On 2023-08-17 18:47:28 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:

> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:32:03 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-08-17 00:38:36 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > List of
>> Critics of Relativity:> >
>>> Rutherford, Ernest>> I'd be interested to seewhat evidence you have
>>> that Rutherford was a> critic of relativity: reference please.> >> >
>>> Johannes Stark>> Stark was a very nasty man -- a strong supporter of
>>> Hitler and the Nazi> regime. His main objection to relativity seems to
>>> be his hatred of> Jews: "We have to eradicate the Jewish spirit, whose
>>> blood can flow> just as undisturbed today as before if its carriers
>>> hold beautiful> Aryan passes.">> He sung a different tune earlier
>>> (1907), when, as the editor of the> Yearbook of Radioactivity and
>>> Electronics he invited Albert Einstein to> write an article on the
>>> principle of relativity.>> Most of the other people on your list are
>>> nonentities, rightly> forgotten. Does anyone still take Herbert Dingle
>>> seriously, for example?>> --> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but
>>> detector of crackpots
> Don't say I never did anything for you:

Why would I say that? It's just common courtesy, not just to me, to
supply evidence for one's assertions.

> "Stephen Leacock, Common Sense and the Universe Wilhelm Wein: "No
> Anglo-Saxon can understand relativity!"
> Ernest Rutherford: "No! they've got too much sense!" From The
> Rutherford Memorial Lecture to the Physical Society 1954 by P. M. S.
> Blackett, Year Book of The Physical Society 1955." -
> *******************************I confirmed above in Google books using
> the free search. *******************************
>
> "Stephen Leacock once asked Ernest Rutherford what he
> thought of Einstein's relativity. "Oh, that stuff!" Rutherford
> replied. "We never bother with that in our work!"" -Leacock, S. 1945.
> "Common Sense and the Universe," in Last Leaves, Dodd, Mead & Co., New
> York, p. 43.
>
> "Dr.Louis Essen wrote in 1988: “Rutherford treated it as a joke; Soddy
> called it a swindle ...: ….Einstein's use of a thought experiment,
> together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result
> which fooled himself and generations of scientists." (Dr.Louis Essen,
> inventor of atomic clock, 1988) [6 ]” [Soedarto, Gatot. Logical
> Fallacies Of Special And General Theory Of Relativity: Second Edition:
> General Relativity Doesn’t Meet The Principles Of Scientific Method. .
> Kindle Edition.]

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:15:13 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> [list]
> Einstein's reaction on learning about the book:
> "Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein" (1931)
> is still to the point:
> "Wenn sie recht hätten, würde einer genügen."
> (English)
> "One would have sufficed, if they had been right",
>
> Jan
Einstein has set the example you follow because the book only said there were a hundred without making this argument from numbers. You are following Einstein's bad example without thinking twice.

On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:57:59 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> Why would I say that? It's just common courtesy, not just to me, to
> supply evidence for one's assertions.

Will you supply any evidence for the assertion above, then?
Let me guess - no.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 12:13:10 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:57:59 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> > Why would I say that? It's just common courtesy, not just to me, to
> > supply evidence for one's assertions.
> Will you supply any evidence for the assertion above, then?
> Let me guess - no.
They just like to make demands to silence their opponents. Poor Athel gets worked up easily.

On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 21:15:50 UTC+2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 12:13:10 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 20:57:59 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >
> > > Why would I say that? It's just common courtesy, not just to me, to
> > > supply evidence for one's assertions.
> > Will you supply any evidence for the assertion above, then?
> > Let me guess - no.
> They just like to make demands to silence their opponents. Poor Athel gets worked up easily.

