Markovich wrote on 10/24/10 at 18:11:33:


Why are you afraid of the truth and seek to kill it?

MNb wrote on 10/22/10 at 10:25:03:


One of the greatest fallacies of the GoEs is that Einstein was a "mathematical genius."

The quotes are from Hans C. Ohanian, an ardent admirer of Einstein, and does not even factor in the writings of his most ardent detractor, Bjerknes, which would require hundreds of pages.

Einstein, "As for me, I do not believe in mathematics."

Minkowski, "I really do not believe him capable of it." (relativity)

Einstein, "...it is only groping without correct foundation." (modern physics) It looks like physicists are groping Mother Nature!

His early attempts at mathematics published in Annalen der Physik in 1905 would be a profound embarrassment to any legitimate mathematician. Later in life his attempts to come up with Grand Unified Theory were so bad that his contemporaries avoided him to avoid talking about his naive mathematical efforts.

Thus we have an Einstein who was incompetent as a mathematician as a young man and as an old man, but somehow he rose to genius in the interim. Or did he?

"Thus many of the complicated calculations published in his later work were not done by him."

And, of course, we have the role of Hilbert, Grossman, Besso, Minkowksi et al who played a major role in general relativity.

"Einstein's hypothetical assumption of zero mass for the container was as if cows could fly."

Einstein assumed that one sugar molecule decreases viscosity but that multiple sugar molecules increase viscosity.

In the Brownian Motion paper in 1905, the following mistakes occurred, "...simple mistakes in sign, typos in mathematical symbols...omission of terms, errors in coefficients." It took biographers over 30 footnotes for this 17 page paper to correct the "mess".

That Annalen der Physik would publish this trash in a supposedly peer-review journal is a sign that ADP was already run by GoEs.

This does not even factor in that Einstein didn't know that he was dealing with a non-Newtonian fluid, that Stokes Law did not apply to the system he described and that sugar molecules are strands, not spheres, something that Einstein would have known if he just looked at the properties of honey, a concentrated sugar solution.

"...four out of the five famous papers he produced during that year were infested with flaws..."

Only in physics is it possible to publish trash and still be considered a genius. Simply coming up with ideas does not make you a genius. To suggest that just because Einstein was grandiose made him a genius, thus if Einstein had attempted to jump over the Empire State Building we should give him credit for "trying". He spent much of his adult life trying to find the Unified Field Theory and failed. Does it matter that he "tried"?

The way Einstein flip flopped on the ether is priceless. Has anyone who believed in the general theory of relativity asked themselves one simple question, "How do you bend something that isn't there?" What do you bend? Empty space? General relativity requires the ether in order to have something to "bend". To bend something requires the application of a force and must obey the equation F=ma. How do you apply a force to empty space?

Einstein also assumed that one sugar molecule DECREASED viscosity but that several sugar molecules increased viscosity.

"Einstein's version of the von Laue's proof (of E=mc^2) contains the zaniest mistake of his entire oeuvre, an absolutely nonsensical mistake."

"...Stachel overreached by declaring Einstein's proof was perfectly legitimate which it was not---the proof was blighted by the mistake that Planck had noticed."

Einstein's nonsense here was repeated through numerous publications.

"Whittaker awarded most of the credit for the discovery of E=mc^2 to several of Einstein's predecessors, among them J.J. Thompson and Poincare."

"Einstein's proof...correctly...was valid only for a particular case, and even then only approximately."

"The first complete proof of E=mc^2...was found by Max von Laue in 1911."

"The equation was known several years before Einstein..."

"...nowhere in the the autobiography is the celebrated equation E=mc^2 to be found." Did Einstein forget he "originated" the concept? Or have the GoEs systematically lied about the origin of E=mc^2? Isn't it amazing that David Bodanis can write a best seller about E=mc^2 and get it completely wrong?

For some reason, I didn't miss this thread.

AE wrote on 08/26/10 at 09:18:49:

Uruk wrote on 09/01/10 at 15:27:01:

Uruk wrote on 09/01/10 at 15:27:01:

The free market was never organized to deal with directional greed i.e. when everyone has the same goal and the individual's greed doesn't cancel out. In the case of the economy, it was the belief that everyone could get rich as long as the band played on---and guess what? The band stopped playing and there weren't enough chairs to go around. The economy collapsed because of directional greed, something Keynes never conceptualized.

In physics we have directional greed where grandiose is good and those who can concepualize ever more grandiose theories must be geniuses aka "The Big Bang Theory", the  "Grand Unified Theory", or "String theory" or some "six new dimensions" that have collapsed that we can't see, or an "infinite number or universes" where this is the only one that can support life.

Want grandiosity? Here's some grandiosity that as a geologist is easy to spew forth just like those mathematical geniuses in theoretical physics.

In this universe there may be life where there is no water. Suppose by the process of plate tectonics a supercontinent is formed like Gondwanaland where the oceans compress the continent on all sides so that the interior of the continent is 1000 km thick. Along comes an asteroid that disintegrates shortly before it hits earth 250 my ago. It forms a plane where we have five impacts, the largest a mass 100km in diameter. It comes in at a low angle and slices off the continental crust as a large conchoidal flake of rock that coalesces into a planetoid 100km in diameter.

We now have a large, highly silicic metalliferous planetoid. It rotates once a year as it revolves around the sun. In sunlight, it heats up to 400 degrees C. In the night, it drops to -200 degrees C.

