SAD but "three" issues show Einstein was a PLAGIARIST.
gu...@hotmail.com
Lorentz, Maxwell, Lamor...where their theories/observations where on
the time dilated micro-universe(electron in it's orbit...."yes" orbit)
where as Einstein applied it to the macro universe as well (all
objects).
#1. Einstein's E= mc^2 was in 1905, Poincare's m = E/c^2 was in 1900
and there's more (3 in total):
#2. http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/einsteins_box.htm
Above Not bad. Plagiarism is when you take someone else "radiation"
emission
and redemonstrate it using a different "radiation" in a box example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9
In the paper of 1900 Poincaré discussed the recoil of a physical
object when it emits a burst of radiation in one direction, as
predicted by Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics. He remarked that the
stream of radiation appeared to act like a "fictitious fluid" with a
mass per unit volume of e/c2, where e is the energy density; in other
words, the equivalent mass of the radiation is m = E / c2.
#3. Poincare was too well reknown including the above. And his
research
was in-line with Lorentz, Maxwell, Lamor, etc.... Anyone who read
Lorentz research at that time, read Poincare. In fact Einstein worked
with him on some research.
In 1900 Henri Poincaré studied the conflict between the action/
reaction principle and Lorentz ether theory. Einstein read all past
theories on Lorentz and light to which he used to formulate his
relativity theory in 1905.
VERY IMPORTANT CONTRAVORSY:
QUOTE:
"Einstein's first paper on relativity was published three months
after
Poincaré's short paper...... It relied on the principle of relativity
to derive the Lorentz transformations and used the *******same clock
synchronization******* procedure that Poincaré (1900) had described,
but was remarkable in that it contained *****no references**** at
all."
NO REMARKABILITY that makes TWO coincidences
= P.L.A.G.I.R.I.S.M.
Only when I meet Einstein in Heaven will he concede to his former
Companion.
JanPB
> It is "already" known Einstein's theory is an enhanced version of
> Lorentz, Maxwell, Lamor...where their theories/observations where on
> the time dilated micro-universe(electron in it's orbit...."yes" orbit)
> where as Einstein applied it to the macro universe as well (all
> objects).
Yes, "enhanced", like Copernicus "enhanced" the geocentric system.
> #1. Einstein's E= mc^2 was in 1905, Poincare's m = E/c^2 was in 1900
> and there's more (3 in total):
>
> #2.http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/einsteins_box.htm
>
> Above Not bad. Plagiarism is when you take someone else "radiation"
> emission
> and redemonstrate it using a different "radiation" in a box example.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9
>
> In the paper of 1900 Poincaré discussed the recoil of a physical
> object when it emits a burst of radiation in one direction, as
> predicted by Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics. He remarked that the
> stream of radiation appeared to act like a "fictitious fluid" with a
> mass per unit volume of e/c2, where e is the energy density; in other
> words, the equivalent mass of the radiation is m = E / c2.
>
> #3. Poincare was too well reknown including the above. And his
> research
> was in-line with Lorentz, Maxwell, Lamor, etc.... Anyone who read
> Lorentz research at that time, read Poincare. In fact Einstein worked
> with him on some research.
>
> In 1900 Henri Poincaré studied the conflict between the action/
> reaction principle and Lorentz ether theory. Einstein read all past
> theories on Lorentz and light to which he used to formulate his
> relativity theory in 1905.
Einstein created a new mechanics, superseding Newton's. This is what
his 1905 accomplishment was.
The fact that this new theory reproduced certain isolated and somewhat
ad hoc formulas that had been obtained earlier doesn't imply any
plagiarism (only an ignoramus can say that).
Besides, what else would you expect from a new theory that matched
experimental results? That it would NOT contain within itself some
correct formulas from the past? How can that be possible? Clearly, any
new theory MUST reproduce what had been known to be correct in a
fragmentary and ad hoc manner before.
Do you think that Newton, for example, just pulled out entire calculus
out of his hat? You should see how much foreshadowing had been
happening in "the calculus of fluxions". Of course you would say
Newton was a plagiarist, right?
Learn something about science.
[further irrelevancies snipped]
--
Jan Bielawski
gu...@hotmail.com
Brilliantly spoken, unfortunately it does nothing to address the three
detailed issues accounting for the plagiarism.
Using your accountability, everyone would be absolved of plagiarism.
Hourra?!
JanPB
What plagiarism?
