http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha."

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

The question is: If Einstein 1954 suggestion was correct, that is, if, as far as the speed of light is concerned, light behaves as discontinuous particles, not as continuous field, which part of "contemporary physics" will the Large Hadron Collider be able to confirm? Will contemporary physicists find a way to give the many billions wasted back to taxpayers?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Give the money back? The money system relies upon borrowing.

When the "taxpayers" "promise to pay," that obligation becomes an asset for the bankers. They then loan out the "asset" ten times or more, thus "expanding the money supply."

This is essentially the same thing as you or me writing a rubber check. If this isn't fraud enough, when the "asset" fails to pay, the system falls apart.

Then the bankers, who have been raking in billions from interest charged on the thin air "asset," Expect the "taxpayer" to pay again for the problem the bankers created.

No, there is no money to give back, but your wealth will be taken to pay the robbers for stealing it.

I'm sorry, but that is a really stupid thing to say.


The LHC is probing the fine structure of matter.

If it confirms or denies any model, it is worth the money.



Thinking that $ 8 Billion would be better spent somewhere else is ridiculous beyond measure.


$8 Billion is 3 Days worth of Oil imports, 4 years of Doritos, or a college education for 1/300th of the American population.


vs.


Possibly setting to rest the greatest fundamental conflict in modern science, and learning how to better manipulate matter, which could lead to better material production, energy production, transportation methods, communication methods.


I mean, seriously, do you have any idea of the logical fallacy in claiming that it is a waste of money?

Pentcho,

You need to do a little more research. John Stachel is editor of Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics. He's also was the Director, Center for Einstein Studies. You need to find somebody else if you're going to be negative about Einstein because this guy isn't.

He was also a major critic of the book "Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist."

Johm Stachel ain't your hero.

cinci

Einstein died wondering about his proposals. How will you die?

Where the optimism of LHC money wasters comes from:

http://www.nouse.co.uk/2008/10/30/step-into-the-god-machine/
"What if the worst were to happen, and the LHC, after it gets going again, doesn't find anything at all? Tom Whyntie, who works on the CMS detector at CERN on behalf of Imperial College, doesn't see this as an option. "The physics we've got at the moment basically says there has to be something we can see with the LHC, so physicists are pretty optimistic that something will be found". Optimism aside though, what if the project really discovers nothing? "A null result from the LHC would present irrefutable evidence that we really need to go back to the drawing board and fundamentally change the way we do physics and think about the universe we're in - which one could argue would be the most exciting result of all." The LHC seems to become more astonishing with every revelation. The most exciting result would be... nothing? Whyntie explains that this has happened before in the history of physics, and it simply forces us to rethink our theories until we get them right. "At the turn of the last century, people believed that light had to be transmitted through a medium, but an experiment put together famously found nothing at all. Fortunately, a little-known German physicist called Albert Einstein had an idea that explained the result... a fundamental change in the way we look at the universe"."

Obviously LHC money wasters have not seen this:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

The fundamental question about the Large Hadron Collider:

http://io9.com/5091007/will-the-global-economic-crisis-kill-the-large-hadron-collider
""Is the LHC really worth it?"

Assume Einstein's 1954 prediction (see below) is correct whereas John Stachel's laughter is hysterical and stupid. Would then the LHC really be worth it?

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Crashing matter particles into other matter particles,(at great momentum and expense) and then attributing the creation of large soliton standing waves of chimerical duration to the "debris" of the interior of the particles is obviously a money making fantasy.

If anything important is learned from the exercise, it will be withheld (classified) from the "public domain" as a "National Security Secret."

The expense will/is passed off to the "National Debt" of course. If you are burdened with paying for something, shouldn't you get to see what it is?

Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > The Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox explains Einstein's
> > understanding of time to Einstein's zombie world:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ExiJKbeuY
>
> Now the Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox shows the effects
> of time dilation to Einstein zombie world:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1
>
> Einstein zombie world is so excited that, if Brian Cox wants to waste
> a few more billions, taxpayers would readily give him the money.

