A thread claiming Einstein to be a fraud.

WhiteLion said:
http://www.libertyforum.org/showfla...=293293610&page=&view=&sb=&o=&part=1&vc=1&t=0

Now this was an issue I've never encountered.

Mostly about claims of Einstein stealing ideas, emc2, from Olinto De Pretto.

Anyone familiar with this particular claim of revisionism?
Click to expand...

Jeez! Talk about a nest of woos. They'd have to all stand next to each other in order for their neurons to fire. Wow.

I'd like to say thanks for the link but some things, some places, are better best kept to ones self. :)
 
Jeez! Talk about a nest of woos. They'd have to all stand next to each other in order for their neurons to fire. Wow.

I'd like to say thanks for the link but some things, some places, are better best kept to ones self.
Click to expand...

*roflmao*

Sure enough, seems like many of them are remnant believers out of the book "The Einstein Hoax".

Though as I said I am not familiar with their sources of theories nor the book in question so I can not comment on much more then it being strangely controversial.

http://www.okkaone.com/detail-1664466.html

An online review of the Einstein Hoax, the following quote is from the publisher of the online paper.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was provided.
Click to expand...
 
WhiteLion said:
Though as I said I am not familiar with their sources of theories nor the book in question so I can not comment on much more then it being strangely controversial.
Click to expand...

Stupid stuff for limited minds.
 
The thread title there got me uncomfortable from the start. Then I read a few posts... Yep, it's another one of those "I hate everyone that doesn't think, look, sound or smell like me" gathering places. Next stop, just down the line a ways, www.godhatesfags.com.
 
I love posts like this. When the poster (on the remote site, not White Lion) can't make it 10 words without insults... kinda makes the case against them.

Incidently (disregarding that IQ tests aren't worth a whole lot), how exactly does one go about adminstering one on a dead person?


Also, anyone who can with a straight face say "only 160" better be walking on water at the time...
 
Is the site a subsidiary of Stormfront or something? Cause if the anti-semitic remarks were any thicker, all the avatars would come with white pointy hats.
 
Donks said:
Is the site a subsidiary of Stormfront or something? Cause if the anti-semitic remarks were any thicker, all the avatars would come with white pointy hats.
Click to expand...

I found that disturbing, too. Going to their main page I found links to such subfora as

Islam - Opposing Views
Contains articles and opinions of individuals that view Islam and Muslim people in a negative light.

Judaism - Opposing Views
Contains articles and opinions of individuals that view Judaism and Jewish people in a negative light.

Supremacy and Separatism: White
Topic contains issues related to white nationalism, white separatism and white supremacy.
Click to expand...
 
SwissSkeptic said:
I found that disturbing, too. Going to their main page I found links to such subfora as
Click to expand...
I know it's an Ad Hominem to reject their argument because they are racists, but when their arguments include such "facts" as the IQs of Leonardo, Newton, Dickens and Beethoven, or Einstein's status as an "inferior subhuman," or implications that he stole his research because he's a Jew, I no longer give a crap about the validity of any of their arguments.
 
Quote from a long list of IQs on that thread:

Leonardo da Vinci Universal Genius italy 220

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe " Germany 210
Click to expand...
:roll: How do you find the IQ of those and many other long dead persons on the list :rolleyes:. Also, of course, you cannot compare IQ ratings unless they were obtained using the same test.

But I suppose all this is rather academic since the posters in that thread evidently have double-digit IQs.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
But I suppose all this is rather academic since the posters in that thread evidently have double-digit IQs.

Hans
Click to expand...
I need more evidence before I accept that they go above the single digits.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Quote from a long list of IQs on that thread:

:roll: How do you find the IQ of those and many other long dead persons on the list :rolleyes:. Also, of course, you cannot compare IQ ratings unless they were obtained using the same test.

But I suppose all this is rather academic since the posters in that thread evidently have double-digit IQs.

Hans
Click to expand...

I believe they had assistance from John Edward.
 
Donks said:
I need more evidence before I accept that they go above the single digits.
Click to expand...
Well, they do seem to be able to operate a compter, and to write fairly intelligible English, so...

Otherwise, I tend to agree ;).

Hans
 
The guy who posts "the Einstein Hoax" posts the same 3 or 4 diatribes at regular intervals on sci.physics.relativity. To ensure he beats the killfiles, he randomizes his name/e-mail address in the header.

There's plenty more "Einstein was wrong" on crank.net

For the cranks (and anyone who's interested in an easy approach to Relativity), there's this classic essay Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity - In Words of Four Letters or Less
 
Diamond said:
The guy who posts "the Einstein Hoax" posts the same 3 or 4 diatribes at regular intervals on sci.physics.relativity. To ensure he beats the killfiles, he randomizes his name/e-mail address in the header.

There's plenty more "Einstein was wrong" on crank.net

For the cranks (and anyone who's interested in an easy approach to Relativity), there's this classic essay Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity - In Words of Four Letters or Less
Click to expand...

To be perfectly fair, and I hope I'm not showing my ignorance, but at least there is a tiny grain of truth in the 'Einstein was wrong' part. At least, I understand he will likely be as wrong about sp-theory relativity as Newton was about his stuff. As I understand it (and I don't understand it very well) The Einstein macro world does not well mesh with the Bore micro world. We can turn this thread into something useful by someone setting me straight, if necessary, and further informing, if not.
 
Rob Lister said:
To be perfectly fair, and I hope I'm not showing my ignorance, but at least there is a tiny grain of truth in the 'Einstein was wrong' part. At least, I understand he will likely be as wrong about sp-theory relativity as Newton was about his stuff. As I understand it (and I don't understand it very well) The Einstein macro world does not well mesh with the Bore micro world. We can turn this thread into something useful by someone setting me straight, if necessary, and further informing, if not.
Click to expand...
Bohr. Not Bore.

Oh, you wanted to be set straight on something other than nitpickery? :D

Yeah, you're right. GR does not mesh well with QM. For the most part this doesn't affect anything. It just means that when calculating things that involve lots of mass and big scale you use GR. When involved with tiny things you use QM. The problem appears when you try to mix them, for instance when you try to involve places with lots of mass in very little space, namely black holes. The conflict appears as out of bounds probabilities in the QM equations (things like negative probabilities, or probabilities above 1). The mystical ToE is supposed to unify these two scales (or explain the 4 fundamental forces in a coherent manner, right now the model says that EM and weak merge to form electro-weak, and then strong merges too, but gravity... not so much).

/Everything in this post comes from my unreliable memories of reading The Elegant Universe
//Spacefluffer will be by to correct me any time now.
 
Rob Lister said:
To be perfectly fair, and I hope I'm not showing my ignorance, but at least there is a tiny grain of truth in the 'Einstein was wrong' part. At least, I understand he will likely be as wrong about sp-theory relativity as Newton was about his stuff. As I understand it (and I don't understand it very well) The Einstein macro world does not well mesh with the Bore micro world. We can turn this thread into something useful by someone setting me straight, if necessary, and further informing, if not.
Click to expand...

No. Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity are amongst the most rigorously tested scientific theories and have never once been falsified empirically. They are mathematically consistent to boot,

Similarly Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is a rigorously tested theory and has never been falsified empirically.

Yet both theories make predictions in the domain of the other which are wrong. QED in the realm of the very small works perfectly, but GR which is a classical theory does not, and in the realm of the macroscopic the situation is reversed.

A Theory of Everything (TOE) is the Holy Grail of Physics. There are many approaches to finding a TOE but no breakthrough. There are many tantalizing links between SR/GR and QED but no big breakthrough.

Latest attempts have centered around superstring theory but there are many others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom