Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 16, 2023, 11:17:06 PM8/16/23

to

You're a silly man who cares about silly prizes.

Richard Hertz

unread,

Aug 16, 2023, 11:18:55 PM8/16/23

to

How is it going with Earth Sciences, about the development of the theory of Global Warming? How many theories are?

One theory (akin to relativity forceful dissemination), two competing theories (majority, minority), three or more theories?

For anyone not being an imbecile ignorant, it comes to be that MANY fields of mathematics, physics and chemistry
are contributing on this matter.

And also, for anyone not being an imbecile ignorant, it's obvious how THIS MATTER correlates with the evolution of thermodynamics
in the XIX century THAT, as many have to known, ended in the DISCOVERY OF PHYSICS OF THE QUANTUM.

Much, much more than any field that relativity has been forcing to be involved.

But relativity is A FASCIST PSEUDOSCIENCE. No dissent is allowed. Democracy would allow dissent, not eliminate it.

As global warming is 1,000,000,000,000,000 times more important than relativity, and touches the mind, soul and fate of most people
(contrary to the tiny tribe of relativity), dissent and conflicting views are much more vast and widespread. Voices opposing to theory I
are not silenced, like in relativity, but are under the fire of many powerful ACTORS, which use defamation and mocking against the
members of other groups. TPTB use, also, many tools for censorship and cancellations that are common in relativity.

The ultra-concentrated power of the elites (WEF is one hub) has AN AGENDA, which IS NOT based on science but in profits, population
control and total domination beyond any dream (like 1984).

Are you calling Global Warming a non-scientific movement?

Do you dare TO REPEAT that science IS NOT a democracy?

If so, then you are a gullible person captured by the guided momentum of "global warming", as it happened with relativity.

Go back to read HISTORY OF SCIENCE, to understand HOW movements and public in general interact.

I strongly recommend YOU to read and memorize the contents of this book. It may help you with relativity also.

WHEN PHYSICS BECAME KING
Iwan Rhys Morus
The University of Chicago Press, 2005

1 Queen of the Sciences 1
2 A Revolutionary Science 22
3 The Romance of Nature 54
4 The Science of Showmanship 87
5 The Science of Work 123
6 Mysterious Fluids and Forces 156
7 Mapping the Heavens 192
8 Places of Precision 226
9 Imperial Physics 261

I recommend Chapter 2: A Revolutionary Science, to start with.

Maybe this book can enlighten you as no other book did. It's the history of human struggle against the unknown, which
is more or less what's happening in these days.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 16, 2023, 11:19:06 PM8/16/23

to

No one made that argument, so don't put words in people's mouths. The relativists argue that they have everyone they classify as an authority on their side. I'd rather have intelligent scientists on my side.

JanPB

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 12:14:33 AM8/17/23

to

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

Some of those may have interesting critiques but none of the resident
critics here would understand those arguments.

The rest is just junk and mental derangement. Einstein and relativity are
just one example of this sort of thing.

--
Jan

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 1:16:08 AM8/17/23

to

On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 04:58:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:

> How many of these folks provided evidence to support their criticisms?

Come on, poor fanatic trash. You've got a proof that
your beloved Shit was not even consistent. And
your answer? Polish jokes.

Volney

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 2:05:29 AM8/17/23

to

On 8/16/2023 9:08 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:38:41 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> List of Critics of Relativity:
>>

[snip long list of cranks and crackpots]

Meanwhile, relativity and Einstein are vindicated every time the nice
GPS lady says "Turn left in 100 meters".

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 2:06:11 AM8/17/23

to

You, Woz, are clearly the biggest Polish joke here...

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 2:17:17 AM8/17/23

to

Sure, it's vindicated - as some insane mumble
of some insane crazies.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 2:19:18 AM8/17/23

to

See, poor trash: I've proven your Shit idiocies to be
inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it apart
of spitting and insulting. So you are - spitting and
insulting.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 8:57:33 AM8/17/23

to

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

You might add Radwan Kassir to your list?