Professor Brian Cox's performances express his deep gratitude to taxpayers but the gratitude demonstrated by other LHC money wasters is even deeper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

I think they should put Relativists in the LHC, spin them around, let them collide and see if any sense could be knocked in their heads!

bob s

La Marche Futile (Large Hadron Collider):

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Jyu6eioZ4
"Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think that with Government backing I could make it very silly....Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I'm afraid that the Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it needs. You see there's Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing, Education, Silly Walks ... they're all supposed to get the same. But last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks than it did on National Defence! Now we get 348,000,000 a year, which is supposed to be spent on all our available products....I'm going to offer you a Research Fellowship on the Anglo-French Silly Walk....La Marche Futile?"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

I believe Pencho already pointed out that according to the brilliant minds involved with the sales job on the taxpayers, if they find nothing, that will be something.

If Max, Cincirob, Stanley and the rest of the boys think it is worth it, let them and their seed be obligated, leave me and mine out. Majority rule is for fools. I'll take a republican form of dividing the wealth, where the ones who earn it get to decide how to spend it, without the "democractic" (read Communist) hand in their pocket.

Anonymous: Cinci, so you promote plagiarism ?


cinci: What an incredible leap of illogic. No wonder you choose to be anonymous. I wouldn't want anybody to know who I was either if I thought like that.
************************


Anonymous: Einstein died wondering about his proposals.


cinci: Yes, he was an honest scientist, unlike the anti-relativists who haunt these forums who KNOW beyond any shadow of doubt that Einsntein was wrong.
***************************


Anaonymous: How will you die?

cinci: Maybe at this keyboard........laughing at people who think Eisntein was a plagiarist.
**********************

Cinci said: "Maybe [dieing]at this keyboard........laughing at people who think Eisntein (sic) was a plagiarist."

Curt says: Finding people who think is the rare instance. However, Einstein's plagiarism is well documented. Furthermore, his first wife did all the logical thinking for his initial work. She received no credit either.

Of course, anything detrimental to the Myth is just hearsay.

C Y: Finding people who think is the rare instance. However, Einstein's plagiarism is well documented. Furthermore, his first wife did all the logical thinking for his initial work. She received no credit either.
***

In my view, lack of honest citation in history of the idea would be the mere problem.

However, I think your kind words about Mileva Maric-Einstein are right in high degree. She was highly skilful in general mathematics and also possessed strong analytical mind. But she also was a women in love and for her moral standards wasnt so hard to stay in the shadow of her husband.

I admire Mileva and her almost martyrs life.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> La Marche Futile (Large Hadron Collider):
>
> http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Jyu6eioZ4
> "Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to obtain a Government
> grant to help me develop it....I think that with Government backing I
> could make it very silly....Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of
> money. I'm afraid that the Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer
> getting the kind of support it needs. You see there's Defence, Social
> Security, Health, Housing, Education, Silly Walks ... they're all
> supposed to get the same. But last year, the Government spent less on
> the Ministry of Silly Walks than it did on National Defence! Now we
> get 348,000,000 a year, which is supposed to be spent on all our
> available products....I'm going to offer you a Research Fellowship on
> the Anglo-French Silly Walk....La Marche Futile?"

http://scienceline.org/2008/11/26/blog-bond-eureka-discovery-lhc-malaria-palin/
"There are two kinds of people: those who think that physics biggest experiment, the Large Hadron Collider, is a waste of money, and those who dont."

European taxpayers must have been cruel to Silly Walker Stephen Hawking so he now thinks the Large Hadron Collider is a waste of money and is starting work at the Silly Walk Headquarters:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=543e9b45-2945-4e9a-b5f1-e55ede157038
"Premier Dalton McGuinty called Hawking's decision to work in Waterloo "dramatic news" and that it is an indication of the quality research conducted at the institute. "We are convinced at some point in time some wonderful discovery is going to take place because of the work that is being done there," the premier said in Pickering, Ont. According to the institute Hawking, who is almost totally paralysed by Lou Gehrig's disease, seeks to better understand the basic laws which govern the universe. With Roger Penrose he showed that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity implied space and time would have a beginning in the Big Bang and an end in black holes. Another conjecture is that the universe has no edge or boundary in imaginary time. This would imply that the way the universe began was completely determined by the laws of science. There have been rumours this year that Hawking would spend more time abroad. Earlier this year he criticized the British government's merging of two science funding bodies, the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, into the Science and Technology Facilities Council. In a letter to British Cabinet ministers, he said a "bookkeeping error" had created a $160-million shortfall. Scientists fear 600 jobs are at risk."

