Is opposition to Einstein from fundies?

It seems that every 2nd post in these froups is from people who are
judging Einstein to be some kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the
wool over the scientific world's eyes, and who still does so. These
few posters, with no certification to their names have uncovered this
vast plot and post their "refutations" here.

I can't understand what all the hoopla is about. Recently,
Conservapedia had a huge barney over it, and, from what I can gather
it was based on Andy Schlafly (Roger Ramjet's) sudden insight that
AE's Relativity might mean some kind of moral relativity. Is this the
view of dissenter's here?

There DOES seem to be the notion that God must know when everything
happened and how much everything weighs, and so SR and GR cannot be
right. Is this the elephant in the room in these debates? That
opposition to these theories is coming from Young Earth Creationists
who are not being honest as to the REAL reason as to why they are in
such vitriolic disagreement with AE, and the rest of the informed
world as to his theories?

Because from what I read, they certainly SOUND like they are from
Conservapedia, with the "hahaha hah aha that's one up for us" type of
juvenile belligerence that seems compulsory here.

Myles (Back to the flat world for some...) Paulsen

On Jun 13, 11:31 pm, abzorba wrote:

It seems that every 2nd post in these froups is from people who are
judging Einstein to be some kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the
wool over the scientific world's eyes, and who still does so. These
few posters, with no certification to their names have uncovered this
vast plot and post their "refutations" here.

Your observations are totally biased because of your faith in
worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a
god. As you see. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
was nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. There is no
hatred or anti-science about it. He was merely stating the fact.
shrug

I can't understand what all the hoopla is about. Recently,
Conservapedia had a huge barney over it, and, from what I can gather
it was based on Andy Schlafly (Roger Ramjet's) sudden insight that
AE's Relativity might mean some kind of moral relativity. Is this the
view of dissenter's here?

Your zealous worship of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar as a god is clouding your observations. This is about the truth
in science not some mathematical inconsistencies known as SR and GR.
shrug

There DOES seem to be the notion that God must know when everything
happened and how much everything weighs, and so SR and GR cannot be
right. Is this the elephant in the room in these debates? That
opposition to these theories is coming from Young Earth Creationists
who are not being honest as to the REAL reason as to why they are in
such vitriolic disagreement with AE, and the rest of the informed
world as to his theories?

You are totally lost. The discussions are about the fallacies and
mathematical inconsistencies of SR and GR in which there are boat
loads. shrug

Because from what I read, they certainly SOUND like they are from
Conservapedia, with the "hahaha hah aha that's one up for us" type of
juvenile belligerence that seems compulsory here.

It looks like someone needs to watch the Relativity Play.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...a0f3c305008773

And be more informed about these so-called resolutions to these the
Twins’ paradox.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...bc93ca08?hl=en

For the ones winning to take on extra credits, the thread below show
how Einstein Dingleberries are caught applying two equations
contradictory in conclusion to resolve the simple Doppler effect under
SR.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...dd12621209448d

The following is exactly what the self-styled physicists are preaching
in the past one hundred years.

** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS

shrug

On Jun 14, 2:31*am, abzorba wrote:
It seems that every 2nd post in these froups is from people who are
judging Einstein to be some kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the
wool over the scientific world's eyes, and who still does so. These
few posters, with no certification to their names have uncovered this
vast plot and post their "refutations" here.

I can't understand what all the hoopla is about. Recently,
Conservapedia had a huge barney over it, and, from what I can gather
it was based on *Andy Schlafly (Roger Ramjet's) sudden insight that
AE's Relativity might mean some kind of moral relativity. Is this the
view of dissenter's here?

No....our objection to SR are as follows:
1. Two clocks in relative motion and between meetings the clock that
accumulated less clock seconds can claim the clock that accumulated
more clock seconds as running slow.
2. SR claims: An 80 ft. pole can fit into a 40 ft. barn with both
doors close simultaneously.....SR also claims: an 80 ft pole cannot
fit into a 40 ft barn with borh doors close simultaneously.
3. In the bug and the rivet paradox....the bug dies twice--before and
after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
4. The meter length is redefined to be 1/299,792,458 light-
second...this redefinition of the meter is designed to make the SR
postulate to be true in all frames of reference.
5. The SR concept of relativity of simultaneity asserts that the speed
of light is anisotropic in the observed M' frame whereas the SR
postulate asserts that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames.
6. Even though SR posits that the one-way speed of light is a
universal constant...Physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of
light directly using two e-synched clocks.