They just like to spit, insult and slander. Just like
any other group of fanatic idiots.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:15:13 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> [list]
> Einstein's reaction on learning about the book:
> "Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein" (1931)
> is still to the point:
> "Wenn sie recht hätten, würde einer genügen."
> (English)
> "One would have sufficed, if they had been right",
>
> Jan
According to Athel you should provide the source showing that the book Hundred Authors Against Einstein made the fallacious argument, argumentum ad populum, or argument from consensus. It appears that Einstein misrepresented their case, making a strawman of their case.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:15:13 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> [list]
> Einstein's reaction on learning about the book:
> "Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein" (1931)
> is still to the point:
> "Wenn sie recht hätten, würde einer genügen."
> (English)
> "One would have sufficed, if they had been right",
>
> Jan
Here's an English translation so you can give me chapter and verse: HUNDRED AUTHORS AGAINST EINSTEIN -ROUGH TRANSLATION
Roger J Anderton
R.J.Anderton@btinternet

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> List of Critics of Relativity:
>
>
> A
>
> Max Abraham
>
> B
>
> Thomas G. Barnes
> Petr Beckmann
> Tom Bethell
> Léon Brillouin
> Steven B. Bryant
>
> C
> Jeremiah Joseph Callahan
> Robert D. Carmichael
> Conservapedia
> Gago Coutinho
> Heber Doust Curtis
>
> D
>
> Deutsche Physik
> Herbert Dingle
> Hugo Dingler
> John Doan
> Edward Henry Dowdye
> Pierre Duhem
>
> E
>
> Albert Eagle
> Louis Essen
>
> F
> Thomas C Van Flandern
> Theodor Fritsch
>
> G
>
> Ernst Gehrcke
> Lyubomir T. Gruyitch
> Édouard Guillaume
>
> H
> Ronald Hatch
> Oliver Heaviside
> Robert L. Henderson
> Gerard Heymans
>
> I
> Axel Idestrom
> Herbert E. Ives
>
> K
> Kamen George Kamenov
> Wallace Kantor
> Radwan Kassir
> Nikolai Kasterin
> Oskar Kraus
>
> L
>
> Joseph Larmor
> Jean-Marie Le Roux
> Philipp Lenard
> Si-Xian Liang
> Anatoly Logunov
> Paul Lorenzen
> Arthur Oncken Lovejoy
> Otto Luther
> Arthur Lynch (politician)
>
> M
>
> James MacKaye
> William Duncan MacMillan
> Stefan Marinov
> Paul Marmet
> Ian McCausland
> Hjalmar Mellin
> Dayton Miller
> Edward Arthur Milne
> Stjepan Mohorovičić
>
> Enrique Morales-Riveira
> Forest Ray Moulton
>
> N
>
> Harald Nordenson
>
> O
>
> Alfred O'Rahilly
> Arthur S. Otis
>
> P
>
> Menyhért Palágyi
> Leonard Parish
> Arthur Patschke
> Thomas Phipps
> Charles Lane Poor
> Jermain G. Porter
> S. J. Prokhovnik
>
> R
> Alfred O'Rahilly
> L. A. Redman
> Arvid Reuterdahl
> Walther Ritz
> N. Rudakov
> Rutherford, Ernest
>
> S
>
> Georges Sagnac
> Andrew Schlafly
> Rolf Schock
> Thomas Jefferson Jackson See
> Hugo von Seeliger
> Jonas Sepetys
> Jan Slowak
> Harold Slusher
> John Alexander Smith
> Gennadiy Sokolov
> Johannes Stark
> Michael Straus
>
> T
>
> Bruno Thüring
>
> V
>
> Tom Van Flandern
>
> W
>
> Max Bernhard Weinstein
> Paul Weyland
>
> XYZ
> Hans J. Zweig
While we're at it here's a good source for any defenders of relativity who would like to make reasoned defense. www.ivorcatt.co.uk/friebe1.pdf 95 Years of Criticism of
the Special Theory of Relativity (1908-2003)
The G. O. Mueller Research Project

