sloughter wrote on 07/29/10 at 20:07:49:

You are aware that Einstein died in 1955? So when exactly did he address your research methodoly? Then how old are you? And how old were you when you developed your research methodology?
I suspect Einstein talked to you in a spiritual session.

sloughter wrote on 07/29/10 at 20:07:49:
Yeah, I already mentioned your 15 pages of attempts on this site to refute 8...Ne6, resulting in one short new line that might be playable. Of course I also was heavily impressed by your refutation of 8...Qh4, knowing that Pachmann already mentioned one 30 years ago. These contributions are indeed at least as important as all Kasparov's novelties taken together.

sloughter wrote on 07/29/10 at 20:07:49:

Quote of the year. 

sloughter wrote on 07/29/10 at 20:07:49:

Strawman and a stupid one. Nobody has shown any sign of thinking that. It's possible of course that you don't know the difference between being impressed and being jealous.

sloughter wrote on 07/29/10 at 20:07:49:
Yes. And why and how could it be dragged? What experimental back up have you for this? Is ether also dragged by the moon, Venus and the Sun? If yes, at which point do these ether spheres border? What happens on these borders? If no, why not?
I guess the dragged ether is another brilliant result of your research methodology. Compared to you Galilei, Newton, Huygens, Maxwell, Planck, Bohr and the rest are intellectual dwarves.
"Ether could be dragged by the earth."
Mankind should be silenced by this and stand still in awe for you at least an hour.

MNb wrote on 07/29/10 at 19:10:55:


I am not jealous of Einstein's genius because I don't think of him as a genius, just someone who could throw large mud balls up against the wall e.g. the cosmologic constant. I have worked with better scientists than Einstein, men of integrity, who have provided rock solid bricks to the scientific edifice, not some castle in the sky (Einstein's words) with no foundation. 

The only reason that I attack Einstein's personal life is that his supporters are intent on turning him into a  "Jewish Saint" (Einstein's own words). Doesn't the personal life of an individual matter before we confer Sainthood status to them?

Coming up with ideas is easy---doing something with them is another thing. For example in the 1970's I came up with the origin of life but never followed up on it. When I heard that scientists had found an amino acid in an uncombined form along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge white smokers (they are undersea warm springs), my immediate reaction was, "That is where life originated". But it was John Corliss out of Corvalis that actually wrote this up in the 1980's and deserves to get credit for it.

I posted on line an origin for chlorophyll that was picked up by a biologist and embellished but when I went back and googled it a few months later it was gone. The origin: As indicated above, life originated along the undersea black smokers at the bottom of the ocean not due to the Frankstein model where chemical compounds are zapped by a lighting bolt along puddles and out pops life.

Chlorophyll was invented as a sunscreen not as a food source. In other words as primitive life drifted up into the photic zone, ultraviolet radiation zapped their primitive DNA and it mutated to create protochlorophyll that could stop the energetic ultraviolet rays from frying their DNA. Later, as life drifted up into the more nutrient-deprived shallow waters, the critters decided that the sugars produced by the chlorophyll were mighty tasty. Thus we see the explosive growth of single-celled green life kicking oxygen into the atmosphere at a great rate.

I have developed a new way of thinking called Intuitive Iteration that I described in my Mensa Bulletin article. The nearest thing I have found similar to this was in a "New Yorker" article several years later where Edgar Allan Poe described a similar process as "Imagination Iteration". Here is how it works:

1)Get a gut reaction to a given problem,

2)Introduce the facts and logic,

3)Compare and contrast your intuition with the facts and logic,

4)If they are internally consistent, usually you have come up with a concept that is pretty good,

5)If they cannot be reconciled, you throw out your intuition, facts and logic and start over i.e. iterate,

6)Get a gut reaction.

If as few as 1% of all scientists were to use these methods effectively, I predict that we would see a doubling of major discoveries in science and technology over and above that which would occur in the absence of these methods.

Einstein called my research methodology the definition of insanity; what he failed to point out is that it is a great way to achieve paradigm shifts.

In some chess positions I have had to iterate as much as 2000 times to find something I knew I was missing. Once when I stopped analyzing the Berliner Gambit for a year, I woke up one day with the refutation and only found out later it had been played by Walter Muir, an ICM, in a couple of games so I named it the Muir Variation.

My contributions in chess are a matter of record so it would serve no purpose to recite them here. I would like to say in passing that no professional can lay claim to having discovered more "playable" innovations as early in a dozen variations as I have.

Do you really think I am impressed with Einstein? My potential discoveries are at least as important as his e.g. my new model of plate dynamics, my refutation of the Eclipse data from 1919 and how that has corrupted science, the scientific method, society and history, and a detailed account of how the funding process has been corrupted by physicists to the detriment of our national security.

That is only a partial list of my contributions to the historic record.

Maybe 100 years from now, after suitable puffery, my accomplishments will be highly regarded and Einstein's work in relativity will be regarded as little more than a red herring.

