Who said this (25) ...
Mathew Orman
words: "if the facts don't fit the theory...Change the facts!"
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
Richard Perry
I believe it was our old friend Einstein.
Here are a few more quotes on the subject, enjoy:)
"Facts are generally overesteemed. For most practical purposes, a thing
is what men think it is. When they judged the earth flat, it was flat.
As long as men thought slavery tolerable, tolerable it was. We live down
here among shadows, shadows among shadows."
"Theories that go counter to the facts of human nature are foredoomed."
--
Richard Perry
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Sam Wormley
>
> Mathew Orman wrote:
> >
> > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> > words: "if the facts don't fit the theory...Change the facts!"
> >
> > Mathew Orman
> >
> > www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
>
> I believe it was our old friend Einstein.
>
Nope -- It was spaceshit!
Richard Perry
LOL:) What would this place be without his wit and wisdom?
Stephen Speicher
"So the theory of relativity is really solely
Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
would have conceived it even if the work of his
predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
the previous theories."
The Current Standings on "Who said this ..."
-------------------------------------------
Dirk Van de moortel 87
Michael Varney 40
John Zinni 39
Nicholas Steele 30
Jim Graber 30
Tom Bedford 27
Matthew Nobes 22
Ilja Schmelzer 20
Gene Nygaard 18
Jem 14
Jeff Krimmel 13
Russell Blackadar 12
Daryl McCullough 10
David Evens 10
Mel Lep 10
Shaun Webb 10
Domino Plural 10
Arfur Dogfrey 7
David A. Smith 5.5
Michel Mouly 5
David McAnally 3
Courtney Mewton 2
Aardvark 2
Tom Clarke 2
Eli Botkin 1
Bob Kolker 1
Tim Shuba 1
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
>
> "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> would have conceived it even if the work of his
> predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> the previous theories."
Lorentz himself of course.
1925-ish?
Dirk Vdm
Colin Wetherbee
> 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
>
> "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> would have conceived it even if the work of his
> predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> the previous theories."
>
Lorentz, 1928.
--
Colin W. Wetherbee
http://hydrogen.denterprises.org/
Mathew Orman
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:h6mla.41252$t_2....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Genuine fanatic religion followers always memorize stories about their gods
with astonishing precision!
:)
Mathew Orman
Mike Varney
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
>
> "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> would have conceived it even if the work of his
> predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> the previous theories."
Lorentz, 1928.
Stephen Speicher
Dirk strikes again!
(How does he do it? I thought I made sure it would not be found
on google. He must be really well-read.)
> 1925-ish?
>
I'm glad to say, at least, that 1925 is NOT the date! :)
(Saves 2 points for someone else.)
Stephen Speicher
> The quite possibly wise Stephen Speicher was heard saying:
> > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> > words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
> >
> > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> > would have conceived it even if the work of his
> > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> > the previous theories."
> >
>
> Lorentz,
Correct, but Dirk beat you to it.
> 1928.
>
That is one of two acceptable dates (1927 the other).
2 points for that.
Stephen Speicher
Three quick answers in a row -- Dirk, Colin, and now Mike.
Either we have some of the finest scholars on this group, or I
seriously messed up checking google. :)
Colin Wetherbee
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Colin Wetherbee wrote:
>>
>> Lorentz,
>
> Correct, but Dirk beat you to it.
Oh, but just barely! :P
>> 1928.
>
> That is one of two acceptable dates (1927 the other).
>
> 2 points for that.
Thanks. ;)
Colin
Robert Kolker
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
>
> "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> would have conceived it even if the work of his
> predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> the previous theories."
>
>
Lorentz?
Bob Kolker
Stephen Speicher
Four correct answers in a row. I'm impressed!
Robert Kolker
Stephen Speicher wrote:
>>
> Four correct answers in a row. I'm impressed!
It was sort of obvious. It was great praise for the man who came up with
the equations of SR -before- Einstein (Lorentz's 1904 paper) to say that
Einstein got it right the right way. Lorentz had a great and generous
spirit. One of the true gentlemen of the physics profession.
Bob Kolker
Mike Varney
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Varney wrote:
>
> >
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> > > words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
> > >
> > > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> > > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> > > would have conceived it even if the work of his
> > > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> > > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> > > the previous theories."
> >
> >
> > Lorentz, 1928.
> >
>
> Three quick answers in a row -- Dirk, Colin, and now Mike.
>
> Either we have some of the finest scholars on this group, or I
> seriously messed up checking google. :)
It was google that verified it for me, but I have read something of that
sort before, as the argument about who the "real" inventor of relativity has
come up before.
Also, it was a response to that jackass greywolf pontificating on the whole
"who came up with relativity" and the fact that Lorentz came up with the
transformations first, so it made sense that you would use this as an
argument supporting Einstein! :-)
(Date stamp 6:00 pm Mountain time)
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Varney wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> > > > words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
> > > >
> > > > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> > > > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> > > > would have conceived it even if the work of his
> > > > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> > > > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> > > > the previous theories."
> > >
> > >
> > > Lorentz, 1928.
> > >
> >
> > Three quick answers in a row -- Dirk, Colin, and now Mike.
> >
> > Either we have some of the finest scholars on this group, or I
> > seriously messed up checking google. :)
>
> It was google that verified it for me,
How? I checked it beforehand. What did you put in for the search?
> but I have read something of that
> sort before, as the argument about who the "real" inventor of relativity has
> come up before.
Good.
> Also, it was a response to that jackass greywolf pontificating on the whole
> "who came up with relativity" and the fact that Lorentz came up with the
> transformations first, so it made sense that you would use this as an
> argument supporting Einstein! :-)
>
Smarty pants! :)
> (Date stamp 6:00 pm Mountain time)
>
If you are referring to the time of your post, at the beginning
of the contest I decided that I have to take the posts and credit
them in the order they appear on my server. Otherwise, it will be
a constant revision of who gets the points, since the server gets
the posts in its own order, one which I have never figured out.
Mike Varney
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Varney wrote:
> >
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Varney wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > > >
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > > > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> > > > > words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
> > > > >
> > > > > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> > > > > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> > > > > would have conceived it even if the work of his
> > > > > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> > > > > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> > > > > the previous theories."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lorentz, 1928.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Three quick answers in a row -- Dirk, Colin, and now Mike.
> > >
> > > Either we have some of the finest scholars on this group, or I
> > > seriously messed up checking google. :)
> >
> > It was google that verified it for me,
>
> How? I checked it beforehand. What did you put in for the search?
What caught my eye was the first sentance: I used part of it in the google
search.
"relativity is really solely einstein's work"
Returned one hit with the answer.
> > but I have read something of that
> > sort before, as the argument about who the "real" inventor of relativity
has
> > come up before.
>
> Good.
>
> > Also, it was a response to that jackass greywolf pontificating on the
whole
> > "who came up with relativity" and the fact that Lorentz came up with the
> > transformations first, so it made sense that you would use this as an
> > argument supporting Einstein! :-)
> >
>
> Smarty pants! :)
:-)
> > (Date stamp 6:00 pm Mountain time)
> >
>
> If you are referring to the time of your post, at the beginning
> of the contest I decided that I have to take the posts and credit
> them in the order they appear on my server.
