Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"

On Apr 2, 1:26*am, maxwell wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Hans C. Ohanian is a well-qualified physicist (PhD with John Wheeler),
author of numerous papers & several texts on physics (EM, SR, GR, etc)
and a life-long student of Einstein, who has decided that he is now
old enough to 'dish the dirt' on the 20th century's "greatest hero".

Some in this NG may know of Einstein's serious flaws in his personal
life but few will have realized that throughout his professional life
he made numerous errors & mistakes in his physics. *Ohanian describes
(without the use of any math) some of the more egregious mistakes made
in his key papers (4 of the famous 5 in 1905), with a total of over 40
mistakes in his almost 180 publications. *A few students of the
history of physics may know that Einstein's 1905 derivation of the
mass-energy relationship contained a serious, invalidating error or
that Einstein failed on six other occasions (up to 1935) to prove
"his" formula. *Throughout his life, Einstein never challenged the
erroneous Maxwellian EM theory that was the basis for all of SRT.

The critics of Einstein in this NG will find plenty of ammunition
here, while those physics undergrads who were simply taught that
Einstein laid the firm foundations for 20th century physics will be
given pause for thought.

The early chapters on Galileo's and Newton's contributions to the
concept of relativity also reveal that these 'giants of science' were
not adverse to fudging their own results to propagate their own
glory. *You would not want to be on the Enemy's List of either of
these founders. *This is also an amusing review for those
professionals who thought that politics only came with the creation of
modern university departments.

Amazon has this book in stock (published in 2008) priced at $16.47 ;
it can be found at:

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mist...8624467&sr=1-1

This statement (of yours?) deserves special attention:

"Throughout his life, Einstein never challenged the erroneous
Maxwellian EM theory that was the basis for all of SRT."

He did in fact, in 1909 and then again in 1954:

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/t...radiation..php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 1, 11:26 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Apr 2, 1:26 am, maxwell in sci.physics.relativity:

Hans C. Ohanian is a well-qualified physicist (PhD with John Wheeler),
author of numerous papers & several texts on physics (EM, SR, GR, etc)
and a life-long student of Einstein, who has decided that he is now
old enough to 'dish the dirt' on the 20th century's "greatest hero".

[...]

This statement (of yours?) deserves special attention:

"Throughout his life, Einstein never challenged the erroneous
Maxwellian EM theory that was the basis for all of SRT."

Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. His opinion lies in
where the current wind blows that is a trait typical of a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. shrug

He did in fact, in 1909 and then again in 1954:

Yes, wishy washy type. shrug

Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar showed very clearly
why he was indeed a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. shrug

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ontent&task=vi....
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."

Mr. Stachel’s job depends on the worship of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. Under this economical condition, I am not
surprised that he would continue to spread the lies about Einstein.
shrug

Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."

Who really gives a fvck about what Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar thinks?

John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Mr. Stachel is very out of touch with reality. The side effects of
worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar really
are taking a toll on Mr. Stachel. shrug

wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 11:26 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Apr 2, 1:26 am, maxwell in sci.physics.relativity:

Hans C. Ohanian is a well-qualified physicist (PhD with John Wheeler),
author of numerous papers & several texts on physics (EM, SR, GR, etc)
and a life-long student of Einstein, who has decided that he is now
old enough to 'dish the dirt' on the 20th century's "greatest hero".

[...]

This statement (of yours?) deserves special attention:

"Throughout his life, Einstein never challenged the erroneous
Maxwellian EM theory that was the basis for all of SRT."

Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. His opinion lies in
where the current wind blows that is a trait typical of a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. shrug


You wouldn't make a good propagandist with that repetition.

In article
,
Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Apr 2, 1:26*am, maxwell wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Hans C. Ohanian is a well-qualified physicist (PhD with John Wheeler),
author of numerous papers & several texts on physics (EM, SR, GR, etc)
and a life-long student of Einstein, who has decided that he is now
old enough to 'dish the dirt' on the 20th century's "greatest hero".

Some in this NG may know of Einstein's serious flaws in his personal
life but few will have realized that throughout his professional life
he made numerous errors & mistakes in his physics. *Ohanian describes
(without the use of any math) some of the more egregious mistakes made
in his key papers (4 of the famous 5 in 1905), with a total of over 40
mistakes in his almost 180 publications. *A few students of the
history of physics may know that Einstein's 1905 derivation of the
mass-energy relationship contained a serious, invalidating error or
that Einstein failed on six other occasions (up to 1935) to prove
"his" formula. *Throughout his life, Einstein never challenged the
erroneous Maxwellian EM theory that was the basis for all of SRT.

The critics of Einstein in this NG will find plenty of ammunition
here, while those physics undergrads who were simply taught that
Einstein laid the firm foundations for 20th century physics will be
given pause for thought.

