sloughter wrote on 07/28/10 at 10:06:32:

I just wanted to know your point. And no I didnt ask anything about special relativity itself as I have heard enough about that to last a lifetime.

sloughter wrote on 07/28/10 at 12:35:13:


sloughter wrote on 07/27/10 at 23:46:32:

What is so funny is that the motivation to attacking Einstein's ideas is to attack him personally.
Btw, it's up to you to show where and when exactly Einstein said/wrote "Space without aether is unthinkable", not to us to go out and find it.

Michael Ayton wrote on 07/28/10 at 11:06:27:

1. Because I am having a good time.
2. Nobody forces you to read anything in this thread. As soon as I get bored I'll quit and won't come back.
3. Irrelevant question, which shows that you don't wish to understand me, but want me to stop having fun in this thread.

Just note that Sloughter is isolated and doesn't spoil other threads. That's the relevant point to me. You might have noticed that I don't feed Sloughter in any other thread. Now how hard is that to understand?

sloughter wrote on 07/28/10 at 12:35:13:

Physics as a whole is an approximation, so the entire physics is a lie by definition. Thank you for this marvellous insight. Karl Popper, eat your heart out!

sloughter wrote on 07/28/10 at 12:35:13:

And you are 150% determined to be the last follower of anyone who bashes Einstein and to outlast everybody. That's clear.

MNb wrote on 07/28/10 at 10:35:50:


The approximation of the truth is a lie; physicists are great at approximating the truth. Case in point: the equivalence principle that a body being accelerated in a rocket ship at 1g is impacted the same way as a body on earth experiencing 1g. Wrong!

A body on earth is attracted towards the center of gravity i.e. the vectors converge at a point. In a spaceship accelerating at 1g, the vectors are parallel.

Let's take another example. Is a body free falling in a gravitational field experiencing the same physical phenomenon as a body in space far removed from any gravitational field?

Let's start with a giant 100 miles tall. His head is in the moon's greater gravitational field and his torso is in the earth's greater gravitational field. He falls towards the earth. His neck is stretched between the moon and the earth. 

Now place the giant far removed from any gravitational field. He is not stretched.

Any body falling in a gravitational field undergoes stress (change in internal forces) and strain (deformation---it is extended). This does not happen in outer space far removed from any gravitational bodies.

Any body with any dimension does not behave in a gravitational field of 1g does not experience the same forces as a body accelerated in a space ship. That part of the body far removed from the center of gravity experiences less pull than that closer to the center of gravity (remember the giant 100 miles tall). So the forces acting on a body in a gravitational field are different from the forces affecting a body accelerating in a space ship at 1g.

Again, the approximation of the truth is a lie.

Einstein was able to see so far because he stood on the faces of giants. He was sleazy in his personal life and sleazy in his professional life. This has led physicists for the past several generations including Stephen Hawking to model themselves after Einstein i.e. be sleazy. 

They would do whatever it took to become successful. Einstein played Lorentz like a fine-tuned banjo. After he plagiarized Lorentz, a Nobel Laureate in 1902, in his 1905 paper on special relativity, he sucked up to Lorentz big time so that Lorentz did not squash him like a bug. 

Poincare, the great physicist of the late 19th and early 20th Century obviously despised what Einstein represented i.e. sleaze and never referenced him to the best of my knowledge. Einstein could win the survivor series just by convincing the other contestants not to show up because they obviously would lose. To model yourself after Einstein is to model yourself after sleaze.

For the record the only reason we associate Einstein with special relativity and not Poincare is that Poincare died in 1912 after having published 34 books and over 500 articles at the young age of 58. The followers of Einstein outlived the followers of Poincare. The last follower standing wins and gets to rewrite history.

sloughter wrote on 07/28/10 at 09:48:24:

Poor, poor little boy.

sloughter wrote on 07/28/10 at 09:48:24:

I can't wait to meet you in Surinamese court.

sloughter wrote on 07/28/10 at 09:48:24:
Wait, wait, you don't imply that Einstein would have been honest if had been a chemist or biologist, do you?

sloughter wrote on 07/28/10 at 09:48:24:

You are wrong. My trustworthy encyclopedia of blah blah, written by the famous encyclopedist Mr. Nitwit says it is exactly 18 minutes and 3¼ seconds.

sloughter wrote on 07/28/10 at 09:48:24:

Do you want a honest answer? I think they will enjoy at least as much fun as with Emperor Joshua Norton. I know I do have now. Thanks.

sloughter wrote on 07/28/10 at 10:06:32:

You haven't disappointed me. My early morning mood is completely gone. Thanks again.

MNb wrote on 07/27/10 at 23:48:47:


Gentlemen, I was asked for a citation so I gave one; now I am simply providing those who are less enamored of Einstein, the Einsteinists practicing Einseinism, with ammunition when I charge chesspub forum members for slander. You see, I have deep pockets, one of the best attorneys in the world at my disposal free of charge, and I am undergoing pain and suffering at the hands of the chesspub members here.

This is the drill gentlement; I have been slandered on line, now I serve a subpoena on the chesspub owners & I match up screen names with actual people. Next I charge members of chesspub forum with slander and seek $1,000,000 in pain and suffering.

That is not the real reason I do it entirely (although it is a major one). You see I get to put Einstein on trial in a highly public forum where I invite all the press to observe the trial; it might even make national news. 