Ken Seto



There DOES seem to be the notion that God must know when everything
happened and how much everything weighs, and so SR and GR cannot be
right. Is this the elephant in the room in these debates? That
opposition to these theories is coming from Young Earth Creationists
who are not being honest as to the REAL reason as to why they are in
such vitriolic disagreement with AE, and the rest of the informed
world as to his theories?

Because from what I read, they certainly SOUND like they are from
Conservapedia, with the "hahaha hah aha that's one up for us" type of
juvenile belligerence that seems compulsory here.

Myles (Back to the flat world for some...) Paulsen

Dear abzorba:

On Jun 13, 11:31*pm, abzorba wrote:
It seems that every 2nd post in these froups
is from people who are judging Einstein to be
some kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the
wool over the scientific world's eyes, and
who still does so. These few posters, with no
certification to their names have uncovered
this vast plot and post their "refutations"
here.

It is easier answered with "Asperger's syndrome". They get a wrong
notion early on, and devote their lives to bulwarking both their
misunderstanding, and their attack on their misunderstanding.

You are painting "fundies" with the wrong brush. Most fundies have no
problem with Jews, since they believe the Jews are God's chosen
people, and Jesus (via Paul) let them in the clique too. (Having
heard all this from my father...)

The ones that have problems with Jews has a different name. "Fundies"
are usually "Fundamental Christians".

I can't understand what all the hoopla is
about. Recently, Conservapedia had a huge barney
over it, and, from what I can gather it was based
on *Andy Schlafly (Roger Ramjet's) sudden insight
that AE's Relativity might mean some kind of moral
relativity. Is this the view of dissenter's here?

1 out of 8 maybe. Most "dissenters" cannot avoid frame jumps if their
lives depended on it, and the balance simply can't believe their
teachers might have tought them something that was known to be wrong
(Newton) however useful it might otherwise be.

There DOES seem to be the notion that God
must know when everything happened and how
much everything weighs, and so SR and GR
cannot be right.

They are NOT right in the biblical sense. They are however "Caeser's
coin", of and about the "house on sand", and that they do really well.

Is this the elephant in the room in these
debates? That opposition to these theories
is coming from Young Earth Creationists
who are not being honest as to the REAL
reason as to why they are in such vitriolic
disagreement with AE, and the rest of the
informed world as to his theories?

Because from what I read, they certainly
SOUND like they are from Conservapedia, with
the "hahaha hah aha that's one up for us"
type of juvenile belligerence that seems
compulsory here.

It is endemic to the human race, I am afraid. I kept arguing with
George Dishman on sci.astro that we needed to get to space, that we
needed a frontier. And he said no, we needed to stay here,
essentially to keep our various mental illnesses confined. It galls
me that he was right.

Myles (Back to the flat world for some...) Paulsen

David A. Smith

On Jun 14, 11:14*pm, kenseto wrote:
On Jun 14, 2:31*am, abzorba wrote:

It seems that every 2nd post in these froups is from people who are
judging Einstein to be some kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the
wool over the scientific world's eyes, and who still does so. These
few posters, with no certification to their names have uncovered this
vast plot and post their "refutations" here.

I can't understand what all the hoopla is about. Recently,
Conservapedia had a huge barney over it, and, from what I can gather
it was based on *Andy Schlafly (Roger Ramjet's) sudden insight that
AE's Relativity might mean some kind of moral relativity. Is this the
view of dissenter's here?

No....our objection

You means YOUR .. you only speak for your own particular brand of
crackpottery .. other crackpots have other views and reasons.

to SR are as follows:
1. Two clocks in relative motion and between meetings the clock that
accumulated less clock seconds can claim the clock that accumulated
more clock seconds as running slow.

No .. SR doesn't let you claim that. It DOES let you claim that the
clock would be measured as running slower for PART of the trip .. but
the parts where it runs faster (ie sync changes) have a greater
effect.

2. SR claims: An 80 ft. pole can fit into a 40 ft. barn with both
doors close simultaneously.....

No .. SR claims a less-than-80 ft pole fits in there. That the pole
is 80ft long in some other frame of reference is irrelevant to whether
or not it fits in the barn.

