Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Did Einstein plagiarise 'Sylvie and Bruno'???!!

Expand Messages
  • mikeindex2001
    ... covering the ... Past; UFOs ... True, but this doesn t make them automatically wrong about everything. If we start dismissing certain ideas simply because
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, arnemail@d... wrote:
      > Well....
      >
      > "NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine,
      covering the
      > fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient
      Past; UFOs
      > & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups."
      >

      True, but this doesn't make them automatically wrong about
      everything. If we start dismissing certain ideas simply because of
      where they come from then we are in danger of becoming intellectual
      bigots. It seems sensible to accept or reject things on the basis of
      the evidence, not on our gut reactions to their provenance. To me,
      someone like Richard Dawkins is as much of a faith-driven true-
      believer as anyone in the Atlantis-crowd, so I try to stay wholly and
      truly neutral on such matters. "The 'alternatives' of today are
      tomorrow's new truths" - sometimes.


      Okay, I was kidding about the Einstein/Sylvie & Bruno idea (though
      who knows, it's still possible!), but the article itself seems to
      make a good case for Poincare having been done out of some of his
      rightful credit for the theory of relativity. I'm prepared to
      consider it possible at this stage, pending further evidence.

      Mike
    • arnemail@dds.nl
      Well, the problem with such organisations is that you can t trust any sources they mention or facts they give, because they ve shown to disregard obvious
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, the problem with such organisations is that you can't trust any sources
        they mention or facts they give, because they've shown to disregard obvious
        evidences against their own paranoid theories.

        For examples, there are bookshelves full of scientific and legitimate evidence
        against Atlantis, but for some reason the 'believers' choose to ignore them. If
        you ask a believer of Atlantis, 'is it possible that it is proven without any
        doubt that Atlantis never existed', they will answer: 'no, it's not possible,
        because I *know* it existed.'
        People that ignore sound evidence, huge amounts of data and research, or even
        disregard Ockam's razor, are likely to be unreliable in other fields as well. I
        can't judge their competence in the Einstein-case and I'm not prepared to take
        them seriously for the simple reason that they have shown to be ignorant in
        other fields.
        They're simply not credible.

        Arne


        Citeren mikeindex2001 <Mike@...>:

        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, arnemail@d... wrote:
        > > Well....
        > >
        > > "NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine,
        > covering the
        > > fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient
        > Past; UFOs
        > > & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups."
        > >
        >
        > True, but this doesn't make them automatically wrong about
        > everything. If we start dismissing certain ideas simply because of
        > where they come from then we are in danger of becoming intellectual
        > bigots. It seems sensible to accept or reject things on the basis of
        > the evidence, not on our gut reactions to their provenance. To me,
        > someone like Richard Dawkins is as much of a faith-driven true-
        > believer as anyone in the Atlantis-crowd, so I try to stay wholly and
        > truly neutral on such matters. "The 'alternatives' of today are
        > tomorrow's new truths" - sometimes.
        >
        >
        > Okay, I was kidding about the Einstein/Sylvie & Bruno idea (though
        > who knows, it's still possible!), but the article itself seems to
        > make a good case for Poincare having been done out of some of his
        > rightful credit for the theory of relativity. I'm prepared to
        > consider it possible at this stage, pending further evidence.
        >
        > Mike
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > visit our homepage at:
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
        >
        > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
        > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Keith Wright
        Mike, it has not been any secret that Einstein was not the first to consider the problems that he eventually solved, other folk obviously did think about the
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Mike,

          it has not been any secret that Einstein was not the first to consider the
          problems that he eventually solved, other folk obviously did think about the
          problems of space and time and whether light had a speed or not. Einstein
          though did the mathematics and proved his point. If Einstein read S&B and
          could understand it then good luck to him!

          Keith


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "mikeindex2001" <Mike@...>
          To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 12:52 PM
          Subject: [lewiscarroll] Did Einstein plagiarise 'Sylvie and Bruno'???!!


          >
          >
          >
          > Further to our discussion on Einstein and Carroll. Here is an article
          > that suggests Einstein didn't originate the theory of relativity at
          > all. Apparently he blatantly plagiarised the work of Poincare and
          > Lorentz, without giving any acknowledgment. So, maybe while he was
          > doing this he also borrowed from 'Sylvie and Bruno' without
          > acknowledging that either? Could this explain the similarities? Should
          > someone be suing someone?
          >
          > http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
          >
          > Mike
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > visit our homepage at:
          >
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
          >
          > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
          > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Jim Buch
          ... The story is that Einstein, while coming home from the patent office, was in a tram looking at the historic clock in Bern. He asked himself the question of
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 6, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "mikeindex2001" <Mike@l...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Further to our discussion on Einstein and Carroll. Here is an article
            > that suggests Einstein didn't originate the theory of relativity at
            > all. Apparently he blatantly plagiarised the work of Poincare and
            > Lorentz, without giving any acknowledgment. So, maybe while he was
            > doing this he also borrowed from 'Sylvie and Bruno' without
            > acknowledging that either? Could this explain the similarities? Should
            > someone be suing someone?
            >
            > http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
            >
            > Mike

            The story is that Einstein, while coming home from the patent office,
            was in a tram looking at the historic clock in Bern. He asked himself
            the question of what would the clock look like if he were in a tram
            moving away from the clock at the speed of light.

