomic transitions due to general
relativity.
electro-negativity, antenna gain, a spring/mass/damper system,
a pendulum system, a gyro, or even a Moon shot?
Are you unable to use a search engine?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
13 Oct 2003 04:06:59 PM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:<bmej94$ldncr$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Could you post a few worked out examples of GTR
fitting the data for ionization potentials,
electro-negativity, antenna gain, a spring/mass/damper system,
a pendulum system, a gyro, or even a Moon shot?
Sure: Since GTR is indistinguishable from classical
solutions for all of these up to our ability to measure,
then applying classical Newtonian mechanics is
equivalent to applying GTR.
You realize that Newtonian theory is measurably
incorrect for describing a pendulum, right? You realize
that we are already using approximations for your
mechanical examples which are in error by far larger
than any relativistic corrections when we use
classical physics?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
13 Oct 2003 10:29:18 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <rpoepa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:585ab5d8.0310131306.239853@posting.google.com...
Could you post a few worked out examples of GTR
fitting the data for ionization potentials,
electro-negativity, antenna gain, a spring/mass/damper system,
a pendulum system, a gyro, or even a Moon shot?
Sure: Since GTR is indistinguishable from classical
solutions for all of these up to our ability to measure,
then applying classical Newtonian mechanics is
equivalent to applying GTR.
As I wrote:
"Could you post a few WORKED OUT EXAMPLES of GTR
fitting the data for ionization potentials,
electro-negativity, antenna gain, a spring/mass/damper system,
a pendulum system, a gyro, or even a Moon shot?"
In other words, is GTR a viable and cost-effective
approach to solving real world problems,
or is it a Tower of Babel that wastes
minds, money and time?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
(As is money and time.)
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's the deal with all these "Einstein sucks" postings? |
13 Oct 2003 04:16:41 PM |
|
|
In article <585ab5d8.0310131306.239853@posting.google.com>, (Randy Poe) writes:
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:<bmej94$ldncr$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Could you post a few worked out examples of GTR
fitting the data for ionization potentials,
electro-negativity, antenna gain, a spring/mass/damper system,
a pendulum system, a gyro, or even a Moon shot?
Sure: Since GTR is indistinguishable from classical
solutions for all of these up to our ability to measure,
then applying classical Newtonian mechanics is
equivalent to applying GTR.
You realize that Newtonian theory is measurably
incorrect for describing a pendulum, right?
Pendulum? How so (I mean, other than relativistic corrections)?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
