Dishonest Deranged Dork on twins

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...

"Ron-boy"
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
and former reviewer of http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote in message

On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link):
"In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in
frame S'
while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the
turnaround
event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without
getting
hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her
new
frame."

You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of
"frame jumping."

That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question.

~RA~
I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this
case

Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading
is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole
point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too
much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline
with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty.


Dirk Vdm

================================================== ==

"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves
from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein

Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving,
frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S, S'
and S''.
Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of S'
becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S,
stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously.

It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters
dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Aug 18, 3:50*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" *wrote in ...

"Ron-boy"
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
* *and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote in





On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link):
"In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in
frame S'
while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the
turnaround
event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without
getting
hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her
new
frame."

You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of
"frame jumping."

That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question.

~RA~
I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this
case

Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading
is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole
point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too
much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline
with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty.

Dirk Vdm

================================================== ==

"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves
from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein

Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving,
frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S, S'
and S''.
Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of S'
becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S,
stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously.

It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters
dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No need to find out what is actually happening to time.
Einstein makes an insane statement, “If Dork and Dirk are in relative
motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk’s clock
running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but
Dork’s clock is running slowly”.
What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this
statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation
is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own
theory.
If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame.
So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But
whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will
see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon,
Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path
of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror
image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good.

On Aug 18, 10:23*am, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
On Aug 18, 3:50*am, "Androcles" wrote:









"Dirk Van de moortel" *wrote in ...

"Ron-boy"
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
* *and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote in

On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link):
"In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in
frame S'
while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the
turnaround
event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without
getting
hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her
new
frame."

You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of
"frame jumping."

That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question.

~RA~
I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this
case

Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading
is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole
point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too
much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline
with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty.

Dirk Vdm

================================================== ==

"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves
from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein

Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving,
frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S, S'
and S''.
Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of S'
becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S,
stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously.

It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters
dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No need to find out what is actually happening to time.
Einstein makes an insane statement, “If Dork and Dirk are in relative
motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk’s clock
running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but
Dork’s clock is running slowly”.
What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this
statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation
is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own
theory.
If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame.
So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But
whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will
see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon,
Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path
of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror
image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good.

http://sites.google.com/site/28octaves/home

https://sites.google.com/site/28octa...attredirects=0

https://sites.google.com/site/28octa...attredirects=0

https://sites.google.com/site/28octa...tredire cts=0

Light propagates at one half the velocity of gravity

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
...

On Aug 18, 3:50 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in
...

"Ron-boy"
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote in






On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link):
"In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in
frame S'
while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the
turnaround
event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without
getting
hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her
new
frame."

You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of
"frame jumping."

That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question.

~RA~
I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this
case

Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading
is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole
point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too
much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline
with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty.

Dirk Vdm

================================================== ==

"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves
from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for
a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein

Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving,
frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S,
S'
and S''.
Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of
S'
becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S,
stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously.

It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters
dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No need to find out what is actually happening to time.
Einstein makes an insane statement, “If Dork and Dirk are in relative
motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk’s clock
running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but
Dork’s clock is running slowly”.
What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this
statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation
is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own
theory.
If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame.
So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But
whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will
see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon,
Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path
of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror
image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good.

================================================== ============
The real question is whether Einstein was genuinely retarded and an idiot
savant, or a brilliant charlatan and psychopathic showman. He certainly
has the other psychopath, Dork Van de lying Belgian faggot, hoodwinked.
I'm more inclined to the latter based on Einstein's own statement:
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject
the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data
had been found which were contradictory to this principle" although it
is possible he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. By his own
admission, "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can
assure you mine are still greater." He also said: "If A is a success in
life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping
your mouth shut." Every magician keeps his mouth shut on how the trick
is performed, which would indicate Einstein knew damned well what
he was doing. One doesn't leave the theatre in awe of real magic,
instead one puzzles over how the stunt is done. Where is the smoke?
Where are the mirrors? Why is the woman hidden in a box before she
is sawn in half; and where is the blood? Why have the police not been
called and the magician charged with attempted murder?
We know it is not real both before and after we are entertained.
BUT HOW DID EINSTEIN HOODWINK HIS AUDIENCE, IN BLACK AND
WHITE, ON PAPER, GETTING THEM TO BELIEVE HIS TRICK IS REAL?
And the answer is simple. They cannot read mathematics so they skimp
over the equations and only read the hyperbole.
You give him too much credit, you assume he was fundamentally honest
when he was a sociopathic womanizer who ****ed his own cousin. The
only thing that mattered to Einstein was Albert.

Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the
Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-

[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.

I accuse Einstein and his disciples of exactly the same fraud, I only
wish I could prosecute them in an international court of law in the
Hague, but unfortunately magic tricks are not illegal and the UN
is unconcerned. So that leaves us with taking the ****, calling Dork
a faggot and let the snivelling spermless coward dare sue me for libel.

Yes, of course Einstein's one-sided time dilation violates the PoR.
It also violates the Principle of Simultaneity and the only way out is
source dependency of light, denying which caused the trouble in
the first place.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.

On Aug 18, 12:55 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
snip

... the only way out is source dependency of light,
denying which caused the trouble in the first place.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway


If you are saying that Einstein denied light's source indecency, then
I must object.

Source independency was one of three reasons given by Einstein for the
"Simple Law of Propagation of Light in Empty Space." (This law says
simply that light's absolute speed in space is constant. More on this
below.)

Reason One: Light's color does not change its propagation speed.
"[Light's through-space] velocity is the same for all colours, because
if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be
observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a
fixed star by its dark neighbour."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Reason Two: Light's through-space motion is not affected by the
source's motion.
"By means of similar considerations based on observations of double
stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the
velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of
motion of the body emitting the light."
Ibid.

Reason Three: Light's direction of motion has no effect upon its
speed through space.
"The assumption that [light's] velocity of propagation [in space] is
dependent on the direction “in space” is in itself improbable."
Ibid.

As I said, all of Einstein's above pertained to "the simple law of the
constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum)," which could NOT
mean one-way or two-way light speed invariance because, as Einstein
said, it caused him a monstrous headache, not to mention the fact that
NONE of the above would have been mentioned in support of invariance.

Being forced (by the above three reasons) to ACCEPT the "simple law,"
Einstein had to conclude as follows:

"In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the
velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child
at school. Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the
conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual
difficulties? Let us consider how these difficulties arise."
Ibid.

Einstein was GIVEN source independency, and therefore had to ACCEPT
it.

Q.E.D.

~RA~
but Dork is still Deranged

"Ron-boy" wrote in message
...

On Aug 18, 12:55 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
snip

... the only way out is source dependency of light,
denying which caused the trouble in the first place.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway


If you are saying that Einstein denied light's source indecency, then
I must object.

==============================================
Fast light arrives early, slow light arrives late.
Therefore the dates of arrival on this velocity curve need correction so
that the saw tooth is nearer to a sinusoid and the orbit nearer to a circle.
http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/users/sreffert/pr.html
A year to get up to speed and a month to slow down? How come nobody
questions that?
Nature doesn't care about your objections, the speed of light is source
dependent and the whole of extrasolarsystem astronomy is a farce.
Look at the data, not at the theory. Open your eyes and your mind.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Aug 18, 9:55*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Vilas Tamhane" *wrote in message

...

On Aug 18, 3:50 am, "Androcles" wrote:





"Dirk Van de moortel" *wrote in
...

"Ron-boy"
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
* *and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote in


On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link):
"In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in
frame S'
while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the
turnaround
event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without
getting
hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her
new
frame."

You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of
"frame jumping."

That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question.

~RA~
I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this
case

Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading
is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole
point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too
much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline
with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty.

Dirk Vdm

================================================== ==

"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves
from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for
a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein

Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving,
frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S,
S'
and S''.
Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of
S'
becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S,
stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously.

It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters
dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No need to find out what is actually happening to time.
Einstein makes an insane statement, �If Dork and Dirk are in relative
motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk�s clock
running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but
Dork�s clock is running slowly�.
What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this
statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation
is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own
theory.
If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame.
So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But
whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will
see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon,
Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path
of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror
image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good.