SR also claims: an 80 ft pole cannot
fit into a 40 ft barn with borh doors close simultaneously.

Of course it can't

3. In the bug and the rivet paradox....the bug dies twice--before and
after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.

No .. SR claims it dies only once

4. The meter length is redefined to be 1/299,792,458 light-
second...this redefinition of the meter is designed to make the SR
postulate to be true in all frames of reference.

It is not a re-definition. It is THE definition. That is not an
objection to SR .. SR doesn't determine units of measure .. that's
done by standards bodies.

5. The SR concept of relativity of simultaneity asserts that the speed
of light is anisotropic in the observed M' frame whereas the SR
postulate asserts that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames.

Wrong

6. Even though SR posits that the one-way speed of light is a
universal constant...Physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of
light directly using two e-synched clocks.

Clocks that are e-synched BY DEFINITION measure the one-way speed as
isotropic. So there is no point in measuring the one way speed when
it MUST be the same as the two way speed, and the two way speed is
easier to measure.

That said, there still have been one way light speed measurements.

Well.. that's all you objections dismissed. Guess you're an SR
believer now? Or are you too dishonest to do that?

abzorba wrote in news:5e5e9ab0-6e11-4fa8-8926-
:

It seems that every 2nd post in these froups is from people who are
judging Einstein to be some kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the
wool over the scientific world's eyes, and who still does so. These
few posters, with no certification to their names have uncovered this
vast plot and post their "refutations" here.

The overlap between being anti-relativity and being anti-semitic is rather
interesting.

The prevalence of rabid right-wing views is, I am sure, a coincidence.

[...]

Dear eric gisse:

On Jun 14, 8:52*am, eric gisse wrote:
abzorba wrote in news:5e5e9ab0-6e11-4fa8-8926-
:

It seems that every 2nd post in these froups is
from people who are judging Einstein to be some
kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the wool
over the scientific world's eyes, and who still
does so. These few posters, with no certification
to their names have uncovered this vast plot and
post their "refutations" here.

The overlap between being anti-relativity and being
anti-semitic is rather interesting.

The prevalence of rabid right-wing views is, I am
sure, a coincidence.

Do you feel they could be symptoms of the same mindset?

David A. Smith

On Jun 14, 2:31*am, abzorba wrote:
It seems that every 2nd post in these froups is from people who are
judging Einstein to be some kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the
wool over the scientific world's eyes, and who still does so. These
few posters, with no certification to their names have uncovered this
vast plot and post their "refutations" here.

I can't understand what all the hoopla is about. Recently,
Conservapedia had a huge barney over it, and, from what I can gather
it was based on *Andy Schlafly (Roger Ramjet's) sudden insight that
AE's Relativity might mean some kind of moral relativity. Is this the
view of dissenter's here?
Yes, this is the view of some of the cranks here. They feel that
Einstein started "moral relativity". However, they never tell us what
where the phrase "moral relativism" came from, or what Einstein had to
do with it. I am surprised -Not- that they don't have
Read the book "Relativity- A Richer Truth" by Phillipp Frank
(1950). It is a philosophical book on the relationship between science
and ethics. It has a preface by Albert Einstein.
The book relates how Frank regards the scientific method with
regard to ethics. He comes to some conclusions which seem reasonable
and interesting. However, the foreword was written by Einstein. This
preface is interesting in itself, because it actually describes where
Einstein stood on the issues of ethics. BTW: He was for ethics.
Albert Einstein in the foreword writes, "For pure logic all
axioms are arbitrary, including the axioms of ethics. But they are no
means arbitrary from the psychological and genetic view. They are
derived from our inborn tendencies to avoid pain and annihilation, and
from the accumulated emotional reaction of individuals to the behavior
of their neighbors.
It is the privilege of man's moral genius, expressed by inspired
individuals, to advance ethical axioms which are so comprehensive that
men will accept them as grounded in the vast mass of their individual
emotional experiences. Ethical axioms are found and tested not very
differently from the axioms of science. Die Wahrheit liegt in der
Bewahrung. Truth is what stands the test of experience."
I don't know if any of the antiscience people have seen this.
However, I offer it to them. If you think that Einstein promoted an
amoral philosophy, read this preface. If they want to disagree with
Einstein's moral philosophy, then I suggest that they read some of
it.
I myself see Einstein as being a bit naive with regards to
ethics. Many people seek pain and annihilation. If not for themselves,
they seek it for others. Maybe this is the "moral relativism" that
"antirelativists" don't like.
"