The early chapters on Galileo's and Newton's contributions to the
concept of relativity also reveal that these 'giants of science' were
not adverse to fudging their own results to propagate their own
glory. *You would not want to be on the Enemy's List of either of
these founders. *This is also an amusing review for those
professionals who thought that politics only came with the creation of
modern university departments.

Amazon has this book in stock (published in 2008) priced at $16.47 ;
it can be found at:

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mist.../dp/0393062937
/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238624467&sr=1-1

This statement (of yours?) deserves special attention:

"Throughout his life, Einstein never challenged the erroneous
Maxwellian EM theory that was the basis for all of SRT."

He did in fact, in 1909 and then again in 1954:

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/t...f-radiation.ph
p
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories.

***{For those who wonder how discrete particles can, in their conjoint
behavior, manifest as waves, here is an unusual example:

"As barchan dunes migrate, smaller dunes outpace larger dunes, bumping
into the rear of the larger dune and eventually appear to punch through
the large dune to appear on the other side. The process seems to be
similar to waves of light, sound or water that pass directly through
each other; the detailed mechanism is, however, very different, being
nonlinear. These are known as solitons."

"The dunes emulate soliton behavior but unlike solitons, the sand
particles do not pass through each other. When the smaller dune
rear-ends the larger dune, the winds begin to deposit sand on the rear
dune while blowing sand off the front dune without replenishing it.
Eventually, the rear dune has assumed dimensions similar to the former
front dune which has now become a smaller, faster moving dune that pulls
away with the wind. (Schwämmle & Herrmann, 2003)" [Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barchan.]

--Mitchell Jones}***

The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

***{The only way to make sense out of Einstein is to separate his math
from his attempts to explain, in terms of natural language, why the math
is true--and, like it or not, his math is mostly true. (By "true" in
this case, I mean that when it is used in calculations within its
domain--i.e., between experimentally measured data points--it gives good
results.)

His attempts to explain his math in natural language, however, are
childlike to the point of, in many cases, being utterly nonsensical.
Some of his passages, with justification, have even been described as
"gibberish." Do not, however, make the mistake of thinking that the math
must be wrong simply because the natural language interpretations are
absurd.

In the above connection it is worthwhile to remember that Newton
couldn't explain his math either. Unlike Einstein, he simply did not try
to explain it. Instead, he took pot shots at others, when they tried to
do so. When others tried to explain gravity as "action at a distance,"
for example, he replied as follows:

"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, is to me so great an absurdity
that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent
faculty for thinking, can ever fall into it."

Einstein, by way of contrast, tried to explain his math in terms of
natural language, with the result that, for a hundred years, others have
had the privilege of taking pot shots at him.

The moral of the story is simple: if you come up with an equation that
matches up well with a set of experimentally measured data points, and
gives accurate predictions in the unmeasured regions of that domain, do
not make the mistake of trying to explain your equation, unless you
actually have an explanation that is rationally comprehensible. If you
do not have a defensible explanation, simply admit it, and move on.

--Mitchell Jones}***

Thus while he had no specific theory about the mechanism underlying
gravitation, he rejected out of hand any theory that involved *space*
("vacuum") as the agent, and would have regarded Einstein's "curved space"
idea as utter nonsense.

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...sk=view&id=317
&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Pentcho Valev


************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
His attempts to explain his math in natural language, however, are
childlike to the point of, in many cases, being utterly nonsensical.
Some of his passages, with justification, have even been described as
"gibberish." Do not, however, make the mistake of thinking that the math
must be wrong simply because the natural language interpretations are
absurd.

Ok. c' = c+v.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls
Any questions?

On Apr 2, 11:12 am, Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{For those who wonder how discrete particles can, in their conjoint
behavior, manifest as waves, here is an unusual example:

"As barchan dunes migrate, smaller dunes outpace larger dunes, bumping
into the rear of the larger dune and eventually appear to punch through
the large dune to appear on the other side. The process seems to be
similar to waves of light, sound or water that pass directly through
each other; the detailed mechanism is, however, very different, being
nonlinear. These are known as solitons."

"The dunes emulate soliton behavior but unlike solitons, the sand
particles do not pass through each other. When the smaller dune
rear-ends the larger dune, the winds begin to deposit sand on the rear
dune while blowing sand off the front dune without replenishing it.
Eventually, the rear dune has assumed dimensions similar to the former
front dune which has now become a smaller, faster moving dune that pulls
away with the wind. (Schwämmle & Herrmann, 2003)" [Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barchan.]

Hmmm... The wind must be pushing the sands. Photons are not pushed
by anything. How can particles not being pushed behave like waves?

