PAMELA DEFENDS EINSTEIN

http://www.starstryder.com/2007/08/1...was-not-wrong/
Dr. Pamela L. Gay: "I am an astronomer, a writer, and a podcaster. I
contribute to astronomy Cast and I am on the faculty at SIUE. Einstein
was not wrong.....Here's the thing. At this stage in the game, even if
we do someday find short comings in Einstein's theories, we won't be
proving his theory wrong, we will be expanding on it.....Example: They
sky, as I write this, is not blue. That said, when I say the sky is
blue, I am not making a stupid statement - I'm just making a statement
that is only true in certain regimens of sunlight and weather.
Einstein's not wrong. Got it? Good. Now, that you know my state of
mind, imagine my reaction to the current press being given to this
latest claim that relativity had been falsified in the classic
regimen....We don't know what these folks are triggering on. I want
data. I want it now. (Strangely the Veruca Salt, "I want it now" song
just popped into my head, but instead of a golden ticket (which I
would accept if you offered it) the voice in my head wanted golden
data). Give it to me. I don't care how. I want data, and I want it
now....Be skeptical. The truth is out there, but I think we may need
to do some more looking to find it."

Original defenders do not defend Einstein anymore. The world wants to
test Einstein's light postulate but original defenders know it is
false and do not see why it should be tested. In any event, Einstein's
relativity is not a money-spinner anymore and will never be again.
Since the false light postulate has a true alternative, and since this
true alternative is an implication of Newton's particle model of
light, original defenders expect some fresh money to come from
"classical mechanics and quantization":

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week256.html
John Baez: "My European wanderings continue. I'm in Greenwich again,
just back from a mind-blowing conference in Vienna, part of a bigger
program that's still going on....I learned a huge amount, both from
the talks and from conversations with Urs Schreiber and others.
Mainly, I learned that I've really been falling behind the times when
it comes to classical mechanics and quantization!"

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279
Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers
mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of
the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the CONTINUUM as a
foundational element in physics..." Albert Einstein: "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."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev

Even Tom Roberts, the last bellicose hypnotist in Einstein criminal
cult, is trying to get rid of continuous structures:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...98de7cd7bdfb0?
Tom Roberts: "IMHO it is the whole concept of "manifold" that is at
most risk of becoming obsolete in future theories. That is, I strongly
suspect that at the Planck scale the fundamental structure of the
world is not continuous."

This of course coincides with an old idea of Roberts's:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...34dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev

It seems no HYPNOTIST in Einstein criminal cult defends Einstein's
idiocies anymore. Einstein's shopkeepers will never be able to sell
dead science again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6DSoqZz_s

Will Einstein's shopkeepers be able to give some of the money they
have wasted back?

Pentcho Valev

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 03:03:41 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:

It seems no HYPNOTIST in Einstein criminal cult defends Einstein's
idiocies anymore. Einstein's shopkeepers will never be able to sell
dead science again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6DSoqZz_s

Will Einstein's shopkeepers be able to give some of the money they
have wasted back?

Pentcho Valev

Nobody regards you serious, Pentcho,
and nobody cares really for Androcles and hanson,
your combattants in a lost battle,
except for phun.

w.
--
An Empirical Question for the anti-relativists:
What is the GPS carrier modulation signal frequency?
[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected)
[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected)
[x ] (example for Pentcho, Androcles and hanson)

On Sep 2, 10:28 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.starstryder.com/2007/08/1...was-not-wrong/
Dr. Pamela L. Gay: "I am an astronomer, a writer, and a podcaster. I
contribute to astronomy Cast and I am on the faculty at SIUE. Einstein
was not wrong...

This is f*cking unbelievable. Dr. Gay is correct that Einstein was
not wrong. In fact, Einstein can never be wrong unless you are
talking about the only blunder in his lifetime --- the Cosmological
constant. On the other hand, Einstein cannot be right either because
there is nothing original that came out of Einstein. Einstein as a
man was just as ordinary as any geek. In fact, he was sub-par
compared with most of his contemporary physicists. He was a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar.

Original defenders do not defend Einstein anymore. The world wants to
test Einstein's light postulate but original defenders know it is
false and do not see why it should be tested. In any event, Einstein's
relativity is not a money-spinner anymore and will never be again.
Since the false light postulate has a true alternative, and since this
true alternative is an implication of Newton's particle model of
light, original defenders expect some fresh money to come from
"classical mechanics and quantization":

SR was totally based on misinterpretation of the MMX. GR was totally
based on basic but very faulty mathematics right from the very start.
In engineering, any misapplications of mathematics will cause
irreparable, costly, mostly disastrous consequences. In physics,
misapplications of mathematics seem to be embraced by all to gain more
funding to continue the nonsense.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week256.html
John Baez: "My European wanderings continue. I'm in Greenwich again,
just back from a mind-blowing conference in Vienna, part of a bigger
program that's still going on....I learned a huge amount, both from
the talks and from conversations with Urs Schreiber and others.
Mainly, I learned that I've really been falling behind the times when
it comes to classical mechanics and quantization!"

How can a professor fall behind on classical mechanics in which it is
considered as legacy stuff now? After disappoints in reading his
writings such as the Noether's theorem, I can understand his claim of
falling behind.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279
Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers
mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of
the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein."

There is no other Einstein. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and
a liar. There is nothing ordinary in Einstein.

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a...
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the CONTINUUM as a
foundational element in physics..." Albert Einstein: "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."

Mr. Stachel only has a job because Einstein is elevated into a demi-
god through lies and blatant manipulation of history. Supporting the
stint to mutilate a historical document to justify for Einstein's
priori over Hilbert on the field equations tells how low this person
can get in defending his lies. Unfortunate for him, the forensic
evidence is all in the mathematics in which no one can mutilate and
destroy.