That is ok... was checking the server to see if it was lagging really badly.
It seems fine. :-)
> Otherwise, it will be
> a constant revision of who gets the points, since the server gets
> the posts in its own order, one which I have never figured out.
Np. I have just recently started making contributions to the contest, so
there is plenty of time to catch up with Dirk! ;-)
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Varney wrote:
> > >
> > > It was google that verified it for me,
> >
> > How? I checked it beforehand. What did you put in for the search?
>
> What caught my eye was the first sentance: I used part of it in the google
> search.
> "relativity is really solely einstein's work"
>
> Returned one hit with the answer.
>
I checked google with the full sentence:
"So the theory of relativity is really solely Einstein's work."
which turned up nothing. You guys are tricky!
>
> Np. I have just recently started making contributions to the contest, so
> there is plenty of time to catch up with Dirk! ;-)
>
Well, you certainly climbed up the charts quickly. Dirk, however,
is pretty fast on the draw, so he will not be easy to beat.
Mike Varney
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Varney wrote:
> >
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Varney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was google that verified it for me,
> > >
> > > How? I checked it beforehand. What did you put in for the search?
> >
> > What caught my eye was the first sentance: I used part of it in the
> > search.
> > "relativity is really solely einstein's work"
> >
> > Returned one hit with the answer.
> >
>
> I checked google with the full sentence:
>
> "So the theory of relativity is really solely Einstein's work."
>
> which turned up nothing. You guys are tricky!
:-) If there is one thing you learn in grad school, it is research.
People on Usenet hate me for it, but that is why I respond to many questions
with:
www.google.com "how to use google"
> >
> > Np. I have just recently started making contributions to the contest,
so
> > there is plenty of time to catch up with Dirk! ;-)
> >
>
> Well, you certainly climbed up the charts quickly. Dirk, however,
> is pretty fast on the draw, so he will not be easy to beat.
Yup... he beat me to the draw this time!
Stephen Speicher
>
> "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> would have conceived it even if the work of his
> predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> the previous theories."
>
As Dirk Van de moortel identified, these words were written by
Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, and, as Colin Wetherbee noted, the year
was 1928. Actually, either 1927 or 1928 was correct, since
Lorentz first spoke these words at the "Conference on the
Michelson-Morley Experiment," Held at the Mt. Wilson Observatory,
Pasadena, California, Feb. 4, 5, 1927, which was then published
in _Astrophys. J._, 68, pp. 341-402, December 1928.
This 1927 Conference was a sort of summit meeting for
ether-drift, with men such as Lorentz, Michelson, Miller, and
Kennedy in attendance. Michelson opened the conference with a
reverie of his past work, and noted
"In 1880 I conceived for the first time the idea that
it should be possible to measure optically the velocity
v of the earth through the solar system ... Talking in
terms of the beloved ether (which is now abandoned,
though I personally still cling to it a little) ..."
Lorentz then paid his great tribute to Einstein, of which the
contest quote was a part. Here was this "grand ol' man" of
physics, the one who, aside from Einstein, was the closest to the
actual development and history of relativity, and he chose to
acknowledge Einstein's accomplishment, publicly, late in his
life, as he had done in similar terms a few years prior. Lorentz
was the one who bridged the old with the new -- he had
correspondence with Voigt starting in 1883, he communicated
extensively with Poincare right up till Poincare's death, and of
course he had an intimate personal and professional relationship
with Einstein.
If anyone of that time in history had the knowledge and the
breadth to put the work of relativity in perspective, it was
Lorentz. Lorentz had the greatest admiration towards Einstein,
and saw Einstein as the younger generation (to him) of
creativity. In a letter to Einstein dated February 13 1912,
Lorentz offerred a faculty position at Leiden to Einstein, and
spoke of his (and others') desire to collaborate. Lorentz adds:
"As for me personally, I cannot tell you how enticing
the prospect of maintaining a constant contact with you
at work would be for me. If it were granted to me to
welcome you here as my successor and my colleague at
one and the same time, it would be the fulfillment of a
wish that I have long cherished in private but have not
been free to voice before."
--Hendrik A. Lorentz, "The Collected Papers of Albert
Einstein," Volume 5, Anna Beck, Translator, Document
359, p. 261, _Princeton University Press_, 1995.
It is truly amazing when, on the one hand, we have the first-hand
participants in the development of relativity giving Einstein his
full due, only to have a bunch of ignorant dolts on this group
attempting to take it away. Lorentz, like Born, and many, many
others of the time, would be the first to defend Einstein, and to
acknowledge him, as they did throughout their lives.
Stephen Speicher
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >
> > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> > would have conceived it even if the work of his
> > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> > the previous theories."
> >
>
> As Dirk Van de moortel identified, these words were written by
> Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, and, as Colin Wetherbee noted, the year
> was 1928. ...
>
Oops. I forgot to include the standings.
The Current Standings on "Who said this ..."
-------------------------------------------
Dirk Van de moortel 97
Michael Varney 40
John Zinni 39
Nicholas Steele 30
Jim Graber 30
Tom Bedford 27
Matthew Nobes 22
Ilja Schmelzer 20
Gene Nygaard 18
Jem 14
Jeff Krimmel 13
Russell Blackadar 12
Daryl McCullough 10
David Evens 10
Mel Lep 10
Shaun Webb 10
Domino Plural 10
Arfur Dogfrey 7
David A. Smith 5.5
Michel Mouly 5
David McAnally 3
Courtney Mewton 2
Aardvark 2
Tom Clarke 2
Colin Wetherbee 2
Eli Botkin 1
Bob Kolker 1
Tim Shuba 1
--
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Stephen Speicher wrote:
...
> Lorentz first spoke these words at the "Conference on the
> Michelson-Morley Experiment," Held at the Mt. Wilson Observatory,
> Pasadena, California, Feb. 4, 5, 1927, which was then published
> in _Astrophys. J._, 68, pp. 341-402, December 1928.
>
> This 1927 Conference was a sort of summit meeting for
Did you plan this? Observatory... summit meeting. ;>}
David A. Smith
Stephen Speicher
Not only that, but if you include the next few words,
"This 1927 Conference was a sort of summit meeting for
ether-drift ..."
the ether-drift was meant to be the floating clouds at
the summit. Nothing quite like imagery, and puns! :)
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, it was written:
>
> > Dear Stephen Speicher:
> >
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Stephen Speicher wrote:
> > ...
> > > Lorentz first spoke these words at the "Conference on the
> > > Michelson-Morley Experiment," Held at the Mt. Wilson Observatory,
> > > Pasadena, California, Feb. 4, 5, 1927, which was then published
> > > in _Astrophys. J._, 68, pp. 341-402, December 1928.