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189964343.7...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 16, 7:11 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It is "already" known Einstein's theory is an enhanced version of
> Lorentz, Maxwell, Lamor...where their theories/observations where on
> the time dilated micro-universe(electron in it's orbit...."yes" orbit)
> where as Einstein applied it to the macro universe as well (all
> objects).
Yes, "enhanced", like Copernicus "enhanced" the geocentric system
- and Einstein tried to bring back the flat Earth model.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.PNG
--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: news:1189468758....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.
The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
Eric Gisse
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Now think real hard about the following question:
If you, of all people, can see this...why is it Poincare and other
contemporaries of that time period could not?
Then for extra special bonus credit, explain why you are repeating
Bjerken's anti-semitic bullshit.
Dono
> Only when I meet Einstein in Heaven
The sooner you go, the better.
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 16, 11:57 am, <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Brilliantly spoken, unfortunately it does nothing to address the three
> > detailed issues accounting for the plagiarism.
>
> What plagiarism?
In his or her (his wife) first 1905 paper on relativity, Einstein's
derivation of the Lorentz transform was utterly nonsense, and yet he
was able to arrive at the exact equations of the Lorentz transform in
which Larmor and Lorentz had already published.
Talking about a guilty conscience, in Einstein's 1920 book, he
mathemaGically was able to get to the Lorentz transform through two
equations equating zero with zero. This feat would dazzle and
mesmerize Einstein Dingleberries to no end. However, for the ones who
actually are mathematicians, it is again a purely nonsense. <shrug>
Speaking about the principle of equivalence, normally when anyone
understands the Newtonian law of gravity would make the connection to
Galileo's principle of equivalence and move on. However, in
Einstein's case, it only took him several years to understand the
Newtonian law of gravity. After doing so, he quickly claimed to have
discovered the principle of equivalence --- by reverse-engineering the
Newtonian law of gravity.
On 11/20/1915, Hilbert presented the field equations based on the
Lagrangian he pulled out of his ass from. On 11/25/1915, Einstein did
his own presentation of the field equations. Since there is no other
way to attain the field equations from Hilbert's Lagrangian, it is
astronomically impossible to have two persons to come up with the same
mathematical nonsense within a week of each other. Using this
mathematical forensic evidence, we can easily establish the plagiarist
tendency in Einstein. <shrug>
gu...@hotmail.com
>
There's a little #1,#2,& #3 beside them.
gu...@hotmail.com
I do no when dat time u no dono? so who no.
gu...@hotmail.com
He worked in a patent office, he did no research by himself, his
research was other people's work and experiments. Didn't say he was
remarkably intelligent but that doesn't deny using a large portion of
other people's musical notes and thesis.
Dono
So, fuck off :-)
JanPB
> On Sep 16, 12:47 pm, JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 11:57 am, <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Brilliantly spoken, unfortunately it does nothing to address the three
> > > detailed issues accounting for the plagiarism.
>
> > What plagiarism?
>
> In his or her (his wife) first 1905 paper on relativity, Einstein's
> derivation of the Lorentz transform was utterly nonsense, and yet he
> was able to arrive at the exact equations of the Lorentz transform in
> which Larmor and Lorentz had already published.
"Utter nonsense?" The derivation is mathematically simple linear
algebra that's easy to verify.
> Talking about a guilty conscience, in Einstein's 1920 book, he
> mathemaGically was able to get to the Lorentz transform through two
> equations equating zero with zero. This feat would dazzle and
> mesmerize Einstein Dingleberries to no end.
Same thing. And it wasn't any "guilty conscience" - it's your
incompetence speaking again.
> However, for the ones who
> actually are mathematicians, it is again a purely nonsense. <shrug>
Not at all. It's just that people like you are not able to understand
anything more complicated than arithmetic, it seems. (Anyone noticed
how the resident "critics" never-ever discuss the SECOND part of
Einstein's paper?)
> Speaking about the principle of equivalence, normally when anyone
> understands the Newtonian law of gravity would make the connection to
> Galileo's principle of equivalence and move on.
Hahahahaha! That's priceless - Dirk, are you there?
> However, in
> Einstein's case, it only took him several years to understand the
> Newtonian law of gravity. After doing so, he quickly claimed to have
> discovered the principle of equivalence --- by reverse-engineering the
> Newtonian law of gravity.
What utter nonsense. Complete Python-speak. Do you have a computer to
generate these sentences?