There is a growing suspicion at the Headquarters (Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo) that Einstein's 1905 light postulate might be false but Hawking is going to restore faith in this postulate immediately:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Curt: Of course, anything detrimental to the Myth is just hearsay.


cinci: You're right, and the myth is plagiarism.
*************************

Cincirob said: "You're right, and the myth is plagiarism."

Curt says: The plagiarism is well documented. A myth is something that is believed, that is not quite true. So, you confirm my statement that "anything detrimental to the Myth is just hearsay."

I must be right twice!

Curt, shhh, people who actually know what they're talking about are discussing grown up subjects now.

Here's some blocks and a couple lincoln logs, perhaps you will be better off with them.

Max said: "Curt, shhh, people who actually know what they're talking about are discussing grown up subjects now."

Curt says: Too bad they aren't including you in the conversation, Max

Har har, you're a cute kid, really.

Go away.

You're out of your league.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,39565612,00.htm
"The Large Hadron Collider will come back online in late summer 2009 at the earliest, and not in June as previously expected."

LHC money wasters may have decided to ignore John Stachel's carelessness and analyse Einstein's 1954 confession very seriously:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha."

LHC money wasters may also have decided to analyse (very seriously) important discoveries made at the Perimeter Institute, Einsteiniana's Headquarters:

http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
Lee Smolin: "Then, about 30 years ago, something changed. The last time there was a definitive advance in our knowledge of fundamental physics was the construction ofthe theory we call the standard model of particle physics in 1973. The last time a fundamental theory was proposed that has since gotten any support from experiment was a theory about the very early universe called inflation, which was proposed in 1981....A growing number of theoretical physicists, myself among them, see the present situation as a crisis that requires us to reexamine the assumptions behind our so-far unsuccessful theories. I should emphasize that this crisis involves only fundamental physics that part of physics concerned with discovering the laws of nature."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 298-299:
"La racine du mal etait clairement la relativite restreinte. Tous ces paradoxes resultaient d'effets bien connus comme la contraction des longueurs, la dilatation du temps, ou E=mc^2, tous des predictions directes de la relativite restreinte. (...) La consequence en etait inevitable: pour edifier une theorie coherente de la gravite quantique, quelle qu'elle soit, nous [Joao Magueijo et Lee Smolin] devions commencer par abandonner la relativite restreinte. (...) Mais, comme nous l'avons vu, celle-ci repose sur deux principes independants. Le premier est la relativite du mouvement, le second la constance de la vitesse de la lumiere. Une des solutions possibles a notre probleme pouvait etre d'abandonner la relativite du mouvement. (...) C'est une possibilite bien sur, mais nous avons choisi l'alternative evidente: preserver la relativite du mouvement, mais admettre qu'a de tres hautes energies, la vitesse de la lumiere ne soit plus constante."

http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at a constant speed for all observers..."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10109941-76.html
"The accelerator operations group at CERN came up with two possible plans to restart the LHC, details of which are included in a CERN presentation. According to the document, written by Jorg Weninger, a member of the operations group, "Plan A" called for a restart of the experiment in late summer 2009, with the beam energy and intensity limited to minimize the risk of another accident. "Plan B" delayed switching on the beam until there had been a complete upgrade to the pressure-relief system, which would mean the LHC would be restarted in 2010 at the earliest."

In the meantime, Professor Brian Cox will be explaining time dilation to Einstein zombie world and even demonstrating, in a breathtaking way, the effects of this prediction of the No1 daddy of physics' theory:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/article1985696.ece
"They call me the Liam Gallagher of physics.....But now consider Professor Brian Cox, the 40-year-old whos turning the image of physics on its head. Hes the bloke who used to play keyboards in D:Ream, the dance-rock band behind New Labours anthem Things Can Only Get Better. He cites Einstein as his inspiration, the No1 daddy of physics who was actually a bit cooler than we think.....He says: "Close to the speed of light, you can go anywhere you want in the future. You can get as far into the future as you want. Thats just orthodox. It was known in 1905." And get this . . . "If you go on a flight to New York then come back again, youll have aged slightly less than the people who stayed here because youve gone into the future slower!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

From: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10109941-76.html

"Surprisingly, there is one option that no one seems to be considering. We have long known that relativity allows travel through time: astronauts travelling (sic) fast enough, for example, would actually move into Earth's future. So perhaps the easiest way to find the secrets of time would be to build a fast enough rocket and blast off to see how future generations of physicists did it. Maybe, in an act of temporal espionage, we could bring the answers back for Smolin and his colleagues to examine."