> > >
> > > This 1927 Conference was a sort of summit meeting for
> >
> > Did you plan this? Observatory... summit meeting. ;>}
> >
>
> Not only that, but if you include the next few words,
>
> "This 1927 Conference was a sort of summit meeting for
> ether-drift ..."
>
> the ether-drift was meant to be the floating clouds at
> the summit. Nothing quite like imagery, and puns! :)
February at Mt. Wilson... could be a snow-drift too!
With diethyl ether (the classic ether used as an anesthetic), "Melting
point: -116°C ", I would guess we'd have to go to Saturn's moons for a real
ether drift...
David A. Smith
Stephen Speicher
> Dear Stephen Speicher:
>
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, it was written:
> >
> > > Dear Stephen Speicher:
> > >
> > > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Stephen Speicher wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > Lorentz first spoke these words at the "Conference on the
> > > > Michelson-Morley Experiment," Held at the Mt. Wilson Observatory,
> > > > Pasadena, California, Feb. 4, 5, 1927, which was then published
> > > > in _Astrophys. J._, 68, pp. 341-402, December 1928.
> > > >
> > > > This 1927 Conference was a sort of summit meeting for
> > >
> > > Did you plan this? Observatory... summit meeting. ;>}
> > >
> >
> > Not only that, but if you include the next few words,
> >
> > "This 1927 Conference was a sort of summit meeting for
> > ether-drift ..."
> >
> > the ether-drift was meant to be the floating clouds at
> > the summit. Nothing quite like imagery, and puns! :)
>
> February at Mt. Wilson... could be a snow-drift too!
>
This is Southern California. It wouldn't dare!
<http://www.mtwilson.edu/History/cal90/cal0290.html>
> With diethyl ether (the classic ether used as an anesthetic), "Melting
> point: -116°C ", I would guess we'd have to go to Saturn's moons for a real
> ether drift...
>
:)
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Varney wrote:
>
> >
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> > > words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
> > >
> > > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> > > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> > > would have conceived it even if the work of his
> > > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> > > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> > > the previous theories."
> >
> >
> > Lorentz, 1928.
> >
>
> Three quick answers in a row -- Dirk, Colin, and now Mike.
>
> Either we have some of the finest scholars on this group, or I
> seriously messed up checking google. :)
Me, a scholar?
Remember, I'm reading Krach's "Quantum Generations".
I didn't even have to think google :-)
The quote is not in the book but the atmosphere surely is.
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Varney wrote:
>
>
>>"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
>>news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>>>10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
>>>words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
>>>
>>> "So the theory of relativity is really solely
>>> Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
>>> would have conceived it even if the work of his
>>> predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
>>> done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
>>> the previous theories."
>>>
>>
>>Lorentz, 1928.
>>
>>
>
> Three quick answers in a row -- Dirk, Colin, and now Mike.
>
> Either we have some of the finest scholars on this group, or I
> seriously messed up checking google. :)
Google hit on
http://russamos.narod.ru/dingle/8.htm
"really solely"
quote
But Lorentz himself said, so late as 1928, 'the theory
of relativity is really solely Einstein's work',
unquote
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
Pyriform
> What caught my eye was the first sentance: I used part of it in the
> google search.
> "relativity is really solely einstein's work"
>
> Returned one hit with the answer.
There is a certain irony, I think, in the fact that the google reference
is to the text of a book written by Herbert Dingle, in 1971...
--
Pyriform
Ilja Schmelzer
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Robert Kolker wrote:
>> Stephen Speicher wrote:
>>> "So the theory of relativity is really solely
>>> Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
>>> would have conceived it even if the work of his
>>> predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
>>> done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
>>> the previous theories."
>> Lorentz?
> Four correct answers in a row. I'm impressed!
Quite simple given your ideological bias against the ether. From
anybody else this quote would be of no ideological value.
Quite simple also from another point of view. For somebody else, this
would be, hm, suspect. Instead, for one of the predecessors it is
simply a honorable gesture.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> , http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Pyriform
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
>> Four correct answers in a row. I'm impressed!
>
> Quite simple given your ideological bias against the ether. From
> anybody else this quote would be of no ideological value.
Who said this...
"There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and
depraved than a man in the depth of an ether binge"
--
Pyriform
David Evens
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Varney wrote:
>> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
>> > > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
>> > > words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
>> > >
>> > > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
>> > > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
>> > > would have conceived it even if the work of his
>> > > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
>> > > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
>> > > the previous theories."
>> >
>> > Lorentz, 1928.
>> >
>>
>> Three quick answers in a row -- Dirk, Colin, and now Mike.
>>
>> Either we have some of the finest scholars on this group, or I
>> seriously messed up checking google. :)
>
>Me, a scholar?
>Remember, I'm reading Krach's "Quantum Generations".
>I didn't even have to think google :-)
>The quote is not in the book but the atmosphere surely is.
This is probably why you're in the lead with more than double the
score of the 2nd placer, while I'm in a 5-way tie for 13th place:
You read all the books ABOUT the subject, by everybody, while I keep
trying to just work through the underlieing model backgroun I don't
really care who made which observations about them (other than to be
able to use shorthand names for things inteligably).
Titan Point
> 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
>
> "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> would have conceived it even if the work of his
> predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> the previous theories."
I suppose that if Lorentz said this, then it's simply untrue to say that
Einstein plagiarized Lorentz...true?
Harry
"Pyriform" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3e96a690$0$11378$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
I wonder, let me guess... Pyriform perhaps? ;-))
Harald
The Ghost In The Machine
<no_mail...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Wed, 09 Apr 2003 22:26:24 -0500
<3E94E460...@yahoo.com>:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> Richard Perry wrote:
>> >
>> > Mathew Orman wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
>> > >
>> > > Mathew Orman
>> > >
>> > > www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
>> >
>> > I believe it was our old friend Einstein.
>> >
>>
>> Nope -- It was spaceshit!
>
> LOL:) What would this place be without his wit and wisdom?
>
Nice and quiet. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Spaceman
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message
news:jvagm-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
Nope,
It would be full of noise only without any actual signals.
The signal to noise ratio would drown out any of the real signals.
Ghost,
you are noise.
I am a clear signal that you seem to not be able to pick up
because your head is full of so much noise and warping
the clear signal that I transmit each and every "second".
Still don't get what time was invented for huh?
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Mathew Orman" <or...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b74r24$787$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...> in message news:h6mla.41252$t_2....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > >
> > > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> > > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> > > would have conceived it even if the work of his
> > > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> > > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> > > the previous theories."
> >
> > 1925-ish?
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> >
> >
>
> Genuine fanatic religion followers always memorize stories about their gods
> with astonishing precision!
>
> :)
So true!
:)
Spaceman
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> >
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> > > words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
> > >
> > > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> > > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> > > would have conceived it even if the work of his
> > > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> > > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> > > the previous theories."
> >
> > Lorentz himself of course.
>
>
Parrots are good like that.
Once you teach them, they "perform" quite well.
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
>
> >
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> > > words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
> > >
> > > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> > > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> > > would have conceived it even if the work of his
> > > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> > > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> > > the previous theories."