> On 11/20/1915, Hilbert presented the field equations based on the
> Lagrangian he pulled out of his ass from.
Since you have clue what Lagrangian or field Lagrangians are, I find
it very surprising you would write anything about them. Think about
it: wouldn't it be more _fun_ to post to a newsgroup whose subject
matter you are actually familiar with? Isn't it just plain boring to
have your "arguments" demolished time after time?
> On 11/25/1915, Einstein did
> his own presentation of the field equations. Since there is no other
> way to attain the field equations from Hilbert's Lagrangian,
Of course there is. You are simply not familiar with the subject at
all. I told you like 2 years ago already - or whenever that was - to
read e.g. Ohanian and Ruffini where GR is derived by considerations
analogous to deriving electrodynamics. This is not what happened
historically but the point is it can be done and it could have
happened. There is actually an entire industry within GR devoted to
tracing the ways of deriving it and showing GR's uniqueness in that
context.
> it is
> astronomically impossible to have two persons to come up with the same
> mathematical nonsense within a week of each other. Using this
> mathematical forensic evidence, we can easily establish the plagiarist
> tendency in Einstein. <shrug>
Armchair criticism. For everyone else I suggest to go to a library and
read research based on Einstein's Archive (and other relevant
archives, like that of Lorentz, Hilbert, etc.) as opposed to fantasies
based on wishful thinking and Dreamworks SKG.
--
Jan Bielawski
jan.bi...@gmail.com
It's hilarious to watch these exchanges. Before the Internet it was
not that obvious how many people had those idiotic ideas (not just
about Einstein). Through the centuries there were always some confused
amateurs running in the gloomy tunnels of ignorance and intellectual
laziness - all those circle squarers, angle trisectors - but that was
considered something of a lunatic fringe. What the Internet shows is
that this type of intellectual dishonesty and lack of self-criticism
in certain _very narrow domains_ (fortunately, they are very narrow)
is quite common.
If these blind spots in their minds were not so (fortunately) narrow,
we'd have a real serious problem. (Fortunately) what these people
think about Einstein is of no consequence.
But just imagine for a second these blind spots were in fact broad and
extended over the majority of these people's activities. It would mean
nothing less than basically a nation of schizophrenics. (I mean it.)
--
Jan Bielawski
jan.bi...@gmail.com
They are worthless.
--
Jan Bielawski
gu...@hotmail.com
u no dono, u approached me, so u no dono, u do what u write above o.
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 16, 10:26 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > In his or her (his wife) first 1905 paper on relativity, Einstein's
> > derivation of the Lorentz transform was utterly nonsense, and yet he
> > was able to arrive at the exact equations of the Lorentz transform in
> > which Larmor and Lorentz had already published.
>
> "Utter nonsense?" The derivation is mathematically simple linear
> algebra that's easy to verify.
More bullsh*t. Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform was
utterly nonsense.
> > Talking about a guilty conscience, in Einstein's 1920 book, he
> > mathemaGically was able to get to the Lorentz transform through two
> > equations equating zero with zero. This feat would dazzle and
> > mesmerize Einstein Dingleberries to no end.
>
> Same thing. And it wasn't any "guilty conscience" - it's your
> incompetence speaking again.
See what I mean. You are so dazzled and mesmerized by Einstein's
matheMagic tricks.
** 0 = 0
** 0 = 0
** dt' = (dt - v^2 dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
** dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
<tada> Wow! How did Einstein do that?
Most would call Einstein a genius of all. True scholars would regard
that as BS and toss Einstein into the trashcan labeled 'NITWIT'.
<shrug>
> > However, for the ones who
> > actually are mathematicians, it is again a purely nonsense. <shrug>
>
> Not at all. It's just that people like you are not able to understand
> anything more complicated than arithmetic, it seems.
Well, just because I have called foul in the matheMagical tricks of
Einstein, it does not mean I cannot do arithmetic. I just don't play
matheMagic.
> (Anyone noticed
> how the resident "critics" never-ever discuss the SECOND part of
> Einstein's paper?)
What about the second part of Einstein's paper?
> > Speaking about the principle of equivalence, normally when anyone
> > understands the Newtonian law of gravity would make the connection to
> > Galileo's principle of equivalence and move on.
>
> Hahahahaha! That's priceless - Dirk, are you there?
Yes, moortel. Please record this one as another fast-index finder of
my posts.
