Einstein then complained to an early biographer, Philipp Frank, that a new and disagreeable fashion had arisen: the new physicists were arguing that things were not real if they couldn't be observed. Frank reminded Einstein that that fashion "was invented by you in 1905."

"A good joke should not be repeated too often," Einstein replied.
http://spectator.org/archives/2007/06/21/einsteins-revolution-and-count/

No, that isn't what he said at all.
****************

"A good joke should not be repeated too often," Einstein replied.

cinci: But he didn't say relativity is a joke. You did.
**********************

Frank reminded Einstein that that fashion "was invented by you in 1905."

"A good joke should not be repeated too often," Einstein replied.

Anon: Frank reminded Einstein that that fashion "was invented by you in 1905."

"A good joke should not be repeated too often," Einstein replied.


cinci: No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't say "relativity is a joke". The predictions of relativity can be observed. Relativity was not the only thing Einstein did in 1905.
**************************

Einstein then complained to an early biographer, Philipp Frank, that a new and disagreeable fashion had arisen: the new physicists were arguing that things were not real if they couldn't be observed. **** Frank reminded Einstein that that fashion "was invented by you in 1905."

"A good joke should not be repeated too often," Einstein replied.


*** - .......observed" - that came from SR

Anon: Einstein then complained to an early biographer, Philipp Frank, that a new and disagreeable fashion had arisen: the new physicists were arguing that things were not real if they couldn't be observed. **** Frank reminded Einstein that that fashion "was invented by you in 1905."

"A good joke should not be repeated too often," Einstein replied.


*** - .......observed" - that came from SR

cinci: Einstein laid the foundation for quantum mechanics in 1905 and that was the subject of their discussion. Learn some history.
*****************************

Re: Cincirob, Einstein says Relativity is a joke thats gone too far March 7 2009, 7:03 PM

cinci: "Einstein laid the foundation for quantum mechanics in 1905 and that was the subject of their discussion. Learn some history."

Now that's ODD! Cinci, when I said the other day that QM would not exist if not for SR you implied I was wrong and now you admit I was right! Thank you.

cinci: Einstein laid the foundation for quantum mechanics in 1905 and that was the subject of their discussion.

So you are saying that was a joke as well. Yes, that was part of the joke as well along with SR.

Cinci is a joke. He masquerades as someone who understands, and has authority, in reality he is just a shriveled up old man who thinks anyone pays him attention.

Jose: Cinci is a joke. He masquerades as someone who understands, and has authority,..

Exactly. Relativity is nonsense and it allows nutters such as cinci to pretend to be experts on the subject, when all they have to do then is talk nonsense. Even Einstein admitted it was a joke that had gone too far.

Jose: Cinci is a joke. He masquerades as someone who understands, and has authority, in reality he is just a shriveled up old man who thinks anyone pays him attention.

cinci: Yes, but this "joke" of a "shriveled up old man" you and Anon on the run. Your only science is name calling.
***************************

when faced with someone like you talking nonsense; the only thing left is to point out that you are talking nonsense.

Anon: when faced with someone like you talking nonsense; the only thing left is to point out that you are talking nonsense.


cinci: Telling me what I say is nonsense might be rational if you had a rational explanation, but you don't......calling me names isn't rational at all and says more about what you don't know than what I dont' know.
***************************

saying you talk nonsense is rational, because what you are saying is not rational.

Anon: saying you talk nonsense is rational, because what you are saying is not rational.

cinci: There is no evidence that you are sufficiently rational to make such a judgement.
*********************************

You have demonstrated that you are not rational,

cinci: "Yes, but this "joke" of a "shriveled up old man" [has?] you and Anon on the run. Your only science is name calling.

Jose: You started the name calling. When we return the favor, you get all huffy. You want to be the victim? OK: you are the deserved victim.

Naming things is how understanding works. If you don't like the name, quit fitting the description.

cinci: "Yes, but this "joke" of a "shriveled up old man" [has?] you and Anon on the run. Your only science is name calling.

Jose: You started the name calling. When we return the favor, you get all huffy. You want to be the victim? OK: you are the deserved victim.

Naming things is how understanding works. If you don't like the name, quit fitting the description.

cinci: The only name I've called you is Jose.
*****************************

the people who believe relativity/nonsense have only ever been abusive because they are devoid of any intelligent conversation.