Physicists have decreed what is "important" science. That doesn't mean that the rest of the scientific community is in agreement. Physicists live in the dream world that everyone is a physicist wannabe (Physicists can be thought of as mathematics wannabes) Thank God I was not borne a physicist. 

As for MM, the ether could be dragged by the earth thereby giving a null result.

Markovich wrote on 07/29/10 at 17:44:34:

I vote for the latter. This is my favourite line: 

sloughter wrote on 07/29/10 at 11:50:45:

   

Sloughter has made many ridiculous claims. Here's one example:

Quote:


Bose wrote to Einstein asking for his advice. Einstein was so impressed that he translated and had the work published. Later, Einstein extended the Bose Condensate to material particles. Einstein's contribution is clear, uncontroversial, and well appreciated by Bose.  It is known as the Bose-Einstein Condensate because Bose came up with the idea and Einstein extended it.

Although Bose predicted this in 1924, it was not confirmed until 1995. Perhaps the committee wanted to wait until it was confirmed before awarding it?  I don't pretend to know the workings of the Nobel Prize committee even though I have two family members who have won the prize!  

But all these attacks on Einstein are a smoke screen. Sloughter's main argument isn't about whether Einstein's ideas were plagiarised, it's that Relativity (both general and special) is wrong.

The basic point of contention is the nature of the speed of light. Sloughter argues it is not a constant. So, by Sloughter's theory, if a person was travelling at 99% the speed of light, and shone a flashlight ahead of him, that light would travel at almost 2x the speed of light. Of course, this effect could be multiplied!

Here's my question: Without going into another diatribe against Einstein, Has there ever been an observation of a natural phenomena in which the speed of light has been nearly doubled?  What has been the effect of this?

As an ancillary question, why can't scientists break the speed of light in their particle accelerators?

Such evidence would indeed put the entire theory of Relativity into doubt.

The misfortune is all your own. Have fun!

Quote:

Don't tell me, its 'Dutch' scholarship to connect the entirely unconnected.

MNb wrote on 07/26/10 at 02:41:36:


For those who think the speed of light is constant, "Also of particular interest was a paper in Volume 2 by R.T. Cahill entitled, 'Dynamical 3-Space: A Review'. This paper discusses no less than eight experiments that provide overwhelming evidence that the speed of light is anisotropic. In some cases the anisotropy is quite large,1 part in 1000." Review by Cantrell of the book, "Ether Space Time & Cosmology" by Duffy and Levy. 2008-2009.

Einstein was one of the first scientists to use plagiarism as a research tool. To paraphrase Einstein in a 1907 paper Einstein stated effectively, "Even though the problem has been partly solved by other authors, because I am approaching this from a new viewpoint, I see no need to engage in a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature." In other words, Einstein learned very early that the more research he did, the fewer "new" ideas he discovered. His approach is inventive. In order to discover more ideas, he decided to do less research! Carried to an extreme, anyone who does no research will come up with 100% "new" ideas!

Einstein managed to con (provoke?!) the editors of Annalen der Physik to carry his plagiarized 1905 papers. The back story of this episode is that the Editors of Annalen der Physik, Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien, wanted to scoop the competition so they published the papers without going through their usual peer review (according to an internet article by Smith). The shoddy quality of the papers as a result is obvious. 

What the history books on the 1905 papers never tell you is that France and Germany, less than a decade prior to World War I, were in a hot diplomatic war according to Michel Gendrot (pers. comm.). France had made diplomatic inroads in North Africa and Europe, so the German Journal Annalen der Physik decided to strike a blow for the Mother Land by sticking their thumb in the eye of the great French physicist Jules Henri Poincare. They allowed Einstein, their favorite son, to commandeer the works of Poincare.

In similar fashion, if "Ebony" Magazine had nominated Martin Luther King as, "Person of the Century" everyone would have cried out, "Favorite Son!" Candidate even though it is obvious King had a much bigger impact than Einstein. Is it reasonable to assume that the Editor of Time Magazine nominated Einstein for "Person of the Century" because he was also a favorite son candidate?

"Many of you have looked upon (Einstein's) paper, "Zur Elektrodynamik Bewegeter Korper" (Editor's note---On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies) in Annalen der Physik...and you will have noticed some pecularities. 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." Jewish Nobel Laureate Max Born in "Physics in My Generation".

Einstein published the special relativity paper with no references although, according to Christopher Jon Bjerknes, in the book, "Albert Einstein  The Incorrigible Plagiarist" the only new idea was over spherical aberration. Einstein's Wife, Mileva, was instrumental in getting the theory and mathematics in useable form; 

Einstein acknowledged this is his letter to her, "I am also looking forward to working on our new studies. You must continue with your research---how proud I will be to have a little Ph.D. for a sweetheart while I remain a totally ordinary person!" From Calaprice, "The New Quotable Einstein", p.25.

