Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 298 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#10798 12/29/05 08:26 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Out of context but what do the smart Jews stand for?

.
#10799 12/29/05 10:01 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
Out of context but what do the smart Jews stand for?
Which part do you not understand here: "smart" or "Jews" ?

e laugh s

#10800 12/29/05 10:18 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Oh [content deleted] ..
thats cool .
Honestly this is true.
Smart and Jews are synonomous.

#10801 12/29/05 11:46 AM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 82
B
bradp Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
B
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 82
extasense how can I be jealous of what I am.???? This will open some eyes in here
If you have a problem with that, speak to my mother

#10802 12/29/05 12:29 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by bradp:
extasense how can I be jealous of what I am.???? This will open some eyes in here
If you have a problem with that, speak to my mother
The things you are writing, which you apparently repeating from some deranged sources, are nonsensical on their face. No woman has made a meaningful contribution to the theorethcal physics, period. So likeliness of E's wife being super genius is exectly zero.

If your suspicions are genuine, direct them at those who claim such nonsense, that's all.

ES

#10803 12/29/05 12:35 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
Smart and Jews are synonimous.
This is the most retarded superstition, if there is one

e laugh s

#10804 12/29/05 05:11 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Worse than retarded. An act of world-class stupdity likely written by someone that is both.


DA Morgan
#10805 12/29/05 05:20 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 82
B
bradp Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
B
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 82
extrasense "If your suspicions are genuine,direct them at those who claim such nonsense" ???????? you got me with this one.
bradp "How can I be jealous of what I am" "smart or jewish" You got the wrong one.Need more help?? I am not smart.
You got on another train!!

#10806 12/29/05 05:30 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 82
B
bradp Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
B
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 82
Can anyone give evidence(independent) the rocks and moon dust from 1969 are genuine. So we can put this to rest.

#10807 01/06/06 12:11 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
bradp:

I know that your skeptisim will not permit you to accept this- but

"I have inspected the Moon rocks personaly and they are really from the Moon" They even had labels to prove it." Tou want more proof?

jjw

#10808 01/08/06 02:03 AM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 82
B
bradp Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
B
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 82
jjw are you serious?? Which rock?? (ref.name )
I got a Armani shirt of a bloke down the pub (10 euros) it had labels aswell.
Maybe its the new armani moon collection

#10809 01/08/06 02:39 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Not serious. I meant it to be obvious as such.
jjw

#10810 01/08/06 05:57 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9
B
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9
I think this posting has collapsed into a black-hole and going no-where. Time to end this rabbling.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Amit, I think "we" did stop discussing it in this thread ove 6 years ago, but I'm sure Pre would be glad to answer your question: "who discovered formula of energy E=mc^2". smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
... but I'm sure Pre would be glad to answer your question: "who discovered formula of energy E=mc^2". smile

Thanks Bill for pointing this one out.

E = mc2 is Not Einstein's Discovery

Robert A. Herrmann

Section 7. Final E= mc2 Remarks.

Poincaré, Hasenöhrl, and Planck are not the only individuals that have a certain priority relative to E = mc2.


According to Professor Umberto Bartocci, Olinto De Pretto published the expression E = mc2 in the science magazine Atti (Atte) in 1903. His expression was a speculation that was not derived from more fundamental principles such as special relativity.

There is considerable evidence that Einstein was aware of the De Pretto speculation and that this was an additional driving force behind his faulty attempt to derive this expression for radiation, at the least.

There is also very strong evidence that Einstein never gave De Pretto any credit for his great insight. It is an absolute requirement that one must do a certain amount of literature "research" prior to publishing a claimed new disclosure. This is done to determine if, indeed, your claimed disclosure is new, or to give credit to others that have certain levels of priority if your derivation is obtained by other means.

There is no doubt in my mind that Einstein would have known of the last Hasenöhrl paper since it appeared in the principle journal that Einstein used six months later to publish his own claimed (1905) derivation.

If I am correct, then Einstein would thus have been aware of Hasenöhrl's first paper as well. Poincaré was a very well-known mathematician who had won the first Bolyai prize, a prize that Einstein did not win when nominated by Hilbert.

I do not speculate any further as to why, today, proper credit is not being given to the contributions of Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, Planck and De Pretto.

(9 Sept 2000. Revised 1 Jan 2004)

The full PDF is at:

http://www.raherrmann.com/einpdf.pdf


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Using the word 'retarded' as a term of abuse is as bad as racism. Both denigrate a person for something over which they have no control and show a lack of maturity and decency on the part of the perpetrator.

As these seem for some reason to be old posts, I am surprised that the nasty comments of D.A Morgan and extrasense are still on site as preearth as already posted a topic which covers the same ground without being offensive.


Last edited by Ellis; 07/26/12 06:47 AM.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Ellis
As these seem for some reason to be old posts, I am surprised that the nasty comments of D.A Morgan and extrasense are still on site


Even stranger is the fact that the post by Amit, to which I responded, seems to have vanished.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Yes he was there and being inoffensive too!

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Glad someone else saw his post. Now I can't even find Amit on the user list. It gets curiouser and curiouser.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
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.pdf

What 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.pdf

Larmor 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.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5