Message has been deleted

Mike Fontenot

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 10:15:05 AM8/17/23

to

On 8/16/23 6:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> List of Critics of Relativity:
>

> [...]
> Petr Beckmann
> [...]
>

Just a comment from a special relativity believer (me, Mike Fontenot):

I knew Petr Beckman. I first became aware of him when I was given the
task of doing "traffic engineering" for Bell Labs in Denver in the early
1970's. "Traffic engineering" is what most people called "queueing
theory". To educate myself, I read everything I could get on the
subject, and that included a short book by Petr Beckman. He was a
professor at the University of Colorado at that time. I was amazed how
coherent his writing was ... maybe the best I've ever seen. I found out
a little later about Beckman's writings on special relativity (and in
particular, his contention that it was an incorrect theory). I was (and
am) a firm believer in the correctness of special relativity, so I
disagreed with Beckman, but I nevertheless greatly admired his intellect.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 12:09:28 PM8/17/23

to

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

NOT IN HERTZ'S LIST:
Petr Beckmann*

Tom Bethell
Léon Brillouin
Steven B. Bryant

Jeremiah Joseph Callahan*
Heber Doust Curtis
Herbert Dingle*
Doan
Edward Henry Dowdye*
Pierre Duhem
Louis Essen*
Thomas C Van Flandern*
Theodor Fritsch
Lyubomir T. Gruyitch
Ronald Hatch*
Oliver Heaviside
Robert L. Henderson*
Axel Idestrom*
Kamen George Kamenov*
Wallace Kantor*
Radwan Kassir*
Arthur Lynch (politician)*
Joseph Larmor
Si-Xian Liang
Anatoly Logunov
Arthur Oncken Lovejoy

James MacKaye
William Duncan MacMillan

Paul Marmet*
Ian McCausland*
Hjalmar Mellin
Dayton Miller

Enrique Morales-Riveira
Forest Ray Moulton

Harald Nordenson
Alfred O'Rahilly
Arthur S. Otis*
Menyhért Palágyi
Leonard Parish
Thomas Phipps
Charles Lane Poor*

Jermain G. Porter
S. J. Prokhovnik

Alfred O'Rahilly
L. A. Redman*
N. Rudakov
Georges Sagnac
Andrew Schlafly*

Rolf Schock
Thomas Jefferson Jackson See

Jonas Sepetys
Jan Slowak
Harold Slusher
John Alexander Smith
Gennadiy Sokolov
Johannes Stark
Michael Straus

Tom Van Flandern*

Dono.

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 12:37:30 PM8/17/23

to

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:09:28 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>nothing of any relevance<

There are a lot of "Herr" and a lot of "Frau". And a lot of nazis. So many idiots, so little time....

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 2:15:13 PM8/17/23

to

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

> List of Critics of Relativity:

[list]
Einstein's reaction on learning about the book:
"Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein" (1931)
is still to the point:
"Wenn sie recht hätten, würde einer genügen."
(English)
"One would have sufficed, if they had been right",

Jan

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 2:15:13 PM8/17/23

to

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-08-17 00:38:36 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> >

> > Rutherford, Ernest
>
> I'd be interested to seewhat evidence you have that Rutherford was a
> critic of relativity: reference please.

Probably a misunderstanding by a non-native speaker of:

"The theory of relativity by Einstein, quite apart from any question of
its validity (laughter), could not but be regarded as a magnificent work
of art."
(Rutherford, one in a series of jocular toasts on the theme: science)

Jan

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 2:24:07 PM8/17/23

to

It's funny that a theory that denies the first law of physics for light, as the second postulate does, is supposed to be hard to criticize. Everything shares the velocity of the source, including light, contrary to that postulate. Not hard to understand.

whodat

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 2:24:34 PM8/17/23

to

Then why don't you?

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 2:47:30 PM8/17/23

to

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:32:03 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-17 00:38:36 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>

> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> >

> > Rutherford, Ernest
>
> I'd be interested to seewhat evidence you have that Rutherford was a
> critic of relativity: reference please.
> >

> > Johannes Stark
>
> Stark was a very nasty man -- a strong supporter of Hitler and the Nazi
> regime. His main objection to relativity seems to be his hatred of
> Jews: "We have to eradicate the Jewish spirit, whose blood can flow
> just as undisturbed today as before if its carriers hold beautiful
> Aryan passes."
>
> He sung a different tune earlier (1907), when, as the editor of the
> Yearbook of Radioactivity and Electronics he invited Albert Einstein to
> write an article on the principle of relativity.
>
> Most of the other people on your list are nonentities, rightly
> forgotten. Does anyone still take Herbert Dingle seriously, for example?
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
Don't say I never did anything for you:
"Stephen Leacock, Common Sense and the Universe Wilhelm Wein: "No Anglo-Saxon can understand relativity!"
Ernest Rutherford: "No! they've got too much sense!" From The Rutherford Memorial Lecture to the Physical Society 1954 by P. M. S. Blackett, Year Book of The Physical Society 1955." -
*******************************I confirmed above in Google books using the free search. *******************************

"Stephen Leacock once asked Ernest Rutherford what he
thought of Einstein's relativity. "Oh, that stuff!" Rutherford
replied. "We never bother with that in our work!"" -Leacock, S. 1945. "Common Sense and the Universe," in Last Leaves, Dodd, Mead & Co., New York, p. 43.