            Since he and the reflected light from the clock were traveling at the
            same speed, the image of the clock would always show the same time,
            and therefore, for the clock, time would appear to stop. In addition,
            from the simple relationship that the product of the frequency X the
            wavelength equals the propogation speed, it follows that the
            wavelength of the light of the clock image would increase to nearly
            infinity..... the maximum of the so called "red shift".

            He went home with that thought in mind, and in a few hours had then
            worked out the Special Theory of Relativity based on this "Thought
            Experiment".

            There was no complicated mathematics involved. It was nothing more
            than High School algebra.

            The Lorentz Contraction equation (empirical, not theoretical)falls
            right out of the derivation of Special Relativity.

            In a university physics class, it is possible to derive the theory of
            Special Relativity in a single lecture. And no complex mathematics
            beyond high school algebra is required.

            It is this work that was written up as the paper for publication in
            1905, and he added no reference to it.

            He won the Nobel prize for his work, published in the same year(1905),
            on the Photoelectric Effect. He did not win the prize based on relativity.

            I was listening to a recoreding of a 3 part BBC broadcast of the
            heritage of Einstien the other day. It remerked that his early papers,
            from 1905 to 1908, were visually based conceptually driven papers with
            typically only minimal mathematics.

            There have been those who have argued that he had been writing about
            philosophy and physics for some time before his work on relativity....
            and yet he had published no papers before 1905, and the special
            relativity paper was his third or second published paper.

            Sorry to bore you with factual information.


            Jim
          • Jim Buch
            ... Your mixing of the Sylvie and BRuno assertation with the NEXUS slanderous article is interesting. Reminds me of watching the TBN (Trinity Broadcasting
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 6, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "mikeindex2001" <Mike@l...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Further to our discussion on Einstein and Carroll. Here is an article
              > that suggests Einstein didn't originate the theory of relativity at
              > all. Apparently he blatantly plagiarised the work of Poincare and
              > Lorentz, without giving any acknowledgment. So, maybe while he was
              > doing this he also borrowed from 'Sylvie and Bruno' without
              > acknowledging that either? Could this explain the similarities? Should
              > someone be suing someone?
              >
              > http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
              >
              > Mike


              Your mixing of the "Sylvie and BRuno" assertation with the NEXUS
              slanderous article is interesting.

              Reminds me of watching the TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) and the
              preacher from Texas constantly bashing Evolution.

              This same preacher was famous for claiming that the Bible had revealed
              all that 20th centruy science had claimed to discover.

              Among other things, he claimed that the Bible had revealed the 20th
              century discovery of clustering of galazies into what might be called
              cells.

              He cited the biblical proof that "... his tent had many rooms.." was
              the biblical disclosure of this bit of science.

              His other biblical sources for his other claims were equally tepid,
              and depended upon taking material quite out of context.

              If you look hard enough for improbable intrepretations of prior
              historical (or biblical) revalations of 20th century scinence, you
              will find them.

              It is mainly a test of imagination, rather than a test of scholarship.

              I love Carroll as much as anyone here, but to see other Carroll lovers
              attempt to stretch credibility to add yet another "accomplishment" to
              the valid list of Carroll's works is pretty disheartening.

              Jim
            • Keith Wright
              Interesting to see the old flawed chestnut of the town hall clock being trotted out when talking of Einstein, he d be creased up laughing at that one if he was
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 6, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Interesting to see the old flawed chestnut of the town hall clock being
                trotted out when talking of Einstein, he'd be creased up laughing at that
                one if he was still around.

                Special relativity does however need complicated reasoning and mathematics
                beyond simple algebra. Certainly CLD attempted nothing along the same
                lines.

                Keith


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Jim Buch" <jbuch@...>
                To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 2:18 PM
                Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Did Einstein plagiarise 'Sylvie and Bruno'???!!


