"srp" <srp@microtec.net> wrote in message 
news:ZkvOe.212010$tt5.160241@edtnps90...
|
| "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
| 8ptOe.10565$jr4.863@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "srp" <srp@microtec.net> wrote in message
| > news:j1sOe.234968$on1.129419@clgrps13...
| > |
| > | "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
| > | 03nOe.11604$5m3.1177@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > | >
| > | > "srp" <srp@microtec.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:yAbOe.193511$9A2.157783@edtnps89...
| > | > |
| > | > | "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> a écrit dans le message de
| > | > | news: vM5Oe.7967$5m3.1437@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "srp" <srp@microtec.net> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:It5Oe.151941$wr.106894@clgrps12...
| > | > | |
| > | > | > | I don't really understand the purpose of these for or 
| > | > | > | against Einstein discussions.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Ah! well, you might then become an impartial juror.
| > | > | > Good thing I wasn't too hasty in dismissing you.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Isn't what occurs in physical reality what really matters,
| > | > | > |  irrespective of past theories that were cooked up when
| > | > | > | less was known about physical reality ?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Yes indeed, but there are a great many people, especially
| > | > | > contributors to sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics that do 
| > | > | > not share your view.
| > | > |
| > | > | I have yet to meet someone who shares my views.
| > | >
| > | > Ok, a subjective impression, it's allowed. There may be someone
| > | > that does.
| > |
| > | I know there are. I just have not connected with one yet, except
| > | locally.
| >
| > I understood that. Why have you now added the caveat "locally"?
|
| I mean that in my very close personal acquaintances, one understands
| and shares  my views. Nobody else that I know or have heard of.
|
| > | > | > They are of the belief that what occurs in physical reality 
| > | > | > is reflected in Einstein's theory, do not really inderstand it 
| > | > | > and wish to halt physics and astronomy research.
| > | > |
| > | > | This is called orthodoxy. Historical hindrance to progress.
| > | >
| > | > Sure. Inertia in thinking.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > It is therefore important that we learn from history and do 
| > | > | > not repeat the same mistake that was made with Ptolemy,
| > | > | > 1400 years prior to Copernicus.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy 
| > | > | > came from Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly 
| > | > | > his views:-
| > | > | >
| > | > | > This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime
| > | > | > committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and 
| > | > | > scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession 
| > | > | > that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental information 
| > | > | > about an important area of astronomy and history.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every
| > | > | > observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was 
| > | > | > fabricated, writes [12]:-
| > | > | >
| > | > | > [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered
| > | > | > that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of
| > | > | > abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations
| > | > | > from the theories so that he could claim that the observations
| > | > | > prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly
| > | > | > setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime 
| > | > | > against science and scholarship.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >    http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
| > | > |
| > | > | I am well aware of the blight induced by Ptolemy's arrogance.
| > | > |
| > | > | > I, Androcles, friend of the lion Newton, accuse Einstein of 
| > | > | > the same crime, fraud.
| > | > |
| > | > | So you have endeavoured to pull that thorn out of your 
| > | > | friend's foot.
| > | > |
| > | > | Commendable.
| > | > |
| > | > | > Since you write to sci.skeptic and sci.philosohy.tech also, the
| > | > | > subject of the crime of fraud by Einstein is most pertinent.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "The disgrace of disingenuity born of the need to publish to
| > | > | > insure grant continuation is rampant in the community and a
| > | > | > definite hindrance to progress." -- Andre Michaud.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Einstein is a disgrace, as are his disciples.
| > | > |
| > | > | Would you still consider me a potential impartial juror if I
| > | > | differ on this point ?
| > | >
| > | > Benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty. I, as prosecutor,
| > | > believe him to be guilty of fraud, or I would not prosecute.
| > | > You, as juror, are expected to bring a finding based on the 
| > | > evidence I present.
| > | > I see you've snipped it.
| > |
| > | Have I ? All your material is still in the thread.
| >
| > Indeed it is, although I'm improving it as I receive objections
| > from defense counsel on my own computer. Call it "research".
| >
| > |
| > | > That has disqualified you as a juror, failing to examine the
| > | > evidence.
| > |
| > | I have. Seems sound, but presumes dishonesty on the part of
| > | Einstein.
| > |
| > Of course. I'm the prosecutor, I presume dishonesty.
| > You as defense counsellor presume honesty.
| > Is Michael Jackson a paedophile?
| > Is Orenthal J. Simpson a murderer?
| > Is Albert Einstein a fraud?
| > All famous people, one is dead.
| > I can still prosecute on
| > sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,sci.philosophy.tech
|
| Your option, of course.
|
| > | > You've adopted the role of attorney for the defense, therefore
| > | > I cannot consider you impartial.
| > |
| > | Presently, I am just a Joe out of the street, not an attorney for
| > | any party.
| >
| > Ok, then I'll pull you for jury DUTY and see if you are suitable.
| > Defense counsel may object to you also.
|
| Ok, I'll go along. But in case no defense counsel shows up,
| I reserve the right to also consider historical facts that I know
| of and have already quoted in the thread, with references.
|
| > | Potential juror material, no more. I observe and integrate
| > | info. As always, I simply restitute conclusions based on current
| > | sum of integrated knowledge.
| >
| > So you claim,
|
| I assumed you would have understood that I refered to the sum of
| knowledge that I have personally integrated, and with this sum, yes,
| so I claim. I can draw conclusion from no other set.
|
| Not referring to the collective sum of integrated knowledge or to
| the personal sum of any other person.
|
| > but I detect a lack of impartiality and a pathos
| > (an emotion of sympathetic pity -- Merriam Webster).
|
| Do you ? I have no particular sympathy for Einstein nor particularly
| care who made this or that discovery or came up with this or that
| theory, except for historical credit, coherence and sequence. What
| I care about is experimental data collected from objective
| physical reality, and related coherent hypotheses, whatever the
| sources.
|
| > It isn't up to me to pass sentence, my job is to prosecute.
| > I appointed myself as prosecutor. The position was vacant,
| > I was not elected if you are wondering what right I have.
| > I am a member of the human race, the scientific community,
| > the physicists, the mathematicians, the philosophers, the skeptics,
| > the critics, it is my duty to prosecute.  Nobody else wants the
| > job. I've taken it on.
|
| No problem with that.
|
| > | > The charge is fraud based on the evidence I gave, not opinion.
| > |
| > | What I provided is verifiable evidence, not opinion.
| >
| > Yes, but is Einstein guilty or not guilty of fraud?
| > Black or white?
|
| From the evidence I considered, yours and that which I refered to,
| I say he is not guilty. I find that he had his dreams, like all human
| beings, offered what he worked out as possible solutions based on
| his sum of integrated knowledge, and that he is not responsible
| for his undiscerning "disciples" forcing him and his two theories
| on a pedestal.
|
| I found that to the end, he tried to improve on his theories, and did
| not at any point in time try fit reality to them, which is what his
| disciples have been systematically doing since he passed away, with
| him unable to raise objections. My view is that they are the guilty
| party and that it is them that should be put on trial.
|
| This is the verdict I reached. I think that the wrong party is
| being prosecuted.