Comment: If you travel fast enough (you will be going in a direction) you will be somewhere else, a long ways way. If you come back from there, your time will run faster, making up for the time you "lost" on the way out. No one will see you returning. You will arrive in a giant burst of blue-shifted light. Your peers will see you arrive "out of the blue." You will be just as old as your peers. You will be in the future, (which is now the present) because time past for both you and your peers while you were gone. So, how do you get back to the time when you decided to go on this silly adventure? You can't do it by traveling.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Just because you can't understand something, does not make it true or false.

This is a good thing, because I get the feeling there are many things which are beyond your meager understanding.

Max said: "Ignorance is no excuse. Just because you can't understand something, does not make it true or false. This is a good thing, because I get the feeling there are many things which are beyond your meager understanding.


Curt says: Sorry Max, your condescending attitude is quite childish and boring, especially since you occupy no great height. Your suggestion goes doubly for yourself. You have demonstrated you ignorance time and again. Yet you blather on, oblivious to any logic or evidence. They apply doubly to your meager understanding, and mechanical ability. We are truly lucky that you have never even performed a meaningful experiment, as to the harm it would do. Go juggle some more in your origami universe.

It's a good thing you don't know what you're talking about, otherwise I may be insulted.

You checked your diaper recently?

Max said: "It's a good thing you don't know what you're talking about, otherwise I may be insulted. You checked your diaper recently?"

Curt says: Max, you have demonstrated that you don't know what I'm talking about, so your comments are meaningless.

Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

Curt, I've shown quite clearly that you don't know anything about Special Relativity, or General Relativity.

On top of that, you yourself have shown you don't even share the same awareness of reality that a 5 year old would, as you plainly denied the existence of a gravity well, and ignored it's influence on orbital trajectories.


You're out of your league, kiddo.

You talk like you believe you know what you're talking about, but when the facts come out, it's plain to see you're an uneducated layman regarding this subject.

You are the least to judge. You've demonstrated it with each post.

Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

It isn't judging, it's observation.

I don't judge you, I feel sorry for you.


It is one thing to be ignorant because you've been denied knowledge.

It is another thing to be willfully ignorant, because you don't like knowing things.


You are willfully ignorant, you poor stupid thing.

Max, You are willfully ignorant, you poor stupid thing.

Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

You don't understand English either?

My word, is there ANYTHING you understand?

Max, You should shed your sorrow on yourself, you pathetic girl.

Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

Is that the best you've got?

What are you, 5?

Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

RE: Curt, Poor Max December 4 2008, 11:40 AM

Curt,
"Max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max."

Curt, I think Max's inferiority complex stems from a dominate male figure in his childhood who berated him as being stupid. Max now clings to Einstein in the hope that his association will give him the appearance of superior intelligence, unfortunately, he really is stupid and can't pull off the ploy. And then, when you factor in his obsession with children and poopie diapers he seems to be seriously mentally ill.

Poor boy, he thinks he has two right hands. Hey! maybe he does, poor boy.

bob s

It's more like four left feet. Feel free to post the little paragraph below in response to max's inanity until max tries to post something besides his ad hominem remarks. One point type would be appropriate, when ever max's name comes up

max's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, Max.

That's probably a good idea.

I mean, clearly you can't actually defend your arguments with logic, may as well resort to stupid little kid insults.

Sad bunch, you lot are.

iggymax whimpers: "That's probably a good idea. I mean, clearly you can't actually defend your arguments with logic, may as well resort to stupid little kid insults. Sad bunch, you lot are."