There DOES seem to be the notion that God must know when everything
happened and how much everything weighs, and so SR and GR cannot be
right. Is this the elephant in the room in these debates? That
opposition to these theories is coming from Young Earth Creationists
who are not being honest as to the REAL reason as to why they are in
such vitriolic disagreement with AE, and the rest of the informed
world as to his theories?
A lot of Young Earth Creationists believe this. While relativity
has nothing per se to do with age of the universe, it is used to
extrapolate current conditions in the universe to a time billions of
years ago. Therefore, it has come to be associated with Deep Time. It
isn't that the theory itself uses the hypothesis of Deep Time.
The Creation of the universe could have been 6 KYA and most of
relativity could still be true. One would have to throw away that last
chapter on cosmology, but that isn't the core of relativity. Just like
one can believe that atoms decay at a fixed rate, and still believe
the earth was created 6 KYA. However, the existence of such a model
stimulates one to consider the existence of time before 6 KYA. It
isn't the theory, it is the scientific methodology that they want to
stamp out.

Because from what I read, they certainly SOUND like they are from
Conservapedia, with the "hahaha hah aha that's one up for us" type of
juvenile belligerence that seems compulsory here.
To be absolutely fair, antirelativity isn't strictly coming from
the religious fanatics. I know some of the antirelativity cranks here.
Some are atheists. At the very least, some are antiBible. Androcles,
Hanson, Guth and Wilson are decidedly antiGenesis. They are
fanatically antiJewish, both against the religion and against the
nonexistent "race" that Jews are supposed to represent. I don't think
you can possibly associate these four with Young Earth Creationism.
A lot of Young Earth Creationists hate Einstein, too. I used to
argue with Geocentrists, who believe that the earth is stationary.
They were all Young Earth Creationists and religious fanatics. I
remember Goldberg, Bouw and Marshall Hall. These people would probably
kill each other if there weren't atheists to blame everything on.
In short, I don't think it is religion or even Young Earth
Creationism which is the blame for this antirelativity. I don't think
it is antirelativity so much as antiscience. Or amybe it isn't so much
antiscience as antithought.

Myles (Back to the flat world for some...) Paulsen
If you really believe Genesis word for word, that is the way it has
to be !-)

dlzc wrote in news:c0ac67f0-9611-4231-919d-7d61e0c4e987
@r27g2000prr.googlegroups.com:

Dear eric gisse:

On Jun 14, 8:52*am, eric gisse wrote:
abzorba wrote in news:5e5e9ab0-6e11-4fa8-8926-
:

It seems that every 2nd post in these froups is
from people who are judging Einstein to be some
kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the wool
over the scientific world's eyes, and who still
does so. These few posters, with no certification
to their names have uncovered this vast plot and
post their "refutations" here.

The overlap between being anti-relativity and being
anti-semitic is rather interesting.

The prevalence of rabid right-wing views is, I am
sure, a coincidence.

Do you feel they could be symptoms of the same mindset?

David A. Smith


That anti-science, anti-intellectualism, and anti-knowledge are common
mindsets among cranks and right winger is kinda suggestive.

On 6/14/2011 2:31 AM, abzorba wrote:
It seems that every 2nd post in these froups is from people who are
judging Einstein to be some kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the
wool over the scientific world's eyes, and who still does so. These
few posters, with no certification to their names have uncovered this
vast plot and post their "refutations" here.

There definitely is some anti-Jewish crowds in here, no doubt about it.
But not all of the crackpots are anti-Jewish, some are just genuinely
confused about Relativity -- can't quite wrap their minds around it.
It's understandable, since the stuff Relativity deals with so far
outside daily physics.

All of the crackpots just gathered together to form a mutual admiration
society, except in the end they really have totally different theories
they are expounding and may not agree with each other at all.

For example, I myself think Relativity is wrong, but I don't think it's
completely wrong. I just think it hasn't gone nearly far enough. The
observation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy are fixing up major flaws in
Relativity, putting bandages on a theory that never predicted these
things. It shouldn't be really surprising that Relativity doesn't take
Dark Stuff into account as galaxies were only discovered *after*
Einstein finished his work.

Yousuf Khan