================================================== ============
The real question is whether Einstein was genuinely retarded and an idiot
savant, or a brilliant charlatan and psychopathic showman. He certainly
has the other psychopath, Dork Van de lying Belgian faggot, hoodwinked.
I'm more inclined to the latter based on Einstein's own statement:
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject
the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data
had been found which were contradictory to this principle" although it
is possible he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. By his own
admission, *"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can
assure you mine are still greater." *He also said: "If A is a success in
life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping
your mouth shut." *Every magician keeps his mouth shut on how the trick
is performed, which would indicate Einstein knew damned well what
he was doing. One doesn't leave the theatre in awe of real magic,
instead one puzzles over how the stunt is done. Where is the smoke?
Where are the mirrors? *Why is the woman hidden in a box before she
is sawn in half; and where is the blood? Why have the police not been
called and the magician charged with attempted murder?
We know it is not real both before and after we are entertained.
BUT HOW DID EINSTEIN HOODWINK HIS AUDIENCE, IN BLACK AND
WHITE, ON PAPER, GETTING THEM TO BELIEVE HIS TRICK IS REAL?
And the answer is simple. They cannot read mathematics so they skimp
over the equations and only read the hyperbole.
You give him too much credit, you assume he was fundamentally honest
when he was a sociopathic womanizer who ****ed his own cousin. The
only thing that mattered to Einstein was Albert.

Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the
Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-

[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.

I accuse Einstein and his disciples of exactly the same fraud, I only
wish I could prosecute them in an international court of law in the
Hague, but unfortunately magic tricks are not illegal and the UN
is unconcerned. So that leaves us with taking the ****, calling Dork
a faggot and let the snivelling spermless coward dare sue me for libel.

Yes, of course Einstein's one-sided time dilation violates the PoR.
It also violates the Principle of Simultaneity and the only way out is
source dependency of light, denying which caused *the trouble in
the first place.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree. He knew basic flaw in his theory. It is unlikely that top
scientists of yesterday and today did not know it. They are also
enjoying effects of their magic on common people.
It is very difficult to come up with a single small new idea in
physics. So they have decided to cheat.

On Aug 19, 4:58*am, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
On Aug 18, 9:55*am, "Androcles" wrote:









"Vilas Tamhane" *wrote in message

....

On Aug 18, 3:50 am, "Androcles" wrote:

"Dirk Van de moortel" *wrote in
...

"Ron-boy"
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
* *and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote in


On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link):
"In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in
frame S'
while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the
turnaround
event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without
getting
hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her
new
frame."

You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of
"frame jumping."

That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question.

~RA~
I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this
case

Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading
is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole
point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too
much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline
with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty.

Dirk Vdm

================================================== ==

"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves
from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for
a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein

Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving,
frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S,
S'
and S''.
Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of
S'
becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S,
stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously.

It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters
dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No need to find out what is actually happening to time.
Einstein makes an insane statement, �If Dork and Dirk are in relative
motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk�s clock
running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but
Dork�s clock is running slowly�.
What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this
statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation
is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own
theory.
If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame.
So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But
whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will
see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon,
Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path
of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror
image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good.

================================================== ============
The real question is whether Einstein was genuinely retarded and an idiot
savant, or a brilliant charlatan and psychopathic showman. He certainly
has the other psychopath, Dork Van de lying Belgian faggot, hoodwinked.
I'm more inclined to the latter based on Einstein's own statement:
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject
the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data
had been found which were contradictory to this principle" although it
is possible he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. By his own
admission, *"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can
assure you mine are still greater." *He also said: "If A is a success in
life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping
your mouth shut." *Every magician keeps his mouth shut on how the trick
is performed, which would indicate Einstein knew damned well what
he was doing. One doesn't leave the theatre in awe of real magic,
instead one puzzles over how the stunt is done. Where is the smoke?
Where are the mirrors? *Why is the woman hidden in a box before she
is sawn in half; and where is the blood? Why have the police not been
called and the magician charged with attempted murder?
We know it is not real both before and after we are entertained.
BUT HOW DID EINSTEIN HOODWINK HIS AUDIENCE, IN BLACK AND
WHITE, ON PAPER, GETTING THEM TO BELIEVE HIS TRICK IS REAL?
And the answer is simple. They cannot read mathematics so they skimp
over the equations and only read the hyperbole.
You give him too much credit, you assume he was fundamentally honest
when he was a sociopathic womanizer who ****ed his own cousin. The
only thing that mattered to Einstein was Albert.

Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the
Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-

[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.

I accuse Einstein and his disciples of exactly the same fraud, I only
wish I could prosecute them in an international court of law in the
Hague, but unfortunately magic tricks are not illegal and the UN
is unconcerned. So that leaves us with taking the ****, calling Dork
a faggot and let the snivelling spermless coward dare sue me for libel.

Yes, of course Einstein's one-sided time dilation violates the PoR.
It also violates the Principle of Simultaneity and the only way out is
source dependency of light, denying which caused *the trouble in
the first place.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree. He knew basic flaw in his theory. It is unlikely that top
scientists of yesterday and today did not know it. They are also
enjoying effects of their magic on common people.
It is very difficult to come up with a single small new idea in
physics. So they have decided to cheat.

The cheating was done in a specific way,they lost patience with those
absolute/relative time,space and motion definitions of Newton as they
hadn't a clue what they meant so decided to invest those definitions
with their own meaning instead and with all in compliance and no
astronomer around to stop them,they took the vicious strain of
empiricism to the extreme -

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed

It just so happens that there is enough information through the
resource of the internet to make sense of what Newton was trying to do
in the first place,why it failed and what were the differences between
the contrived framework as opposed to the genuine astronomical
principles which remain intact behind the smokescreen of
wordplays.Having dropped the notion that empiricists themselves would
reset to a more stable narrative that is just as appealing as the
aggressive version which Newton sought to impose,a number of options
are left and none of them require the narrow minded,mean spirited
contributors who follow ideologies with varying hypothesis and
conclusions to suit a fashion,everything from climate to geology to
structural astronomy.

The people who lived 100 years ago lost their mandate to act in the
best interests of human understanding of the celestial and terrestrial
arenas by cheating in such a way as they compounded the problems
inherited from the late 17th century rather than dealing with the
problems properly.The difficulty is finding people who do not find a
complete overhaul to be condescending but rather necessary and long
overdue,not the petty dithering so as to upset some perception of a
historical character but a genuine technical and historical
perspective where everything is on the table.







..

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
...

On Aug 18, 9:55 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

...

On Aug 18, 3:50 am, "Androcles" wrote:





"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in
...

"Ron-boy"
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote in


On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link):
"In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in
frame S'
while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the
turnaround
event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without
getting
hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her
new
frame."

You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of
"frame jumping."

That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question.

~RA~
I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this
case

Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading
is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole
point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too
much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline
with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty.

Dirk Vdm

================================================== ==

"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves
from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for
a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will
be
1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein

Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving,
frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls
S,
S'
and S''.
Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis
of
S'
becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S,
stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously.

It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his
dissenters
dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No need to find out what is actually happening to time.
Einstein makes an insane statement, �If Dork and Dirk are in relative
motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk�s clock
running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but
Dork�s clock is running slowly�.
What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this
statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation
is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own
theory.
If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame.
So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But
whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will
see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon,
Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path
of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror
image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good.

================================================== ============
The real question is whether Einstein was genuinely retarded and an idiot
savant, or a brilliant charlatan and psychopathic showman. He certainly
has the other psychopath, Dork Van de lying Belgian faggot, hoodwinked.
I'm more inclined to the latter based on Einstein's own statement:
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject
the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data
had been found which were contradictory to this principle" although it
is possible he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. By his own
admission, "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can
assure you mine are still greater." He also said: "If A is a success in
life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is
keeping
your mouth shut." Every magician keeps his mouth shut on how the trick
is performed, which would indicate Einstein knew damned well what
he was doing. One doesn't leave the theatre in awe of real magic,
instead one puzzles over how the stunt is done. Where is the smoke?
Where are the mirrors? Why is the woman hidden in a box before she
is sawn in half; and where is the blood? Why have the police not been
called and the magician charged with attempted murder?
We know it is not real both before and after we are entertained.
BUT HOW DID EINSTEIN HOODWINK HIS AUDIENCE, IN BLACK AND
WHITE, ON PAPER, GETTING THEM TO BELIEVE HIS TRICK IS REAL?
And the answer is simple. They cannot read mathematics so they skimp
over the equations and only read the hyperbole.
You give him too much credit, you assume he was fundamentally honest
when he was a sociopathic womanizer who ****ed his own cousin. The
only thing that mattered to Einstein was Albert.

Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in
the
Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-

[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories,
he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and
it
is a crime against science and scholarship.

I accuse Einstein and his disciples of exactly the same fraud, I only
wish I could prosecute them in an international court of law in the
Hague, but unfortunately magic tricks are not illegal and the UN
is unconcerned. So that leaves us with taking the ****, calling Dork
a faggot and let the snivelling spermless coward dare sue me for libel.

Yes, of course Einstein's one-sided time dilation violates the PoR.
It also violates the Principle of Simultaneity and the only way out is
source dependency of light, denying which caused the trouble in
the first place.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree. He knew basic flaw in his theory. It is unlikely that top
scientists of yesterday and today did not know it. They are also
enjoying effects of their magic on common people.
It is very difficult to come up with a single small new idea in
physics. So they have decided to cheat.
================================================== ===

It does no good saying "unlikely" and bemoaning top scientists.
Name your target and prove your opinion.
For example, in 1977 these twelve young "physicists"
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
who wanted to be top with their proud lists of institutions backing them
couldn't run a cash register in a convenience store. Where are they
today, thirty-five years later? Mowing grass? Stocking shelves?
It's not about science, it's all about who has control of the m.o.n.e.y.
Not what you know but who you know. You scratch my back and I'll
scratch yours. Here's where they are today, they and others like them:

Nuclear Physics Grants Panel

The Panel's role is to:
•Assess and make recommendations to the STFC executive on research grant
applications in nuclear physics.

•Take account (as appropriate) of the recommendations of external referees
and the conclusions of specialist peer review panels. The latter may be
convened by the executive to advise on rolling grants, contiguous groups of
research requests, or research requests which are judged (on the basis of
cost or propriety) to warrant such separate, in-depth assessment.


•Advise the Science Board and the executive as required on all issues
relating to research grants, including monitoring the level of funding
allocated to grants.


•Carry out such other tasks associated with peer review as the executive
might require.

Members
•Dr David Ireland (Chair) - University of Glasgow
•Prof Angela Bracco - INFN Milan
•Prof Alison Bruce - University of Brighton
•Prof Jacek Dobaczewski - University of Warsaw
•Prof Martin Freer - University of Birmingham
•Dr Alex Murphy - University of Edinburgh
•Prof Robert Page - University of Liverpool
•Dr John Smith - University of the West of Scotland
•Dr Paul Stevenson - University of Surrey
•Prof Phil Walker - University of Surrey

"other tasks associated with peer review as the executive might require"
Peer review?
Only Cardinals can choose a Pope from among themselves. That's peer review.
Be an Einstein supporter and you can rise through the ranks of the Holy
Church of Relativity, and just like the Catholic Church you need a faggot
Jew and his twelve rent boys as a martyr then you can be given absolution
by your peers for interfering with small boys.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Aug 19, 1:51*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Vilas Tamhane" *wrote in message

...

On Aug 18, 9:55 am, "Androcles" wrote:

"Vilas Tamhane" *wrote in message

....

On Aug 18, 3:50 am, "Androcles" wrote:

"Dirk Van de moortel" *wrote in
...

"Ron-boy"
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
* *and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote in


On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link):
"In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in
frame S'
while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the
turnaround
event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without
getting
hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her
new
frame."

You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of
"frame jumping."

That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question.

~RA~
I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this
case

Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading
is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole
point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too
much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline
with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty.

Dirk Vdm

================================================== ==

"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves
from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for
a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will
be
1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein

Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving,
frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls
S,
S'
and S''.
Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis
of
S'
becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S,
stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously.

It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his
dissenters
dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No need to find out what is actually happening to time.
Einstein makes an insane statement, �If Dork and Dirk are in relative
motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk�s clock
running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but
Dork�s clock is running slowly�.
What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this
statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation
is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own
theory.
If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame.
So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But
whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will
see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon,
Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path
of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror
image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good.