There, iggymax is green with envy.

iggymax whimpers: "That's probably a good idea. I mean, clearly you can't actually defend your arguments with logic, may as well resort to stupid little kid insults. Sad bunch, you lot are."

Curt says: Keep on with the ad hominem, little girl.

iggymax's posts make it undeniably obvious that he has an inferiority complex, along with his childish state of mind. His inability to handle logic puts him at a disadvantage to the other people who post here. His only recourse is to attack with ad hominem remarks. Go back to your Origami, iggymax.

Try now to color the above comment, Curt!

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10109941-76.html
> "The accelerator operations group at CERN came up with two possible
> plans to restart the LHC, details of which are included in a CERN
> presentation. According to the document, written by Jorg Weninger, a
> member of the operations group, "Plan A" called for a restart of the
> experiment in late summer 2009, with the beam energy and intensity
> limited to minimize the risk of another accident. "Plan B" delayed
> switching on the beam until there had been a complete upgrade to the
> pressure-relief system, which would mean the LHC would be restarted in
> 2010 at the earliest."
>
> In the meantime, Professor Brian Cox will be explaining time dilation
> to Einstein zombie world and even demonstrating, in a breathtaking
> way, the effects of this prediction of the No1 daddy of physics'
> theory:
>
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/article1985696.ece
> "They call me the Liam Gallagher of physics.....But now consider
> Professor Brian Cox, the 40-year-old whos turning the image of
> physics on its head. Hes the bloke who used to play keyboards in
> D:Ream, the dance-rock band behind New Labours anthem Things Can Only
> Get Better. He cites Einstein as his inspiration, the No1 daddy of
> physics who was actually a bit cooler than we think.....He says:
> "Close to the speed of light, you can go anywhere you want in the
> future. You can get as far into the future as you want. Thats just
> orthodox. It was known in 1905." And get this . . . "If you go on a
> flight to New York then come back again, youll have aged slightly
> less than the people who stayed here because youve gone into the
> future slower!"
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1

Stephen Hawking is also going to entertain taxpayers while his LHC brothers are wasting more and more millions:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24323841-5014239,00.html
"Stephen Hawking bets Large Hadron Collider won't work...."The LHC will increase the energy at which we can study particle interactions by a factor of four. According to present thinking, this should be enough to discover the Higgs particle," Professor Hawking said on BBC radio. "I think it will be much more exciting if we don't find the Higgs. That will show something is wrong, and we need to think again. I have a bet of 100 dollars that we won't find the Higgs," said Prof Hawking, whose books including A Brief History of Time have sought to popularise study of stellar physics."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Motion cannot "take you into the future, faster," it can only take you somewhere else, faster. Circular motion only makes you dizzy, not younger. If instantaneous travel were possible, you could travel somewhere else and return; but you would be an instant older when you return, not younger. The puny speed of light does nothing to your age.

A satire that is not very far from the truth:

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i45480
"Large Hadron Collider Responsible for Global Financial Crisis.....Critics of the LHC had campaigned against the initial startup of the machine, claiming that switching it on could cause unknown effects, including the formation of a black hole. Now, it can be revealed that their worst fears had in fact come true almost immediately, and a small, yet terrifyingly significant black hole had formed, forcing the hasty shutdown for repairs. The site of the tunnels which house the LHC, run beneath both France and Switzerland, and it is in Switzerland that the problems have manifested themselves most drastically. It appears that a Financial Black Hole opened up in Geneva, directly beneath the city's famous banking centre. Several big players on the global financial stage, had their Geneva branches swallowed whole within the 9 day period that the LHC ran. It was hoped that switching off the LHC would have halted the process but with internet, ethernet and intranet connections still active on either side of the Financial Black Hole (FBH), cash continues to be swallowed on a massive scale."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Yeh, and who ends up with all the swallowed cash? It just doesn't disappear.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> A satire that is not very far from the truth:
>
> http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i45480
> "Large Hadron Collider Responsible for Global Financial
> Crisis.....Critics of the LHC had campaigned against the initial
> startup of the machine, claiming that switching it on could cause
> unknown effects, including the formation of a black hole. Now, it can
> be revealed that their worst fears had in fact come true almost
> immediately, and a small, yet terrifyingly significant black hole had
> formed, forcing the hasty shutdown for repairs. The site of the
> tunnels which house the LHC, run beneath both France and Switzerland,
> and it is in Switzerland that the problems have manifested themselves
> most drastically. It appears that a Financial Black Hole opened up in
> Geneva, directly beneath the city's famous banking centre. Several big
> players on the global financial stage, had their Geneva branches
> swallowed whole within the 9 day period that the LHC ran. It was hoped
> that switching off the LHC would have halted the process but with
> internet, ethernet and intranet connections still active on either
> side of the Financial Black Hole (FBH), cash continues to be swallowed
> on a massive scale."

