The Einstein Cranks:

danshawen said:
All good, but you missed the specific politics of former Nazis and neo-nazis who have their own version of Wikipedia "Metapedia" dedicated to furthering the Nazi view of history. To them Einstein was a traitor and someone they would have rather exterminated.

Also, there was a refugee scientist from Mussolini's Italy who fled to Argentina and started an anti-relativiity cult "auto dynamics" that survives to this day. You will recognize it because it claims only one observer is required by relativity, fudges all of its most important results with bogus derivations and the biggest promoter and American Lunatic David de Hilster is an anagram: Hitler's.

The Metapedia folks are well organized and their poisonous propaganda is very pervasive on the internet. They probably go by about a dozen other names on hundreds of websites by now. Whenever they think they can get away with it, their editors even try to edit Wikipedia using bogus usernames to make more of their own propaganda look as though it is coming from a reputable source. Don't fall for it.
Click to expand...



I 've also read a few times that during the Hitler regime, they published a book entitled "101 Authors Against Einstein" to which Albert retorted "If I was wrong, one would have been enough" or words to that effect.

I have come across "Autodynamics" in my travels, and another even weirder alternative crap called "The Cosmic Commode theory" :) Seriously.
 
Last edited:
paddoboy said:
I 've also read a few times that during the Hitler regime, they published a book entitled "101 Authors Against Einstein" to which Albert retorted "If I was wrong, one would have been enough" or words to that effect.

I have come across "Autodynamics" in my travels, and another even weirder alternative crap called "The Cosmic Commode theory" :) Seriously.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodynamics
Ricardo Carezani, creator of autodynamics in the 1940s also didn't believe in neutrinos, which these days is tantamount to an admission of a complete ignorance of science.

"Cosmic Commode"? I can guess what that would be about; a way for the Old Testament G-d to punish every evil race in the universe at once by simply "flushing" (instead of flooding), no doubt by changing the shape of the Higgs-Goldstone Sombrero? It's promoted by Amazon as having won the John Templeton award:

http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html

"The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works."

Oh, yeah; "Cosmic Commode" is a title that really sounds like it was awarded for affirming life's spiritual dimension. We are not Sagan's "star stuff"; we are instead all "rotating bits of interstellar turd", no doubt because $#!+ is strong and promotes spiritual growth? I should probably just go ahead and read it and then write one of my nice book reviews. After all, "you can't always judge a book by its cover", I told myself once just before reading one of Rick Warren's books along the same lines. Similar tripe.

Billy Graham and also Rick Warren are winners of this prize.
 
Last edited:
dumbest man on earth said:
...evidently, the Crimea was a very chaotic place during the Russian Civil War - which I surmised "Dan" was referring to by : "war in the Crimea" ...in the beginning of the Twentieth Century.
Click to expand...

DMOE, Can you give a link to A. Eddington wanting to go to the Crimea to do '' observations of the perihelion of mercury''?
danshawen said:
If the war in the Crimea had not delayed Eddington's observations of the perihelion of mercury, GR as originally proposed by Einstein would have been remembered as a spectacular failure.
Click to expand...
 
sweetpea said:
DMOE, Can you give a link to A. Eddington wanting to go to the Crimea to do '' observations of the perihelion of mercury''?
Click to expand...



SWEETPEA, can you give a link to me making any claim of "A. Eddington wanting to go to the Crimea to do '' observations of the perihelion of mercury'' " ?

SWEETPEA, the following MAY have some bearing on why danshawen stated "If the war in the Crimea had not delayed Eddington's observations of the perihelion of mercury" :

from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharoth/Article_incubator/Eddington_experiment
" Although Einstein's main work on general relativity was not published until 1915, he was aware before then that his 1911 calculation had been wrong, and that in fact the predicted effect in the Newtonian model is only half the value predicted by general relativity. This suggested a possible test for his theory, and in 1913 Einstein asked George Ellery Hale to suggest a way of detecting the deflection of light from a star as it passed the Sun. Hale suggested this could be done during a total solar eclipse. This led to another eclipse expedition, with German and US astronomers, which took place in 1914. It was organised by Erwin Finlay-Freundlich, from the University of Berlin, where Einstein was working at the time, and included the US astronomer William Wallace Campbell from the Lick Observatory. The expedition travelled to the Crimea to observe the eclipse of 21 August. However, the First World War started in July of that year, and Germany declared war on Russia on 1 August. The German astronomers were either forced to return home or were taken prisoner by the Russians. Although the US astronomers were not detained, clouds prevented observations being made during the eclipse.
above quoted from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharoth/Article_incubator/Eddington_experiment

SWEETPEA, can you give a link to danshawen claiming that the Crimean War of the mid 19th century delayed Eddington's observations of the perihelion of mercury?
 
dumbest man on earth said:
SWEETPEA, can you give a link to me making any claim of "A. Eddington wanting to go to the Crimea to do '' observations of the perihelion of mercury'' " ?
Click to expand...
Who did you think Dan was talking of, if not Eddington?
dumbest man on earth said:
above quoted from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharoth/Article_incubator/Eddington_experiment

SWEETPEA, can you give a link to danshawen claiming that the Crimean War of the mid 19th century delayed Eddington's observations of the perihelion of mercury?
Click to expand...

Eddington didn't plan to or go to Crimea. From your own link you can read where he went to observe a Solar eclipse to measure starlight deflection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sweetpea said:
Who did you think Dan was talking of, if not Eddington?


Eddington didn't plan to or go to Crimea. From your own link you can read where he went to observe a Solar eclipse to measure starlight deflection.
Click to expand...

pad...er... SWEETPEA...

...goodbye...
 
Well, at least it's nice to know that I'm far from the only one who put exhaustive energy into arguing with that guy, amongst several others. Last I recall, MacM ("Andrew M. MacCoin") was trying to conjure up some nonsense about GPS that I myself was able to put down, and it seemed afterwards that he gave up on his attempts to put up further objections. The only thing I remember from his concluding remarks was that he claimed to have something like a late-stage cancer and would inevitably pass away soon, and that he felt it was important to caution everyone against the "craziness" of Relativity as much as he could before passing on, regardless of how self-consistent it might indeed prove to be. I personally take his comments at face-value, because I haven't heard a peep from him since.

Some time later, BillyT mentioned that MacM had in the past been peddling his own theory of gravity involving a crude attempt to explain Newton's inverse-square force law. I pointed out some very glaring elementary holes in the whole concept, but I'm not out trying to rub salt in the wound. Frankly, I find the whole episode tragically sad. There's no shortage of sad things that happen in this world everywhere one looks, but I really didn't enjoy seeing this guy put his name out there and make an ass of himself in front of his friends and family over some arrogant, Quixotic pseudoscience quest, and I don't think it's what a person should be remembered for at the end of their life.
 
Why is Einstein's general relativity such a popular target for cranks?
November 24, 2015 by Michael J. I. Brown, The Conversation



Take my radically intuitive theory and ‘poof’, general relativity will be disproved. Credit: Shutterstock/Richard Peterson
Scientists maybe celebrating the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, but there was also a death in 1915. It was one of the many deaths of simple and intuitive physics that has happened over the past four centuries.

extracts:

I regularly browse open access website arxiv.org to look for the latest astrophysics research. Real astrophysics, that is. But if I want to take a look at what pseudoscientists are up to, I can browse vixra.org. That's right, "arxiv" backwards. The vixra.org website was founded by "scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to arXiv.org" because that website's owners filter material they "consider inappropriate".

There are more than 1,800 articles on vixra.org discussing relativity and cosmology, and many don't like relativity at all. Perhaps one reason why cranks particularly dislike relativity is because it is so unlike our everyday experiences.

Another option is arguments by analogy. Analogies are useful when explaining science to a broad audience, but they aren't the be-all and end-all of science.

In pseudoscience, the analogy is taken to the point of absurdity, with sprawling articles (or blog posts) weighed down with laboured analogies rather than meaningful analyses.


A desire for naively simple science can produce bizarrely complex conclusions, like the moon landing hoax conspiracy theories. Credit: NASA/flickr
Desiring simplicity but getting complexity

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of pseudoscientific theories is they hark for simplicity, but really just displace complexity.





Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-11-einstein-relativity-popular-cranks.html#jCp

Aint that a fact!
 
People who question Einstein are employed behind the scene, which means they are beyond Einstein?
 
origin said:
People who question Einstein are employed behind the scene, which means they are beyond Einstein?
Click to expand...

What I mean , is this, people who question have advanced ideas ; theories; and are being employed because they do.

Advanced thinking in physics that we are not made aware of such as government funded and private research are well beyond Einstein thinking. And this advanced thinking has been going on for many years.

The quote from a skunk works, can't remember his name; many yrs ago said that we can take ET home, before his passing.

There is SOOOO MUCH RESERCH WE ARE NOT PRIVY TO.

Ben Rich

http://www.mufon.com/video-testimon...-to-take-et-home-as-can-be-seen-in-this-video
 
Last edited:
river said:
What I mean , is this, people who question have advanced ideas ; theories; and are being employed because they do.
Click to expand...
Sure new ideas and theories are being developed constantly.
Advanced thinking in physics that we are not made aware of such as government funded and private research are well beyond Einstein thinking. And this advanced thinking has been going on for many years.
Click to expand...
Well considering that Einstein never embraced QM you could say that QM is beyond Einstein's thinking.
The quote from a skunk works, can't remember his name; many yrs ago said that we can take ET home, before his passing.

There is SOOOO MUCH RESERCH WE ARE NOT PRIVY TO.

Ben Rich

http://www.mufon.com/video-testimon...-to-take-et-home-as-can-be-seen-in-this-video
Click to expand...
Now you have entered the realm of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.
 
origin

Your response to Ben Richs' is not surprising. You bury your head in the sand refuse to accept the fact of what he said. Many do.

As I said; advanced phyisics goes on behind the sences, like it or not.

The 2015 modern day pseudoscience is the blatant denial of advanced physics. Brillant people are being born every day.
 
river said:
As I said; advanced phyisics goes on behind the sences, like it or not.

The 2015 modern day pseudoscience is the blatant denial of advanced physics. Brillant people are being born every day.
Click to expand...


:) Advanced physics is being worked on and researched everyday, NASA's JPL just to name one research center.
Pseudoscience is not being worked on by reputable or brilliant minds, but by those afflicted with delusions of grandeur and a fantasy that they can do better.
But again, of course, please show us some practical application of what you claim.
 
Did Ben Rich say those things, just before his death, to confuse us? Or for some sort of fame? Could it have been the truth?....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top