> > However, in
> > Einstein's case, it only took him several years to understand the
> > Newtonian law of gravity. After doing so, he quickly claimed to have
> > discovered the principle of equivalence --- by reverse-engineering the
> > Newtonian law of gravity.
>
> What utter nonsense. Complete Python-speak. Do you have a computer to
> generate these sentences?
The truth really hurts, does it not? Your idol Einstein was a nitwit.
> > On 11/20/1915, Hilbert presented the field equations based on the
> > Lagrangian he pulled out of his ass from.
>
> Since you have clue what Lagrangian or field Lagrangians are, I find
> it very surprising you would write anything about them. Think about
> it: wouldn't it be more _fun_ to post to a newsgroup whose subject
> matter you are actually familiar with? Isn't it just plain boring to
> have your "arguments" demolished time after time?
I don't see any demolishing. You are indeed schizophrenic. <shrug>
> > On 11/25/1915, Einstein did
> > his own presentation of the field equations. Since there is no other
> > way to attain the field equations from Hilbert's Lagrangian,
>
> Of course there is. You are simply not familiar with the subject at
> all. I told you like 2 years ago already - or whenever that was - to
> read e.g. Ohanian and Ruffini where GR is derived by considerations
> analogous to deriving electrodynamics. This is not what happened
> historically but the point is it can be done and it could have
> happened. There is actually an entire industry within GR devoted to
> tracing the ways of deriving it and showing GR's uniqueness in that
> context.
Deriving the Einstein tensor from the Bianchi identity does not mean
the derivation of the field equations. <shrug>
> > it is
> > astronomically impossible to have two persons to come up with the same
> > mathematical nonsense within a week of each other. Using this
> > mathematical forensic evidence, we can easily establish the plagiarist
> > tendency in Einstein. <shrug>
>
> Armchair criticism. For everyone else I suggest to go to a library and
> read research based on Einstein's Archive (and other relevant
> archives, like that of Lorentz, Hilbert, etc.) as opposed to fantasies
> based on wishful thinking and Dreamworks SKG.
Done that, and I am back.
Koobee Wublee
> It's hilarious to watch these exchanges. Before the Internet it was
> not that obvious how many people had those idiotic ideas (not just
> about Einstein). Through the centuries there were always some confused
> amateurs running in the gloomy tunnels of ignorance and intellectual
> laziness - all those circle squarers, angle trisectors - but that was
> considered something of a lunatic fringe. What the Internet shows is
> that this type of intellectual dishonesty and lack of self-criticism
> in certain _very narrow domains_ (fortunately, they are very narrow)
> is quite common.
It is hilarious to read the postings from Einstein Dingleberries.
Before the internet, it was not so obvious how many of these
Dingleberries were out there. They cannot do the math, cannot do the
reasoning, cannot accept the actual version of history; all they can
do is to repeat the nonsense fed to them when they started learning
the stuff. What the internet shows is that there are actually
intelligent people who are not afraid to rightfully criticize these
Dingleberries. It is no wonder the Dingleberries are scared
sh*tless.
> If these blind spots in their minds were not so (fortunately) narrow,
> we'd have a real serious problem. (Fortunately) what these people
> think about Einstein is of no consequence.
Most of people cannot think for themselves. They can only allow
others to think for them. If the Dingleberries got to them first,
their minds are poisoned. It would take a lot of effort to cleanse
Dingleberries' excrement out of their minds. Luckily, the internet
will allow the intellectual scholars to get to the young ones before
they are poisoned by the Einstein Dingleberries.
> But just imagine for a second these blind spots were in fact broad and
> extended over the majority of these people's activities. It would mean
> nothing less than basically a nation of schizophrenics. (I mean it.)
The Einstein Dingleberries will pass in the next few generations
because of the internet. This is a trend that the Einstein
Dingleberries cannot stop. I do mean it.
JanPB
> On Sep 17, 9:10 am, jan.bielaw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > It's hilarious to watch these exchanges. Before the Internet it was
> > not that obvious how many people had those idiotic ideas (not just
> > about Einstein). Through the centuries there were always some confused
> > amateurs running in the gloomy tunnels of ignorance and intellectual
> > laziness - all those circle squarers, angle trisectors - but that was
> > considered something of a lunatic fringe. What the Internet shows is
> > that this type of intellectual dishonesty and lack of self-criticism
> > in certain _very narrow domains_ (fortunately, they are very narrow)
> > is quite common.