> >
> >
> >
>
> Three quick answers in a row -- Dirk, Colin, and now Mike.
>
> Either we have some of the finest scholars on this group, or I
> seriously messed up checking google. :)
Or you found many performing parrots in the same group!
and some are just not as quick at awking the correct terms
to get the cracker!
<LOL>
greywolf42
Titan Point <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.04.11....@myrealbox.com...
Not true at all. Whatever Einstein did, he did. Regardless of what Lorentz
said, two decades later. (Lorentz had no way of knowing what Einstein did.)
Mining decades of quotes as if finding one, single quote that seems to
support one's worldview is not physics -- or even history.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Ilja Schmelzer
him.
Who cares?
Harry
Indeed!
The quote is from a passage with an interesting opinion that differs from
that of Speicher:
"But Lorentz himself said, so late as 1928, 'the theory of relativity is
really solely Einstein's work',[4] and he was, of course, speaking at a time
when the phrase 'the theory of relativity' had really come to mean to
everyone a theory devised by Einstein - and, as Whittaker rightly points
out, Lorentz did not accept it."
Harald
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Varney wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> > > > words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
> > > >
> > > > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> > > > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> > > > would have conceived it even if the work of his
> > > > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> > > > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> > > > the previous theories."
> > >
> > >
> > > Lorentz, 1928.
> > >
> >
> > Three quick answers in a row -- Dirk, Colin, and now Mike.
> >
> > Either we have some of the finest scholars on this group, or I
> > seriously messed up checking google. :)
>
> Me, a scholar?
> Remember, I'm reading Krach's "Quantum Generations".
> I didn't even have to think google :-)
> The quote is not in the book but the atmosphere surely is.
>
That's really good to hear.
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Robert Kolker wrote:
> >> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >>> "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> >>> Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> >>> would have conceived it even if the work of his
> >>> predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> >>> done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> >>> the previous theories."
>
> >> Lorentz?
>
> > Four correct answers in a row. I'm impressed!
>
> Quite simple given your ideological bias against the ether.
That's particularly funny, coming from a Priest.
Thanks for the laughs!
Stephen Speicher
:)
Stephen Speicher
Well, the quote makes clear that Lorentz, again, acknowledges
Einstein's accomplishments.
As to plagiarizing Lorentz, or anyone else, that is "simply
untrue" because there is absolutely no factual evidence to ever
rationally consider such an absurdity.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message news:b75alg$4vi$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030410...@localhost.localdomain...
> > >
[snip]
> > >
> > > Np. I have just recently started making contributions to the
> > > contest, so there is plenty of time to catch up with Dirk! ;-)
> > >
> >
> > Well, you certainly climbed up the charts quickly. Dirk, however,
> > is pretty fast on the draw, so he will not be easy to beat.
>
> Yup... he beat me to the draw this time!
I feel it. Eventually you will beat me to it.
Good luck! :-)
Dirk Vdm
Titan Point
>
> Titan Point <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.04.11....@myrealbox.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:10:44 -0700, Stephen Speicher wrote:
>>
>> > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
>> > words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
>> >
>> > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
>> > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
>> > would have conceived it even if the work of his
>> > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
>> > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
>> > the previous theories."
>>
>> I suppose that if Lorentz said this, then it's simply untrue to say that
>> Einstein plagiarized Lorentz...true?
>>
>
> Not true at all. Whatever Einstein did, he did. Regardless of what Lorentz
> said, two decades later. (Lorentz had no way of knowing what Einstein
> did.)
This does not compute. Einstein met Lorentz on several occasions.
Certainly Lorentz knew about Einstein's work. Funnily he never once
charged Einstein with plagiarism or not acknowledging Lorentz's
contribution.
But then, he didn't have a book to sell to the gullible, did he?
>
> Mining decades of quotes as if finding one, single quote that seems to
> support one's worldview is not physics -- or even history.
True, but its preferable to guessing.
Mike Varney
:-) If it were only luck!
Ilja Schmelzer
> On 11 Apr 2003, Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> > Quite simple given your ideological bias against the ether.
> That's particularly funny, coming from a Priest.
LOL. That's particularly funny, coming from an objectivist.
Knowing, for certain, that relativity is true, have fun fighting
against the Evil ether theory.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Epistemology: "Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of
reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that
identifies and integrates the material provided by man's
senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge." Thus
Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a
means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that
certainty or knowledge is impossible).
http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/essentials.html
Tux
>
> "Mathew Orman" <or...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:b74r24$787$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
>>
>> Genuine fanatic religion followers always memorize stories about their
>> gods with astonishing precision!
>>
>> :)
>
> So true!
> :)
Dumb and dumber.
:)
Jeff
greywolf42
Lorentz still couldn't know whether Einstein plagiarized or not. Unless he
developed a time-reversal clarvoyance.
> But then, he didn't have a book to sell to the gullible, did he?
????
> >
> > Mining decades of quotes as if finding one, single quote that seems to
> > support one's worldview is not physics -- or even history.
>
> True, but its preferable to guessing.
???? But there's no need to "guess!"
greywolf42
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Titan Point wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:10:44 -0700, Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >
> > > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> > > words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
> > >
> > > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> > > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> > > would have conceived it even if the work of his
> > > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> > > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> > > the previous theories."
> >
> > I suppose that if Lorentz said this, then it's simply untrue to say that
> > Einstein plagiarized Lorentz...true?
> >
>
> Well, the quote makes clear that Lorentz, again, acknowledges
> Einstein's accomplishments.
But cannot ever be used to claim that *it's simply untrue to say that
Einstein plagiarized Lorentz.* For of course Lorentz cannot ever have known
what was in Einstein's mind. So Lorentz' opinion is irrelevant on the
subject.
> As to plagiarizing Lorentz, or anyone else, that is "simply
> untrue" because there is absolutely no factual evidence to ever
> rationally consider such an absurdity.
There is much "factual evidence." This evidence consists of the published
papers, and the ability of Einstein or Mileva to have had access to same,
prior to their paper of 1905. Thus, to consider same is not an "absurdity."
(That is merely your Faith speaking).
However, it matters not one iota whether Einstein plagiarized or not. It
doesn't change either physics or nature. Thus, it is outside the scope of
this newsgroup -- which is supposed to be about physics -- not
personalities.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertass
Mike Varney
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:v9hgjpj...@corp.supernews.com...
*yawn*
Go away.
The Ghost In The Machine
<AgentS...@aol.combination>
wrote
on Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:15:18 GMT
<W5Ala.175009$Zo.33897@sccrnsc03>:
Are physical laws invariant regardless of motion?
Dirk Van de moortel
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030411...@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Titan Point wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:10:44 -0700, Stephen Speicher wrote:
> > >
> > > > 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> > > > words, and 2 points for the year these words were published.
> > > >
> > > > "So the theory of relativity is really solely
> > > > Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he
> > > > would have conceived it even if the work of his
> > > > predecessors in the theory of this field had not been
> > > > done at all. His work is in this respect independent of
> > > > the previous theories."
