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.
What does relativity have to do with facts?

On 8/17/2023 2:06 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 10:16:08 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 04:58:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>
>>> How many of these folks provided evidence to support their criticisms?
>> Come on, poor fanatic trash. You've got a proof that
>> your beloved Shit was not even consistent. And
>> your answer? Polish jokes.
>
> You, Woz, are clearly the biggest Polish joke here...
>
I keep telling him he needs to move from Poland to Russia and increase
the average IQ of both countries.

On 8/17/2023 5:48 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> 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.

Is that the meeting where a bunch of proto-Nazis got together not to
discuss actual physics, but to attack "Jewish Physics"/Einstein and to
promote "German"/"Aryan" physics? I wouldn't blame Einstein for being
agitated by that.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 4:53:21 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/17/2023 2:06 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:

> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 10:16:08 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 04:58:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>
> >>> How many of these folks provided evidence to support their criticisms?

> >> Come on, poor fanatic trash. You've got a proof that
> >> your beloved Shit was not even consistent. And
> >> your answer? Polish jokes.

> >
> > You, Woz, are clearly the biggest Polish joke here...
> >
> I keep telling him he needs to move from Poland to Russia and increase
> the average IQ of both countries.

Indeed!

How does science define the difference between absolute and relative motion?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:34:42 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> How does science define the difference between absolute and relative motion?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Look it up, Mitch... or are you just too stupid to do this for yourself?

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:34:42 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> How does science define the difference between absolute and relative motion?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
Would it work to define absolute motion as that when only one is moving and not the other? Please tell us your definition.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:40:33 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:34:42 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> > How does science define the difference between absolute and relative motion?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> Look it up, Mitch... or are you just too stupid to do this for yourself?

That has no answer. What is their defining difference paul?
If you believe it?

Put Oppenheimer and Serber (his right hand at Los Alamos) in the list.

Never, in the entire project of the A bomb, E=mc2 was used.

Instead, the energy obtained by splitting U-235 was explained (using "The Los Alamos Primer" booklet) to
more than three successive group of physicists that arrived at Los Alamos in 1943.

The formulae used, based on electrostatic energy produced by the fission, was almost equal to 180 MeV/atom, and
are available (with the calculations) for anyone who acquire the booklet, cleared to be published by Serber in 1993.

He, and many times, claimed that the A bomb and U-235 fission ARE UNRELATED to relativity in ANY possible way.

Of course, 2 jews vs. 1,000 relativist jews is not a competence easy to win.

On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 01:53:21 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/17/2023 2:06 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 10:16:08 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 04:58:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>
> >>> How many of these folks provided evidence to support their criticisms?
> >> Come on, poor fanatic trash. You've got a proof that
> >> your beloved Shit was not even consistent. And
> >> your answer? Polish jokes.
> >
> > You, Woz, are clearly the biggest Polish joke here...
> >
> I keep telling him he needs to move from Poland to Russia and increase
> the average IQ of both countries.

You keep spitting and insulting, as expected from a fanatic idiot
which is proven that his beloved guru was just a mumbling crazie.

On 8/17/2023 11:57 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Put Oppenheimer and Serber (his right hand at Los Alamos) in the list.

> Instead, the energy obtained by splitting U-235 was explained (using "The Los Alamos Primer" booklet) to
> more than three successive group of physicists that arrived at Los Alamos in 1943.
>
> The formulae used, based on electrostatic energy produced by the fission, was almost equal to 180 MeV/atom, and
> are available (with the calculations) for anyone who acquire the booklet, cleared to be published by Serber in 1993.

And the mass of that 180 MeV, due to E=mc^2 (so m = 180MeV/c^2), was
equal to the mass difference between the U-235 atom and its fission
products+neutrons.
>
> He, and many times, claimed that the A bomb and U-235 fission ARE UNRELATED to relativity in ANY possible way.

E=mc^2 is not relativity.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:19:23 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/17/2023 11:57 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Put Oppenheimer and Serber (his right hand at Los Alamos) in the list.
> > Instead, the energy obtained by splitting U-235 was explained (using "The Los Alamos Primer" booklet) to
> > more than three successive group of physicists that arrived at Los Alamos in 1943.
> >
> > The formulae used, based on electrostatic energy produced by the fission, was almost equal to 180 MeV/atom, and
> > are available (with the calculations) for anyone who acquire the booklet, cleared to be published by Serber in 1993.
> And the mass of that 180 MeV, due to E=mc^2 (so m = 180MeV/c^2), was
> equal to the mass difference between the U-235 atom and its fission
> products+neutrons.
> >
> > He, and many times, claimed that the A bomb and U-235 fission ARE UNRELATED to relativity in ANY possible way.
> E=mc^2 is not relativity.

How did they figure out how to push Uranium together?

On 2023-08-17 20:40:10 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> 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.