As quartz recrystallizes, it drives metals towards the exterior of the crystals where they form wires along triple junctions of the crystals. Due to the photoelectric effect and the transferal of heat, these wires transmit heat into the interior of the planetoid. In sunlight the photoelectric effect is dominant, but as the wires form, they begin to transmit heat and electrons into the region of the planetoid where there is night. In other words we begin to get the basis of binary code i.e. either on when the sun is shining or off during the night.

Initially this would consist of sharp boundaries, but as the wires begin to spread, they begin to encircle the entire plantoid so that heat and electricity are transmitted throughout the entire planetoid. In effect, we have a primitive computer that can increase in sophistication by simply increasing the number of wires. Even if the circuits were 10.000 times as large as existing chips, this computer would crank out "logic" i.e. on/off with increasing regularity. Without programming how would the planetoid reorganize itself?

Until 30 years ago, the only kind of life was based on photosynthesis. Within the last 30 years, we have discovered chemosynthesis where life originated along undersea hot springs and life revolves around capturing the energy of the hot spring molecules, not the sun.

Here is a new source of life---the photoelectric effect.

For those who find this unconvincing consider that a working fission reactor set itself up in Oklo in Africa 1.7 billion years ago and ran for several million years. If a working nuclear reactor can appear by chance, could a computer originate by chance?

Maybe it already has. Independence Day occurred when life began to run on binary code i.e. synapses were either on or off. Now we have brought this life form into existence that can run on the photoelectric effect. This is an entirely new basis of life.

Einstein corrupted physicists by leading them to believe that truth lies in mathematics. When the process-dominated physicsts look at my article on the Eclipse of 1919, they will reject the theoreticians who, only belatedly are being squashed.

If general relativity hadn't become a strong model in 1919, it would have had to compete with other theories. Strong models corrupt the data. Only in the past year and a half are we told that space-time doesn't exist and that dark energy is a mathematical error. These revisions of the math of general relativity should have happened over 70 years ago. The only reason they didn't happen was because general relativity was turned into a strong model by Eddington.

The purpose of this post is to show just how easy it is to come up with new ideas unlike any that have been seen before. So when Einstein adds two and two and comes up with four, gets a Nobel prize for a trivial accomplishment, it underscores that even the Nobel prize committee can be corrupted.

The systemic corruption in physics will be unmasked in the next 10-25 years---the time it takes for other branches of the science to discover how their research dollars have been commandeered by disreputable scientists in various disciplines in physics.

It doesn't take a PhD in physics to realize that if you are ignoring ten first order effects in an attempt to define a second order effect you are doing junk science. The amount of deflection that Eddington tried to determine with a primitive telescope is comparable to the width of a human thumb as seen from 5 kilometers.

The longer physicists cling to the Eclipse hoax of 1919, the more they will look like con artists.

Pull at the thread of special and general relativity and the whole edifice of modern physics will collapse, most likely in the next 10-25 years.

Whether chaos theory and quantum mechanics survive the revolution remains to be seen, but I predict that special and general relativity will wind up on the scrap heap of science.

MNb wrote on 09/01/10 at 06:33:55:


You call it an ad hominem attack against Einstein. I call it balance. Einstein recognized that his followers were skewing history in a grotesque way even while he was alive. They have had 55 years to puff up his demigod status in an unfettered way in the main stream literature. Now that puffery is going to come back to haunt the goE's because America always loves a scapegoat.

When they can tie their misery directly to the supporters of Einstein i.e. "Big Physics" they will not need help in connecting the dots. All they need to know is that Time Magazine elevated Einstein to Person of the Century status just because he could sell Time Magazine more copies of their magazine. Time Magazine sold out to their stockholders and corrupted history in the bargain. Do you think that Americans don't know when they are being manipulated into believing that Einstein was a genius and that the Editor of Time Magazine will do anything to make a buck?

Senator John Kerry and Time Magazine better hope that Fox News doesn't monitor anti-liberal websites. I've provided them with a road map to undermine the credibility of both parties, and, of course of the goE's.

sloughter wrote on 08/31/10 at 22:51:15:

Told you already, scientists don't care about historical matters.
If you want funding for green energy, talking about 1919 is NOT the right way to do it.

MNb wrote on 08/28/10 at 07:44:49:


It is nice to know that post members routinely make ad hominem attacks against me, but let me make just one general ad hominem attack and suddenly it is unacceptable.

The fundmentally corrupt nature of the "researcher", Eddington, his supporters championing the Eclipse data of 1919 like Hawking in his Time Magazine article (were he recanted on his book), like Levy and like Minkle will be viewed as the "grotesque" (Einstein's words not mine) goE's who will do anything to make Einstein look like a genius.

The basic hoax of the Eclipse data cemented general relativity as a strong model; did Einstein ever address the article by Charles Lane Poor when the theory was still in a state of flux, or was Einstein, just like his association with the charlatan Emil Rupp content to only look at papers that supported his prejudices?

As for the nicotine analogy---within ten years thousands of the general scientific community will have read my article on the Eclipse of 1919 and know just how corrupt the goE's are.

AE wrote on 08/26/10 at 09:18:49:


I welcome attempts by the goE's to try to convince the scientific community that the fraudulent nature of the Eclipse data from 1919 isn't settled science. This is great for my basic thesis that the goE's will do anything to salvage the bogus Eclipse data. As I have said before, Arthur Eddington is the Pied Piper of Hamlin leading the rats to the sea.

The goE's who support the Eclipse data of 1919 undoubtedly would claim that linking nicotine to addiction was not settled science either, just like the heads of the cigarette industry.