> > >
> > > I suppose that if Lorentz said this, then it's simply untrue to say that
> > > Einstein plagiarized Lorentz...true?
> > >
> >
> > Well, the quote makes clear that Lorentz, again, acknowledges
> > Einstein's accomplishments.
>
> But cannot ever be used to claim that *it's simply untrue to say that
> Einstein plagiarized Lorentz.* For of course Lorentz cannot ever have known
> what was in Einstein's mind. So Lorentz' opinion is irrelevant on the
> subject.
Title: "Lorentz' opinion is irrelevant on the subject".
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Irrelevant
Welcome - better late than never.
Dirk Vdm
David Evens
So you think that it is not possible to determine if one thing is like
another unless at least one of them does not exist yet.
>> But then, he didn't have a book to sell to the gullible, did he?
>
>????
Jerkness, remember? He's trying (rather desperately, and has been
caught at it as well) to peddle his book of Nazi propoganda.
>> > Mining decades of quotes as if finding one, single quote that seems to
>> > support one's worldview is not physics -- or even history.
>>
>> True, but its preferable to guessing.
>
>???? But there's no need to "guess!"
Yes, but you aren't even up to a guess.
Titan Point
So Lorentz, twenty years after the event, did not know whether Einstein
had plagiarized him or not?
How do we know one hundred years later then? Do we now have time-travel?
Or it is simply the case that it is preposterous to claim the Lorentz was
plagiarised by Einstein when Lorentz himself made no such claim and even
praised Einstein for his original thinking?
>
>> But then, he didn't have a book to sell to the gullible, did he?
>
> ????
>
>
>> >
>> > Mining decades of quotes as if finding one, single quote that seems to
>> > support one's worldview is not physics -- or even history.
>>
>> True, but its preferable to guessing.
>
> ???? But there's no need to "guess!"
That's right. The parsimonious answer is that Einstein did not plagiarize
Lorentz, because Lorentz would have said so long and loud had Eisntein
done so.
Now since there is no evidence that Lorentz ever did so, then you're
whistling in the dark.
Titan Point
I set the trap. You bag 'em ;-)
John Zinni
news:v9hgjpj...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Well, the quote makes clear that Lorentz, again, acknowledges
> > Einstein's accomplishments.
>
> But cannot ever be used to claim that *it's simply untrue to say that
> Einstein plagiarized Lorentz.* For of course Lorentz cannot ever have
known
> what was in Einstein's mind. So Lorentz' opinion is irrelevant on the
> subject.
If Lorenz's opinion on the subject is irrelevant than, I dare say, so is
yours.
--
Cheers
John Zinni
Stephen Speicher
Greywoofie has become a caricature of himself! If he keeps
it up, he will soon be heading into "Spaceman" territory.
Spaceman
> Greywoofie has become a caricature of himself! If he keeps
> it up, he will soon be heading into "Spaceman" territory.
Steve,
Still mad that you can not grasp a clock malfunction huh?
Still mad I killed your clock god that you worship without question huh?
Poor Steve.
Lost in spacetime and refuses to return to reality.
<LOL>
greywolf42
Gee, thanks, Dirk. I was feeling ignored. And SUCH a statement to make the
grade!
Too bad you can't actually refute the statement.
greywolf42
John Zinni <j_z...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:r5dma.34$8T6....@news20.bellglobal.com...
Bingo! You'll notice that I haven't claimed that Einstein plagiarized
Lorentz. :)
Robert Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
>
>
> Steve,
> Still mad that you can not grasp a clock malfunction huh?
What malfunction? You keep talking about malfunctions but you never
state in any detail or specificity what these malfunctions are.
Cesium atom clocks are the best clocks ever made. The keep time that is
good to one second loss in 10,000 years (when properly sheilded of course).
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3E999EF6...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
> >
> >
> > Steve,
> > Still mad that you can not grasp a clock malfunction huh?
>
> What malfunction? You keep talking about malfunctions but you never
> state in any detail or specificity what these malfunctions are.
Bullshit,
I have many times, in fact,
too many freakin times.
It is real sad you can't comprehend basic clocks faults to begin with.
> Cesium atom clocks are the best clocks ever made. The keep time that is
> good to one second loss in 10,000 years (when properly sheilded of course).
Who gives a crap,
they still malfunction when accelerated or decelerated or changed
from thier "constant" surroundings.
Still don't get what time was actually invented for huh Bob?
Still don't get what clocks do huh Bob?
Still worshipping a clock god called atomic huh?
<LOL>
Mike Varney
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:LSgma.203101$Zo.37060@sccrnsc03...
Says Spaceman, who likes to molest his children.
greywolf42
Not unless he could read Einstein's mind.
> How do we know one hundred years later then? Do we now have time-travel?
No, we don't. That's the point.
> Or it is simply the case that it is preposterous to claim the Lorentz was
> plagiarised by Einstein when Lorentz himself made no such claim and even
> praised Einstein for his original thinking?
Nope. It's not preposterous. There's that hard evidence. But it's not
possible to be certain. Invoking opinion from authorities (who have access
only to what we also have access to) is irrelevant.
> >
> >> But then, he didn't have a book to sell to the gullible, did he?
> >
> > ????
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > Mining decades of quotes as if finding one, single quote that seems
to
> >> > support one's worldview is not physics -- or even history.
> >>
> >> True, but its preferable to guessing.
> >
> > ???? But there's no need to "guess!"
>
> That's right. The parsimonious answer is that Einstein did not plagiarize
> Lorentz, because Lorentz would have said so long and loud had Eisntein
> done so.
LOL! Not if Lorentz was a gentleman.
> Now since there is no evidence that Lorentz ever did so, then you're
> whistling in the dark.
I never claimed that Einstein plagiarized Lorentz.
greywolf42
David Evens <dev...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:3e992635...@news.falls.igs.net...
???
Lorentz' conclusion/opinion in no way changes reality. The reality can be
addressed only via the evidence. Unless Lorentz (sometime before he made
the quote) could read Einstein's mind in 1905.
>
> >> But then, he didn't have a book to sell to the gullible, did he?
> >
> >????
>
> Jerkness, remember? He's trying (rather desperately, and has been
> caught at it as well) to peddle his book of Nazi propoganda.
So what? And anti-Einstein is not "pro Nazi."
The claim was made that because Lorentz (once in his lifetime) opined that
Einstein's work was his own that "it's simply untrue to say that Einstein
plagiarized Lorentz." This reasoning is a fallacy.
> >> > Mining decades of quotes as if finding one, single quote that seems
to
> >> > support one's worldview is not physics -- or even history.
> >>
> >> True, but its preferable to guessing.
> >
> >???? But there's no need to "guess!"
>
> Yes, but you aren't even up to a guess.
There's nothing to guess at. I've not claimed that Einstein plagiarized
Lorentz.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Spaceman
"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a7ima.570$pE.6...@news.uswest.net...
What the hell is your problem you freakin puke headed bastard?
I don't do such and the more you lie like you are doing in such statements,
the more you prove what an asshole piece of crap lying bastard you truly are.