That's what he does. He's rapidly overtaking Ken --Papers in Science
and Nature-- Seto and Pentcho ==Never quote qualifications that
undermine your prejudice== Valev as the champion liar in this group.
>
> If you had, you would have known
> that they never succeeded in getting anywhere near
> that 100 authors that the title promisses.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On 2023-08-17 21:48:30 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> 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,

Nonsense. This is what a real first-class philosopher had to say about
Bergson: "His great reputation began with L’Évolution Créatrice,
published in 1907--not that this book was better than the others, but
that it contained less argument and more rhetoric. This book contains,
from beginning to end, no argument, and therefore no bad argument; it
contains merely a poetical picture appealing to the fancy." [Bertrand
Russell (1928). Sceptical Essays. George Allen & Unwin, London, p. 50].

> 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.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 09:12:06 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-17 20:40:10 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
> > 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.
> That's what he does. He's rapidly overtaking Ken --Papers in Science
> and Nature-- Seto and Pentcho ==Never quote qualifications that
> undermine your prejudice== Valev as the champion liar in this group.

Oh, they're all not even close to the average of your fellow idiots.

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

> 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.
>
Don't so lazy. The full original text is on-line at
<https://archive.org/stream/HundertAutorenGegenEinstein/Hundert%20Autoren%20gegen%20Einstein%20%281931%29_djvu.txt>
English translation already mentioned at
<https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Relativity%20Theory/Download/8680>

Extract some (according to you) still relevant and meaningful criticism
of relativity, and we can discuss that,

Jan

[correction: it was 28 authors, not 38, as I incorrectly remembered]

On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 12:45:15 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> Don't so lazy. The full original text is on-line at
> <https://archive.org/stream/HundertAutorenGegenEinstein/Hundert%20Autoren%20gegen%20Einstein%20%281931%29_djvu.txt>
> English translation already mentioned at
> <https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Relativity%20Theory/Download/8680>
>
> Extract some (according to you) still relevant and meaningful criticism
> of relativity, and we can discuss that,

"Unfortunately, physicists who believe in Einstein’s relativity
have mostly ignored looking at what critics say"

Well, as expected from a bunch of fanatic idiots.

On 2023-08-18 10:45:12 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> Don't so lazy. The full original text is on-line at
> <https://archive.org/stream/HundertAutorenGegenEinstein/Hundert%20Autoren%20gegen%20Einstein%20%281931%29_djvu.txt>
>
> English translation already mentioned at
> <https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Relativity%20Theory/Download/8680>
>
>
> Extract some (according to you) still relevant and meaningful criticism
> of relativity, and we can discuss that,

I found this too boring to read more than a few passages. However,
there are some that seem to be pre-echoes of some of the comments made
here, such as

> In his Special Theory, Einstein asserts that the speed of light is the
> same in all directions in space, regardless of the speed of the light
> source and that of the observer. However, in his General Theory, he
> rejects this alleged law and boldly claims that it does not hold in a
> gravitational field like that of the sun. Laws that contradict one
> another are the core and essence of Einstein's ridiculous structure.
> (p. 43)

Quote-mining crackpots may find it useful to read it from beginning to
end in search of similar examples.

Dr Hans Israel was the leading editor of the book, and a contributor to
it. It doesn't strike me as an obviously Aryan name.
>
> [correction: it was 28 authors, not 38, as I incorrectly remembered]

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On 2023-08-17 00:38:36 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:

> List of Critics of Relativity:

I may have been a little hasty in characterizing many of these people
as forgotten nonentities. Nonetheless,

Léon Brillouin -- clearly an important scientist, but not known much
for his disagreement with Einstein.

Conservapaedia -- Are you serious? The fount of wisdom that illustrated
its article on Dinosaur with a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur?!!
I'm surprised you don't mention Fox News.

Deutsche Physik -- as opposed to Jewish physics

Pierre Duhem -- OK, but his criticisms of relativity were very early.
Would he have continued if he had lived longer? (I don't know, of
course, but neither do you.)

Louis Essen -- OK

Oliver Heaviside: Hmm, Cambridge physicist G. F. C. Searle, Heaviside’s
closest scientific friend in his later years, described him as “a
first-rate oddity,” though he felt compelled to add, “never, at any
time, a mental invalid.”
(https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/65/11/48/413847/Oliver-Heaviside-A-first-rate-oddityPrickly)

Philipp Lenard -- a leading proponent of "German physics" as opposed to
"Jewish physics"

Ernest Rutherford -- see Jan Lodder's comment

Andrew Schlafly -- crackpot owner of Conservapaedia. What contrubutions
to physics has he made?

Thomas Jefferson Jackson See -- astronomer and plagiarist, fired from
his position at two observatories

Johannes Stark -- a leading proponent of "German physics" as opposed to
"Jewish physics"

Paul Weyland -- a leading proponent of "German physics" as opposed to
"Jewish physics". In any case, what physics did he do?

Not a very impressive list, all in all.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 15:06:49 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-17 00:38:36 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> I may have been a little hasty in characterizing many of these people
> as forgotten nonentities.

You may have. But what to expect from a piece of
brainwashed lying shit?

Here is what Albert Einstein 'thinks' of your list of his Critics...

According to Albert Einstein...'in his own words' he said:

'If you oppose my theories, you're an anti-semitic.'