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:15:05 AM UTC-7, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> On 8/16/23 6:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> >
> > [...]
> > Petr Beckmann
> > [...]
> >
>
> Just a comment from a special relativity believer (me, Mike Fontenot):
>
> I knew Petr Beckman. I first became aware of him when I was given the
> task of doing "traffic engineering" for Bell Labs in Denver in the early
> 1970's. "Traffic engineering" is what most people called "queueing
> theory". To educate myself, I read everything I could get on the
> subject, and that included a short book by Petr Beckman. He was a
> professor at the University of Colorado at that time. I was amazed how
> coherent his writing was ... maybe the best I've ever seen. I found out
> a little later about Beckman's writings on special relativity (and in
> particular, his contention that it was an incorrect theory). I was (and
> am) a firm believer in the correctness of special relativity, so I
> disagreed with Beckman, but I nevertheless greatly admired his intellect.
The first page of his book, Einstein Plus Two, rejects the second postulate.. The second postulate claims light is an exception to Newton's first law of motion, that everything shares the velocity of its source. For example, Galileo's ship's cabin moving with uniform linear velocity where everything shares the same velocity.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:15:05 AM UTC-7, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> On 8/16/23 6:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> >
> > [...]
> > Petr Beckmann
> > [...]
> >
>
> Just a comment from a special relativity believer (me, Mike Fontenot):
>
> I knew Petr Beckman. I first became aware of him when I was given the
> task of doing "traffic engineering" for Bell Labs in Denver in the early
> 1970's. "Traffic engineering" is what most people called "queueing
> theory". To educate myself, I read everything I could get on the
> subject, and that included a short book by Petr Beckman. He was a
> professor at the University of Colorado at that time. I was amazed how
> coherent his writing was ... maybe the best I've ever seen. I found out
> a little later about Beckman's writings on special relativity (and in
> particular, his contention that it was an incorrect theory). I was (and
> am) a firm believer in the correctness of special relativity, so I
> disagreed with Beckman, but I nevertheless greatly admired his intellect.
Often the first postulate is described as coming from Galileo's defense of the Earth's motion saying everything in the cabin shares the velocity of the ship acting as if it were still. Then the second postulate claims light is the only exception to this rule. However, the Doppler shift for starlight proves light shares the velocity of the source. For example, the light coming from Sirius is moving at 300,005.5 km/sec relative to us.

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:15:13?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > List of Critics of Relativity:
> > [list]
> > Einstein's reaction on learning about the book:
> > "Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein" (1931)
> > is still to the point:
> > "Wenn sie recht hätten, würde einer genügen."
> > (English)
> > "One would have sufficed, if they had been right",
> >
> > Jan
> According to Athel you should provide the source showing that the book
>Hundred Authors Against Einstein made the fallacious argument,
>argumentum ad populum, or argument from consensus. It appears that
>Einstein misrepresented their case, making a strawman of their case.

There was no case to begin with,

Jan

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:15:13?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > List of Critics of Relativity:
> > [list]
> > Einstein's reaction on learning about the book:
> > "Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein" (1931)
> > is still to the point:
> > "Wenn sie recht hätten, würde einer genügen."
> > (English)
> > "One would have sufficed, if they had been right",
> >
> > Jan
> Here's an English translation so you can give me chapter and verse:
> HUNDRED AUTHORS AGAINST EINSTEIN -ROUGH TRANSLATION Roger J Anderton
> R.J.Anderton@btinternet

Wrong way round: you started it,
you should point out someone in it who made a valuable contribution.

BTW, you are again making it obvious
that you are praising a book that you have not even glanced at.

If you had, you would have known
that they never succeeded in getting anywhere near
that 100 authors that the title promisses.