I understand your view.

It wasn't Hitler that caused the holocaust, it was his troops.
Hitler had his dreams, like all human beings, offered what he
worked out as possible solutions based on his sum of integrated
knowledge, and that he is not responsible for his undiscerning
"disciples" forcing him and his world domination theory on a pedestal.

Thank you for your time.

*plonk*

Androcles


|
| > We can deal in shades of grey later during
| > sentencing, but for now I want a conviction.
| > I've read your opinion below, its irrelevant to me.
|
| As a prosecutor, your position on this is understandable. But as
| a jury, I have to take it into account.
|
| > Is Einstein  guilty or not guilty based on the evidence?
| > Androcles.
|
| See above. Jury dismissed.
|
| > | > I've read your opinions below, they amount to mitigation.
| > |
| > | Again, not opinions, historical occurences. The first is regularly
| > | discussed public knowledge, still in the collective consciousness.
| > | The second is part of the proceedings of the Solvey Congress.
| > | A reference to the third can be found in "Gravitation & Spacetime",
| > | Ciufolini & Wheeler, page 391
| > |
| > | > Mitigation can be considered prior to sentencing, but at this
| > | > stage of the trial I'm seeking an impartial jury. I will settle out of
| > | > court if you are pleading your client guilty by reason of insanity,
| > | > extenuating circumstances or any other reason you can think of,
| > | > but first I want a conviction.
| > |
| > | Contrary to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" that you
| > | refered to before, you seem to assume gilt to start with here. Isn't
| > | this being prosecutor and judge bundled into one coupled with
| > | verdict handed down before the trial ?
| > |
| > | But I wonder what the point is anyway. It seems to me that whether
| > | he was guilty or not is moot, since only objective physical reality
| > | matters. If he was wrong, maliciously or not, so what ? We know
| > | more now. Anyone is free to promote the required corrections to
| > | SR, and to promote a better gravitational theory than GR if he has
| > | one.
| > |
| > | The one single problem is diffusion, since no paper not in line with
| > | ortodoxy has been accepted for formal publication since the Bohm
| > | paper in early 50, and no physicist, out of habit will pay attention to
| > | anything not formally peer reviewed (I still have to meet one of them
| > | who trusts his own personal judgment).
| > |
| > | Diffusion of anything other than incremental clarifications based on
| > | current (obviously faulty) paradigms consequently has to take another
| > | route, and has to be made available to minds not yet set, plain and
| > | simple.
| > |
| > | What do you offer and how do you go about diffusing it ?
|
| I am still curious to hear about what you offer.
|
| André Michaud