A rhetorical question:

http://physics.about.com/b/2009/01/07/was-lhc-a-waste-of-time-and-money.htm
"Was the Large Hadron Collider a Waste of Time (and Money)?"

It seems The Large Hadron Collider is both sillier and more expensive walk than La Marche Futile:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Jyu6eioZ4
"Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think that with Government backing I could make it very silly....Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I'm afraid that the Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it needs. You see there's Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing, Education, Silly Walks ... they're all supposed to get the same. But last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks than it did on National Defence! Now we get 348,000,000 a year, which is supposed to be spent on all our available products....I'm going to offer you a Research Fellowship on the Anglo-French Silly Walk....La Marche Futile?"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Truth is getting more and more evident to taxpayers:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40853/113/
"Alternate collision method suggests LHC may have been total waste of $9 billion"

Still the Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox will continue to explain Einstein's understanding of time to taxpayers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ExiJKbeuY

Here the Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox shows the effects of time dilation to taxpayers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1

Professor Brian Cox's performances express his deep gratitude to taxpayers but the gratitude demonstrated by other LHC money wasters is even deeper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Truth is getting more and more evident to taxpayers:
>
> http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40853/113/
> "Alternate collision method suggests LHC may have been total waste of
> $9 billion"
>
> Still the Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox will continue to
> explain Einstein's understanding of time to taxpayers:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ExiJKbeuY
>
> Here the Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox shows the effects
> of time dilation to taxpayers:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1
>
> Professor Brian Cox's performances express his deep gratitude to
> taxpayers but the gratitude demonstrated by other LHC money wasters is
> even deeper:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM

Fermilab's scientists are much more beautiful than Professor Brian Cox and their songs are more fundamental than LHC money wasters' songs:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10173538-71.html
"Why the LHC may be beaten to the Bang.....The Big Bang was supposed to have happened last year. Then the Large Hadron Collider blew a fuse that had been wired by a couple of teenagers from Turkmenistan (I'm kidding. They were actually from the backstreets of Vilnius.) and had to be shut down for major repairs. Meanwhile, it seems, physicists at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., have been tinkering with their Tevatron. The Tevatron doesn't have the scale of the Large Hadron Collider. But it does seem to have one small advantage: it's actually working....The best (or worst, depending on your bent), appears to be this video, called "Accelerating Science" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SARsKlcDza8 . It does have more than a smidgen of early rap about it. And there is a very difficult moment when a yellow boot gives a purple beam a kick. However, I think we can be more forgiving of this movie. It was made in 1992. And the fact that Fermilab attempted some rap beats all those years ago suggests that these are people who keep the curve behind them and never pretend they are Lot's Wife. It might also suggest to some that the Large Hadron Collider rappers were not exactly original."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho: Still the Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox will continue to explain Einstein's understanding of time to taxpayers:

cinci: Really Pentcho? You think the LHC is about relativity? All this pasting of article sand you don't even know what the LHC is for?
***********************

What European taxpayers should know:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article5870853.ece
"The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which was supposed to isolate a hitherto unobserved sub-atomic particle known as the Higgs Boson, remains closed for repairs in its tunnel under Geneva. But a gigantic computer grid that was supposed to analyse the collider's output has found another purpose. It is being used to guess what sort of sounds Ancient Greek musical instruments might have made. This may be a waste of money but it should not be a surprise."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

You see, Jose, even Pentcho Valev understands what the LHC is for.
**********************************

wasting money.

Anon: wasting money.

cinci: And now you're following Pentcho like a sheep.
******************************

no, you are the sheep

Sheep don't post on this website.