>
> It is hilarious to read the postings from Einstein Dingleberries.
> Before the internet, it was not so obvious how many of these
> Dingleberries were out there. They cannot do the math, cannot do the
> reasoning, cannot accept the actual version of history; all they can
> do is to repeat the nonsense fed to them when they started learning
> the stuff. What the internet shows is that there are actually
> intelligent people who are not afraid to rightfully criticize these
> Dingleberries. It is no wonder the Dingleberries are scared
> sh*tless.
I see you are now resorting to The Androcles Method: cut and paste
with small alterations to make it look funny. It doesn't occur to you
that perhaps you are creating an impression of having nothing to say?
> > If these blind spots in their minds were not so (fortunately) narrow,
> > we'd have a real serious problem. (Fortunately) what these people
> > think about Einstein is of no consequence.
>
> Most of people cannot think for themselves. They can only allow
> others to think for them.
That may be true but this line has been hijacked as the standard
excuse to broadcast ludicrous lies.
> If the Dingleberries got to them first,
> their minds are poisoned. It would take a lot of effort to cleanse
> Dingleberries' excrement out of their minds. Luckily, the internet
> will allow the intellectual scholars to get to the young ones before
> they are poisoned by the Einstein Dingleberries.
Luckily, this is a mathematical science, so all your problems can be
figured out and straightened out in the mind of anyone who is
interested and honest. It's that simple.
> > But just imagine for a second these blind spots were in fact broad and
> > extended over the majority of these people's activities. It would mean
> > nothing less than basically a nation of schizophrenics. (I mean it.)
>
> The Einstein Dingleberries will pass in the next few generations
> because of the internet. This is a trend that the Einstein
> Dingleberries cannot stop. I do mean it.
Einstein's relativity is going to the same place Newtonian mechanics
is going. IOW, it's here to stay since for its domain of validity it's
the simplest model to account for the observed phenomena.
--
Jan Bielawski
Randy Poe
> But just imagine for a second these blind spots were in fact broad and
> extended over the majority of these people's activities. It would mean
> nothing less than basically a nation of schizophrenics. (I mean it.)
Yes, but which nation? I think our regular cast
of anti-relativists is pretty much international.
- Randy
JanPB
> On Sep 17, 8:35 am, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 10:26 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > In his or her (his wife) first 1905 paper on relativity, Einstein's
> > > derivation of the Lorentz transform was utterly nonsense, and yet he
> > > was able to arrive at the exact equations of the Lorentz transform in
> > > which Larmor and Lorentz had already published.
>
> > "Utter nonsense?" The derivation is mathematically simple linear
> > algebra that's easy to verify.
>
> More bullsh*t. Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform was
> utterly nonsense.
That derivation is mathematics. It can be easily verified. That you
cannot do it to your satisfaction tells us a lot about your
competence. It is also noted that you don't post any proof of this so-
called "nonsense". You just talk about it. (Anyone can talk about
anything, you know.)
> > > Talking about a guilty conscience, in Einstein's 1920 book, he
> > > mathemaGically was able to get to the Lorentz transform through two
> > > equations equating zero with zero. This feat would dazzle and
> > > mesmerize Einstein Dingleberries to no end.
>
> > Same thing. And it wasn't any "guilty conscience" - it's your
> > incompetence speaking again.
>
> See what I mean. You are so dazzled and mesmerized by Einstein's
> matheMagic tricks.
>
> ** 0 = 0
> ** 0 = 0
>
> ** dt' = (dt - v^2 dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
> ** dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
>
> <tada> Wow! How did Einstein do that?
Is this gobbledyggok supposed to be some kind of a proof? State
clearly: where in Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform an
"utter nonsense" occurs. (Writing some random "0 = 0" does not qualify
as an argument.)
> Most would call Einstein a genius of all. True scholars would regard
> that as BS and toss Einstein into the trashcan labeled 'NITWIT'.
> <shrug>
There are many other good physicists. Einstein is more well-known to
the general public because the media fell in love with his antics and
because of the bomb. Unlike some regulars here, real scientists know
exactly what Einstein did and respect him accordingly. No more and no
less. They know the limitations of these theories better than you do.
Everything else you might have heard on the subject is dreamland and
wishful thinking. (I'm sorry that the truth is so plain and I fully
agree the James-Bond-like fantasies of worldwide conspiracy and
stupidity would be more exciting.)
