CLEVER AND SILLY EINSTEINIANS

No intelligent person can get used to Einstein's idiocies. He/she may be compelled to teach them all his/her life but there will always be internal conflict and the truth will come out, more or less explicitly, in moments of aberration:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"Newton and Leibniz debated this very point. Newton portrayed space and time as existing independently while Rovelli and Brown share Leibniz's view that time and space exist only as properties of things and the relationships between them. It is still not clear who is right says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it but his instinct - and the consensus in Physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with Relativity which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets, and matter."

Silly Einsteinians have a different problem. They have to build their discourse so as to avoid any unambiguous statement that may turn out to be falsifiable. Most of the time they succeed and perseveringly inform the gullible world that there are many universes which are all mathematical, that these universes engage in a Darwinian competition etc. Yet the utter stupidity does show up from time to time. Two examples:

1. Lee Smolin teaches that only Einstein's theory predicts bending of light - Newton's theory doesn't:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...39/viewer.html
Lee Smolin (1:06:05) : "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

2. Max Tegmark teaches that the Newtonian "3D space + time" and the Einsteinian specetime are equivalent:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/Our-...=9780307599803
Max Tegmark, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, p. 198: "He [Einstein] taught us that there are two equivalent ways of thinking about our physical reality: either as a three-dimensional place called space, where things change over time, or as a four-dimensional place called spacetime that simply exists, unchanging, never created and never destroyed."

Pentcho Valev