Anon: the people who believe relativity/nonsense have only ever been abusive because they are devoid of any intelligent conversation.

cinci: You statement makes clear that is is you who is abusive.
********************************

No it states the facts of why relativists are abusive, and why they make the only respomse to their abuse as more abuse.

Like Harry Truman said, "I just tell them the truth and they think it's hell."
**********************

and you can't take the truth.

Some people can see the obvious problem here:
http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3011
that if aether drift and absolute velocities are NOT the same thing than that collapses the Einsteinian house of cards. cincirob can't see this. I showed this to someone at the information desk at the Engineering library at the University of Maryland and he understood it immediately. He said that he wondered what would happen if I told people about this in the physics community. Many of them probably got the message, but it got obscured along the way.

Explaining why the aether is NOT at absolute rest is easy. We first assume that the postulate from Galileo and Newton that all velocities are relative is true and there is no such thing as an absolute velocity. Next assume the aether and space are two different things and that the aether simply exists in space similar to the way a gas or other medium can exist in space. You can measure the air speed of an airplane, but we know the atmosphere isn't at aboslute rest and you can measure the speed of a boat relative to the water and we know that the water isn't at absolute rest. In a similar way, a velocity relative to the aether is NOT an absolute velocity since the aether is not at absolute rest.

Here is an interesting find,

Re: Lorentz, aether and absolute rest
@http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3011
Postby cincirob on Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:17 pm
cinci: "Relativists don't care what Lorentz said about aether. Relativists believe aether is not necessary to explain the phenomena associated with light."
*******************************

IOW, Relativists insist on using the Lorentz Transforms to validate Einstein's Relativity but, they don't care what Lorentz intended his Transforms to be used for. Lorentz intended his Transforms to validate HIS theory, not Einstein's theory.

Lorentz relied on there being a Aether when he constructed his Transforms therefor, if Einstein used the same Transforms the Aether must be hidden somewhere in Einstein's theory, but where? So I ask, why was the concept of rod contraction used to explain the MMX? Answer, to compensate for the Aether drift. Now, does Einstein use rod contraction in his theory? Answer, Yes!

So now I ask another question, how is it that as speed of a body approaches (c) its mass increases toward infinity while, at the same time, its length decreases toward infinity? Two diametrically opposed effects as the result on one action is not based on sound reasoning, but, that is where Einstein hid the Aether. Mass increase and rod contraction are necessary to keep the reader from knowing that (v) can = (c). When (v) = (c) Time dilation goes to zero and Einstein's Relativity is meaningless. At what point does Lorentz's Relativity become meaningless? Einstein said that (v) can = (c) so why do the Relativists deny that it can if not to keep a meaningless theory alive?

All of the experiments that Relativists claim are predicted by Special Relativity are, in reality, predicted by Lorentz Relativity, if not, then Relativists should come up with their own Maths and stop taking credit for Lorentz's maths!

Bob S: IOW, Relativists insist on using the Lorentz Transforms to validate Einstein's Relativity but, they don't care what Lorentz intended his Transforms to be used for. Lorentz intended his Transforms to validate HIS theory, not Einstein's theory.

cinci: Actually they are simpy descirptions of nature...they don't belong to anybody. Lorentz figured them out by looking at the Michelson-Morley experiment which didn't find any effect of ether. But like you, Lorentz didn't let that little detail get in the way.
*****************************

Bob S: Lorentz relied on there being a Aether when he constructed his Transforms therefor, if Einstein used the same Transforms the Aether must be hidden somewhere in Einstein's theory, but where? So I ask, why was the concept of rod contraction used to explain the MMX? Answer, to compensate for the Aether drift. Now, does Einstein use rod contraction in his theory? Answer, Yes!

cinci: All you have to do is read Einstein's paper to know he didn't invoke ether. Lorentz didn't start with ether, he started with the length contraction. Then he guessed it was caused by ether....he was wrong. But once you know the outcome of the experiment, it's not that hard to figure out the mathematics tha produces it and Lorentz was a good mathematician. The history of this is all well-known. Why don't you read it instead of making up your own?
*******************************

Bob S: So now I ask another question, how is it that as speed of a body approaches (c) its mass increases toward infinity while, at the same time, its length decreases toward infinity?

cinci: It's length decrease toward zero. And the asnwer is, the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers.
**********************

Bob S: Two diametrically opposed effects as the result on one action is not based on sound reasoning, but, that is where Einstein hid the Aether.

cinci: Well yes, it is based on sound reasoning and the answer is the same whether you believe Lorentz or Einstein. So you are now firmly planted both sides of the issus.
********************************

Bob S: Mass increase and rod contraction are necessary to keep the reader from knowing that (v) can = (c). When (v) = (c) Time dilation goes to zero and Einstein's Relativity is meaningless. At what point does Lorentz's Relativity become meaningless? Einstein said that (v) can = (c) so why do the Relativists deny that it can if not to keep a meaningless theory alive?

cinci: You think the laws of nature are designed to fool the reader? Again, niether Lorentz nor Einstein believe you can accelerate a mass to c. So are you going to take back what you said above about Lorentz being right an Eisntein wrong about ether?
*********************************

Bob S: All of the experiments that Relativists claim are predicted by Special Relativity are, in reality, predicted by Lorentz Relativity, if not, then Relativists should come up with their own Maths and stop taking credit for Lorentz's maths!

cinci: Relativist give credit to Lorentz every time they call the transformations "Lorentz Transformations". He was very astute and if had given up the false belief in ether, he would be recognized as the developer of relativity.
*********************

Re: Cincirob, Einstein says Relativity is a joke thats gone too far April 13 2009, 1:53 PM

cinci: "You think the laws of nature are designed to fool the reader?"

What makes you think I am any less impossible to be hornswoggled than I was a few days ago cinci? But, the answer to your question is, Nature did not write either theory of Relativity and neither Lorentz nor Einstein wrote any laws of Nature.

cinci: "All you have to do is read Einstein's paper to know he didn't invoke ether. Lorentz didn't start with ether, he started with the length contraction. Then he guessed it was caused by ether....he was wrong. But once you know the outcome of the experiment, it's not that hard to figure out the mathematics tha produces it and Lorentz was a good mathematician. The history of this is all well-known. Why don't you read it instead of making up your own?"

So what you are saying is, that based on the MME, Einstein had a different interpretation of length contraction than did Lorentz.

cinci: "Again, niether Lorentz nor Einstein believe you can accelerate a mass to c."

I don't know what Lorentz had to say about accelerating mass to (c) but I do know Einstein said it. If you are as well read of Einstein's 1905 paper as you claim to be then you should know he said it, if not, search the word "possibility", without the quote marks.

cinci: "So are you going to take back what you said above about Lorentz being right an Eisntein wrong about ether?"

When (v) = (c) rod contraction reduces to zero, when (v) = (c) mass increase reduces to zero, when (v) = (c) Time dilation reduces to zero and Relativity reduces to meaningless, be it LR, SR or both.

cinci: "You think the laws of nature are designed to fool the reader?"

Bob S: What makes you think I am any less impossible to be hornswoggled than I was a few days ago cinci? But, the answer to your question is, Nature did not write either theory of Relativity and neither Lorentz nor Einstein wrote any laws of Nature.

cinci: Apparently it's just as easy to hornswoggle you as it ever was.
********************************

cinci: "All you have to do is read Einstein's paper to know he didn't invoke ether. Lorentz didn't start with ether, he started with the length contraction. Then he guessed it was caused by ether....he was wrong. But once you know the outcome of the experiment, it's not that hard to figure out the mathematics tha produces it and Lorentz was a good mathematician. The history of this is all well-known. Why don't you read it instead of making up your own?"

Bob S: So what you are saying is, that based on the MME, Einstein had a different interpretation of length contraction than did Lorentz.

cinci: Still hornswoggled I see. Your problem with understanding things that I tell you is that yoiu always try to twist them into something negative about Eisntein or relativity. Einstein starts with a basic premise about light. From that premise he is able to derive the length contraction formula that Lorentz had to deduce from an experiment. Lorentz was guessed what caused it. Einstein knew.
******************************

cinci: "Again, niether Lorentz nor Einstein believe you can accelerate a mass to c."

Bob S: I don't know what Lorentz had to say about accelerating mass to (c) but I do know Einstein said it. If you are as well read of Einstein's 1905 paper as you claim to be then you should know he said it, if not, search the word "possibility", without the quote marks.

cinci: Which 1905 paper? Besides, I didn't say what they said, I said what they believed. And I'm pretty sure Eisntein didn't believe you could accelerate a mass to c. He might have said if you could acccelerate a mass to c it would be infinite.
******************************

cinci: "So are you going to take back what you said above about Lorentz being right an Eisntein wrong about ether?"