Jan

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

[-]
> While we're at it here's a good source for any defenders of relativity who
> would like to make reasoned defense. www.ivorcatt.co.uk/friebe1.pdf 95
> Years of Criticism of the Special Theory of Relativity (1908-2003) The G.
> O. Mueller Research Project

Irrelevant. It isn't even history of science,

Jan

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:40:14 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:15:13?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > List of Critics of Relativity:
> > > [list]
> > > Einstein's reaction on learning about the book:
> > > "Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein" (1931)
> > > is still to the point:
> > > "Wenn sie recht hätten, würde einer genügen."
> > > (English)
> > > "One would have sufficed, if they had been right",
> > >
> > > Jan
> > Here's an English translation so you can give me chapter and verse:
> > HUNDRED AUTHORS AGAINST EINSTEIN -ROUGH TRANSLATION Roger J Anderton
> > R.J.Anderton@btinternet
> Wrong way round: you started it,
> you should point out someone in it who made a valuable contribution.
>
> BTW, you are again making it obvious
> that you are praising a book that you have not even glanced at.
>
> If you had, you would have known
> that they never succeeded in getting anywhere near
> that 100 authors that the title promisses.
>
> Jan
Aren't you as silly as can be, demanding they have more authors for you to take them seriously.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:32:03 AM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-17 00:38:36 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> >
> > Rutherford, Ernest
>
> I'd be interested to seewhat evidence you have that Rutherford was a
> critic of relativity: reference please.
> >
> > Johannes Stark
>
> Stark was a very nasty man -- a strong supporter of Hitler and the Nazi
> regime. His main objection to relativity seems to be his hatred of
> Jews: "We have to eradicate the Jewish spirit, whose blood can flow
> just as undisturbed today as before if its carriers hold beautiful
> Aryan passes."
>
> He sung a different tune earlier (1907), when, as the editor of the
> Yearbook of Radioactivity and Electronics he invited Albert Einstein to
> write an article on the principle of relativity.
>
> Most of the other people on your list are nonentities, rightly
> forgotten. Does anyone still take Herbert Dingle seriously, for example?
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:32:03 AM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

<snip>

> > List of Critics of Relativity:

- Ernest Rutherford
- Oliver Heaviside
- Nikola Tesla

The forgotten genius of Oliver Heaviside
Basil Mahon
2017, Prometheus Books

A Force of Nature
The Frontier Genius of Ernest Rutherford
RICHARD REEVES
2008, Atlas & Co

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:40:14?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:15:13?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > List of Critics of Relativity:
> > > > [list]
> > > > Einstein's reaction on learning about the book:
> > > > "Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein" (1931)
> > > > is still to the point:
> > > > "Wenn sie recht hätten, würde einer genügen."
> > > > (English)
> > > > "One would have sufficed, if they had been right",
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > Here's an English translation so you can give me chapter and verse:
> > > HUNDRED AUTHORS AGAINST EINSTEIN -ROUGH TRANSLATION Roger J Anderton
> > > R.J.Anderton@btinternet
> > Wrong way round: you started it,
> > you should point out someone in it who made a valuable contribution.
> >
> > BTW, you are again making it obvious
> > that you are praising a book that you have not even glanced at.
> >
> > If you had, you would have known
> > that they never succeeded in getting anywhere near
> > that 100 authors that the title promisses.
> >
> > Jan
> Aren't you as silly as can be, demanding they have more authors for you to
> take them seriously.

See, you know nothing about it.
In 1920 a proto-nazi I won't mention
organised anti-Einstein rallies in Berlin,
filling even a stadium with it.
(a whole shouting stadium, if that isn't convincing, what is)
He then decided to publish an anti-Einstein book, out of what he had.
Originally, in the original enthousiasm
more than a hundred people promised a contribution.

They had been assuming that it would become a publication
to be taken seriously.
When they realised what kind of crap it was going to be
most of the hundred+ declined to contribute after all.
If you have a good name, why waste it?

So finally after ten years of begging, needling, pushing and so on
they decided to make do with the crap they had. (1931)
(38 authors, iirc)

So there really wasn't anything for Einstein to answer,

Jan

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:24:07 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:14:33 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Some of those may have interesting critiques but none of the resident
> > critics here would understand those arguments.
> >
> > The rest is just junk and mental derangement. Einstein and relativity are
> > just one example of this sort of thing.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> It's funny that a theory that denies the first law of physics for light, as the second postulate does,

Nonsense.

