Antisemitic ramblings against Einstein

"David Bernier" wrote in message
...

| How do you explain the analemma?
|

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"David Bernier" wrote in message
...

| How do you explain the analemma?
|

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm



Huge problem on this page.

You don't understand refraction.

Have a look at the diagrams on (say) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

Compare them to the picture of the glass of water with a stick in it on the
web site you posted.

Refraction does not cause a displacement of the image, as shown on your web
page you, it causes a visual rotation of the part underwater about the point
of intersection of the water.

It is mistakes like these which immediately show the author has no idea of
the physics involved; it is a simple and obvious error that anybody who has
studied refraction would immediately pick up.

If you can't find and fix incredibly obvious problems like this, nobody is
going to believe anything else on the web page either.

HTH

Peter Webb

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "David Bernier" wrote in message
| ...
|
| | How do you explain the analemma?
| |
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm
|
|
|
| Huge problem on this page.
|
| You don't understand refraction.

You don't understand anything, you are completely and utterly stupid.

Le 19/05/11 09:55, Androcles a écrit :
"Peter wrote in message
...
|
| 11 wrote in message
| ...
|
| "David wrote in message
| ...
|
| | How do you explain the analemma?
| |
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm
|
|
|
| Huge problem on this page.
|
| You don't understand refraction.

You don't understand anything, you are completely and utterly stupid.

Dear Mister Androcles

Apparently you forgot to read what comes *after* that sentence.
I remind you its contents:

Refraction does not cause a displacement of the image, as shown on
your web page, it causes a visual rotation of the part underwater
about the point of intersection of the water.

Obviously he is wrong since he is also a "Jewish ****" as you
say in your fine and elegant prose. This letter is just a reminder that
maybe you should take care of that "Jewish scum" properly by refuting
his stupid arguments.

So you would again demonstrate the superiority of the Aryan (or now
Celtic) race.

Thanks in advance for having the commiseration of reading a letter from
your humble servitor.

On May 17, 9:15*am, Martin Brown
wrote:

Any chance you could conjure up a PDF copy in the original old Danish?
I have found a volunteer who can read it and so check the original
manuscript just in case something was "lost in translation".

Thiele does appear to have had a raw deal - largely self inflicted.

I got to the library today and got the English translation. Now I
have to scan the sheets and assemble them into a PDF. When I
finish, I'll be emailing it to your webmaster address.

The library changed its copy card system so that a charged copy
card from several years ago was no longer functional. I needed to
use actual CASH to work the machines. I ran out of singles by the
second page of a commentary by Lauritzen on Thielen's paper...
it's quite interesting, and the two pages are a small enough
excerpt that I ought to be able to post on my web site under
"fair use."

Jerry

On May 17, 9:15*am, Martin Brown
wrote:

Any chance you could conjure up a PDF copy in the original old Danish?
I have found a volunteer who can read it and so check the original
manuscript just in case something was "lost in translation".

Thiele does appear to have had a raw deal - largely self inflicted.

His work on what is now known as Kalman filtering is indeed
remarkable!

I've sent to your webmaster address an email with a link to the
English language translation of Thiele (1880). Even zipped, the
PDF was too large to include as an attachment.

The following is a link to a scan of the first few pages of
Lauritzen (1981) which clarifies the exact role of Brownian
motion in Thiele's modeling of time series. The is obviously no
way in which Thiele's analysis can be considered as any sort of
anticipation of Einstein. http://tinyurl.com/42njjjg

The public domain French language version of Thiele (1880) is
he http://tinyurl.com/3gxs6f2

Jerry

On May 17, 12:44*pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
"Androcles" writes:
"Peter Webb" wrote in message
. au...
| | Nah. Let's imagine one says "Beam me up, Scottie, there is
| | no intelligent life down here", gets off the Earth, waits exactly a
| | year for the Earth to orbit the sun and then rejoins his twin. The
| | speed of the Earth for its ROUND trip journey is 0.0001c.
| | Did more or less than exactly a year pass for each twin, ****wit?
| |
| |
| | Limiting this to SR effects, and making some other reasonable
| assumptions
|
| No assumptions allowed. I said exact and I mean exact.
|
|
| I don't know enough about GR to answer your question.
Spacetime is curved so the Earth travels in a straight line in
spacetime, no acceleration or GR needed.