Seek help puke.
You truly need it.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:Dvkma.443767$L1.127225@sccrnsc02...
In your case, having is abusing, and educating is molesting.
Dirk Vdm
Mike Varney
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7ima.570$pE.6...@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> > news:LSgma.203101$Zo.37060@sccrnsc03...
> > >
> > > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030413...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > > Greywoofie has become a caricature of himself! If he keeps
> > > > it up, he will soon be heading into "Spaceman" territory.
> > >
> > > Steve,
> > > Still mad that you can not grasp a clock malfunction huh?
> > > Still mad I killed your clock god that you worship without question
huh?
> > > Poor Steve.
> > > Lost in spacetime and refuses to return to reality.
> > > <LOL>
> >
> >
> > Says Spaceman, who likes to molest his children.
> >
>
> What the hell is your problem you freakin puke headed bastard?
My problem? You are the one who likes to molest your children. What does
your wife have to say about you molesting her children, or does she keep
quiet because of all the beatings?
Spaceman
Screw Off Dirk.
You also should seek help.
you truly have a non thinking brain.
Bill Vajk
> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> news:Dvkma.443767$L1.127225@sccrnsc02...
>>"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a7ima.570$pE.6...@news.uswest.net...
>>>"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>>>news:LSgma.203101$Zo.37060@sccrnsc03...
>>>>"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030413...@localhost.localdomain...
>>>>>Greywoofie has become a caricature of himself! If he keeps
>>>>>it up, he will soon be heading into "Spaceman" territory.
>>>>Steve,
>>>>Still mad that you can not grasp a clock malfunction huh?
>>>>Still mad I killed your clock god that you worship without question
> huh?
>>>>Poor Steve.
>>>>Lost in spacetime and refuses to return to reality.
>>>><LOL>
>>>Says Spaceman, who likes to molest his children.
>>What the hell is your problem you freakin puke headed bastard?
> My problem? I am the one who likes to molest your children. What does
> your wife have to say about me molesting her children, or does she keep
> quiet because of all the beatings I give her?
Finally.
Spaceman
"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2Kkma.596$pE.9...@news.uswest.net...
> My problem? You are the one who likes to molest your children. What does
> your wife have to say about you molesting her children, or does she keep
> quiet because of all the beatings?
Still lost without any facts huh, and now making up all sorts of non facts huh Mike.
Poor thing.
Seek help you poor pathalogical lying piece of shit for a lost mind.
You truly need it and it is only an "in your head alone" problem..
You are one sad sack of dung, and like to keep proving it huh?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
www.realspaceman.com
Bill Vajk
OrgName: University of Colorado - Boulder
OrgID: UCB-2
Address: Computing and Network Services
Address: 3645 Marine Street
City: Boulder
StateProv: CO
PostalCode: 80309-0455
Country: US
NetRange: 198.11.16.0 - 198.11.31.255
CIDR: 198.11.16.0/20
NetName: NETBLK-CU-B-
NetHandle: NET-198-11-16-0-1
Parent: NET-198-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: BOULDER.COLORADO.EDU
NameServer: CUJO.COLORADO.EDU
NameServer: NS1.WESTNET.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 1992-11-23
Updated: 1998-09-26
TechHandle: DCMW-ARIN
TechName: Wood, David CM
TechPhone: +1-303-492-4905
TechEmail: dcm...@spot.colorado.edu
Mike Varney
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E99E3B6...@hotmail.com...
> Where is Mike Varney?
>
> OrgName: University of Colorado - Boulder
> OrgID: UCB-2
> Address: Computing and Network Services
> Address: 3645 Marine Street
> City: Boulder
> StateProv: CO
> PostalCode: 80309-0455
> Country: US
*yawn* So what else is new?
> NetRange: 198.11.16.0 - 198.11.31.255
> CIDR: 198.11.16.0/20
> NetName: NETBLK-CU-B-
> NetHandle: NET-198-11-16-0-1
> Parent: NET-198-0-0-0-0
> NetType: Direct Assignment
> NameServer: BOULDER.COLORADO.EDU
> NameServer: CUJO.COLORADO.EDU
> NameServer: NS1.WESTNET.NET
Yup. Good job.
> RegDate: 1992-11-23
> Updated: 1998-09-26
>
> TechHandle: DCMW-ARIN
> TechName: Wood, David CM
> TechPhone: +1-303-492-4905
> TechEmail: dcm...@spot.Colorado.edu
You also forgot:
rintintin.colorado.edu/~varney
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0210004
physics.colorado.edu
How about I raise you a nickel?
William J Vajk, (847) 272-5688, 1841 Highland Ave, Northbrook, IL 60062
Age 63
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&address=1841+HIGHLAND+AVE&ci
ty=NORTHBROOK&state=IL&zipcode=60062
This might be a bit suspect since you act like you are seven.
How about SS number? Bank account number? Drivers licence?
Oh... right... almost forgot the simple stuff...
OrgName: AT&T WorldNet Services
OrgID: ATTW
Address: 400 Interpace Parkway
City: Parsippany
StateProv: NJ
PostalCode: 07054
Country: US
NetRange: 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255
CIDR: 12.0.0.0/8
NetName: ATT
NetHandle: NET-12-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: DBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET
NameServer: DMTU.MT.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET
NameServer: CBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET
NameServer: CMTU.MT.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET
Comment: For abuse issues contact ab...@att.net
RegDate: 1983-08-23
Updated: 2002-08-23
TechHandle: DK71-ARIN
TechName: Kostick, Deirdre
TechPhone: +1-919-319-8249
TechEmail: he...@ip.att.net
OrgAbuseHandle: ATTAB-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: ATT Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-919-319-8130
OrgAbuseEmail: ab...@att.net
OrgTechHandle: ICC-ARIN
OrgTechName: IP Customer Care
OrgTechPhone: +1-888-613-6330
OrgTechEmail: qho...@att.com
OrgTechHandle: IPSWI-ARIN
OrgTechName: IP SWIP
OrgTechPhone: +1-888-613-6330
OrgTechEmail: swi...@nipaweb.vip.att.net
12.248.43.214
Mike Varney
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2Kkma.596$pE.9...@news.uswest.net...
> > My problem? You are the one who likes to molest your children. What
does
> > your wife have to say about you molesting her children, or does she keep
> > quiet because of all the beatings?
>
> Still lost without any facts huh,
So... yes or no... have you stopped molesting your son?
Spaceman
"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:yWlma.602$pE.1...@news.uswest.net...
It is not a yes or no question in my case asshole.
I never have done such at all, you lying piece of crap.
You should seek help.
You must be real afraid of me to make up such crap.
Poor Mr Mike Varney.
Needs a shrink bad, yet is still in stage one denial.
Fuch Off asshole.
xxein
xxein: Kuwell! Now we're getting somewhere. Who is burried in
Grant's tomb? And while you're at it, see if the Statue of Liberty is
to be found at Copperfield 5-5555.
With ulterior motivations like you guys exibit, it's no wonder that
there is no real science to be found in this ng. It's no wonder that
real scientific principles take a back seat to personal beliefs. With
minds like yours, the universe is a circus elephant that jumps through
hoops (on fire, no less (either or both in answer to the ambiguity)).
But you can put this vindictiveness to good use. Use your
investigative skills to unearth everything about our Precedent (not a
typo) in the same fashion as was done wrt our previous President. A
problem? Tell us all about it.
v/c. A myriad of conjectures relating to a myriad of beliefs and the
universe still goes on, regardless of how we WANT to think of it.
Quite charming.
We haven't begun to get close to describing how this universe operates
and yet you guys know it all. <>lol. I hope that you do not think
that the description depends upon a politic or religion or some other
inbred belief.
I thank you both for letting me close this thread.
Bill Vajk
> I thank you both for letting me close this thread.
Did the fat lady sing?
Mike Varney
"xxein" <xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cce403e3.03041...@posting.google.com...
You are a crank... right?
Richard Perry
Spaceman. Use the following at your discretion. Note that in such cases
proof of personal damage need not be proven, it is presumed by the law
to follow.
2. Defamation Per se
Some statements are so defamatory that they are considered 'defamation
per se'; and the plaintiff does not
have to prove that the statements harmed his reputation.
The classic examples of defamation per se are
allegations of serious sexual misconduct; allegations of serious
criminal misbehavior; or allegations that a
person is afflicted with a loathsome disease. The historical examples of
loathsome diseases are leprosy and
venereal diseases. Allegations that a person is afflicted with AIDS may
well constitute a modern variation
on this form of defamation per se.
--
Richard Perry
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Mike Varney
"Richard Perry" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3E9A2847...@yahoo.com...
> Spaceman wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yWlma.602$pE.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > >
> > > "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> > > news:jslma.443826$3D1.240008@sccrnsc01...
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2Kkma.596$pE.9...@news.uswest.net...
> > > > > My problem? You are the one who likes to molest your children.
What
> > > does
> > > > > your wife have to say about you molesting her children, or does
she keep
> > > > > quiet because of all the beatings?
> > > >
> > > > Still lost without any facts huh,
> > >
> > > So... yes or no... have you stopped molesting your son?
> >
> > It is not a yes or no question in my case asshole.
<SNIP>
> Spaceman. Use the following at your discretion.
You mean like he uses his son?
And you Perry, are a well known crank as well.
Mike Varney
Idiot. Look up:
47 USC §230
QED
Richard Perry
I don't think that's necessary. It probably pertains to 'rhetoric'. In
short "When a statement taken in context is an obvious instance of
rhetoric, it is not prosecutable.
It was rhetoric, which should be obvious to everyone here. Goody for
you.
Bill Vajk
> Idiot. Look up:
> 47 USC §230
> QED
Wrong again. Mike Varney is not a provider or common carrier
and is liable under state laws wherever the injury is sustained
for defamation, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.
Try this opinion:
It seems to me as a layman that James has a very good case.
William J. Vajk
Techny, Illinois
Mike Varney
> Mike Varney wrote:
>
> > Idiot. Look up:
>
> > 47 USC §230
>
> > QED
>
> Wrong again. Mike Varney is not a provider or common carrier
> and is liable under state laws wherever the injury is sustained
> for defamation, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional
> distress.
Read it again, moron. Also look at its use in cases. Do you want to argue
yourself into a deep hole again? *smirk*
Bill Vajk
>>Mike Varney wrote:
>>>Idiot. Look up:
>>>47 USC §230
>>>QED
I sure do hope James decides to sue you. Here's part of the
statute you so kindly referenced:
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to
deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and
harassment by means of computer.
Perhaps you should have read past the first few lines. This does
*not* supercede the sorts of state laws I mentioned, and also
does not preclude judgments from being brought under state laws.
But then I'm not a lawyer, and I can only go by what the statute
itself says. You're in deep doodo, Varney, precisely where you
belong.
Mike Varney
> Mike Varney wrote:
>
> > "Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E9A36B2...@hotmail.com...
>
> >>Mike Varney wrote:
>
> >>>Idiot. Look up:
>
> >>>47 USC §230
>
> >>>QED
>
> >>Wrong again. Mike Varney is not a provider or common carrier
> >>and is liable under state laws wherever the injury is sustained
> >>for defamation, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional
> >>distress.
>
> > Read it again, moron. Also look at its use in cases. Do you want to
argue
> > yourself into a deep hole again? *smirk*
>
> I sure do hope James decides to sue you.
I see you are expressing another trait of a crackpot. The propensity to
take into RL what is happening in Usenet. You also seem to like the idea of
lawsuits.
Hello crackpot.
Richard Perry
Can you name a single instance such as this that has been successfully
prosecuted? The remark doesn't fall under any of the criteria listed.
Harassment involves more than rhetorical remarks being made. I'm not
supporting this sort of ad hominem, but then if everyone sued everyone
else for insults around here then we'd 'all' be in deep doodo:) Where
would you draw the line between an acceptable insult and an unacceptable
insult from an objective standpoint? Maybe you can see why these
incidents are rarely pursued and even more rarely backed by the courts.
Oriel36
Enough of this nonsense.
All of us have known at least one person whoes life was destroyed by
accusation and it comes under the phychobabble umbrella of science
meshed into the legal system,even here in this forum where sincerity
should be a prime factor,everything is relative to what men can get
away with for social convenience based on false convictions and
assumptions,please do not add to it.
http://www.fathermag.com/808/GenderBias.shtml
Relativity sparked a revolution for the weakminded,where as Yeats
said,"the best are silent and the worst have all the conviction",a
daily glance at namecalling and silly effiminate judgements done here
tells you just what a mess has been created in a vacuum where the
authority sees only what it needs to.
Spend enough time in this forum and you see humanity at its worst,the
danger is that I would add to it regardless of a genuine interest in
the study of natural phenomena,but the stuff I have seen here this
past few days is nothing short of abyssmal,the only winners are those
who design responses for reactions which have nothing to do with the
topic under discussion,great if you wish to diffuse a valid point but
a terrible act of intellectual vandalism.
Now, moderate participants may gloat for a while at the short term
advantage they achieve by watching human beings cut to pieces by
runaway undiscipline,in the area of science discipline along with
sincerity accomplishes most,the ability to focus past the trash of the
outside politics and this takes drop by drop everything in a man,the
worst part of the relativistic legend is that you run all these posts
based on pidgeonholing,today you are one of the gang,tommorrow you are
not.
I did like that posting from a participant although I would restrict
it to science rather than American society.What is worse than knowing
that something is wrong and doing nothing about but knowing it is
wrong and keeping it that way out of convenience.sr,gr and qm are a
statement of that.For others they simply do not know these things are
wrong and there is no harm in that,after a while here you learn to
tell the difference.