> is supposed to be hard to criticize. Everything shares the velocity of the source, including light, contrary to that postulate. Not hard to understand.

What utter ignorance.

--
Jan

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:13:50 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:40:14?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:15:13?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > List of Critics of Relativity:
> > > > > [list]
> > > > > Einstein's reaction on learning about the book:
> > > > > "Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein" (1931)
> > > > > is still to the point:
> > > > > "Wenn sie recht hätten, würde einer genügen."
> > > > > (English)
> > > > > "One would have sufficed, if they had been right",
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > > Here's an English translation so you can give me chapter and verse:
> > > > HUNDRED AUTHORS AGAINST EINSTEIN -ROUGH TRANSLATION Roger J Anderton
> > > > R.J.Anderton@btinternet
> > > Wrong way round: you started it,
> > > you should point out someone in it who made a valuable contribution.
> > >
> > > BTW, you are again making it obvious
> > > that you are praising a book that you have not even glanced at.
> > >
> > > If you had, you would have known
> > > that they never succeeded in getting anywhere near
> > > that 100 authors that the title promisses.
> > >
> > > Jan
> > Aren't you as silly as can be, demanding they have more authors for you to
> > take them seriously.
> See, you know nothing about it.
> In 1920 a proto-nazi I won't mention
> organised anti-Einstein rallies in Berlin,
> filling even a stadium with it.
> (a whole shouting stadium, if that isn't convincing, what is)
> He then decided to publish an anti-Einstein book, out of what he had.
> Originally, in the original enthousiasm
> more than a hundred people promised a contribution.
>
> They had been assuming that it would become a publication
> to be taken seriously.
> When they realised what kind of crap it was going to be
> most of the hundred+ declined to contribute after all.
> If you have a good name, why waste it?
>
> So finally after ten years of begging, needling, pushing and so on
> they decided to make do with the crap they had. (1931)
> (38 authors, iirc)
>
> So there really wasn't anything for Einstein to answer,
>
> Jan
As usual, all you have is an ad hominem begging of the question and a refusal to answer the criticisms.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:31:49 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:24:07 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:14:33 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > Some of those may have interesting critiques but none of the resident
> > > critics here would understand those arguments.
> > >
> > > The rest is just junk and mental derangement. Einstein and relativity are
> > > just one example of this sort of thing.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > It's funny that a theory that denies the first law of physics for light, as the second postulate does,
> Nonsense.
> > is supposed to be hard to criticize. Everything shares the velocity of the source, including light, contrary to that postulate. Not hard to understand.
> What utter ignorance.
>
> --
> Jan
As usual, you do not give any reasons because you are incapable of reasoning.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:04:53 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:32:03 AM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > List of Critics of Relativity:
> - Ernest Rutherford
> - Oliver Heaviside
> - Nikola Tesla
>
> The forgotten genius of Oliver Heaviside
> Basil Mahon
> 2017, Prometheus Books
>
>
> A Force of Nature
> The Frontier Genius of Ernest Rutherford
> RICHARD REEVES
> 2008, Atlas & Co

The loser Einstein running away, like a rat, from a public discussion about special and general relativity (never, ever, accepted a
challenge like this one). He devoted the next 8 years to give conferences on relativity at different countries.

But he slipped again at Paris, in March 31, 1922, when he was informed of a hostile audience waiting for him. In particular, he
was shocked by the news that THREE former colleagues of the Patent's Office were waiting for him, to discuss PLAGIARISM.

Jacques Hadamard, a brilliant french mathematician, told Einstein about the big flaw of the Field equations in his theory of General Relativity, which Karl Schwarzschild had already told him in 1916. It highlights the fact that his theory failed to determine the space-time structure of a massive star, and that space and time concepts didn't make sens anymore at some points..