Just like the National Anthem was written in honor of me: "Jose can you see? ..."

The idea that Einsteiniana should somehow explain to taxpayers the Divine Theories that are sucking billions is getting more and more popular:

http://mondialisation.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12761
"Science daujourdhui : Les trous noirs engloutissent des milliards de dollars...De plus en plus d'argent étant exigé pour des expériences scientifiques de plus en plus alambiquées, il devient de plus en plus important dessayer d'expliquer la théorie de base sous-tendant ce travail à ceux qui, en fiThe idea that Einsteinians should explain to taxpayers why Einsteiniana is wasting n de compte, payent la facture, à TOI, le grand public. Beaucoup sont impressionnés et émerveillés lorsquon parle du Grand Colisionneur de Hadrons. Ils ont en réalité peu idée de ce que cest et de ce quespèrent en tirer les responsables, mais sont emportés sur la vague denthousiasme fort probablement sincère de ceux qui sont concernés. Les lacunes scientifiques sont toutefois mises en relief par une véritable crainte ressentie par certains, qui pensent que, lors de sa mise en marche, cette puissante machine pourrait produire un trou noir qui engloutirait la Terre. Aussi ridicule que cela puisse sembler, des gens pensaient ça et étaient véritablement stressés le jour de la mise sous tension. Le coût de cette machine, ainsi que les énormes dépenses de fonctionnement et d'entretien, sont quasiment au-delà de la compréhension du simple quidam. Ensuite, il y a LISA, le Light Interferometer Space Antenna (antenne spatiale dinterférométrie lumineuse) ; un autre projet coûtant un immense tas d'argent et, encore une fois, un projet financé en fin de compte par un public qui ne comprend pas. La question de savoir s'il s'agit d'une position éthique ou non doit être posée. Il semblerait aussi juste et convenable à tous ceux qui paient la facture davoir quelque idée du contexte général de chacun de ces grands projets. La nécessité de franchise totale, accentuée quand le sort de tant de malheureux souffrant d'une grave pénurie de nourriture ou en proie à quelque maladie ou affection incurable actuellement, est aussi considérée. Il est très probable qu'il serait extrêmement difficile, voire inutile, dexpliquer en détail au grand public le point de vue sous-tendant certains de ces nouveaux projets, dans le domaine général de la cosmologie, par exemple. Ce nest pas pour paraître élitiste ; cest plutôt que le gros de l'arrière-plan théorique est si complexe que relativement peu de spécialistes en comprennent toutes les ramifications. Comment par conséquent expliquer le contexte à des gens peu au fait du monde scientifique ? Ce n'est pas tâche facile, mais elle doit être tentée et entreprise en toute honnêteté. Honnêteté est censée vouloir dire nécessité d'expliquer TOUT le contexte. Ça implique, dans le cas où elles existeraient, de mettre tout le monde au courant des théories et des explications alternatives aux effets et observations. Ce nest malheureusement pas le cas actuellement (...) Il est bien établi que nombre de scientifiques éminents ont nourri dès le début des doutes sur la validité de la théorie de la relativité restreinte et générale. Certains, comme Herbert Dingle, devenu très embarrassé par les aspects du fameux paradoxe des jumeaux, a conçu des doutes après avoir été au début un ardent défenseur de la théorie. Malheureusement, si le récit des événements décrits dans son livre Science at the Crossroads (1) est exact, il semble quaprès lapparition de ces doutes, les écarter devienne de plus en plus difficile. Pas grand chose ne semble avoir changé depuis ces débuts, et il reste apparemment toujours vrai que, contester la validité des théories de la relativité n'est pas un choix de carrière raisonnable. En fait, même montrer que le fameux test de la relativité générale peut s'expliquer autrement (2) est considéré par certains comme une attaque voilée contre la validité de la théorie d'Einstein."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pencho, you have to understand: The fiat money system requires that gigantic loans must be taken out by the "public" ne "government" in order to keep the "paper" pasted. It is better that the money be spent upon nonsense, otherwise the lot of the "public" will improve, and eventually there will be no need to borrow more money. Then the system will collapse. Oops, It just did. See what you caused? A depression.

Cogent must not be synonym to thoughtful!
Maybe to hateful?