Once one pulls at the thread of the Einstein reputation, it unravels like a sweater and the Einsteinists will be revealed to have single handedly consigned us to second class status in the fields of science and technology.

If Einstein had been a chemist instead of a physicist, we would have energy independence today. The reason, of course, is that we would have a leadership role in better batteries, better insulation, better solar cells, better means of reducing energy useage, new energy technologies; in short we would have had a clear path to energy independence.

If Einstein had been a biologist, we would have found a cure for all forms of cancer, heart disease and diabetes. The genome project would have been completed a few years earlier and biologists would have found ways to greatly increase crop yields at a lower price so that the poor could get enough food to survive.

If Einstein had been a geologist instead of a physicist, we would rock solid earthquake prediction models. We would know when the big one would hit the New Madrid Zone the San Andreas and faults around the world saving millions of lives over the next few decades. 

We easily could have averted the tremendous loss of life in the tsunami in Indonesia simply because geologists would have insisted on tsunami drills around the Pacific. We would have had installed hundreds of ocean bottom accelerometers to determine when tsunamis had reached different parts of the Pacific, Atlantic or Indian Oceans. We would have known where dozens of critical minerals were located and a better handle on how their utilization impacted on our national security.

If Einstein had been an atmospheric scientists we would know how to predict the appearance and maturation of tornadoes 15 minutes earlier than now, giving people in their path an extra fifteen minutes to find shelter.

We would have far more accurate models of hurricanes not by virtue of better computer models but better "datalogists", men and women who, using my methodogy of thinking would take 1,000,000 data points, put them into their brains, and come up with patterns and associations that no computer could match.

We might even find out whether it was possible with aggressive cloud seeding to knock down tropical storms before they became hurricanes.

Instead, we got Einstein the physicist, and, as a result we have gotten the singularly useless boondoggles, hot fusion, neutrino detectors, CERN, and the big hole in the ground in Texas, the aborted acceleretor.

How do you think that the American public will feel once they realize that a major reason we have 10% unemployment is because of physicists?

We have also seen the corruption of science, the scientific method, society and history, just because of the Einsteinists.

Citation: Sloughter, Einstein's Methodology, 3, Chesspub Forum, Chit Chat.

MNb wrote on 07/27/10 at 23:48:47:

To me unless if someone is abusive, or posts in the clearly wrong forum, I dont have a problem


However I am still wondering what is Sloughter's point? Is it:
A-Einstein's theory on relativity is wrong?
B-Einstein's theory on relativity is right, but he was lucky as he cooked the data?
C-Einstein didnt understand quantum mechanics? I dont think many will have an argument here it is like taking Mozart to a house party
D-Einstein was part of a big conspiracy that covers up the real physics (so both QM and GR are wrong)?
E-A combincation of the former.

Btw methinks that Hiroshima and Fermi and the multiple nuclear facilities would be enough to make E=mc^2 at least the best explanation.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/27/10 at 07:23:10:


As a moderator, shouldn't you be even handed? My critics take potshots and yet when I provide a detailed account I am told my writings are dross. 

Dear Moderator---you are an Einsteinist who is neither a moderator nor moderate.

I am told that I don't respond to my critics but I pointed out that Einstein got rid of the aether in special relativity only to bring it back in general relativity. Would someone like to refute my statement by Einstein, "space without aether is unthinkable". If you doubt what I say is true google it.

It should be pointed out a post member suggested that Einstein would have been 8 years old when the M/M experiment occurred and obviously could not have cooked the data. How old was he when he said, "Space without aether is unthinkable"?

What is clear is that the key to attacking my ideas is to attack me. One of the really rich statements is that the critic in question saw so much wrong with my writings that it would take too long to address them. That is cop out for some one who has neither the skill nor wisdom to refute them. I would like some one to address any of the six individuals who feel that my six sources of matter/energy or matter/light conversion were  NOT know to these scientists before Einstein. 

Would you care to defend Bodanis, who allegedly wrote the definitive book on E=mc^2, yet couldn't find even one? Would you care to defend Bodanis when he couldn't even find one proof of Einstein's failed attempts to derive E=mc^2? Ohanian, in the book, "Einstein's Mistakes  The Human Failings of Genius" gives a time line of Einstein's failed attempts at a derivation of E=mc^2. I have to be careful not to plagiarize Ohanian, but here are the mistakes Einstein made in just 1905,

"Mistake in clock synchonization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity,

Failure to consider the Michelson-Morley experiment,

Mistake in 'transverse mass' of high-speed particles,

Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of fluids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules,

Mistake in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light

Mistake in the first proof of E=mc^ squared."

In some displines it is a sign of genius when you get things right; I guess you're a genius in physics if you throw enough mud up against a wall and some of it sticks.

To continue, ibid:

"1906-1907 Mistakes in the second, third and fourth proofs of E=mc^2.

1914  Mistake in the fifth proof of E=mc^2

1934  Mistake in the sixth proof of E=mc^2

1946  Mistake in the seventh proof of E=mc^2"

Let's give the old boy "A" for effort although Einstein did suggest that doing things over and over and expecting different results is a sign of insanity.

Citation: Sloughter, Einstein's Methodology, 3, Chesspub forum, Chit Chat.

I'm a bit put off by Sloughter's method of argument.

Sloughter seems to think that sheer volume of words, especially in the mouths of others, is convincing. And yet he doesn't address any of the criticisms head on.  Also, what's with the  self-referential citation (as if this is some sort of referreed journal)?