"Dr.Louis Essen wrote in 1988: “Rutherford treated it as a joke; Soddy called it a swindle ...: ….Einstein's use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists." (Dr.Louis Essen, inventor of atomic clock, 1988) [6 ]” [Soedarto, Gatot. Logical Fallacies Of Special And General Theory Of Relativity: Second Edition: General Relativity Doesn’t Meet The Principles Of Scientific Method. . Kindle Edition.]

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 2:50:48 PM8/17/23

to

Again, this argument was not made, so your reply is beside the point. I did not argue they were so many or so good they should be accepted. I merely shared the list.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 2:57:59 PM8/17/23

to

On 2023-08-17 18:47:28 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:

> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:32:03 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-08-17 00:38:36 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > List of
>> Critics of Relativity:> >
>>> Rutherford, Ernest>> I'd be interested to seewhat evidence you have
>>> that Rutherford was a> critic of relativity: reference please.> >> >
>>> Johannes Stark>> Stark was a very nasty man -- a strong supporter of
>>> Hitler and the Nazi> regime. His main objection to relativity seems to
>>> be his hatred of> Jews: "We have to eradicate the Jewish spirit, whose
>>> blood can flow> just as undisturbed today as before if its carriers
>>> hold beautiful> Aryan passes.">> He sung a different tune earlier
>>> (1907), when, as the editor of the> Yearbook of Radioactivity and
>>> Electronics he invited Albert Einstein to> write an article on the
>>> principle of relativity.>> Most of the other people on your list are
>>> nonentities, rightly> forgotten. Does anyone still take Herbert Dingle
>>> seriously, for example?>> --> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but
>>> detector of crackpots
> Don't say I never did anything for you:

Why would I say that? It's just common courtesy, not just to me, to
supply evidence for one's assertions.

> "Stephen Leacock, Common Sense and the Universe Wilhelm Wein: "No
> Anglo-Saxon can understand relativity!"
> Ernest Rutherford: "No! they've got too much sense!" From The
> Rutherford Memorial Lecture to the Physical Society 1954 by P. M. S.
> Blackett, Year Book of The Physical Society 1955." -
> *******************************I confirmed above in Google books using
> the free search. *******************************
>
> "Stephen Leacock once asked Ernest Rutherford what he
> thought of Einstein's relativity. "Oh, that stuff!" Rutherford
> replied. "We never bother with that in our work!"" -Leacock, S. 1945.
> "Common Sense and the Universe," in Last Leaves, Dodd, Mead & Co., New
> York, p. 43.
>
> "Dr.Louis Essen wrote in 1988: “Rutherford treated it as a joke; Soddy
> called it a swindle ...: ….Einstein's use of a thought experiment,
> together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result
> which fooled himself and generations of scientists." (Dr.Louis Essen,
> inventor of atomic clock, 1988) [6 ]” [Soedarto, Gatot. Logical
> Fallacies Of Special And General Theory Of Relativity: Second Edition:
> General Relativity Doesn’t Meet The Principles Of Scientific Method. .
> Kindle Edition.]

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 3:12:06 PM8/17/23

to

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:15:13 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Einstein has set the example you follow because the book only said there were a hundred without making this argument from numbers. You are following Einstein's bad example without thinking twice.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 3:13:10 PM8/17/23

to

On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:57:59 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> Why would I say that? It's just common courtesy, not just to me, to
> supply evidence for one's assertions.

Will you supply any evidence for the assertion above, then?
Let me guess - no.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 3:15:50 PM8/17/23

to

They just like to make demands to silence their opponents. Poor Athel gets worked up easily.