Henri Bergson, a first class philosopher, discussed with Einstein in a very bitter confrontation, days before, at the same place, the Collège de France. Almost HALF of french scientists refused to attend the different presentations, leaving the auditorium before Einstein came in,
every single time.

Bergson did fundament his critics backed by prominent French physicists and mathematicians Langevin, Painlevé, Hadamard, Becquerel,
Sagnac, and Kastler. Einstein was lost in the discussion and found excuses for NOT RETURNING TO THE PLACE, once he temporarily left
the premises.

*******************************************

At a meeting of the Society of German Scientists and Physicians in Bad Nauheim in September 1921, Einstein and Lenard were pitched head to head in a debate about relativity. Accounts of the debate differ – some newspapers reported that it was conducted calmly and objectively, but others say that Planck, who moderated the event, had on several occasions to intervene to prevent hecklers from interrupting Einstein. Lenard criticized relativity for violating «healthy common sense», the implication being that it represented not just a wrong idea in physics but a kind of insidious malaise.

Einstein was highly agitated afterwards – he later admitted his regrets at «losing myself in such deep humorlessness» (cited by Van Dongen, 2007) – and his wife Elsa seems to have suffered something of a nervous breakdown.

After a break proposed by Max Planck, Einstein sized the opportunity by running away from the forum. The discussion didn't have
an end.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:48:33 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:04:53 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:32:03 AM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > List of Critics of Relativity:
> > - Ernest Rutherford
> > - Oliver Heaviside
> > - Nikola Tesla
> >
> > The forgotten genius of Oliver Heaviside
> > Basil Mahon
> > 2017, Prometheus Books
> >
> >
> > A Force of Nature
> > The Frontier Genius of Ernest Rutherford
> > RICHARD REEVES
> > 2008, Atlas & Co
> The loser Einstein running away, like a rat, from a public discussion about special and general relativity (never, ever, accepted a
> challenge like this one). He devoted the next 8 years to give conferences on relativity at different countries.
>
> But he slipped again at Paris, in March 31, 1922, when he was informed of a hostile audience waiting for him. In particular, he
> was shocked by the news that THREE former colleagues of the Patent's Office were waiting for him, to discuss PLAGIARISM.
>
> Jacques Hadamard, a brilliant french mathematician, told Einstein about the big flaw of the Field equations in his theory of General Relativity, which Karl Schwarzschild had already told him in 1916. It highlights the fact that his theory failed to determine the space-time structure of a massive star, and that space and time concepts didn't make sens anymore at some points.
>
> Henri Bergson, a first class philosopher, discussed with Einstein in a very bitter confrontation, days before, at the same place, the Collège de France. Almost HALF of french scientists refused to attend the different presentations, leaving the auditorium before Einstein came in,
> every single time.
>
> Bergson did fundament his critics backed by prominent French physicists and mathematicians Langevin, Painlevé, Hadamard, Becquerel,
> Sagnac, and Kastler. Einstein was lost in the discussion and found excuses for NOT RETURNING TO THE PLACE, once he temporarily left
> the premises.
>
> *******************************************
>
> At a meeting of the Society of German Scientists and Physicians in Bad Nauheim in September 1921, Einstein and Lenard were pitched head to head in a debate about relativity. Accounts of the debate differ – some newspapers reported that it was conducted calmly and objectively, but others say that Planck, who moderated the event, had on several occasions to intervene to prevent hecklers from interrupting Einstein. Lenard criticized relativity for violating «healthy common sense», the implication being that it represented not just a wrong idea in physics but a kind of insidious malaise.
>
> Einstein was highly agitated afterwards – he later admitted his regrets at «losing myself in such deep humorlessness» (cited by Van Dongen, 2007) – and his wife Elsa seems to have suffered something of a nervous breakdown.
>
> After a break proposed by Max Planck, Einstein sized the opportunity by running away from the forum. The discussion didn't have
> an end.
Relativists here follow Einstein's bad example by refusing to reason with their opponents.