The earth twin is lower in Earth's gravitational well and the Enterprise
twin is essentially outside it, with an appropiate GR effect.

The Earth travels "straight" through spacetime in its orbit around the
Sun. *However, the Enterprise must continuously accelerate away from the
Sun to hold its position steady, else it would fall straight in.
The universe in Star Trek does not satisfy GR in any sense.
I still remember the Star Trek movie in which it was proved that
the speed of gravitational interactions is much smaller than the speed
of light in a vacuum.
In this movie, the villain wanted the planet to be at a certain
location at a certain time while he was alive so he could pass into a
type of Paradise. So he fiendishly caused its sun to supernova.
Once the sun went supernova, the gravitational attraction turned
off so the planet moved in a straight line, out of orbit. However, the
light from the supernova wouldn't reach the planet to kill him for a
few minutes. Thus, by standing on a mountain on this wayward planet he
was able to enter the gates of Paradise alive.
Every episode on Star Trek has some scientific goof that is deep
and meaningful. The Enterprise goes faster than light every single
episode. The Enterprise sometimes goes back in time when it does a
sling shot orbit around a sun. However, it sometimes goes through
sling shot orbits around a sun without going back in time.
Then there are these nonmaterial beings with omniscient powers like
Q. Powers that can be transferred to humans.
Never mistake Star Trek for science. It is a nice fantasy, though.

On May 11, 8:10*pm, jacob navia wrote:
There were always idiots complaining about Einstein's theories, like
Valev, and many others.

What is new now is that a lot of antisemitic hate posts start appearing
like from this "Androcles":

quote
Why did you lie about the stupid Jew Einstein saying
end quote

The problem is that these people are the only ones left after
all others give up usenet because of their pile of ****.

sci.astro is one of the best examples of how they work. Almost
all posts are about their "theories".

I tried to tell Valev, for instance about the recent
experiment of NASA confirming the theories of Einstein.

I wrote:

quote
NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment

May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
Einstein's theory of gravity.

Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
Probe B (GP-B).

"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.

seehttp://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic
end quote

The answer was 40 lines more of his stuff without ANY reference
to the experiment I pointed to. It is like talking to a
machine that has always the same answer for you no matter
your question.

Impossible either to reason with "hanson" that is an
antisemitic "no einstein" supporter apparently because
Einstein was a jew, like his buddy "Androcles"

Another crackpot is Archimedes Plutonium.

He is somebody that thinks that our knowledge
of the earth core is based on radar surveys...

I pointed out to him that it is easy to see that radio waves
do not go very far into the earth: Just start talking with
somebody in your cellphone and enter into the next subway
station and see how signal quality goes down, specially in the middle
of the tunnel. EM waves do not go beyond a few METERS into the earth...
Imagine scanning earth's core with EM waves!

Answer: I read too much books, etc etc. Obviously, he reads nothing.
He has no idea of anything and postulates that the sun *has an iron
core like the earth... When I point him out that there is a small
difference between a star and a minuscule planet more nonsense
comes as a reply.

I do not speak about "wretch fossil" because it is so stupid I
never even tried to argue with him.

Most of these people are reactionary know nothings that think
attacking "the jew Einstein" will give them "scientist" status.

Obviously this post is not to try to convince them (or even try to start
a discussion with them) but to underscore that their antisemitic
ramblings do not go unnoticed and that there are people in Usenet
that still can tell a crackpot from a scientist.

jacob navia



Pro and contra:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...ativity_theory
http://www.israelect.com/ChurchOfTru...nius-Myth.html

Marcel Luttgens