Here is that excerpt I refer to;
"In desperation I cannot but turn my attention to other tragic periods
in
which major societies, some with claims to fundamental contributions
to
culture and science, have deviated so far as to be relegated to
ostracism and quarantine. At this point I think American society
should
be considered in this category. I have no illusions of power, as to
the
scope and prospect of my attitude. But, the minor role of my act and
statement is a simple way of affirming that in the face of a growing
enormity which I consider intolerable, I will exercise my own tiny act
of disobedience to be able to look straight into the eyes of my
grandchildren and my students and say that I did know.
With regard
Daniel Amit"
Titan Point
This is crap. The demonstration of plagiarism requires no such paranormal
ability, just a reference to materials which where copied and passed off
as original research.
>
>
>> How do we know one hundred years later then? Do we now have time-travel?
>
> No, we don't. That's the point.
So what is your point?
>> Or it is simply the case that it is preposterous to claim the Lorentz was
>> plagiarised by Einstein when Lorentz himself made no such claim and even
>> praised Einstein for his original thinking?
>
> Nope. It's not preposterous. There's that hard evidence. But it's not
> possible to be certain. Invoking opinion from authorities (who have access
> only to what we also have access to) is irrelevant.
What hard evidence? If Lorentz cannot be considered an authority on his
own work, then who can?
>
>> >
>> >> But then, he didn't have a book to sell to the gullible, did he?
>> >
>> > ????
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Mining decades of quotes as if finding one, single quote that seems
> to
>> >> > support one's worldview is not physics -- or even history.
>> >>
>> >> True, but its preferable to guessing.
>> >
>> > ???? But there's no need to "guess!"
>>
>> That's right. The parsimonious answer is that Einstein did not plagiarize
>> Lorentz, because Lorentz would have said so long and loud had Eisntein
>> done so.
>
> LOL! Not if Lorentz was a gentleman.
Lorentz did not need to be a gentleman. If Lorentz had any inkling that
Einstein had plagiarized his work, he would have said so. The fact that he
didn't and further praised Einstein for his original thinking undermines
the crackpot theories of Einstein's "plagiarism"
>
>> Now since there is no evidence that Lorentz ever did so, then you're
>> whistling in the dark.
>
> I never claimed that Einstein plagiarized Lorentz.
>
No but you have claimed that Lorentz was in no position to know whether
Einstein had plagiarized his work: a preposterous claim.
Robert Kolker
Richard Perry wrote:
> Spaceman. Use the following at your discretion. Note that in such cases
> proof of personal damage need not be proven, it is presumed by the law
> to follow.
>
> 2. Defamation Per se
>
> Some statements are so defamatory that they are considered 'defamation
> per se'; and the plaintiff does not
> have to prove that the statements harmed his reputation.
Under the law in most American states, no libel or slander damages ensue
if the statements allegedly made are show to be true. This is the case
even where malicious intent can be show. In short, truth is an absolute
defense against libel and slander. How ever the burden of proof, is on
the defendant to show that the statements allegedly made are true.
Bob Kolker
Bill Vajk
> I see you are expressing another trait of a crackpot. The propensity to
> take into RL what is happening in Usenet. You also seem to like the idea of
> lawsuits.
> Hello crackpot.
I have a newsflash for you Varney, this, usenet, is very much
part of the real world. What you do here follows you. Compare
the case of the young woman from Bell Labs who claimed someone,
without her knowledge or approval, posted, "Black Reeboks make
my nipples hard." When came the moment she needed a new position
within the Labs she had a devil of a time finding a new/future
boss willing to overlook her public posting and the implications
of hiring a "big mouth." She was within a few days of losing her
accumulated time for being vested in the pension plan when
someone took pity on her. I know her personally, and it was a
shame the object lesson came to her at such a high price.
The original went out in 1988, predating the google database,
but I just found some discussion about it four years later.
It was, and remains, very much "real world" for her although
she remarried and her name has changed.
I have no idea what's driving you, Varney, but you're plainly
running out of control and you've done yourself some real
world damage.
Harry
"David Evens" <dev...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:3e992635...@news.falls.igs.net...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 14:22:54 -0700, "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com>
> another unless at least one of them does not exist yet.
SNIP
It's simple to compare (apart of the Poincare complication).
There is "in the main" no difference, as Lorentz himself commented in 1906:
"Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced."
So that's not the issue.
Harald
Bill Vajk
> Can you name a single instance such as this that has been successfully
> prosecuted? The remark doesn't fall under any of the criteria listed.
I'm not going back into the scotus database to search but yes, in
relation to defamation I just saw a case of a policeman whose boss
attached a a label/name to him indicating that for emotional reasons
the officer was unfit for any future position as a police officer.
The court decided the mere labeling the officer had substantially
damaged him.
The reason I won't go back is because I don't recall whether it was
a federal circuit court or scotus nor do I recall which particular
search it had come up under. I'm sure if you spend a little time
you can find a number of examples. Start with www.findlaw.com. I
skimmed over one case where there were many available. Defamation,
in Illinois, at least, falls under the "common law" category so the
baseline of judicial precedent goes back through English Common Law
to something before George III's reign. I looked it up once, but
disremember that detail. It is sufficient I know where to find it
in the local courthouse law library.
> Harassment involves more than rhetorical remarks being made. I'm
> not supporting this sort of ad hominem, but then if everyone sued
> everyone else for insults around here then we'd 'all' be in deep
> doodo:) Where would you draw the line between an acceptable insult
> and an unacceptable insult from an objective standpoint? Maybe
> you can see why these incidents are rarely pursued and even more
> rarely backed by the courts.
Some accusations are damaging the moment the words are spoken or
written. Unwarranted sexual deviance, as Varney accused Spaceman,
is one of them IMO. Look at the extent of damage caused by a set
of prosecutors some years back who held to the idea, "Why would
the children lie?" I had a neighbor who, when his son was the
right age, threw himself headfirst into scouting, till something
happened and he was accused by one of the boys of having touched
improperly. In the end my neighbor moved, because the accusation
alone led to social condemnation and he had absolutely no way to
clear his name. Before some idiot questions me and tests my
patience, I've lived here since 1976.
On the internet you never really know what someone's life
conditions and sensitivities are regarding off topic matters. So
if someone is considering throwing out a few nasty barbs they
really need to watch how far they go. It shouldn't be fear
driven so much as relying on a prudent man's integrity. Varney
has, IMO, gone past all reasonable and even exceeded unreasonable
bounds.
If you go to google groups and pull up Varney you find page after
page of these absurd flamewars surrounding the fellow. It was
inevitable at some point he exceed the boundaries and find himself
a real peck of trouble. I've always known that time wounds all heels.
I'll say it again. I'm not a lawyer and these opinions are my own.
Bill Vajk
> Richard Perry wrote:
>> 2. Defamation Per se
That's the classic case all right.
Varney apparently mistakenly thinks himself immune under a federal
statute designed to protect common carriers of internet traffic
for traffic not of their own making. Ignorance of the law is no
excuse.
Mike Varney
Idiot.
§230(a)(1), Congress provided that "No provider or user of an interactive
computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any
information provided by another information content provider. "
If you are so sure of yourself Bill, then sue me you "donkey raping shit
eater".