A magnet doesn't transfer energy to the object it lifts. When, say, the iron filings rise from the surface of the desk onto a magnet, the have not been imbued with any additional energy.
What has happened is this: The kinetic energy expressed by the atoms that comprise the filings had been 'random' in the sense that it was equal in all directions, and thus the filings didn't move relative to the objects in their vicinity. The introduced presence of a nearby magnet causes there to be a greater expression of the energy in the direction of the magnet, and a corresponding lesser expression of energy in all the other directions.
Japanese inventor creates motor with 330% efficiency
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Einstein is now known to have stolen every single one of his supposed "discoveries", including those involving the relativity of time, from others (especially Lorentz, Poincare and Ernst Mach). He contributed absolutely nothing new, and worked very hard to try to hide his plagiarism. In the academic community he was not only known to be a fraud and plagiarist, but was generally considered to be a scientific imposter who lacked higher reasoning skills and was especially incompetent at mathematics.wsc wrote:I'm actually studying a few of Einstein's contributions in a 4th year philosophy course (note that i'm engineering major) and Einstein did come up with a formula (at least one that I know of) that a scientist had used earlier to explain another phenomena.. Einstein applied it to how time changes as you approach C. My professor still seemed very convinced that Einstein was legit.
The time-dilation formula and concepts that you mention are very likely those of special relativity. Einstein's "own" work on relativity has now been shown to be a complete theft of concept and work. Further, his mathematical writing was especially rife with the logical fallacy of "assuming the conclusion". He would simply take the original formulaic work of others, introduce their formulae into his premises in an algebraically reworked form, and then proceed to derive them all again as "conclusions"! Regarding special relativity theory, Einstein wholesale plagiarized the work of many - especially of James Maxwell and Hendrik Lorentz - who had actually made these discoveries nearly 30 years prior.
Your instructor may be one who is still fooled by the myth of Einstein, but if so, he and his kind are fortunately a dying breed. The truth is more important than the fantasy.
Al - that is very interesting indeed. I'm going to ask him about this topic and see how he responds. What I dont understand from your posts though is where the idea behind the math came from. IIRC Lorentz used sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) but it was for something entirely different than how time changes as you approach C. What is your take on that?
If he is an 'Einstein myth' believer, then don't expect him to respond at all favorably to any suggestion that Einstein wasn't an actual genius.wsc wrote:Al - that is very interesting indeed. I'm going to ask him about this topic and see how he responds. What I dont understand from your posts though is where the idea behind the math came from. IIRC Lorentz used sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) but it was for something entirely different than how time changes as you approach C. What is your take on that?
About your comments regarding Lorentz, the specific notion of time dilation was apparently the talk of the scientific community ever since Maxwell's original publication of 1878 and the later results of Michelson/Morley. Of course, the mathematics had also long been done by the time Einstein stole the work and ascribed himself the credit.
There is much interesting history, more than would justify a summary attempt here. The two books linked above are perhaps the best compilations to date of the full extent of Einstein's fraud. Incidentally, the plagiarism of Einstein extended into all facets of his work, including not just special relativity but also general relativity (which he plagiarized from Hilbert and then later claimed to have "convinced" Hilbert of!), Brownian motion, photon theory / the photoelectric effect, etc...
Heh. As you progress in that book you'll learn why I'm snickering that you mentioned that book in a discussion about (limitless) energy production.Trip wrote:Right now I have a stack of books that I need to read - Atlas Shrugged is the one I'm on now, the first fiction novel I've read outside of school in a long time.
Trip - well, i try to explain in five words, how the atomic clock working. Its based on measure the time of certain atoms disasembling themselves and this is considered to be VERY accurate. Well, that's like eleven words of something... never ming. So, the time as you know it (constant) could continue as we know it, but the material certaingly reacting as the time is longer/shorter - depend on your observating position.
Therefore it's proven, that the time is far from being constant. I mean - come on, what's the gravity difference being 50m (164 feets) more away from earth? Next to none. But there is still difference.
What gravity have a bigger planet/star? What the difference can be there? Come on - huge!