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 3:59:38 PM8/17/23

to

The first page of his book, Einstein Plus Two, rejects the second postulate. The second postulate claims light is an exception to Newton's first law of motion, that everything shares the velocity of its source. For example, Galileo's ship's cabin moving with uniform linear velocity where everything shares the same velocity.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 4:18:48 PM8/17/23

to

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:15:05 AM UTC-7, Mike Fontenot wrote:

Often the first postulate is described as coming from Galileo's defense of the Earth's motion saying everything in the cabin shares the velocity of the ship acting as if it were still. Then the second postulate claims light is the only exception to this rule. However, the Doppler shift for starlight proves light shares the velocity of the source. For example, the light coming from Sirius is moving at 300,005.5 km/sec relative to us.

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 4:40:14 PM8/17/23

to

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

Wrong way round: you started it,
you should point out someone in it who made a valuable contribution.

BTW, you are again making it obvious
that you are praising a book that you have not even glanced at.

If you had, you would have known
that they never succeeded in getting anywhere near
that 100 authors that the title promisses.

Jan

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 4:40:14 PM8/17/23

to

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

There was no case to begin with,

Jan

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 4:40:14 PM8/17/23

to

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

[-]

> While we're at it here's a good source for any defenders of relativity who
> would like to make reasoned defense. www.ivorcatt.co.uk/friebe1.pdf 95
> Years of Criticism of the Special Theory of Relativity (1908-2003) The G.
> O. Mueller Research Project

Irrelevant. It isn't even history of science,

Jan

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 4:43:14 PM8/17/23

to

Aren't you as silly as can be, demanding they have more authors for you to take them seriously.

Message has been deleted

Richard Hertz

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 5:04:53 PM8/17/23

to

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:32:03 AM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

<snip>

> > List of Critics of Relativity:

- Ernest Rutherford
- Oliver Heaviside
- Nikola Tesla

The forgotten genius of Oliver Heaviside
Basil Mahon
2017, Prometheus Books

A Force of Nature
The Frontier Genius of Ernest Rutherford
RICHARD REEVES
2008, Atlas & Co

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 5:13:50 PM8/17/23

to

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

See, you know nothing about it.
In 1920 a proto-nazi I won't mention
organised anti-Einstein rallies in Berlin,
filling even a stadium with it.
(a whole shouting stadium, if that isn't convincing, what is)
He then decided to publish an anti-Einstein book, out of what he had.
Originally, in the original enthousiasm
more than a hundred people promised a contribution.

They had been assuming that it would become a publication
to be taken seriously.
When they realised what kind of crap it was going to be
most of the hundred+ declined to contribute after all.
If you have a good name, why waste it?

So finally after ten years of begging, needling, pushing and so on
they decided to make do with the crap they had. (1931)
(38 authors, iirc)

So there really wasn't anything for Einstein to answer,

Jan

JanPB

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 5:31:49 PM8/17/23

to

You behave as though "facts" are subject to negotiation.

They are not.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 7:14:31 PM8/17/23

to

Free copy of: Last Leaves at https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20140455

Stephen Leacock "Common Sense and the Universe," in Last Leaves, Dodd, Mead & Co., New York

One must not confuse Rutherford's work on atoms with Einstein's theories of space and time. Rutherford worked all
his life without reference to Einstein. Even in his later days at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge when he began,
ungratefully, to smash up the atom that had made him, he needed nothing from Einstein. I once asked Rutherford—it was
at the height of the popular interest in Einstein in 1923—what he thought of Einstein's relativity. "Oh, that stuff!" he said.
"We never bother with that in our work!" His admirable biographer, Professor A. S. Eve, tells us that when the German
physicist, Wien, told Rutherford that no Anglo-Saxon could understand relativity, Rutherford answered, "No, they have
too much sense."

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 7:29:30 PM8/17/23

to

You behave as if interpretations are facts. You are very confused. Relativity is confusion, and relativists are confused by its nonsense.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 7:40:37 PM8/17/23

to

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 3:46:54 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

What does relativity have to do with facts?

Volney

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 7:53:21 PM8/17/23

to

On 8/17/2023 2:06 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 10:16:08 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 04:58:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>
>>> How many of these folks provided evidence to support their criticisms?
>> Come on, poor fanatic trash. You've got a proof that
>> your beloved Shit was not even consistent. And
>> your answer? Polish jokes.
>
> You, Woz, are clearly the biggest Polish joke here...
>
I keep telling him he needs to move from Poland to Russia and increase
the average IQ of both countries.