> > > However, for the ones who
> > > actually are mathematicians, it is again a purely nonsense. <shrug>
>
> > Not at all. It's just that people like you are not able to understand
> > anything more complicated than arithmetic, it seems.
>
> Well, just because I have called foul in the matheMagical tricks of
> Einstein, it does not mean I cannot do arithmetic. I just don't play
> matheMagic.
It's just talk. Write down, _precisely_, where the error in Einstein's
Lorentz derivation is.
> > (Anyone noticed
> > how the resident "critics" never-ever discuss the SECOND part of
> > Einstein's paper?)
>
> What about the second part of Einstein's paper?
It's never referred to by any of the resident Einstein "critics" for
the very simple reason that they don't understand the mathematics
necessary for understanding it. The first part OTOH uses only simple
algebra so it naturally opens itself to Boeotian "critics".
> > > Speaking about the principle of equivalence, normally when anyone
> > > understands the Newtonian law of gravity would make the connection to
> > > Galileo's principle of equivalence and move on.
>
> > Hahahahaha! That's priceless - Dirk, are you there?
>
> Yes, moortel. Please record this one as another fast-index finder of
> my posts.
>
> > > However, in
> > > Einstein's case, it only took him several years to understand the
> > > Newtonian law of gravity. After doing so, he quickly claimed to have
> > > discovered the principle of equivalence --- by reverse-engineering the
> > > Newtonian law of gravity.
>
> > What utter nonsense. Complete Python-speak. Do you have a computer to
> > generate these sentences?
>
> The truth really hurts, does it not? Your idol Einstein was a nitwit.
"truth" doesn't even enter into it. What you wrote is just
meaningless.
> > > On 11/20/1915, Hilbert presented the field equations based on the
> > > Lagrangian he pulled out of his ass from.
>
> > Since you have clue what Lagrangian or field Lagrangians are, I find
> > it very surprising you would write anything about them. Think about
> > it: wouldn't it be more _fun_ to post to a newsgroup whose subject
> > matter you are actually familiar with? Isn't it just plain boring to
> > have your "arguments" demolished time after time?
>
> I don't see any demolishing. You are indeed schizophrenic. <shrug>
>
> > > On 11/25/1915, Einstein did
> > > his own presentation of the field equations. Since there is no other
> > > way to attain the field equations from Hilbert's Lagrangian,
>
> > Of course there is. You are simply not familiar with the subject at
> > all. I told you like 2 years ago already - or whenever that was - to
> > read e.g. Ohanian and Ruffini where GR is derived by considerations
> > analogous to deriving electrodynamics. This is not what happened
> > historically but the point is it can be done and it could have
> > happened. There is actually an entire industry within GR devoted to
> > tracing the ways of deriving it and showing GR's uniqueness in that
> > context.
>
> Deriving the Einstein tensor from the Bianchi identity does not mean
> the derivation of the field equations. <shrug>
Oh stop it. Read the book, stop talking nonsense.
> > > it is
> > > astronomically impossible to have two persons to come up with the same
> > > mathematical nonsense within a week of each other. Using this
> > > mathematical forensic evidence, we can easily establish the plagiarist
> > > tendency in Einstein. <shrug>
>
> > Armchair criticism. For everyone else I suggest to go to a library and
> > read research based on Einstein's Archive (and other relevant
> > archives, like that of Lorentz, Hilbert, etc.) as opposed to fantasies
> > based on wishful thinking and Dreamworks SKG.
>
> Done that, and I am back.
The story of Einstein and Hilbert as reported by researchers supports
conclusions opposite to yours. The most charitable conclusion would be
that you are a careless reader. (But then plain honesty would stop a
normal person from posting lies.)
--
Jan Bielawski
capstan
JanPB
All lies (nonsense at best). It doesn't deserve any answer as it's
meaningless word salad anyway.
--
Jan Bielawski
gu...@hotmail.com
And your comment without explanation?
> --
> Jan Bielawski- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
gu...@hotmail.com
Did Einstein come-up with light speed being constant in all
directions?
What did Lorentz apply his time dilation and length contraction on, or
maybe he just liked to write formulas.
Was Einstein the first to write M = E/c^2 due to radiation, he
introduced his equation using radiation.
Ignorance would say Einstein showed light speed is the same for
different platforms, and would give an incorrect reply as to how
Lorentz derived time dilation.
Eric Gisse
[...]
>Oh stop it. Read the book, stop talking nonsense.