                >
                >
                > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "mikeindex2001" <Mike@l...> wrote:
                >>
                >>
                >> Further to our discussion on Einstein and Carroll. Here is an article
                >> that suggests Einstein didn't originate the theory of relativity at
                >> all. Apparently he blatantly plagiarised the work of Poincare and
                >> Lorentz, without giving any acknowledgment. So, maybe while he was
                >> doing this he also borrowed from 'Sylvie and Bruno' without
                >> acknowledging that either? Could this explain the similarities? Should
                >> someone be suing someone?
                >>
                >> http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
                >>
                >> Mike
                >
                > The story is that Einstein, while coming home from the patent office,
                > was in a tram looking at the historic clock in Bern. He asked himself
                > the question of what would the clock look like if he were in a tram
                > moving away from the clock at the speed of light.
                >
                > Since he and the reflected light from the clock were traveling at the
                > same speed, the image of the clock would always show the same time,
                > and therefore, for the clock, time would appear to stop. In addition,
                > from the simple relationship that the product of the frequency X the
                > wavelength equals the propogation speed, it follows that the
                > wavelength of the light of the clock image would increase to nearly
                > infinity..... the maximum of the so called "red shift".
                >
                > He went home with that thought in mind, and in a few hours had then
                > worked out the Special Theory of Relativity based on this "Thought
                > Experiment".
                >
                > There was no complicated mathematics involved. It was nothing more
                > than High School algebra.
                >
                > The Lorentz Contraction equation (empirical, not theoretical)falls
                > right out of the derivation of Special Relativity.
                >
                > In a university physics class, it is possible to derive the theory of
                > Special Relativity in a single lecture. And no complex mathematics
                > beyond high school algebra is required.
                >
                > It is this work that was written up as the paper for publication in
                > 1905, and he added no reference to it.
                >
                > He won the Nobel prize for his work, published in the same year(1905),
                > on the Photoelectric Effect. He did not win the prize based on relativity.
                >
                > I was listening to a recoreding of a 3 part BBC broadcast of the
                > heritage of Einstien the other day. It remerked that his early papers,
                > from 1905 to 1908, were visually based conceptually driven papers with
                > typically only minimal mathematics.
                >
                > There have been those who have argued that he had been writing about
                > philosophy and physics for some time before his work on relativity....
                > and yet he had published no papers before 1905, and the special
                > relativity paper was his third or second published paper.
                >
                > Sorry to bore you with factual information.
                >
                >
                > Jim
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > visit our homepage at:
                >
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                >
                > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Keith Wright
                Einstein died 50 years ago now on April 18th 1955 - his eminence among physicists remains unchallenged. Keith ... From: Jim Buch To:
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 6, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Einstein died 50 years ago now on April 18th 1955 - his eminence among
                  physicists remains unchallenged.

                  Keith


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Jim Buch" <jbuch@...>
                  To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 2:27 PM
                  Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Did Einstein plagiarise 'Sylvie and Bruno'???!!


                  >
                  >
                  > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "mikeindex2001" <Mike@l...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Further to our discussion on Einstein and Carroll. Here is an article
                  >> that suggests Einstein didn't originate the theory of relativity at
                  >> all. Apparently he blatantly plagiarised the work of Poincare and
                  >> Lorentz, without giving any acknowledgment. So, maybe while he was
                  >> doing this he also borrowed from 'Sylvie and Bruno' without
                  >> acknowledging that either? Could this explain the similarities? Should
                  >> someone be suing someone?
                  >>
                  >> http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
                  >>
                  >> Mike
                  >
                  >
                  > Your mixing of the "Sylvie and BRuno" assertation with the NEXUS
                  > slanderous article is interesting.
                  >
                  > Reminds me of watching the TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) and the
                  > preacher from Texas constantly bashing Evolution.
                  >
                  > This same preacher was famous for claiming that the Bible had revealed
                  > all that 20th centruy science had claimed to discover.
                  >
                  > Among other things, he claimed that the Bible had revealed the 20th
                  > century discovery of clustering of galazies into what might be called
                  > cells.
                  >
                  > He cited the biblical proof that "... his tent had many rooms.." was
                  > the biblical disclosure of this bit of science.
                  >
                  > His other biblical sources for his other claims were equally tepid,
                  > and depended upon taking material quite out of context.
                  >
                  > If you look hard enough for improbable intrepretations of prior
                  > historical (or biblical) revalations of 20th century scinence, you
                  > will find them.
                  >
                  > It is mainly a test of imagination, rather than a test of scholarship.
                  >
                  > I love Carroll as much as anyone here, but to see other Carroll lovers
                  > attempt to stretch credibility to add yet another "accomplishment" to
                  > the valid list of Carroll's works is pretty disheartening.
                  >
                  > Jim
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > visit our homepage at:
                  >
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                  >
                  > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                  > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.