sloughter wrote on 07/30/10 at 10:47:33:

As I wrote before I own the book. You are the one who has trouble reading and should have his mind checked.
You are probably copying some antisemite webpage.

sloughter wrote on 07/30/10 at 04:59:58:

This is what betrays you. There is no city called Leyden in The Netherlands. The name is Leiden, which has a famous faculty of physics - especially astronomy - indeed.
You are copying other websites and don't have original sources.

MNb wrote on 07/30/10 at 09:48:55:


You should not make comments that you cannot support. Here is what is on the cover of my book by Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time  From the Big Bang to Black Holes" by Stephen Hawking (ISBN  0-553-34614-8) with an introduction by Carl Sagan. Let me quote you Hawking on page 32 so that you are not confused, "It is normally very difficult to see this effect, because the light from the sun makes it impossible to observe stars that appear near to the sun in the sky. However, it is possible to do so during an eclipse of the sun, when the sun's light is blocked out by the moon. Einstein's prediction could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that the light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. The proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation (Editor's note---interesting, science by reconciliation) between the two countries after the war. It is ironic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on the expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck or knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."

You seem to have trouble reading. Have you had your mind checked recently?

MNb wrote on 07/30/10 at 02:24:18:


I wish you would be more explicit in your criticism; I can't quite get the jist of what you are saying. What I like about your response is that it is going to be repeated a hundred times on the web (I hope), find its way into the popular culture and you will eventually pay the price with your total lack of credibility.

The Einstein quote is from a talk given on 5/5/20 at the University of Leyden. You're such a genius---you find it.

I'm not just Einstein bashing (although I would be the first to admit I am a prosecuter of Einstein and Big Physics). That scientists like Minkle, Levy and Hawking could corrupt history just to promote Einstein is symptomatic of the depths to which physics has sunk. Here here are some false statements, by Stephen Hawking (he learned how to corrupt history from the Maestro, Einstein).

In his book, "A Brief History of Time  From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Hawking made the following comment on page 32. "Their measurement had been sheer luck or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get"

Then in his Time Magazine article with respect to the Eclipse data of 1919, he stated, "It (general relativity) was confirmed in spectacular fashion in 1919 when a British expedition to West Africa observed a slight shift in the positions of stars near the sun. Their light, as Einstein had predicted, was bent as it was passed near the sun during an eclipse. Here was direct evidence that space and time are warped, the greatest change in our perception of the arena on which we live since Euclid wrote his 'Elements' about 300 B.C."

This is absolute rubbish. Read my abstract and introduction called, "The Eclipse Data of 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science."

I got in touch with Professor Hawking through his press secretary and got no response when I asked him to clarify his conflicting statements. Which is it Professor Hawking? "sheer luck" or "confirmed in spectacular fashion"? 

Hawking gave Time Magazine editors exactly what they wanted to hear. First Einstein comes up with this esoteric theory and presto chango it is confirmed by the Eclipse data from 1919. This is nonsense.

Eclipse data is singularly useless in confirming general relativity. According to Sir John Maddox, former Editor of 'Nature' Magazine in a 1995 article, stated, "...the results from the (1919) Eclipse were not particularly accurate and the subsequent eclipse observations are no better." Do you see any physicists quoting Maddox or does he too lack credibilty?

"The unease continued through the 1920's and 30's. When Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize in 1921, the citation was for important--but by Einstein's standards comparatively minor--work also carried out in 1905. 

Comparably minor??? How about trivial? Einstein added 1 and 1 conceptually and came up with 2. His award for the photoelectric effect was the most trivial advance in physics to win the Nobel prize---barely worth a B+ in an upperlevel undergraduate class where grade inflation is rampant.

"What happens is that as energy is added to accelerate a particle or a spaceship, its mass increases. It is my understanding that this idea was based on results from particle accelerators. 

This can be accounted for with Newtonian mechanics. Think of train traveling at 500 kilometer/sec. Now fire a 500 kg cannon ball at the train at 1000 kilometers. The cannon ball obeys the formula KE=1/2 mv^2 i.e. 1/2 500kg X 500 km/sec.^2.

Now fire the cannonball at 501 km/sec. Again using the formula KE=1/2 mv^2 we get the result of 1/2 500kg X 1^2.

Does the train increase in mass just because the cannonball cannot accelerate the train very much? Then why, when a particle is trying to accelerate a another particle traveling near the speed of light that particle cannot be appreciably accelerated due to the simple consideration of KE= 1/2 mv^2? The inability to accelerate the particle is simple Newtonian mechanics; it has nothing to do with the particle gaining mass.

