MNb wrote on 07/24/10 at 13:45:03:
It is so pleasant to read about a dozen other proofs of your genius. We really had not had enough yet in your 4.Ng5 thread, were you proved that
a) you are one of the best opening analysts in the history of chess, due to the fact that nobody understand Steinitz better than you, enabling to improve on him;
b) you are widely acclaimed that you are one, but that stupid us are not able to recognize it;
c) Black should resign after 3...Nf6 4.Ng5!!!
I was soooo impressed that you only needed 15 pages and dozens of different proposed lines to prove it.
If my compatriot John Elburg praises the product of your marvellous brains, then who are we to contradict? He is the ultimate authority on this.
Infinite Energy Magazin is of course the leading magazine on physics - forget Science and Nature and the likes. These are too short-sighted to publish all those excellent articles on perpetual motion machines and cold fusion. Fortunately IEM does; only they provide hope for Mother Earth.
You are too generous to mention only Emil Rupp. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_experimental_errors_and_frauds_in_physicsOf course the authors of this page need professional protection from violent conspiracy-physicists 24 hours a day. This protection is provided by an ultra-secret paramilitary unit. US-government will deny that this unit exists, which ultimately proves how the authors have to suffer for their courage.
Nobody needs to comment on what you write about the conspiracy of physicists. You have given definite proof. You should follow another trail to investigate: the headquarters of this conspirational organisation could be found in Moengo, Suriname; I probably know who the High Bigwig of the Evil Physics Community is.
Mankind should be grateful for such hard and persisting investigators like you, who without any personal interest devote their entire lives to reveal the Ultimate Truth: the physics we all suppose to know is One Big Fraud.
Alas you have forgotten to mention another group of truely excellent, genuine and sincere, but completely neglected scientists:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/This post is of course nothing but a diversion manoeuvre - the ultimate bluff. By admitting that this conspiracy exists I try to make the rest of the world believe it doesn't. Booohh, I am so mean.
There is not in most branches of science what is classically defined as a "conspiracy" there is a "silent conspiracy". In a silent conspiracy, the participants "know their place" without being told.
Einstein is the third rail of physics. Touch him and your reputation will be destroyed. Do you really think there is much interest in challenging his reputation? Challenge him and you will lose tenure track positions, be denied research grants, denied promising graduate students, you will be ostracized by your peers and driven from physics. Einstein is a cash cow, a rainmaker, the Big Daddy of physics.
A classic example is over Einstein's reputation. What we have seen is massive puffery. Is the press part of the conspiracy? You tell me. Why is it that when Time Magazine put Albert Einstein on the cover of the "Person of the Century" issue, no one vetted the article by Stephen Hawking? I have found five false statements by Hawking just to promote Einstein.
Did anyone at Time Magazine consider one particularly relevant point? The man who stood to benefit the most from Albert Einstein's fame, was Stephen Hawking. As heir apparent to Einstein, he stood the most by puffing up Einstein. The more he puffed up Einstein, the more he puffed up himself.
First of all you might address the conspiracy by astrophysicists detailed not by me but chronicled by Brian Martin in the Website, "The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics: The Big Bang Theory".
No conspiracy? When a famous astronomer like Halton Arp is denied satellite time simply because he doesn't toe the party line with regard to the red shift?
C. Jonan Masreliez can't get satellite time from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to test his theories of the Space Expanding Cosmos, because it, in part, is an alternative to the Big Bang theory,
33 prominent scientists have decried the fact that no research money is spent studying alternatives to the Big Bang theory.
Over 3000 papers are critical of either parts or the entire theory of special relativity, but it is "settled" science.
For almost 70 years Ricaro Carezani has demonstrated that neutrinos have no theoretical existence; they are simply a mathmatical error. If you wish to step out of the box and get an alternative to the Big Bang Theory, then get Carezani's book, "Storm in Physics" from Amazon.dot.com on a theory called, "Autodynamics". For those who consider him a crackpot just because there is a problem with scalar addition, his basic concept concerning relativity is correct. To observe reality, you do not need a reference frame, you just need an observer and the universe without having to resort to a reference frame.
Here are a list of Carezani's accomplishments. How many theoretical and observational physicists can match in signifcance the following discoveries of Carezani?
