🚀 go-pugleaf

Generally, teaching an idiocy or worshipping a plagiarist is not a
crime. Simply because the excuses "I sincerely believe this is not an
idiocy" and "I sincerely believe he is not a plagiarist" are difficult
to disprove. However the plagiarism of Divine Albert and the idiocy of
Divine Albert's Divine Theory are so obvious that the general rule
does not work in this particular case.

In France a distinguished hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult, Jean
Eisenstaedt, will be taken to court for calling people who claim
Divine Albert was a plagiarist "falsifiers":

http://radio-courtoisie.over-blog.com/archive-10-8-2007.html
"Le proces en appel de Jules Leveugle contre Jean Eisenstaedt aura
lieu mercredi 31 octobre a 13h30 devant la 11e chambre de la cour
d'appel de Paris (Palais de Justice, sur l'ile de la Cite)."

Some day the same Eisenstaedt will be brought to court for teaching
Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy, on the one hand, and, on the other,
making even more money by introducing, together with his accomplice
John Stachel, Newton's emission theory (knowing the emission theory
contradicts Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy):

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."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/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."

Pentcho Valev