Volney

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 8:06:59 PM8/17/23

to

On 8/17/2023 5:48 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> At a meeting of the Society of German Scientists and Physicians in Bad Nauheim in September 1921, Einstein and Lenard were pitched head to head in a debate about relativity. Accounts of the debate differ – some newspapers reported that it was conducted calmly and objectively, but others say that Planck, who moderated the event, had on several occasions to intervene to prevent hecklers from interrupting Einstein. Lenard criticized relativity for violating «healthy common sense», the implication being that it represented not just a wrong idea in physics but a kind of insidious malaise.
>
> Einstein was highly agitated afterwards – he later admitted his regrets at «losing myself in such deep humorlessness» (cited by Van Dongen, 2007) – and his wife Elsa seems to have suffered something of a nervous breakdown.
>
> After a break proposed by Max Planck, Einstein sized the opportunity by running away from the forum. The discussion didn't have
> an end.

Is that the meeting where a bunch of proto-Nazis got together not to
discuss actual physics, but to attack "Jewish Physics"/Einstein and to
promote "German"/"Aryan" physics? I wouldn't blame Einstein for being
agitated by that.

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 8:31:14 PM8/17/23

to

Indeed!

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 9:34:42 PM8/17/23

to

How does science define the difference between absolute and relative motion?

Mitchell Raemsch

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 10:40:33 PM8/17/23

to

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:34:42 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> How does science define the difference between absolute and relative motion?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Look it up, Mitch... or are you just too stupid to do this for yourself?

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 11:08:04 PM8/17/23

to

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:34:42 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> How does science define the difference between absolute and relative motion?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Would it work to define absolute motion as that when only one is moving and not the other? Please tell us your definition.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 11:10:03 PM8/17/23

to

That has no answer. What is their defining difference paul?
If you believe it?

Richard Hertz

unread,

Aug 17, 2023, 11:57:33 PM8/17/23

to

Put Oppenheimer and Serber (his right hand at Los Alamos) in the list.

Never, in the entire project of the A bomb, E=mc2 was used.

Instead, the energy obtained by splitting U-235 was explained (using "The Los Alamos Primer" booklet) to
more than three successive group of physicists that arrived at Los Alamos in 1943.

The formulae used, based on electrostatic energy produced by the fission, was almost equal to 180 MeV/atom, and
are available (with the calculations) for anyone who acquire the booklet, cleared to be published by Serber in 1993.

He, and many times, claimed that the A bomb and U-235 fission ARE UNRELATED to relativity in ANY possible way.

Of course, 2 jews vs. 1,000 relativist jews is not a competence easy to win.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 12:19:03 AM8/18/23

to

You keep spitting and insulting, as expected from a fanatic idiot
which is proven that his beloved guru was just a mumbling crazie.

Volney

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 12:19:23 AM8/18/23

to

On 8/17/2023 11:57 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Put Oppenheimer and Serber (his right hand at Los Alamos) in the list.

> Instead, the energy obtained by splitting U-235 was explained (using "The Los Alamos Primer" booklet) to
> more than three successive group of physicists that arrived at Los Alamos in 1943.
>
> The formulae used, based on electrostatic energy produced by the fission, was almost equal to 180 MeV/atom, and
> are available (with the calculations) for anyone who acquire the booklet, cleared to be published by Serber in 1993.

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 3:32:46 AM8/18/23

to

On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 09:12:06 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-17 20:40:10 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
> > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:15:13?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> List of Critics of Relativity:
> >>> [list]
> >>> Einstein's reaction on learning about the book:
> >>> "Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein" (1931)
> >>> is still to the point:
> >>> "Wenn sie recht hätten, würde einer genügen."
> >>> (English)
> >>> "One would have sufficed, if they had been right",
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >> Here's an English translation so you can give me chapter and verse:
> >> HUNDRED AUTHORS AGAINST EINSTEIN -ROUGH TRANSLATION Roger J Anderton
> >> R.J.Anderton@btinternet
> >
> > Wrong way round: you started it,
> > you should point out someone in it who made a valuable contribution.
> >
> > BTW, you are again making it obvious
> > that you are praising a book that you have not even glanced at.
> That's what he does. He's rapidly overtaking Ken --Papers in Science
> and Nature-- Seto and Pentcho ==Never quote qualifications that
> undermine your prejudice== Valev as the champion liar in this group.

Oh, they're all not even close to the average of your fellow idiots.