***{The only way to make sense out of Einstein is to separate his math
from his attempts to explain, in terms of natural language, why the math
is true--and, like it or not, his math is mostly true. (By "true" in
this case, I mean that when it is used in calculations within its
domain--i.e., between experimentally measured data points--it gives good
results.)

Nonsense. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar never
came up with any mathematics this is original. shrug

His attempts to explain his math in natural language, however, are
childlike to the point of, in many cases, being utterly nonsensical.

That is because Einstein was a nitwit. shrug

Some of his passages, with justification, have even been described as
"gibberish." Do not, however, make the mistake of thinking that the math
must be wrong simply because the natural language interpretations are
absurd.

That is because Einstein Dingleberries do not understand the
mathematics that is credited to Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar. shrug

In the above connection it is worthwhile to remember that Newton
couldn't explain his math either.

This statement is utterly absurd.

Unlike Einstein, he simply did not try
to explain it.

You can never explain math but only interpret. shrug

Instead, he took pot shots at others, when they tried to
do so. When others tried to explain gravity as "action at a distance,"
for example, he replied as follows:

"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, is to me so great an absurdity
that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent
faculty for thinking, can ever fall into it."

There remains no satisfactory resolution to why electrodynamics also
exhibits action-at-a-distance phenomenon. shrug

Einstein, by way of contrast, tried to explain his math in terms of
natural language, with the result that, for a hundred years, others have
had the privilege of taking pot shots at him.

Nonsense. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. shrug

The moral of the story is simple: if you come up with an equation that
matches up well with a set of experimentally measured data points, and
gives accurate predictions in the unmeasured regions of that domain, do
not make the mistake of trying to explain your equation, unless you
actually have an explanation that is rationally comprehensible. If you
do not have a defensible explanation, simply admit it, and move on.

This is not how science works. If the equation predicts nonsense such
as the twin’s paradox, it must be abandoned right off the bat.
Instead, the Einstein Dingleberries try to hypnotize themselves into
believing in the resolution without any mathematical facts. It is
like some nitwit believes in perpetual motion machines. shrug

wrote in message

On Apr 2, 11:12 am, Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{For those who wonder how discrete particles can, in their conjoint
behavior, manifest as waves, here is an unusual example:

"As barchan dunes migrate, smaller dunes outpace larger dunes, bumping
into the rear of the larger dune and eventually appear to punch through
the large dune to appear on the other side. The process seems to be
similar to waves of light, sound or water that pass directly through
each other; the detailed mechanism is, however, very different, being
nonlinear. These are known as solitons."

"The dunes emulate soliton behavior but unlike solitons, the sand
particles do not pass through each other. When the smaller dune
rear-ends the larger dune, the winds begin to deposit sand on the rear
dune while blowing sand off the front dune without replenishing it.
Eventually, the rear dune has assumed dimensions similar to the former
front dune which has now become a smaller, faster moving dune that pulls
away with the wind. (Schwämmle & Herrmann, 2003)" [Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barchan.]

Hmmm... The wind must be pushing the sands. Photons are not pushed
by anything. How can particles not being pushed behave like waves?

You haven't paid attention. Look up gravites combined with jones in google.
A sub-imbecile like you can learn a lot from a super-imbecile like Jones.
And, by the way:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...JonesMath.html

Dirk Vdm

On Apr 2, 1:03 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:

You haven't paid attention. Look up gravites combined with jones in google.
A sub-imbecile like you can learn a lot from a super-imbecile like Jones.

Well, I really don’t care about Mr. Jone’s past transgression. I know
for absolute sure that moortel is a crackpot who compiles his so-
called fumble lists (without understand what fumble really means in
his pathetic understanding of the American English language) based on
his own ignorance of the subjects discussed. It is like broadcasting
to the world to emphasize how whacked up moortel himself is. shrug

wrote in message

On Apr 2, 1:03 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:

You haven't paid attention. Look up gravites combined with jones in google.
A sub-imbecile like you can learn a lot from a super-imbecile like Jones.

Well, I really don’t care about Mr. Jone’s past transgression. I know
for absolute sure that moortel is a crackpot who compiles his so-
called fumble lists (without understand what fumble really means in
his pathetic understanding of the American English language) based on
his own ignorance of the subjects discussed. It is like broadcasting
to the world to emphasize how whacked up moortel himself is. shrug

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...surdClaim.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...agrangian.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...LonelyTop.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...SmellHere.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...woMetrics.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ffGeoAero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...latSphere.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SRBogus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...easonLaws.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...agrangian.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di.../LosingIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...elativity.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Potential.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...WhatWrong.html

Dirk Vdm

Only the bottom rung of Einstein Dingleberries would even read your
useless blog --- full of hatred on the ones who actually have
understood physics. After all, after spending almost 20 years in
there newsgroups, you don’t even understand SR. shrug