Bob S: When (v) = (c) rod contraction reduces to zero, when (v) = (c) mass increase reduces to zero, when (v) = (c) Time dilation reduces to zero and Relativity reduces to meaningless, be it LR, SR or both.

cinci: v for a mass never gets to c.

As v approaches c the length approaches zero.

As v approaches c mass approaches infinfity.

Maybve this is what you meant to say.
********************

It may well be the case that Einstein meant only that Frank's flattering statement is the joke and that the whole 'damn quantum thing' was invented by Max Planck!

Re: Cincirob, Einstein says Relativity is a joke thats gone too far April 13 2009, 4:34 PM

cinci: "Apparently it's just as easy to hornswoggle you as it ever was."

It never was easy to hornswoggle me and now it is impossible, as you learned in the No Black Holes string.

cinci: "Einstein starts with a basic premise about light. From that premise he is able to derive the length contraction formula that Lorentz had to deduce from an experiment. Lorentz was guessed what caused it. Einstein knew."

There was nothing about the propagation of light that would suggest "length contraction" in the direction of motion except from the MME that used "length contraction" to compensate for Aether drift. What Einstein knew was, the results of the MME.

cinci: "Which 1905 paper? Besides, I didn't say what they said, I said what they believed. And I'm pretty sure Eisntein didn't believe you could accelerate a mass to c. He might have said if you could acccelerate a mass to c it would be infinite."

WTF cinci, could you not look it up yourself? Here is what he said in OEMB...which paper indeed? "Thus, when v=c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light have--as in our previous results--no possibility of existence." There is no ambiguity in that statement cinci, so let's see how good of a word twister-upper you really are.

cinci: "v for a mass never gets to c.

As v approaches c the length approaches zero.

As v approaches c mass approaches infinfity.

Maybve this is what you meant to say."

"Mayve this is what you meant [mean] to say" should preceed your statement.

"Mayve this [that] is what you meant to say" should follow your statement.

No! I said what I meant, zero = lack of numerical value, zero =ing infinity is a philosophical concept.
It is not possible to divide to zero, nor is it possible to divide to 1, so all of your mathematical hornswogglery of .999...> forbiding (v) from =ing (c) is nothing more than a Viagra for mathematical masturbation.

cinci: "Apparently it's just as easy to hornswoggle you as it ever was."

Bob S: It never was easy to hornswoggle me and now it is impossible, as you learned in the No Black Holes string.

cinci: If I wanted to hornswoggle you I'd just start telling you how great teh "Electric Universe" theories are.
**************************

cinci: "Einstein starts with a basic premise about light. From that premise he is able to derive the length contraction formula that Lorentz had to deduce from an experiment. Lorentz was guessed what caused it. Einstein knew."

Bob S: There was nothing about the propagation of light that would suggest "length contraction" in the direction of motion except from the MME that used "length contraction" to compensate for Aether drift. What Einstein knew was, the results of the MME.

cinci: The MME failed to find ether drift as has every other experiment ever done to find it. Length contraction was suggested to explain a result they couldn't explain with ether or anything else. What Einstein knew was all these experiments implied the constancy of the speed of light for all inertial observers. He deduced the Lorentz transformations first and length contraction from them. He also deduced time dilation which Lorentz hadn't found.
********************************

cinci: "Which 1905 paper? Besides, I didn't say what they said, I said what they believed. And I'm pretty sure Eisntein didn't believe you could accelerate a mass to c. He might have said if you could acccelerate a mass to c it would be infinite."

Bob S; WTF cinci, could you not look it up yourself? Here is what he said in OEMB...which paper indeed? "Thus, when v=c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light have--as in our previous results--no possibility of existence." There is no ambiguity in that statement cinci, so let's see how good of a word twister-upper you really are.

cinci: I'm not twisting anything. I said he didn't believe a mass could be accelerated to c. W is kinetic energy, not mass. The fact that if v=c, W becomes infinite which means it would take an infinite amount of energy to make something as small as an electron reach c. To most people that would mean it's impossible but far be it from me to try to hornswoggle you into anything that rational.
**************************

cinci: "v for a mass never gets to c.

As v approaches c the length approaches zero.

As v approaches c mass approaches infinfity.

Maybe this is what you meant to say."