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 6:45:15 AM8/18/23

to

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

Don't so lazy. The full original text is on-line at
<https://archive.org/stream/HundertAutorenGegenEinstein/Hundert%20Autoren%20gegen%20Einstein%20%281931%29_djvu.txt>
English translation already mentioned at
<https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Relativity%20Theory/Download/8680>

Extract some (according to you) still relevant and meaningful criticism
of relativity, and we can discuss that,

Jan

[correction: it was 28 authors, not 38, as I incorrectly remembered]

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 7:08:45 AM8/18/23

to

"Unfortunately, physicists who believe in Einstein’s relativity
have mostly ignored looking at what critics say"

Well, as expected from a bunch of fanatic idiots.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 8:32:52 AM8/18/23

to

I found this too boring to read more than a few passages. However,
there are some that seem to be pre-echoes of some of the comments made
here, such as

> In his Special Theory, Einstein asserts that the speed of light is the
> same in all directions in space, regardless of the speed of the light
> source and that of the observer. However, in his General Theory, he
> rejects this alleged law and boldly claims that it does not hold in a
> gravitational field like that of the sun. Laws that contradict one
> another are the core and essence of Einstein's ridiculous structure.
> (p. 43)

Quote-mining crackpots may find it useful to read it from beginning to
end in search of similar examples.

Dr Hans Israel was the leading editor of the book, and a contributor to
it. It doesn't strike me as an obviously Aryan name.

>
> [correction: it was 28 authors, not 38, as I incorrectly remembered]

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 9:06:49 AM8/18/23

to

On 2023-08-17 00:38:36 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:

> List of Critics of Relativity:

I may have been a little hasty in characterizing many of these people
as forgotten nonentities. Nonetheless,

Léon Brillouin -- clearly an important scientist, but not known much
for his disagreement with Einstein.

Conservapaedia -- Are you serious? The fount of wisdom that illustrated
its article on Dinosaur with a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur?!!
I'm surprised you don't mention Fox News.

Deutsche Physik -- as opposed to Jewish physics

Pierre Duhem -- OK, but his criticisms of relativity were very early.
Would he have continued if he had lived longer? (I don't know, of
course, but neither do you.)

Louis Essen -- OK

Oliver Heaviside: Hmm, Cambridge physicist G. F. C. Searle, Heaviside’s
closest scientific friend in his later years, described him as “a
first-rate oddity,” though he felt compelled to add, “never, at any
time, a mental invalid.”
(https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/65/11/48/413847/Oliver-Heaviside-A-first-rate-oddityPrickly)

Philipp Lenard -- a leading proponent of "German physics" as opposed to
"Jewish physics"

Ernest Rutherford -- see Jan Lodder's comment

Andrew Schlafly -- crackpot owner of Conservapaedia. What contrubutions
to physics has he made?

Thomas Jefferson Jackson See -- astronomer and plagiarist, fired from
his position at two observatories

Johannes Stark -- a leading proponent of "German physics" as opposed to
"Jewish physics"

Paul Weyland -- a leading proponent of "German physics" as opposed to
"Jewish physics". In any case, what physics did he do?

Not a very impressive list, all in all.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 9:17:54 AM8/18/23

to

On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 15:06:49 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-17 00:38:36 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> I may have been a little hasty in characterizing many of these people
> as forgotten nonentities.

You may have. But what to expect from a piece of
brainwashed lying shit?

The Starmaker

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 1:56:34 PM8/18/23

to

Here is what Albert Einstein 'thinks' of your list of his Critics...

According to Albert Einstein...'in his own words' he said:

'If you oppose my theories, you're an anti-semitic.'

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1921-04-03/ed-1/seq-3/
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1921-04-03/ed-1/seq-3/ocr/
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1921-04-03/ed-1/seq-3.pdf

""Why were men of science opposed
to your theory when you first made it
known ?"
"No men of science," he replied, em
phasizing the last'word, "were against
the theory."
"But there was some opposition?"
"Yes," was the quiet reply, "but that
was purely political. Even the physi
cists who opposed my theory did so for
political reasons?in my opinion, o'
course."
"What do you mean when you say
the opposition was political?"
"Anti-Semitism," was the scientist's
answer. "Because I am a Jew." ""

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 2:08:06 PM8/18/23

to

Thank you, Starmaker. The relativists follow in their idols' footsteps failing to make a reasoned reply. Relativity has never been rationally defended and never can be.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 2:14:34 PM8/18/23

to

You can tell an intelligent person because he employs steelman criticism, while the stupid one employs straw man criticism. Nitwits employ ad hominem as you do here. Try to up your game and address their criticisms if you can. You don't even know what they are. They have already refuted relativity. Rutherford brushed it off because no refutation was even needed.