1)Predicting, then having validated from a neutral source, a new subatomic particle,
2)Demonstrating that relativity is just a subset of a much larger set of equations,
3)Providing a theoretical argument against neutrinos for almost the past 70 years. Neutrinos are an artefact of Einstein's math. Every time a new "neutrino" sighting from neutrinos detectors is observed, he was able to demonstrate they are other subatomic particles, not neutrinos.
Part of the problem with neutrinos is that scientists have to come up with really magical ways to get their excessive numbers from neutrino detectors. You see, there is a real statistical problem when you start getting "too many". Carezani has estimated to get one particular number of hits from a supernovae, 8-10% of the mass of the star would have to have to have been converted to neutrinos. In another scenario, physicists postulated that some kind of galactic event "trapped" neutrinos for several hours before releasing them all at once.
The mathematic error that Carezani found 70 years ago as a graduate student in theoretical physics has consistently been discarded by a silent conspiracy. Here is his theoretical refutation of neutrinos.
When you derive the kinetic energy equations for radioactive decay, Einsteinists have added a kinetic component to the decay process. Thus they "push" the atom while it decays. As pointed out by Carezani radioactive decay requires no "push"; it is spontaneous.
Now comes the fun part. If you add a push, later on, you have to remove the push, hence the need for neutrinos, an artefact of the "push". This is how it works in practice. You will find in theory that you should get a particle with about 1.15 Mv. Now measure its energy and what you get is about .37 Mv. There is a mismatch between theory and observation that Paolo theorized was carried away by a massless particle, a neutrino.
Along comes Carezani and just like that, theory matches observation i.e. according to his equations with the right kind of math, neutrinos disappear!
Here is the present situation, use the wrong math, you get 40 different kinds of radioactive decay and forty different energy levels of neutrinos. Use the right kind of math and there are forty different kinds of radioactive decay and no neutrinos. Occam's razor---the simplest expanation is the best.
There is a relative "zoo" of subatomic particles. Neutrinos started out as massless particles. Read the literature and see how much mass physicists have been adding to them through the years. According to Carezani there is supermarket full of them. Big strong physicists like the big neutrinos; smaller weaker physicists like the smaller neutrinos.
Physicists are adding so much mass to neutrinos, in a thousand years we will see neutrinos the size of neutrons! Just plot on the "x" axis time and on the "y" axis the increase in mass predicted by various physicists.
4)An improved Compton equation validated independently by other physicists,
5)A better match fit to the precession of D-Herculis. Relativists are off by a factor of three in terms of predicting the precession of D-Herculis. Using Carezani's equations, his math is only off 20% which can be attributed to tidal forces.
There are other examples of Carezani's work being a better fit to the data.
If you want to point to a "silent conspiracy" consider the book by David Bodanis called, "E=mc^2 A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation" It actually reads more like a novel than a biography. Bodanis "wishes" this is what Einstein did.
Consider the fact that Bodanis may have done a couple of years of research to write the book; I have spent maybe 200-300 hours researching the history of E=mc^2. Bodanis couldn't find one scientist who came up with either the matter/light or matter/energy conversion according to that equation. I have found six starting with Sir Isaac Newton in a book called "Opticks" where Newton stated, "Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another." That is one. Here are five more: 2)Preston in "Physics of the Ether" where he indicated that one grain of material (a grain is a unit of weight. There are 7000 grains to a pound), has enough energy within it to lift a 100,000 ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles, 3)Keely in "Dashed Against the Rocks" "Matter is force in bondage. Force is liberated matter. Matter and force are one." 4)de Pretto. He came up with the conversion of matter into energy in 1902. His family had relatives who lived in the same village as family members of Besso, Einstein's best friend. Just get in touch with Umberto Bartocci. 5)Becquerel. He predicted that one milligram of radium would be converted into energy every 1000 million years at the rate of so many calories/sec. Check out Caroline Thompson's website, 6)Hasenhorl In the journal, Annalen der Physik Hasenhorl provide evidence of the conversion of matter into energy. His equation which he wrote in 1904 a year before Einstein's 1905 paper measured it a level of 8/3 rds mc^2. He later revised this downward to 4/3 rds mc^2.
Here is how you tell just how hard hitting the Bodanis book is. On page 5 you will find the following statement, "Einstein and his wife had given away their first child, a daughter they had before they were married..." Sounds perfectly innocent doesn't it. Now let me spin the same set of facts. "Einstein fathered an illegitimate daughter he abandoned." Same set of facts, different spin.
Reference this as, Sloughter, July 2010, "Einstein's Methodology," Chesspub forum, Chit Chat