It come to the point of almost stoping time in black holes at the border of sigularity - a little bit scary, is not it? However not very usable for anything, because the gravity field will destroy everything what we might want try to conserve forever
You are of course right, that living in zero gravity likely cause serious muscle problems, as the body is not prepared for this and some muscles will then atrophy... But if the dude never return to any gravity field, it could be okay
Yes, ancient civilisations have suspicious amount of knowledge about stars and space, after all. The major question should be - where the hell did they know? At this point i agree with E. Daeniken, that we should - rather thet investing into space programs - search and try to understand yours past first. It come cheaper and we might get surprised.
And the major conclusion that come from the "blinding people" by religions is - all religions is just and only form of assuming power over peoples, resulting of harmind human race at all. God did not exist (maybe he did once, but he got bored to death, because there is no-one adequate to talk with...) and all religions should not be supported by any goverments, because it only fooling peoples and make them more maniplative - okay, most goverments doing the very same...
I do agree that every revolution theories are desperately shaped and shaped to fit into the current relativity, special relativity and quark theory scheme. It's undubtely wrong approach. It dangerously slow-us down. But like this it will be all the time of human existence. Do you remember the "...when earth was sphere, then the peoples on the other side will just fall to empty space?!" or "Anything more weighty that air could not fly!" or "...when the speed of train exceed 34mph, all air from wagons will be pushed out and passengers will die from the lack of air..." ...and such? It's nothing new All we need is more support for anything, that seems to can move us all forward.
The disturbing question is - what is the gravity force, after all? Some theories like the superstrings one are interesting, however still only elaborating how the two objects interacting working, and not touching the main subject - how the powerfull energy exchange is done - or perhaps someone can enlight me, who read and undersntand it better?
I mean - come on, how to make gravity and perhaps anti-gravity?
And yup, the space is filled with matter - that is why it is not all light and why there is the missing weight, for what astronoms studiing the big bang seeking. However, a little calculation. 80 atoms per square meter. If we want travel at light speed (very slow to reach the stars, who wants ride 20 years to closest star, anyone?), then we have to push 300 000 000 such cubicles of 80 atoms per second. That is bad news, because we have 24 000 000 000 atoms to deal with every second. I mean - come on, Shutles have hard time (very much increasing heat on contact areas) to move trough air at fractions of such speed - and yet, the air is noticably more "atom full", but at least it conductiong heat. 80 atoms per square meter looks not-conducting heat at all, and therefore i see a thermal problem out there - and of course a big power requirments to go trought such messy space and overfilled
One might add that the major problem of space suits for "walking" in space is not to heat the body of astronaut, but to dispose the heat the body generate - recently one of the units get mallfunctional and the unfortunate dude have such high temps into it's suit
PiSan - no-one saing that he know everything This will be lie. However few of us are "healty pesimistic". When i can buy this nice thing, i will believe that revolution come already Untill i have my doubts. I don't claim that i know everyhing. I know only that i did not know a thing and also that everying i know could be wrong
eniacs - you are right, the magnetic energy don't go "off" anytime soon.
wsc - nice Hope production start soon, Im fanless, but such nice motors can be great anywhere else
Rusty075 - nice one However once a white there come a break...
Reachable - that's well explained how the magnetism works, and how the magnet itself "working" ... It jut get "polarized", so the random flow got one direction and therefore we see force
Therefore it's proven, that the time is far from being constant. I mean - come on, what's the gravity difference being 50m (164 feets) more away from earth? Next to none. But there is still difference.
What gravity have a bigger planet/star? What the difference can be there? Come on - huge!
It come to the point of almost stoping time in black holes at the border of sigularity - a little bit scary, is not it? However not very usable for anything, because the gravity field will destroy everything what we might want try to conserve forever
You are of course right, that living in zero gravity likely cause serious muscle problems, as the body is not prepared for this and some muscles will then atrophy... But if the dude never return to any gravity field, it could be okay
Yes, ancient civilisations have suspicious amount of knowledge about stars and space, after all. The major question should be - where the hell did they know? At this point i agree with E. Daeniken, that we should - rather thet investing into space programs - search and try to understand yours past first. It come cheaper and we might get surprised.
