Einstein the Hoaxer - by John Lear

[hp]

[offsite=http://thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Einstein_the_Hoaxer_Rev_10.htm:201g0mqi]Challenging Einstein
Einstein the Hoaxer

A Review and Comments on Pari Spolter's Mathematical and Scientific Forensic Investigation into the Suspicious Claims of Einstein's Theories of Relativity, both General and Special
Rev.10
by John Lear

Einstein was a brilliant mathematical hoaxer. While other hoaxers use simple tricks and tools with a common objective, usually money, Einstein used advanced mathematics to perpetrate his hoax and it is unknown what his true objective was.

His hoax was so complex that the only people who suspected it was a hoax were ignored as terms like "special relativity", "curved space", "simultaneity", time dilation and length contraction exploded in popularity.

The ingenious key to the hoax was two-fold: its complexity and audacity.

more at link[/offsite:201g0mqi]

Don't know what to think about this...

[Lexion]

[offsite:22ubktl8]John currently posts on these forums...
Amkon Forum
Imaginative Worlds Forum
Open Minds Forum
John Lears Living Moon Forum (Pegasus)
Fantastic Forum
Wyzwyrlde Forum[/offsite:22ubktl8]

He needs to update his page.

:D

[Foxtrot Oscar]

And his wardrobe.

c]tgCF3zqL8U4c]

Fox

[boycotteverything]

It seems that John has a bone to pick with Einstein. "Einstein was a brilliant mathematical hoaxer." But he ignores the fact that Einstein had a bone to pick with himself. Rather than a faker, Einstein was a struggler. John accurately quotes his own words to this extent:

"In spite of its great success in various fields, the present theoretical physics is still far from being able to provide a unified foundation on which the theoretical treatment of all phenomena could be based. We have a general relativistic theory of macroscopic phenomena, which however has hitherto been unable to account for atomic structure of matter and for quantum effects, and we have a quantum theory, which is able to account satisfactorily for a large number of atomic and quantum phenomena but which by its very nature is unsuited to the principle of relativity."

So what's the problem? He freely admits that that 'unified foundation' eluded him. Maybe john and Pari can discover it. But don't hold your breath.

[pack3tg0st]

Already found one error in Pari's research...

Using Euclidean Geometry...

If spacetime is curved... than why the hell aren't we using non-euclidean/hyperbolic/elliptic geometry...

[torbjon]

Pack,
didn't read any of the articles, just this thread... what are you getting at, Pack?
we use "non-euclidean/hyperbolic/elliptic geometry" on a daily basis subconsciously...

Nola is completely incapable of articulating that math with crayon and paper, but she (and most other kids I've played with) seem to have No Problems whatsoever in preforming those calculations subconsciously in a split second, whenever we play football (or a bazillion other games)... I go long, she throws the ball at the moving target... that's a lotta non-linear "spacetime" math, yes?

I think I'm misunderstanding you...

[Cogburn]

Oh God... not this shit again...

[pack3tg0st]

Oh, the article is a proof that is supposed to refute einstein's theory of special relativity...

The experiment was set up with two tachyon emitters and an observer...

but the flaw in the math from the get go is using euclidean geometry to start the proof...

Since Tachyons move faster than the speed of light, which isn't possible in 3 dimensions, it means that the beams aren't moving in a straight line... instead they appear to be straight from our perspective, but really would have to curve in spacetime...

thus, assuming that the two tachyon beams are perfectly linear (euclidean geometry) should be a failed concept from the get go...

well, that, and the fact that Tachyons are theoretical particles that may or may not exist...

Anyway, if Tachyons do indeed exist, they would still conform to the laws of causality...

meh, the whole article is fail.

Cog: LOL ya know you like it lol especially when John says something is debunked based on a theoretical particle...

[torbjon]

ah-ha! Thanks Pack... sorry I'm so lazy... I shoulda read the article first.. me bad.

[skunk]

Where's learjet when we need him?

[pack3tg0st]

lol if he was here, he'd call us fuckheads or something like that...

and proceed to contemplate why einstein hoaxed us...

completely disregarding any attack on his "proof".

[theeindiee]

Einstein obviously hoaxed us because.... get ready for this.... I'll bet you didn't see this cumming.... he was A JEW!!!! A Reptilian JOOO!!!! They rule the world. Duh. They built the pyramids to guide in their Reptilian Joo ships from the Hotel Pyramids on Mars... all in a Grand Scheme to make humans make themselves retarded by their own volition.

They also built the Luxor Hotel to resemble the Hotel on Mars. Why? Because Einstein told them to. Because Einstein was the Lord Reptilian Rabbi Joo, and in his true form, he was possibly 50 feet tall.... but his true form lived deep in a cave and Einstein was just a holographic mental projection.

The dinosaurs were actually Jews. And they are still ruling the world by holographically projecting their Jewish human forms millions of years through time to rule over humans for the past 10,000 years up until now....

But thanks to Above Toddler Secretions and the spawn thereof, we are now able to scientifically piece that scenario together. Through the law of inverse squares, and the 69th law of furbydynamics, of which I will go into no detail whatsoever but to assure you that we did at some point go into detail but you missed it.... we are able to conclude that, yes indeed.... Cogburn is a Reptilian Joo T-Rex from the Cretaceous and John Lear, along with Icke, is a hero for exposing the Biggest Secret of all..... and that is basically, that we're all totally fucked, and we should pass along free DVDs to everyone we know, and if they are not psychically damaged enough to believe the Biggest Truth of All Time... then they are obviously mind controlled government shill drones. Does their skin have an olive pigment to it? Or do they eat olives? That's a sign. Grab your bat and swing at the ones you love. You are Holier than them. Congratulations for finding out this super secret information. God bless youtube for being the bastion of anti-propaganda super-secrets.

[Cogburn]

Cog: LOL ya know you like it lol especially when John says something is debunked based on a theoretical particle... :lol:

I was about to go off until I read that line.

To be completely honest, it's not the use of hypothetical constructs that I have a problem with, it's the not understanding the maths behind the constructs and then twisting the layman's interpretation to fit whatever pet theory one is pushing.

Although unless you're measuring quantum particles, Kepler works just fine for calculation of motion. Pari's problem was that she's a bigger astrophysics noob than I am and didn't realize that the perturbations of the planets are resolved when the equations for the orbits of the planets are combined into a calculus function.

I mean...then there's shit like this... more examples of Pari's mathematics retardation:
[offsite:5bu5z3u1]Acknowledging that force is proportional to acceleration we take the equation for the four dimensional spacetime and differentiate it with respect to time, and, assuming that c is a constant according to Einstein's Second Postulate of special relativity we get

s2=x2+y2+z2-c2t2
http://thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Einstein/Equasion01.png
or
v=vxi+vyj+vzk

and taking the time derivative of this velocity equation we get

a = axi + ayj + azk - c2

Pari has shown that the fourth dimension has disappeared in calculations of accelerations. She points out the acceleration vector is identical to the acceleration vector of three dimensional space except that the same value starts at – c2.

Pari concludes "that an imaginary four dimensional spacetime continuum is unfit as a foundation for physics, a science which mainly deals with measurements of velocities, accelerations and the changes of these vectors."[/offsite:5bu5z3u1]Of course it disappeared... you factored it out. You're not longer looking at change over time at that point, therefore what you have is not acceleration...

Not to mention... this is linear momentum. No attempt is made to reconcile this line of thinking with angular momentum, which is the primary force acting upon heavenly bodies in orbit.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hXjhQ1_xjuQ/SJ22GuAwRtI/AAAAAAAAD9E/v6TL8jJohj0/s400/Jesus+Facepalm.jpg