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 2:16:21 PM8/18/23

to

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 11:08:06 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Relativity has never been rationally defended and never can be.

On the contrary, relativity has never been rationally defeated, yet. It may eventually be modified and even defeated, but it won't be by a crank who does not even know high school physics!

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 2:16:46 PM8/18/23

to

Relativists yawn instead of reasoning.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 2:19:42 PM8/18/23

to

What kind of predator attacks the weak? Why wouldn't you start with the strongest critics if relativity can be defended at all?

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 2:19:55 PM8/18/23

to

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 11:16:46 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Relativists yawn instead of reasoning.

There is no such term as "relativist" as applied to physicists. That is just a made-up term by cranks and crackpots.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 2:21:47 PM8/18/23

to

So you want to criticize the 28 weakest opponents of relativity and ignore the other 1,500? How lame brained!

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 2:23:52 PM8/18/23

to

Bergson was in favor of absolute time, but that argument is totally unnecessary. All one needs to do is give time a definition suitable for physics: Time equals Change/ Rate.

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 2:34:17 PM8/18/23

to

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 11:23:52 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> All one needs to do is give time a definition suitable for physics: Time equals Change/ Rate.

So, as I sit here in my chair reading and typing, I am not changing and neither is my rate... so time does not pass for me?

So, you failed high school physics?

The Starmaker

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 2:36:18 PM8/18/23

to

"high school physics"???? Who teachers "high school physics"????

Only 1/3 of all high school physics teachers have a degree in physics or
physics education.
Almost 1/3 of all high school physics teachers have taken fewer than 3
college physics classes.
90% of middle school students are taught physical science by a teacher
lacking a major or certification in the physical sciences (chemistry,
geology, general science or physics).
Our local and regional school districts have had substantial difficulty
finding and retaining qualified physics teachers. 52% of New York City
high schools do not even offer physics.
Of all school subjects, Physics has the most severe teacher shortage,
followed by math and chemistry. There are large surpluses of biology and
earth science teachers.

http://phystec.physics.cornell.edu/content/crisis-physics-education

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 3:00:03 PM8/18/23

to

On 2023-08-18 18:19:52 +0000, Paul Alsing said:

> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 11:16:46 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
>> Relativists yawn instead of reasoning.
>
> There is no such term as "relativist" as applied to physicists.

Still less to biochemists.

> That is just a made-up term by cranks and crackpots.

Right. I've never claimed to be physicist or an expert on the theory
of relativity. Nonetheless, I know more about both than most of the
crackpots here.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 3:04:23 PM8/18/23

to

Virtually all. It's the sensible thing to do. Apparently you know as
little basic biology as you do basic physics. The only thing you know
how to do is to give a 5-star "review" to a book you haven't read.

> Why wouldn't you start with the strongest critics if relativity can be
> defended at all?

whodat

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 3:53:51 PM8/18/23

to

ALL predators. You are an idiot.

whodat

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 3:54:50 PM8/18/23

to

Create what appears to be a weak link, and then attack that.

whodat

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 3:56:28 PM8/18/23

to

On 8/18/2023 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

> So you want to criticize the 28 weakest opponents of relativity and ignore the other 1,500? How lame brained!

Creating straw men doesn't work.

whodat

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 4:03:47 PM8/18/23

to

More likely never took physics courses of any sort.

Laurence, this being coached as you go along will not
work out in the long run. It doesn't have to be
forbidden by some rules to be plainly wrong. I know
your coach and your coach has significant limitations.

Don't fall for believing you are more than what you
know before this battle which was cooked up for this
occasion, and not for your benefit.

whodat

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 4:13:21 PM8/18/23

to

On 8/17/2023 10:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:34:42 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> How does science define the difference between absolute and relative motion?
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
> Would it work to define absolute motion as that when only one is moving and not the other? Please tell us your definition.

So Mr. Smartypants, tell me which of the two is moving and which
is stationary. By definition there are only 2 items in this
universe and except for the question raised here we know nothing
else about them.

RichD

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 4:34:14 PM8/18/23

to

On August 16, Richard Hertz wrote:
> List of Critics of Relativity:
>

> 1 Abraham, Max
> ...
> 1574 Zhuck, Dr. Nikolay A., Ed.-in-Chief Spacetime & Substance, Kharkiv, Ukraine

1575. Nobel committee, 1921

--
Rich

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 4:44:56 PM8/18/23

to

You would be the only one in the world not changing and, for that matter, not learning or growing up!