And the major conclusion that come from the "blinding people" by religions is - all religions is just and only form of assuming power over peoples, resulting of harmind human race at all. God did not exist (maybe he did once, but he got bored to death, because there is no-one adequate to talk with...) and all religions should not be supported by any goverments, because it only fooling peoples and make them more maniplative - okay, most goverments doing the very same...
I do agree that every revolution theories are desperately shaped and shaped to fit into the current relativity, special relativity and quark theory scheme. It's undubtely wrong approach. It dangerously slow-us down. But like this it will be all the time of human existence. Do you remember the "...when earth was sphere, then the peoples on the other side will just fall to empty space?!" or "Anything more weighty that air could not fly!" or "...when the speed of train exceed 34mph, all air from wagons will be pushed out and passengers will die from the lack of air..." ...and such? It's nothing new
All we need is more support for anything, that seems to can move us all forward.The disturbing question is - what is the gravity force, after all? Some theories like the superstrings one are interesting, however still only elaborating how the two objects interacting working, and not touching the main subject - how the powerfull energy exchange is done - or perhaps someone can enlight me, who read and undersntand it better?
I mean - come on, how to make gravity and perhaps anti-gravity?
And yup, the space is filled with matter - that is why it is not all light and why there is the missing weight, for what astronoms studiing the big bang seeking. However, a little calculation. 80 atoms per square meter. If we want travel at light speed (very slow to reach the stars, who wants ride 20 years to closest star, anyone?), then we have to push 300 000 000 such cubicles of 80 atoms per second. That is bad news, because we have 24 000 000 000 atoms to deal with every second. I mean - come on, Shutles have hard time (very much increasing heat on contact areas) to move trough air at fractions of such speed - and yet, the air is noticably more "atom full", but at least it conductiong heat. 80 atoms per square meter looks not-conducting heat at all, and therefore i see a thermal problem out there - and of course a big power requirments to go trought such messy space and overfilled
One might add that the major problem of space suits for "walking" in space is not to heat the body of astronaut, but to dispose the heat the body generate - recently one of the units get mallfunctional and the unfortunate dude have such high temps into it's suit
PiSan - no-one saing that he know everything
This will be lie. However few of us are "healty pesimistic". When i can buy this nice thing, i will believe that revolution come already Untill i have my doubts. I don't claim that i know everyhing. I know only that i did not know a thing and also that everying i know could be wrong eniacs - you are right, the magnetic energy don't go "off" anytime soon.
wsc - nice
Hope production start soon, Im fanless, but such nice motors can be great anywhere else Rusty075 - nice one
However once a white there come a break... Reachable - that's well explained how the magnetism works, and how the magnet itself "working" ... It jut get "polarized", so the random flow got one direction and therefore we see force
al bundy -
I asked my professor what he thought about Einstein stealing all of his ideas. He said although he is not an expert on Einstein's time period or Einstein himself, he has read a good deal and has never heard of anyone with any notable academic status try to accuse Einstein of intellectual thievery. He went on to say that while other scientists before him had come up with the same equations he did, such as Lorentz and others, their work was freely published for all to see, and Einstein applied those equations to new ideas in new areas that had never been done before.
I would be very interested to see any websites or books you could refer me to if indeed people who believe Einstein's work to be legitimate are a dying breed.
I asked my professor what he thought about Einstein stealing all of his ideas. He said although he is not an expert on Einstein's time period or Einstein himself, he has read a good deal and has never heard of anyone with any notable academic status try to accuse Einstein of intellectual thievery. He went on to say that while other scientists before him had come up with the same equations he did, such as Lorentz and others, their work was freely published for all to see, and Einstein applied those equations to new ideas in new areas that had never been done before.
I would be very interested to see any websites or books you could refer me to if indeed people who believe Einstein's work to be legitimate are a dying breed.
I hadn't thought it true before, but I have read that Einstein was a fake.