With that simple statement it is clear that Einstein valued Mileva's contributions in special relativity. This is not at all surprising because Mileva may have studied special relativity under Weber (who disallowed her thesis). Abraham Joffe also claims he read a Russian paper on special relativity by Einstein-Marity, Mileva's Russianized name. (From the book, "Albert Einstein  The Incorrigible Plagiarist" by Christopher Jon Bjerknes."

When the special relativity paper was written, Mileva was not a coauthor, Einstein never referenced anything she wrote and she is not even mentioned in the acknowledgements something most men do as a perfunctory exercise in recognition the role their spouses played. Here, Mileva, actively was involved in the construction of the theory and especially the mathematics where she excelled (One physicist who got in touch with me said he counted some 27 errors in Einstein's math) yet Einstein never included her even in the acknowledgements! He plagiarized his own wife! (Definition---To plagiarize: "To use without due credit, the ideas, expressions or productions of another." Webster's New International Dictionary of the Engish Language, 2nd Edition, Unabridged, p. 1878.)

Einstein, when he wrote his "Brownian Motion" paper, tried to make it seem he was doing something really new and revolutionary. The title for the Brownian Motion paper was, "On the Motion of Small Particles Suspended in Liquids at Rest Required by the Molecular-Kinetic Theory of Heat." Einstein knew about Brownian Motion when he wrote the paper.

Einstein's starting conditions are naive (This is however, the subject of his Doctoral Thesis and the most quoted paper of all the 1905 papers). According to Norton in an internet article called HPS 2590 Einstein 1905, Einstein assumed he was dealing with a Newtonian fluid; he was not. This has a direct bearing on his calculations because he was attempting to determine the dissipation of viscosity. Think of a Newtonian fluid as water and a non-Newtonian fluid as honey or pudding.

Einstein assumed that he was dealing with spheres; sugar molecules are strands something Einstein might have comprehended if he had looked at the behavior of honey, a concentrated sugar solution. 

Strands entangle and have a direct bearing on viscosity which was what Einstein's theory dealt with. He applied Stokes Law to diffusion, even though in this situation diffusion is neither uniform nor constant in magnitude. (according to Norton).

Einstein's doctoral thesis is so bad that it took Einsteinists some 33 footnotes to correct the "mess" in this 16 page paper (Ohanian's words in the book, "Einstein's Mistakes The Human Failings of Genius."

Einstein's handling of the Cosmologic Constant reveals a level of incompetence that will rarely be equaled but never surpassed. Einstein, with data to support his theory, rejected his theories as the worst mistake of his career and then had the theory validated later with the same data Einstein used to reject his own theories!

Einstein flip flopped on the aether. He fllip flopped on the Cosmologic Constant and he flip-floped on his life's work saying, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e. continuous structures. In that case NOTHING remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation included  (and of) the rest of modern physics." Pais, "Subtle is the Lord...," page 467.

In any discipline except physics, Einstein would be the laughing stock of the profession. His nickname would be, "Wrong Way Einstein". Einstein is the Inspector Clouseau (Pink Panther movies) of the scientific community. He stumbled, he fumbled and bumbled along, and, once in a great while got something right. Only the Inspector knew just how incompetent he was.

Bose cost himself the Nobel Prize by associating himself with Einstein. His discovery of the Bose Condensate was, without doubt, one of the most important discoveries in 20th Century physics, yet Bose never won a Nobel prize for it. Einstein, in an abuse of coathorship, never publicly tried to retract his association with the Bose Condensate even though his only contribution was to translate the paper (According to Ohanian, ibid.). This probably cost Bose the Nobel Prize.

Consider yourself the Nobel prize committee. You want to award the Nobel prize to Bose, but you can't without "dissing" Einstein, so you don't give it to anyone.

The Nobel prize Einstein won for the photoelectric effect is the most trivial accomplishment ever awarded to a Nobelist. All Einstein did was to conceptually add one plus one and come up with two.

The concept of the photoelectric effect was described by Hertz who described the flow of electrons when a metal was hit with ultraviolet radiation. Planck talked about the quanta theory of light. Einstein took the ideas of Hertz, married them to the work of Planck and was awarded the Nobel prize for doing it. To award Einstein the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect, you might as well put it in a Crackerjack box for what its worth.

The back story is that Einstein's gnomes wanted the Nobel Committee to award Einstein a Nobel prize for something, anything! They couldn't give it to him for special relativity, that would have outraged the supporters of Poincare and Lorentz. They couldn't give it to him for general relativity because no one understood general relativity so they decided on a "safe" alternative, the photoelectric effect.

What the Nobel prize indicated to Einstein when they awarded him the Nobel prize that he could speak in his acceptance speech about anything but relativity, so, naturally, in deference to the committee, he talked about relativity.

Citation: Sloughter, "Einstein's Methodology, 4, Chesspub Forum, Chit Chat.