🚀 go-pugleaf

On 24 Oct, 14:03, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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."

Another example:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? In recent years a few maverick
scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant
at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in
Science is just around the corner? Well, maybe. According to one of
those scientists, Portuguese-born, London-based Joao Magueijo, cracks
are appearing in Einstein's theory of relativity - the cornerstone of
our present understanding of space, time and gravitation."

That was written three years ago. Did Magueijo and his accomplice Paul
Davies really expect that "the next Great Revolution in Science is
just around the corner"? If they had really had those expectations,
then now, three years later, they should take their heads out of the
sand and say: "Well, we were wrong, in the end we have seen no Great
Revolution around the corner, sorry, from now on we shall sing "Divine
Einstein" even more fiercely":

http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3

However Magueijo and his accomplice Paul Davies do not wish to take
their heads out of the sand and this shows that the shock and horror
declared three years ago had to make their books bestsellers, to bring
them a lot of money etc. Magueijo and his accomplice Paul Davies
should be taken to court some day.

Another example:

http://www.totse.com/en/technology/space_astronomy_nasa/ftltravl.html
[From "The Sunday Times" (UK) 13th August 1995]
"ASTRONOMERS PREDICT FASTER THAN LIGHT SPACE TRAVEL. It is boldly
going where no reputable scientific body has gone before.
Contradicting Einstein, the normally conservative Royal Astronomical
Society is about to publish a report predicting that mankind will be
able to travel faster than the speed of light. The breakthrough means
that Star Trek fantasies of interstellar civilisations and voyages
powered by warp drive are now no longer the exclusive domain of
science fiction writers...Crawford argues that modern physics may
allow two possible ways around Einstein's theory....The theories will
boost growing interest among scientists in the possibility of
travelling faster than light. The IPS, whose members include several
NASA engineers, starts its first conference shortly in Halifax, Nova
Scotia."

The same problem. Shock and horror 12 years ago, Star Trek fantasies
are nothing compared to what the Royal Society has just discovered in
a purely scientific manner, two ways arond Einstein's theory.....Now,
12 years later, heads in the sand, "Divine Einstein" and very good
salaries. The Royal Society should also be taken to court some day.

Pentcho Valev