On 8/17/2023 5:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

> Relativists here follow Einstein's bad example by refusing to reason with their opponents.

You behave as though "facts" are subject to negotiation.

They are not.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:57:59 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-17 18:47:28 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:32:03 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2023-08-17 00:38:36 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > List of
> >> Critics of Relativity:> >
> >>> Rutherford, Ernest>> I'd be interested to seewhat evidence you have
> >>> that Rutherford was a> critic of relativity: reference please.> >> >
> >>> Johannes Stark>> Stark was a very nasty man -- a strong supporter of
> >>> Hitler and the Nazi> regime. His main objection to relativity seems to
> >>> be his hatred of> Jews: "We have to eradicate the Jewish spirit, whose
> >>> blood can flow> just as undisturbed today as before if its carriers
> >>> hold beautiful> Aryan passes.">> He sung a different tune earlier
> >>> (1907), when, as the editor of the> Yearbook of Radioactivity and
> >>> Electronics he invited Albert Einstein to> write an article on the
> >>> principle of relativity.>> Most of the other people on your list are
> >>> nonentities, rightly> forgotten. Does anyone still take Herbert Dingle
> >>> seriously, for example?>> --> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but
> >>> detector of crackpots
> > Don't say I never did anything for you:
> Why would I say that? It's just common courtesy, not just to me, to
> supply evidence for one's assertions.
> > "Stephen Leacock, Common Sense and the Universe Wilhelm Wein: "No
> > Anglo-Saxon can understand relativity!"
> > Ernest Rutherford: "No! they've got too much sense!" From The
> > Rutherford Memorial Lecture to the Physical Society 1954 by P. M. S.
> > Blackett, Year Book of The Physical Society 1955." -
> > *******************************I confirmed above in Google books using
> > the free search. *******************************
> >
> > "Stephen Leacock once asked Ernest Rutherford what he
> > thought of Einstein's relativity. "Oh, that stuff!" Rutherford
> > replied. "We never bother with that in our work!"" -Leacock, S. 1945.
> > "Common Sense and the Universe," in Last Leaves, Dodd, Mead & Co., New
> > York, p. 43.
> >
> > "Dr.Louis Essen wrote in 1988: “Rutherford treated it as a joke; Soddy
> > called it a swindle ...: ….Einstein's use of a thought experiment,
> > together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result
> > which fooled himself and generations of scientists." (Dr.Louis Essen,
> > inventor of atomic clock, 1988) [6 ]” [Soedarto, Gatot. Logical
> > Fallacies Of Special And General Theory Of Relativity: Second Edition:
> > General Relativity Doesn’t Meet The Principles Of Scientific Method. .
> > Kindle Edition.]
> --
> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
> in England until 1987.
Free copy of: Last Leaves at https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20140455

Stephen Leacock "Common Sense and the Universe," in Last Leaves, Dodd, Mead & Co., New York

One must not confuse Rutherford's work on atoms with Einstein's theories of space and time. Rutherford worked all
his life without reference to Einstein. Even in his later days at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge when he began,
ungratefully, to smash up the atom that had made him, he needed nothing from Einstein. I once asked Rutherford—it was
at the height of the popular interest in Einstein in 1923—what he thought of Einstein's relativity. "Oh, that stuff!" he said.
"We never bother with that in our work!" His admirable biographer, Professor A. S. Eve, tells us that when the German
physicist, Wien, told Rutherford that no Anglo-Saxon could understand relativity, Rutherford answered, "No, they have
too much sense."

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 3:46:54 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 8/17/2023 5:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> <...>
> > Relativists here follow Einstein's bad example by refusing to reason with their opponents.
> You behave as though "facts" are subject to negotiation.
>
> They are not.
You behave as if interpretations are facts. You are very confused. Relativity is confusion, and relativists are confused by its nonsense.