0 members (),
243
guests, and
3
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370 |
Many people have claimed that Einstein was a total fraud;Here is a list of quotes from a few notables (including many Nobel prize winners); In 1912 the Nobel prize winner (physics) Johannes Stark accused Einstein of plagiarism.Einstein did not deny the charge, but replied; "J. Stark has written a comment on a recently published paper of mine for the purpose of defending his intellectual property. I will not go into the question of priority that he has raised, because this would hardly interest anyone, all the more so because the law of photochemical equivalence is a self-evident consequence of the quantum hypothesis."Professor Reuterdahl accused Einstein of plagiarizing his work, as well as the work of others."No unprejudiced person can deny that, in the absence of direct and incontrovertible proofs establishing his innocence, Einstein must, in view of the circumstantial evidence previously presented, stand convicted before the world as a plagiarist."Einstein Charged with Plagiarism, New York American, (11 April 1921) A. Reuterdahl, "The Origin of Einsteinism", The New York Times, (12 August 1923) Professor Westin charges Einstein with plagiarism:Westin protested to the Directorate of the Nobel Foundation against the reward of Einstein, thus: "From these facts the conclusion seems inevitable that Einstein cannot be regarded as a scientist of real note. He is not an honest investigator."Reported in the New York Times, (12 April 1923). Professor See charges Einstein with plagiarism:"Professor See Attacks German Scientist...", The New York Times, (13 April 1923). "Einstein a trickster?", The San Francisco Journal, (27 May 1923). Nobel prize winner (physics) P. Lenard, E. Gehrcke, Paul Weyland, and other scientists accused Einstein of plagiarism."In fact, one begins to doubt the justice of these claims and to wonder if the charges (of plagiarism made against Einstein) made by a fast growing group of German scientists who, like E. Gehrcke, P. Lenard, and Paul Weyland, hold that Einstein is both a plagiarist and a sophist, are not, after all, true." J. T. Blankart, "Relativity or Interdependence", Catholic World, Volume 112, (February, 1921) The Nobel prize winner (physics) and friend of Einstein, Max Born, had this to say;"Many of you may have looked up his paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper' in Annalen der Physik, vol. 17, p. 811, 1905, and you will have noticed some peculiarities. The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true."Max Born, "Physics and Relativity", Physics in my Generation. Professor Nordmann implicitly charges Einstein with plagiarism:"All this was maintained by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him."Charles Nordmann, Einstein et l'universe (1921). If Einstein was not a fraud, these scientists would not have called Einstein a fraud.If you need more proof that Einstein was a fraud (in this case that special relativity existed before Einstein) download the 1900 book by Larmor; http://preearth.net/pdfs/aetherandmatter00larmgoog.pdfWhat can you find in Larmor's 1900 book; Aether and Matter?You can find the "Lorentz" equations on page 167 (PDF page 192) in section 106. Remember that the "Lorentz" equations are ALL of Special Relativity,... everything about Special Relativity follows directly from them. And remember that Larmor published the "Lorentz" equations, before Lorentz. Here is a short article on Larmor's priority for the "Lorentz" equations. http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:9560/larmor.pdfLarmor calculates the length contraction of special relativity on page 175 (PDF page 204) at the end of section 111; And, on page 182 (PDF page 213), section 117, he calculates the length contraction for all moving masses, not just electrons. So, he has already made the conceptual jump from electrodynamics, to all physics, being invariant under the "Lorentz" equations. Larmor deals with the Doppler effect & relativity on page 177 (PDF page 205) at the end of section 102 and later. Concerning Einstein's infamous 1905 paper on special relativity, Max Born said; "The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature." Einstein did not reference those who worked on relativity before he did (for obvious reasons). If Einstein was not a fraud, Einstein would have referenced this work of Larmor.
If Einstein was not a fraud, Einstein would have referenced Poincare's work.
If Einstein was not a fraud, Einstein would have referenced Hasenöhrl's work.
If Einstein was not a fraud, Einstein's infamous 1905 paper would have been refereed, just like any other paper. If you good folk have any problems with these facts,... please say so.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370 |
If you good folk have any problems with these facts,... please say so. So you all agree with these facts then,....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962 |
Agree? No. But we all realize the futility of engaging with you over anything. It's a waste of our energy. You are opinionated, dense, and lacking in manners. And those are your good points.
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Haha well said AR2 ... I think he is ocnfusing us with people who care about his opinion or his theory.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Pre
einstein stole from others , that's the truth.
if you want these people to believe something you must use lies.
they will not believe , nor do they have the necessary ability to believe the truth , they only believe lies.
this is a direct result of being taught lies. and defending those lies.
so lie to them if you want them to believe anything.
if you are not using lies you are wasting time here.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
if you are not using lies you are wasting time here. 225 posts in the past 30 days! Are you using lies, or just wasting a lot of your time?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
I'm not going to be wasting a lot of time on you Bill s.
as you are one of the members of the science cult you cannot understand any thing that resembles truth.
and your post reflects that your cult ( modern science ) uses tactics devoid of logical thinking as shown below.
as for the large number of post , I can only say in my defense that I try to respond to the cult members when they lie to me.
since there are 4-5 cult members that I must reply to naturally I have a larger number of post than any of you.