We both know he won't.
He has asked for proof that you can derive the field equations from
the Einstein-Hilbert action, and I tossed him a specific page number
in MTW. He never read it. It hasn't stopped him from repeating the
assertion.
I could toss him at least two books off the top of my head that have
alternative derivations of the field equations. He won't read them, so
I won't bother.
Have you ever seen him write down a book title or web page? Everything
I have seen from him is stuff I have already given him [eg,
mathpages.com] - he never offers anything of his own. I can't help but
wonder where he thinks he learned this stuff, much less how he thinks
he managed it.
[...]
Eric Gisse
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>And your comment without explanation?
He can do it because he is what I like to call "smart".
JanPB
wrote:
What I find kind of bizarre - not just with Koobee - is how these
people insist on doing something they cannot do. If it was me, I would
simply pick something I'm good at - and discuss _that_.
I see it as something akin to graphomania.
--
Jan Bielawski
gu...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:56:13 -0700, "gu...@hotmail.com"<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >And your comment without explanation?
>
> He can do it because he is what I like to call "smart".
>
>
guilty.
Eric Gisse
This is not a courtroom, I am not a lawyer, and you are not educated.
>
>
gu...@hotmail.com
Erica should note that "every" time she's gone into detail with her
objections I've always corrected her and highlighted her mistakes. no
coincidence.
Proper time is invariant. Temperature is invariant. Tensors are used
for
the spacetime manifold. You are my protege, i'm not yours.
Eric Gisse
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip all stupidities, forever]
I just realized...Agent has a killfilter and you don't even say
anything entertaining.
*plonk*
Koobee Wublee
> What I find kind of bizarre - not just with Koobee - is how these
> people insist on doing something they cannot do. If it was me, I would
> simply pick something I'm good at - and discuss _that_.
Oh, now we have words of encouragement to fellow Einstein
Dingleberries.
I see you picking a subject which you are totally wrong about and
_discuss_ that. You are indeed a one-man comedy show. Who needs
ZeinFelt?
> I see it as something akin to graphomania.
You are inventing more non-standard GR vocabularies. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> He has asked for proof that you can derive the field equations from
> the Einstein-Hilbert action, and I tossed him a specific page number
> in MTW. He never read it. It hasn't stopped him from repeating the
> assertion.
Oh, you call the fudging of the Einstein tensor through Bianchi
identity a derivation of the field equations. You are only kidding
the Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>
> I could toss him at least two books off the top of my head that have
> alternative derivations of the field equations. He won't read them, so
> I won't bother.
You don't discuss a subject with books. You need to understand the
subject well. <shrug>
> Have you ever seen him write down a book title or web page? Everything
> I have seen from him is stuff I have already given him [eg,
> mathpages.com] - he never offers anything of his own. I can't help but
> wonder where he thinks he learned this stuff, much less how he thinks
> he managed it.
If you understand the subject well, you do not need to hide under some
one's skirt. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Sep 17, 3:48 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > He has asked for proof that you can derive the field equations from
> > the Einstein-Hilbert action, and I tossed him a specific page number
> > in MTW. He never read it. It hasn't stopped him from repeating the
> > assertion.
>
> Oh, you call the fudging of the Einstein tensor through Bianchi
> identity a derivation of the field equations. You are only kidding
> the Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>
Clearly you didn't even bother reading the reference.
>
> > I could toss him at least two books off the top of my head that have
> > alternative derivations of the field equations. He won't read them, so
> > I won't bother.
>
> You don't discuss a subject with books. You need to understand the
> subject well. <shrug>
...and where do you learn the subject is not from books?
Seriously. Where did you learn the subject?
>
> > Have you ever seen him write down a book title or web page? Everything
> > I have seen from him is stuff I have already given him [eg,
> > mathpages.com] - he never offers anything of his own. I can't help but
> > wonder where he thinks he learned this stuff, much less how he thinks
> > he managed it.
>
> If you understand the subject well, you do not need to hide under some
> one's skirt. <shrug>
Says the guy posting under a pseudonym!
gu...@hotmail.com
wrote:
ahh..how does it go again, oh yes:
I think I'm going to be sad,
the "girl" dats driving me mad,
is goinnnnng awaaaay yeah,
Erica's got a ticket to ride,
Erica's got a ticket to ri..hi..ide,
Erica's got a ticket to ride,
cause "she" don't care.
My "baby" don't care.