WHO DEFENDS EINSTEIN IDIOCIES?

Some time ago a fanatic defender of Einstein's idiocies called Tom
Roberts gave a strange signal:

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."

Another fanatic defender teaches that the emission theory of light is
compatible with Einstein's idiocies:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

A third fanatic defender advocates the emission theory of light even
more explicitly:

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."

A fourth fanatic defender hints at his own forthcoming conversion:

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." These
writings look beyond his struggles with the unified field theory to
"the other possibility [which] leads in my opinion to a renunciation
of the space-time continuum..."

Brothers of the fourth fanatic defender who up until recently were
Today's Einsteins have declared a crisis and a revolution and are hard
at work so that they could quickly become Tomorrow's Newtons:

http://maisonneuve.org/index.php?&pa...rticle_id=2934
CRISES + PARADOX = REVOLUTION. WELCOME TO THE PERIMETER INSTITUTE
WHERE TODAY'S EINSTEINS ARE HARD AT WORK.

All sycophants should know: No Master defends Einstein's idiocies
anymore. Grants, PhD studentships etc. could only come from the
emission theory of light. But first Masters should accomplish their
conversion from Today's Einsteins into Tomorrow's Newtons.

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 27, 2:01 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Some time ago a fanatic defender of Einstein's idiocies called Tom
Roberts gave a strange signal:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...read/40698de7c...
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."

The fundamental structure of the universe is both continuous and
particulate. Space is composed of compacted continuous E-strings and
the sum total of all the E-Strings is called the E-Matrix. Allthe
elementary particles such as the electron and quarks are the results
of different orbiting motions of a truly fundamental particle called
the S-Particle around these E-Strings. Photons are blocks of waves
(wavepackets) in neighboring E-Strings traveling coherently toward the
target at a constant speed of c.
Absolute time exists. A clock second will contain a different amount
of absolute time in different states of absolute motion. That is the
reason why every observer measures the speed of light to be a constant
c with his own clock second as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meters long physically)/the
absolute time (universal time) content for a clock second co-mvoing
with the ruler.
This unique theory is call Model Mechanics. Model Mechanics is
described in a paper entitled "Unifciation of Physics" in the
following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ups.com...
On Sep 27, 2:01 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Some time ago a fanatic defender of Einstein's idiocies called Tom
Roberts gave a strange signal:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...read/40698de7c...
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."

The fundamental structure of the universe is both continuous and
particulate. Space is composed of compacted continuous E-strings and
the sum total of all the E-Strings is called the E-Matrix. Allthe
elementary particles such as the electron and quarks are the results
of different orbiting motions of a truly fundamental particle called
the S-Particle around these E-Strings. Photons are blocks of waves
(wavepackets) in neighboring E-Strings traveling coherently toward the
target at a constant speed of c.
Absolute time exists. A clock second will contain a different amount
of absolute time in different states of absolute motion. That is the
reason why every observer measures the speed of light to be a constant
c with his own clock second as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meters long physically)/the
absolute time (universal time) content for a clock second co-mvoing
with the ruler.
This unique theory is call Model Mechanics. Model Mechanics is
described in a paper entitled "Unifciation of Physics" in the
following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

I.m.o. the most frightening aspect of Ken Seto is that he probably
honestly means it.

Dirk Vdm

*
The fundamental structure of the universe is both continuous and
particulate. Space is composed of compacted continuous E-strings and
the sum total of all the E-Strings is called the E-Matrix
*
....

C'est toujours bien d'essayer. Merci pour l'inspiration...
































:::::::::::::::::
::: stairs ... ... ... ... ... ... stars
.... http://www.poesieville.up.to ::::
.... http://www.lire.fr/ ::::::::::::::::::::

On Sep 27, 10:52 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Sep 27, 2:01 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Some time ago a fanatic defender of Einstein's idiocies called Tom
Roberts gave a strange signal:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...read/40698de7c...
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."

The fundamental structure of the universe is both continuous and
particulate. Space is composed of compacted continuous E-strings and
the sum total of all the E-Strings is called the E-Matrix. Allthe
elementary particles such as the electron and quarks are the results
of different orbiting motions of a truly fundamental particle called
the S-Particle around these E-Strings. Photons are blocks of waves
(wavepackets) in neighboring E-Strings traveling coherently toward the
target at a constant speed of c.
Absolute time exists. A clock second will contain a different amount
of absolute time in different states of absolute motion. That is the
reason why every observer measures the speed of light to be a constant
c with his own clock second as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meters long physically)/the
absolute time (universal time) content for a clock second co-mvoing
with the ruler.
This unique theory is call Model Mechanics. Model Mechanics is
described in a paper entitled "Unifciation of Physics" in the
following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

I.m.o. the most frightening aspect of Ken Seto is that he probably
honestly means it.

Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good Lord, I really hope that he doesn't mean what he posts!

Harry C.

WHO DEFENDS EINSTEIN IDIOCIES?

**************************

Aren't his theories correct except for very minor discrepancies?

wrote in message
ps.com...
: On Sep 27, 10:52 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
: SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
: "kenseto" wrote in
oglegroups.com...
: On Sep 27, 2:01 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: Some time ago a fanatic defender of Einstein's idiocies called Tom
: Roberts gave a strange signal:
:
:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...read/40698de7c...
: 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."
:
: The fundamental structure of the universe is both continuous and
: particulate. Space is composed of compacted continuous E-strings and
: the sum total of all the E-Strings is called the E-Matrix. Allthe
: elementary particles such as the electron and quarks are the results
: of different orbiting motions of a truly fundamental particle called
: the S-Particle around these E-Strings. Photons are blocks of waves
: (wavepackets) in neighboring E-Strings traveling coherently toward the
: target at a constant speed of c.
: Absolute time exists. A clock second will contain a different amount
: of absolute time in different states of absolute motion. That is the
: reason why every observer measures the speed of light to be a constant
: c with his own clock second as follows:
: Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meters long physically)/the
: absolute time (universal time) content for a clock second co-mvoing
: with the ruler.
: This unique theory is call Model Mechanics. Model Mechanics is
: described in a paper entitled "Unifciation of Physics" in the
: following website:
: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
:
: I.m.o. the most frightening aspect of Ken Seto is that he probably
: honestly means it.
:
: Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
:
: - Show quoted text -
:
: Good Lord, I really hope that he doesn't mean what he posts!

Ah, that explains it. You are a Jesus freak as well as a physics cretin.

On Sep 27, 9:42 am, Don Stockbauer wrote:
WHO DEFENDS EINSTEIN IDIOCIES?

**************************

Aren't his theories correct except for very minor discrepancies?

As in all other physics theories that ever were? :-)

--
Jan Bielawski

On Sep 27, 9:42 am, Don Stockbauer wrote:

WHO DEFENDS EINSTEIN IDIOCIES?

Einstein Dingleberries, of course.

Aren't his theories correct except for very minor discrepancies?

First of all, none of the works in SR or GR came as a result of
Einstein's contributions.

Secondly, anyone can fudge the predictions to fit the observations.
If the Einstein Dingleberries are not capable of catching Einstein's
f*ck-ups in his 1905 papers on relativity, how would these
dingleberries able to argue against the mathematics of the
predictions?

Don Stockbauer wrote:
WHO DEFENDS EINSTEIN IDIOCIES?

**************************

Aren't his theories correct except for very minor discrepancies?

Come on! EVERYONE here is smarter than Einstein! Don't take my word
for it. Just ask them!