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 4:46:58 PM8/18/23

to

I know weasels prey on eggs.

Richard Hertz

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 4:47:04 PM8/18/23

to

That's how the cretin started to pay back to his MASTERS, who helped him in his path of fraud, plagiarism,
theft and privileges, making him worldwide famous IN ORDER TO PARADE HIM AROUND THE GLOBE AS A
FUCKING CIRCUS MONKEY. They did it ONLY in Zionists cities like here, in Argentina, where he visited the
most important Jewish circles (Buenos Aires, La Plata, etc.), PATRONIZED BY THE BRITISH EMBASSY.

In those years (1875-1936), UK WAS THE OWNER OF ARGENTINA: Railroads, energy, telephony, agriculture,
cattle, food processing, steel, oil, etc. The wealthiest people in Argentina were Jews, who partnered with britons,
The argentinian traitors (local elite) were happy to have a very small part of the cake.

Even when it was the second wealthiest country in America, after USA, 95% of the population BARELY SURVIVED.
Who had a job was A SLAVE of these MFkers.

After the "infamous decade" of the '30s, when britons were leaving and selling assets to USA, the road for PERON
to emerge was settled. But he had to settle with local Jews and with the global jew elite, being the third country to
recognize Israel in 1948.

As of today, Jews dominate the economy of the country in almost every single field.

Mercado Libre (e-Bay) is the first company in the country, with incomes twice those of the companies in the energy fields.

Galperin is a Jew, masquerading as owner of Mercado Libre, but SOROS is behind. But this cretin is living in Uruguay, to avoid taxes.

**************************************************

New-York tribune., April 03, 1921

ZIONISTS GREET EINSTEIN, HERE FOR PALESTINE

I thence to the Hotel Commodore, where the FOUR VISITORS will stay for a time.
The whole East Side was decorated with Zionist and American flags and crowds
lined the streets to greet the members cf the Zionist committee.

Early in the morning, when the Rotterdam arrived, newspaper men were unable to
get Professor Einstein to talk at all.
......

"What do you mean when you say ' the opposition was political?"

"Anti-Semitism," was the scientist'a answer. "Because I am a Jew."
......
Then he explained that his mission in this country was to help arouse interest in the formation of a university in
Palestine, at which ho hopes to lecture, and said that he probably would lecture at Princeton first, it being the first
American university to invite him.
.....
Dr. Weizman, explaining the purpose of the Commlttee's mission, said it wanted to arouse interest in this country toward the
establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

"I am not prepared to say," he said in answer to a question, "HOW THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT is disposed toward the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. But what we want first is to make emigration to Palestine in large numbers possible and 'to develop the land, and then perhaps a state will grow up naturally."

He said the present Jewish population of Palestine was 100,000 and immigrants wore arriving at the rate of1000 a month, rhiefly from "what was once the Russian Empire."

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 6:21:38 PM8/18/23

to

On 8/18/2023 2:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> What kind of predator attacks the weak?

They all do.

Which zebra in a herd gets eaten by the lions? The slowest one.

Wayne Bereznevich

unread,

Aug 18, 2023, 6:37:23 PM8/18/23

to

wow, that's why america attacks Afghanistan, Libya and Nicaragua?? Wow.

𝗔𝗨𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗔_𝗠𝗢𝗗𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔_𝗜𝗦_𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘_𝗧𝗢_𝗠𝗔𝗞𝗘_𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗙𝗜𝗧𝗦_𝗡𝗢𝗧_𝗧𝗢_𝗣𝗔𝗬_𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗦𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡_𝗙𝗢𝗥_𝗩𝗔𝗫_𝗜𝗡𝗝𝗨𝗥𝗜𝗘𝗦
https://bit%63%68ute.com/video/YkjmNcDPHMex

𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗗𝗢𝗗_&_𝗖𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗟_𝗕𝗔𝗡𝗞𝗦_𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗗_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗖𝗢𝗩𝗜𝗗_19_𝗞𝗜𝗟𝗟_𝗕𝗢𝗫_𝗜𝗧𝗦_𝗔_𝗝𝗢𝗜𝗡𝗧_𝗠𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗬_𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡
https://bit%63%68ute.com/video/0SXapJnLpbm9