Bob S: "Maybe this is what you meant [mean] to say" should preceed your statement.

"Maybe this [that] is what you meant to say" should follow your statement.

No! I said what I meant, zero = lack of numerical value, zero =ing infinity is a philosophical concept.
It is not possible to divide to zero, nor is it possible to divide to 1, so all of your mathematical hornswogglery of .999...> forbiding (v) from =ing (c) is nothing more than a Viagra for mathematical masturbation.

cinci: What on earth does "divide to zero" mean?

It's mathematically correct to say: as v approaches c, mass approaches infinity.
****************************

cincirob has no credibility. He has admitted that Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformation in his book 'Relativity the Special and the General Theory' involves nothing but identities with zero, and is therefore unmitigated claptrap, a gross violation of the rules of schoolboy algebra. But he chooses to ignore this and its implications. (See the thread on Dingle).

cincirob also reasserts his demonstrable falsehoods concerning the "Schwarzschild radius" despite the latter being easily proven not even a distance let alone a radius in the "Schwarzschild" manifold; he as admitted that he doesn't understand the theory that he pontificates upon; and he has admitted that he lacks the necessary mathematical skills relevant to the Theory of Relativity. One can only wonder how cincirob thinks can maintain his 'authority' on such matters.

cincirob drinks a lot.

Re: Cincirob, Einstein says Relativity is a joke thats gone too far April 13 2009, 11:27 PM

cinci: "If I wanted to hornswoggle you I'd just start telling you how great teh "Electric Universe" theories are."

I have not seen the Electric Universe present as a theory yet, they are only offering a plausible alternative for Black Holes, Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

cinci: "Length contraction was suggested to explain a result they couldn't explain with ether or anything else."

Length contraction was suggested to compensate for the null results of the Aether drift.

cinci: "What Einstein knew was all these experiments implied the constancy of the speed of light for all inertial observers."

Einstein claimed he did not know of the MME yet the only way he could know of "length contraction" was from the MME because there is nothing about the propagation of light that would suggest "length contraction" except MME.

cinci: "He deduced the Lorentz transformations first and length contraction from them."

Einstein did not deduce the Lorentz transformations, Lorentz did.

cinci: "He also deduced time dilation which Lorentz hadn't found."

Einstein used the Lorentz transformations to create the illusion of Time dilation.
Einstein used the Lorentz transformations to create the illusion of mass increase.
Einstein used the Lorentz transformations to create the illusion of rod contraction.
The deception that (v) can not = (c)is kept alive because when (v) = (c) the illusions no longer exists.

bob s: "Here is what he said in OEMB... "Thus, when v=c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light have--as in our previous results--no possibility of existence." There is no ambiguity in that statement cinci,..."

cinci: "I'm not twisting anything."

You say that you're not twisting anything then go ahead and twist anyway, because your response does not address the subject of the quoted passage.

cinci: "I said he didn't believe a mass could be accelerated to c."

Well you are wrong, and the quoted passage above shows that you are wrong, why not just admit you are wrong instead of pretending Einstein did not say what I just showed you he said.

cinci: "W is kinetic energy, not mass. The fact that if v=c, W becomes infinite which means it would take an infinite amount of energy to make something as small as an electron reach c."

Whatever (W) stands for is not relevant to the quoted passage, the phrase "...as in our previous results..." connects all of his previous Lorentz Transforms to the same conclusion, which is, "Velocities greater than that of light have...no possibility of existence.". It has become as impossible for you to not "twist" words and meanings as it is impossible for me to be hoodwinked.

cinci: "To most people that would mean it's impossible"

The reason he refers to zero =ing infinity is to fool most people, and obviously it worked in your case.
Zero =ing infinity is a philosophical concept and has no place in science.

cinci: "but far be it from me to try to hornswoggle you into anything that rational."

Using a philosophical concept in science is anything but rational cinci, and in the present case, (Relativity) it is intentional deception.

cinci: "What on earth does "divide to zero" mean?"

You took my statement out of context, the full statement "It is not possible to divide to zero,..." is self explanatory. I have no need to be ambiguous, twist words and meanings, or take statements out of context to make an argument, I can be wrong but I won't sacrifice my integrity by the obfuscation of facts just to pretend to be right!

cinci: "It's mathematically correct to say: as v approaches c, mass approaches infinity."

That may be so cinci, but it is only mathematically correct in philosophical maths. Is Relativity a philosophical theory?