================================================== ============
The real question is whether Einstein was genuinely retarded and an idiot
savant, or a brilliant charlatan and psychopathic showman. He certainly
has the other psychopath, Dork Van de lying Belgian faggot, hoodwinked.
I'm more inclined to the latter based on Einstein's own statement:
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject
the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data
had been found which were contradictory to this principle" although it
is possible he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. By his own
admission, *"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can
assure you mine are still greater." *He also said: "If A is a success in
life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is
keeping
your mouth shut." *Every magician keeps his mouth shut on how the trick
is performed, which would indicate Einstein knew damned well what
he was doing. One doesn't leave the theatre in awe of real magic,
instead one puzzles over how the stunt is done. Where is the smoke?
Where are the mirrors? *Why is the woman hidden in a box before she
is sawn in half; and where is the blood? Why have the police not been
called and the magician charged with attempted murder?
We know it is not real both before and after we are entertained.
BUT HOW DID EINSTEIN HOODWINK HIS AUDIENCE, IN BLACK AND
WHITE, ON PAPER, GETTING THEM TO BELIEVE HIS TRICK IS REAL?
And the answer is simple. They cannot read mathematics so they skimp
over the equations and only read the hyperbole.
You give him too much credit, you assume he was fundamentally honest
when he was a sociopathic womanizer who ****ed his own cousin. The
only thing that mattered to Einstein was Albert.

Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in
the
Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-

[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories,
he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and
it
is a crime against science and scholarship.

I accuse Einstein and his disciples of exactly the same fraud, I only
wish I could prosecute them in an international court of law in the
Hague, but unfortunately magic tricks are not illegal and the UN
is unconcerned. So that leaves us with taking the ****, calling Dork
a faggot and let the snivelling spermless coward dare sue me for libel.

Yes, of course Einstein's one-sided time dilation violates the PoR.
It also violates the Principle of Simultaneity and the only way out is
source dependency of light, denying which caused *the trouble in
the first place.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree. He knew basic flaw in his theory. It is unlikely that top
scientists of yesterday and today did not know it. They are also
enjoying effects of their magic on common people.
It is very difficult to come up with a single small new idea in
physics. So they have decided to cheat.
================================================== ===

It does no good saying "unlikely" and bemoaning top scientists.
Name your target and prove your opinion.
For example, in 1977 these twelve young "physicists"
* *http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
who wanted to be top with their proud lists of institutions backing them
couldn't run a cash register in a convenience store. Where are they
today, thirty-five years later? Mowing grass? Stocking shelves?
It's not about science, it's all about who has control of the m.o.n.e.y.
Not what you know but who you know. You scratch my back and I'll
scratch yours. Here's where they are today, they and others like them:

Nuclear Physics Grants Panel

The Panel's role is to:
•Assess and make recommendations to the STFC executive on research grant
applications in nuclear physics.

•Take account (as appropriate) of the recommendations of external referees
and the conclusions of specialist peer review panels. The latter may be
convened by the executive to advise on rolling grants, contiguous groups of
research requests, or research requests which are judged (on the basis of
cost or propriety) to warrant such separate, in-depth assessment.

•Advise the Science Board and the executive as required on all issues
relating to research grants, including monitoring the level of funding
allocated to grants.

•Carry out such other tasks associated with peer review as the executive
might require.

Members
•Dr David Ireland (Chair) - University of Glasgow
•Prof Angela Bracco - INFN Milan
•Prof Alison Bruce - University of Brighton
•Prof Jacek Dobaczewski - University of Warsaw
•Prof Martin Freer - University of Birmingham
•Dr Alex Murphy - University of Edinburgh
•Prof Robert Page - University of Liverpool
•Dr John Smith - University of the West of Scotland
•Dr Paul Stevenson - University of Surrey
•Prof Phil Walker - University of Surrey

"other tasks associated with peer review as the executive might require"
Peer review?
Only Cardinals can choose a Pope from among themselves. That's peer review.
Be an Einstein supporter and you can rise through the ranks of the Holy
Church of Relativity, and just like the Catholic Church you need a faggot
Jew and his twelve rent boys as a martyr then you can be given absolution
by your peers for interfering with small boys.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

This is all very frightening. Actually physics students and teachers
should raise their voice. But may be, they are afraid. What the mighty
government of US is doing about it? Is the country completely taken
over by Jews?

But why should I blame Jews? This is a common trait among all
communities. Section of people who are different in color, race or
religion, if happen to live among other majority, then they are likely
to be united in preserving and promoting their people of their own
kind. They don’t love their nation and the majority and are trapped in
the evolutionary forces of nature which make them preserve their
identity and promote their clan.

We are still animals.