I'm sure now you understand why I have a large number of post
as for lies , just look in your science book's.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Over the last few years people have started to wonder if Einstein was a fake and a thief.What are your opinions on this.At school in the Netherlands my teacher always told us Einstein was a fake.
in my opinion and others your teacher was right. what did your book's say about einstein? or was your teacher wise enough to not let you learn the lies.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
you cannot understand any thing that resembles truth. Question everything, apply logic to everything, form your own conclusions. That seems to be the approach to life that you espouse. Would that be a wrong impression? To a great extent that is the way I approach life, which is why I ask a lot of questions. so let's apply a little logic to the current situation; starting with a few questions and answers: Have I insulted you? No. Have I said your beliefs were wrong? No. Have I said I thought you had no right to express your views? No. Have I defended your right to hold, express and defend your views? Yes. Have I ever posted anything that might support your views? Yes. Have I asked you questions about your views? Yes. Logically, which of those answers might be calculated to provoke your disparaging comment? Surely it has to be the last one, it would make no sense for it to be one of the others. So is asking questions a valid thing to do only when those questions appear to support your beliefs?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Bill S. I am going to ignore Paul's comments about liars and I suggest that you do so also. I can safely ignore them because I checked right away and they don't apply to me because my pants aren't on fire.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Agreed Bill, Paul is simply in pain and his lashing out does not require more provocation but requires our sympathy and compassion which I for one freely give. It will be interesting to see if preearth offers you friendship and kindness Paul. There is a certain irony here, Preearth seeks to install a new theory in the very thing you seek to destroy
Last edited by Orac; 01/06/13 02:36 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
1 post 3 replies.
Bill s Bill orac
being a liar is the same as agreeing that evolution happened.
being a liar is the same as agreeing that Creation did not happen.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
And the significance is? being a liar is the same as agreeing that evolution happened.
being a liar is the same as agreeing that Creation did not happen.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.
I see no proofs of anything in your comment surely you can do better. I guess it is all in your definition and how angry you are ... I am as they say turning the other cheek as I did promise
Last edited by Orac; 01/06/13 07:33 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
1 post 3 replies.
Bill s Bill orac
being a liar is the same as agreeing that evolution happened.
being a liar is the same as agreeing that Creation did not happen.
I just checked again. My pants still aren't on fire. And childish claims are that liars pants are on fire so I guess I am vindicated. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
I just checked again. My pants still aren't on fire. And childish claims are that liars pants are on fire so I guess I am vindicated.
Bill Gill
Might be that the reference is to an eternal fire..
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Science has proof without any certainty. Clever , I agree. that statement is as close as you will come to admitting that there is no certain proof that could possibly validate the theory of evolution. agreed , Creation can not be validated so any opposing views or claims such as the theory of evolution must first be validated in order to invalidate Creation. that's the way I see it and that would be the logical way to look at it. Creation was here first as far as history is concerned and it was evolution that proposed to invalidate Creation. just claiming things has no value. for instance , I could claim that I evolved from a pool of slime , and that Creation is incorrect ,but in order for me to back up that claim it would need to be validated. I would need to provide evidence that shows that I evolved over a period of time and that evidence should depict that evolutionary process in actual fossils not illusions or pictures of what I think I evolved from. if I cannot produce any feasible evidence that supports my claim then my claim can not be validated and if my claim cannot be validated then any claim that Creation is incorrect cannot be supported by my claim. yet , I continue to claim that my claim is correct after hundreds of years of failure to find any evidence in support of my claim. therefore my claim cannot be a logical claim.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
agreed , Creation can not be validated so any opposing views or claims such as the theory of evolution must first be validated in order to invalidate Creation. Paul, that makes no sense. Why would anything be needed to invalidate something that " can not be validated" in the first place? it was evolution that proposed to invalidate Creation. Evolution does not "proposed to invalidate Creation". There are supporters of evolution who seek to make it do that. There are creationists who do the same. I believe they are both wrong. Neither need necessarily invalidate the other.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
then let me rephrase that for you. agreed , Creation can not be validated through testing so any opposing views or claims such as the theory of evolution must first be validated though testing in order to invalidate Creation. to me and my logic the cambrian explosion could be evidence of Creation. and to test that we simply need to look below the pre cambrian. and we did and we found nothing that points to evolution. Evolution does not "propose to invalidate Creation". There are supporters of evolution who seek to make it do that. There are creationists who do the same. I believe they are both wrong. Neither need necessarily invalidate the other. that is also my opinion , I should have said the below it was evolutionist that proposed to invalidate Creation. I believe that a similar thing to evolution occurred in some life forms , yet most of what is considered to be any evidence of evolution were simply breeds of species that died off like the tazmanian devil. which is why there are no transitional fossils to be found. but creation occurred over millions / billions of years , from below the pre cambrian period up until man. only I count the millions / billions of years as being the day's that God spent Creating everything.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
only I count the millions / billions of years as being the day's that God spent Creating everything.
Is that relatively speaking? There is another irony here Preearth will have to wade thru all this
Last edited by Orac; 01/07/13 06:14 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|