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1921-04-03/ed-1/seq-3/
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1921-04-03/ed-1/seq-3/ocr/
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1921-04-03/ed-1/seq-3.pdf

""Why were men of science opposed
to your theory when you first made it
known ?"
"No men of science," he replied, em
phasizing the last'word, "were against
the theory."
"But there was some opposition?"
"Yes," was the quiet reply, "but that
was purely political. Even the physi
cists who opposed my theory did so for
political reasons?in my opinion, o'
course."
"What do you mean when you say
the opposition was political?"
"Anti-Semitism," was the scientist's
answer. "Because I am a Jew." ""

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Here is what Albert Einstein 'thinks' of your list of his Critics...
>
>
> According to Albert Einstein...'in his own words' he said:
>
> 'If you oppose my theories, you're an anti-semitic.'
>
>
> http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1921-04-03/ed-1/seq-3/
> http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1921-04-03/ed-1/seq-3/ocr/
> http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1921-04-03/ed-1/seq-3.pdf
>
> ""Why were men of science opposed
> to your theory when you first made it
> known ?"
> "No men of science," he replied, em
> phasizing the last'word, "were against
> the theory."
> "But there was some opposition?"
> "Yes," was the quiet reply, "but that
> was purely political. Even the physi
> cists who opposed my theory did so for
> political reasons?in my opinion, o'
> course."
> "What do you mean when you say
> the opposition was political?"
> "Anti-Semitism," was the scientist's
> answer. "Because I am a Jew." ""
>
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.
Thank you, Starmaker. The relativists follow in their idols' footsteps failing to make a reasoned reply. Relativity has never been rationally defended and never can be.

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 6:06:49 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-17 00:38:36 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> I may have been a little hasty in characterizing many of these people
> as forgotten nonentities. Nonetheless,
>
> Léon Brillouin -- clearly an important scientist, but not known much
> for his disagreement with Einstein.
>
> Conservapaedia -- Are you serious? The fount of wisdom that illustrated
> its article on Dinosaur with a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur?!!
> I'm surprised you don't mention Fox News.
>
> Deutsche Physik -- as opposed to Jewish physics
>
> Pierre Duhem -- OK, but his criticisms of relativity were very early.
> Would he have continued if he had lived longer? (I don't know, of
> course, but neither do you.)
>
> Louis Essen -- OK
>
> Oliver Heaviside: Hmm, Cambridge physicist G. F. C. Searle, Heaviside’s
> closest scientific friend in his later years, described him as “a
> first-rate oddity,” though he felt compelled to add, “never, at any
> time, a mental invalid.”
> (https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/65/11/48/413847/Oliver-Heaviside-A-first-rate-oddityPrickly)
>
>
> Philipp Lenard -- a leading proponent of "German physics" as opposed to
> "Jewish physics"
>
> Ernest Rutherford -- see Jan Lodder's comment
>
> Andrew Schlafly -- crackpot owner of Conservapaedia. What contrubutions
> to physics has he made?
>
> Thomas Jefferson Jackson See -- astronomer and plagiarist, fired from
> his position at two observatories
>
> Johannes Stark -- a leading proponent of "German physics" as opposed to
> "Jewish physics"
>
> Paul Weyland -- a leading proponent of "German physics" as opposed to
> "Jewish physics". In any case, what physics did he do?
>
> Not a very impressive list, all in all.
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
You can tell an intelligent person because he employs steelman criticism, while the stupid one employs straw man criticism. Nitwits employ ad hominem as you do here. Try to up your game and address their criticisms if you can.. You don't even know what they are. They have already refuted relativity. Rutherford brushed it off because no refutation was even needed.

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 11:08:06 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Relativity has never been rationally defended and never can be.

On the contrary, relativity has never been rationally defeated, yet. It may eventually be modified and even defeated, but it won't be by a crank who does not even know high school physics!

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 5:32:52 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-18 10:45:12 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
> > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> > Don't so lazy. The full original text is on-line at
> > <https://archive.org/stream/HundertAutorenGegenEinstein/Hundert%20Autoren%20gegen%20Einstein%20%281931%29_djvu.txt>
> >
> > English translation already mentioned at
> > <https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Relativity%20Theory/Download/8680>
> >
> >
> > Extract some (according to you) still relevant and meaningful criticism
> > of relativity, and we can discuss that,
> I found this too boring to read more than a few passages. However,
> there are some that seem to be pre-echoes of some of the comments made
> here, such as
>
> > In his Special Theory, Einstein asserts that the speed of light is the
> > same in all directions in space, regardless of the speed of the light
> > source and that of the observer. However, in his General Theory, he
> > rejects this alleged law and boldly claims that it does not hold in a
> > gravitational field like that of the sun. Laws that contradict one
> > another are the core and essence of Einstein's ridiculous structure.
> > (p. 43)
>
> Quote-mining crackpots may find it useful to read it from beginning to
> end in search of similar examples.
>
> Dr Hans Israel was the leading editor of the book, and a contributor to
> it. It doesn't strike me as an obviously Aryan name.
> >
> > [correction: it was 28 authors, not 38, as I incorrectly remembered]
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
Relativists yawn instead of reasoning.