"Someone in a closed box cannot tell whether he is sitting at rest in the earth's gravitation field or being accelerated by a rocket in free space." This is patently false. A giant 100 miles tall will have no difficulty determing whether he is in a box or on a spaceship undergoing acceleration. Any body with vertical dimensions can tell with extremely precise instrumentation whether it is sitting in a box or being accelerated by a spaceship.



The approximation of the truth is a lie. Here Hawking approximates the truth.

Here are some additional false statement from .

"This has been confirmed by a number of experiments, including one in which an extremely accurate time piece was flown around the world and then compared with one that one that stayed in place." In deference to the Anti-Relativists I feel constrained to point out that the clock on board the airplane, "thought" it taken off a day before the flight!

"The equations of general relativity are his best epitaph and memorial. They should last as long as the universe." Here is Einstein's comment, "In that case, NOTHING remains of my entire castle in the gravitation theory included..."

Hawking said that the general relativity equations should last the length of the universe. Einstein said they shouldn't last five minutes.

Hawking has about the same ethics as Einstein and just goes to show you what an Einsteinist is willing to do to perpetuate the myth of Einstein the genius.

sloughter wrote on 07/29/10 at 23:19:02:

Well, if you are not jealous you are probably anti-semite indeed. Because this has nothing to do with your so called corrupted physics. This remark is completely irrelevant for the discussion; you speak ill of jews here.

sloughter wrote on 07/30/10 at 00:16:14:
If you had cared to read the lemma Faster-than-light on Wikipedia you would have known that this does not contradict Relativity.

sloughter wrote on 07/30/10 at 00:30:49:
So what? Why should we? Repeated presentations of this as the Revelation of the Century only confirms that you are a fruitcake indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincare

shows that Poincare isn't exactly a victim of your Conspiracy of Silence. Reading a little further and clicking a little more will show you that the historical development of Relativity is widely known.

sloughter wrote on 07/30/10 at 00:30:49:
So what? This only shows that you are only interested in personal attacks on Einstein. I don't give a f**k how many times he failed. Only fruitcakes do.

sloughter wrote on 07/30/10 at 00:30:49:

Again, if you think this is the Revelation of the Century,
a) you haven't read the Wikipedia link above;
b) you are as mad as a hat.

sloughter wrote on 07/30/10 at 00:30:49:

Yeah, why haven't they if anyone with an internetconnection on this world can find this with a few mouseclicks (if able to read English)?
It takes a fruitcake to ask such a question.
The more you stress E = mc^2, the more you show your ignorance. It's not the central formula of Special Relativity; it is only widely known because it sounds good. It's a side result of a relativistic approach of kinetic and potential energy and only applies to rest mass.

sloughter wrote on 07/30/10 at 00:30:49:

The public will remember that you are a fruitcake who
a) understand zilch of the methodology of physics;
b) doesn't care to consult even the most accessible source of information, namely Wikipedia;
c) doesn't care about well known facts;

sloughter wrote on 07/30/10 at 01:17:14:
and finally
d) doesn't care to mention source, time and place, not even after several requests. Instead you just continue sucking your thumb, like the genuine fruitcake you are.
Once again I thank you for providing a lot of information on pseudophysics. Above you stated that you only have just begun. I won't react until you bring up something new. Repeating your mantra "Einstein sucks" is not enough to hold up my attention.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/30/10 at 01:02:32:


Just google under supraluminal light and you find the article.

sloughter wrote on 07/30/10 at 00:16:14:


I have not been able to find this paper or this volume of the journal. What, for you, is a "dispersion medium", what is "supraluminal group velocity", and why would a refereed journal allow misspelled words?

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


No one has addressed any of my sources about the fact that Einstein did not originate the equation m=e/c^2, Poincare and several other scientists apparently came up with the equation before Einstein did. No one has tried to deny that Einstein tried and failed 7 times to derive it. No has tried to deny that at least 6 scientists before Einstein came up with the matter/light or matter/energy conversion before Einstein.

According to Bodanis in his fawning tribute to Einstein, it is the most important equation in the world yet the public still believes Albert Einstein originated the equation and did everything of significance with respect to it. Why haven't physicists told the truth about m=e/c^2?

What the public, in ten years, will remember about my observations is that Einstein didn't originate the idea, never proved it right, yet still got all the credit for it---and no one in the entire physics community bothered to set the record straight for 50 years. Einstein was too much of a cash cow to rock the boat.