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 (), 388 guests, and 4 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Only a slightly more serious note that would imply we are here for some reason Paul?

Any idea why we are here?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
then let me rephrase that for you.


Thanks. For obvious reasons I would hesitate to assume that you did not mean exactly what you said.

Quote:
to test that we simply need to look below the pre cambrian.

and we did and we found nothing that points to evolution.


In your opinion, what lies below the Pre-Cambrian? Who looked there, and when?

Quote:
died off like the tazmanian devil.


You know something the rest of the world doesn't know?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
died off like the tazmanian devil.




sorry wrong name , Tasmanian Tiger

Thylacines — Greek for dog-headed pouched one — were the largest known carnivorous marsupial of modern times, top-level predators native to continental Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea.

Commonly known as the Tasmanian Tiger due to its striped back, the Tasmanian Wolf, and colloquially the Tassie (or Tazzy) Tiger, or simply the Tiger, they were the last extant member of their genus, Thylacinus. Their closest living relative is thought to be either the Tasmanian Devil or Numbat.


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
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
In your opinion, what lies below the Pre-Cambrian? Who looked there, and when?


sorry again , below the cambrian.

since you now know what I meant do you have any comments
about the corrected version below?

to test that we simply need to look below the cambrian.
and we did and we found nothing that points to evolution.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

This thread is about the FRAUD Einstein,.... remember?

Originally Posted By: preearth
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
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
since you now know what I meant do you have any comments
about the corrected version below?



No time to look stuff up at the moment, but if I remember rightly there was some fresh work done on Kimberella (I think K quadrata) in the 1990s linking it to Cambrian, and later forms.

Might be a good place to start.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
which brings us back to what I said earlier.

Quote:
and we did and we found nothing that points to evolution.


unless there are transitional fossils found that show links
to the abundant forms of life in the cambrian then this could easily just be a breed of a species that died off.

all the kimberella fossils that I have looked at so far , basically look the same to me.



what we need is a fossil like the kimberella that has grown
leggs or something , besides isnt this a jelly fish?






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

So, you boys have no comment to make about these Nobel prize winners claiming that Einstein was a fraud;


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Page 5 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 UsokÂþ»­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