Search Forum Donate LAST Pope Subscribe jews/911 Damn MAD Beerhouse Blog Feedback dna Bye RCC AIDS Home Surveys Holocaust IQ 14th Amdt 19th Amdt Israelites NWO Homicide Blacks Whites Signatory Talmud Watchman Gaelic TRAITORS Health?

"Charles Don Hall" <cdhall_remove_this@and_this_pobox.com> wrote in message news:Xns90F2AA968C487NukuNuku@207.126.101.100...

> "fm" <johnknight@usa.com> wrote in
> news:IJsa7.34095$A47.18721269@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com:
>
> > Thanks for the compliment, but that's not my article, and I don't
> > recall any post to  that usenet group.  However, it would be *much*
> > appreciated if you have  any references which dispute the
> > article--because nobody ever has been able to do that so far.
>
> Disputing something like this is kind of tricky.
>
> It's like if you posted an article saying, "Einstein had a pet unicorn."
> How would I go about disputing that? I probably couldn't find any records
> that *explicitly* *denied* that he had a unicorn!
>
> Now, here's a possible argument: "If Einstein had owned a pet unicorn, then
> he probably would have been photographed with it. But a web search reveals
> no such photographs, therefore he must not have owned a pet unicorn."
>
> But that would only convince a sensible person. You seem to be an ignoramus
> of some sort, so I'm guessing that you won't find that argument persuasive.
>
> (If I'm wrong and you're not an ignoramus, then here's your refutation:
> "If Einstein had stolen other people's work, then his victims would have
> complained. Since no such complaints exist, he must not have stolen other
> people's work." QED)
>

 

Which, of course, ignores the point that the scientists who wrote the original papers, who are cited in many of our own physics books, whom Einstein never once referenced, and many of whose theories have since then been proven correct, DID object then, and that numerous people, even Americans, do vociferously object NOW.

 

Considering that it took us 78 years to finally learn the truth about this PLAGIARIST, it's not at all surprising that the calls to yank his Nobel Prize and a few other things haven't [yet] reached a crescendo.

>
> Other than that, I noticed this in your paper:
>
> ====
> In response to this problem, in 1889, the Irish physicist George
> FitzGerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism for producing radio
> waves, wrote a paper which stated that the results of the Michelson-Morley
> experiment could be explained if,
>
> "... the length of material bodies changes, according as they are moving
> through the ether or across it, by an amount depending on the square of the
> ratio of their velocities to that of light."
>
> This is the theory of relativity, 13 years before Einstein's paper!
> ====
>
> Whoever wrote that is clearly mistaken. The Fitzgerald quote talks about
> "the ether". (That is to say, the "luminiferous ether", the hypothetical
> medium that carries light-waves the same way that air carries sound waves.)
>
> The keystone of the Theory of Relativity is the recognition that the
> "luminiferous ether" doesn't exist. This means that the speed of light is a
> constant in *every* frame of reference, and doesn't depend on the
> observer's motion in relationship to "the ether".
>
> So Fitzgerald noticed one of the details of Relativity theory, but he
> missed out on the big picture.
>
>
>  
> > John Knight
>
> --
> ======================================
> Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher
> ======================================
>