I was suprised to read al bundy's remark but it's not too unbelievable. Scientists have supposedly taken credit for others' work before and Einstein was a celebrity at the time (making it easier for him to do so)... Heh, I kinda want to read bundy's book now
I was suprised to read al bundy's remark but it's not too unbelievable. Scientists have supposedly taken credit for others' work before and Einstein was a celebrity at the time (making it easier for him to do so)... Heh, I kinda want to read bundy's book now
Hi wsc,wsc wrote:...I would be very interested to see any websites or books you could refer me to....
If your professor has actually "read a good deal" of literature on Einstein and his time period, then he really should have heard of Einstein's reputation as a fraud and plagiarist. These aspects have never been secrets within the academic community either. As I said before, Einstein was well known for his constantly stealing the work and ideas of others and then attempting to retroactively attribute the credit to himself. He was very much despised by his contemporaries for these behaviors. His media public figure status as an exceptional thinker is based upon a complete hoax.
I have already provided a link for you above, that includes links to two of the best books that I feel are currently available on this subject. They would make a very good launch-pad if you are interested in learning more about these facts. Quotes from many of the most famous physicists of Einstein's time, and beyond, as well as a very nice set of literature references for further historical study and research, are all contained in those resources. I believe these should be much more than necessary to satisfy any skeptics - including hopefully your misled professor! Good luck.
email this quiz to your professor: http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/TestPage.htm
professors love this sortof thing and he could probably tell just from taking it if the accusations held any merit.
professors love this sortof thing and he could probably tell just from taking it if the accusations held any merit.
-
flyingsherpa
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:28 pm
- Location: CT, USA
a brief look at the other side of the story: http://physicsweb.org/article/review/16/4/2
i won't claim to be an expert on this, but the author in the link above brings up some valid points. and honestly, i think you lose a little creditbility when your main site is a home.comcast.net domain.
i won't claim to be an expert on this, but the author in the link above brings up some valid points. and honestly, i think you lose a little creditbility when your main site is a home.comcast.net domain.
If you are going to post that link, you really should also post the book author's rebuttal to it:flyingsherpa wrote:a brief look at the other side of the story: http://physicsweb.org/article/review/16/4/2...
The Author of Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist Responds to John Stachel's Personal Attack
I feel that the author has shown that the criticisms by John Stachel (the director of the Center for Einstein Studies, which has a financial interest in perpetuating the Einstein myth) is non-credible at best.
"French Bergsonianism (by fellow Jew Henri Bergson!)" John Stachel more than implies that the attacks against Einstein are steming from antisemitism and one wonders if he is, himself, a semitiphile.
I want to see Stachel's reply to Bjerknes. I say Bjerknes has won thus far - Stachel's "review" simply does not offer enough facts.
EDIT: Bjerknes didn't mention where he got that quote of Einstein's and didn't defend Stachel's accusation: "Indeed, Bjerknes has a much harder time producing evidence of Einstein's 'plagiarism' of the general theory, a topic I shall not discuss." Though Stachel should have stated specifics.
I would like to see a response by Bjerknes on these two.
It looks like there IS some controversy over whether Einstein was a plagiarist!
The only famous great man that I can think of is Robert E. Lee - I almost wouldn't be surprised if Bjerknes proved to be correct that Einstein was not great, guess I'm just cynical...
I want to see Stachel's reply to Bjerknes. I say Bjerknes has won thus far - Stachel's "review" simply does not offer enough facts.
EDIT: Bjerknes didn't mention where he got that quote of Einstein's and didn't defend Stachel's accusation: "Indeed, Bjerknes has a much harder time producing evidence of Einstein's 'plagiarism' of the general theory, a topic I shall not discuss." Though Stachel should have stated specifics.
I would like to see a response by Bjerknes on these two.
It looks like there IS some controversy over whether Einstein was a plagiarist!
The only famous great man that I can think of is Robert E. Lee - I almost wouldn't be surprised if Bjerknes proved to be correct that Einstein was not great, guess I'm just cynical...