Re: Even cranks get published


JanPB wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

In that 1905 paper, I am discovering worng mathematics everyday. Why
is it that no one else has noticed?

Think.

Most people cannot think for themselves. They allow the "experts" to
think for them. They'd rather bury their heads in a hole on the ground
to avoid reality.

For example, in section 3,
Einstein's derivation of Lorentz Transform is utterly nonsense and full
of errors.

No, you must have misunderstood something. The derivation is elementary
linear algebra and calculus. A lot of intermediate steps are omitted
because the paper was written for experts. A small translator mistake
doesn't help either.

The conclusion of that paper agrees with Lorentz Transform and the two
postulates associated with this transform. The derivation is total
nonsense.

Does anyone want to discuss this particular issue?

It depends. If we can stick to discussing FACTS - fine.

Do you want to discuss it in a technical matter or not?

Moving
forward with his erros, he concluded with Lorentz Transform. Without
referencing to other's prior works on Lorentz Transform, that would
certainly make Einstein a plagiarist.

Unfortunately, Lorentz himself disagreed with this statement. Merely
arriving at the same equation does not make one a plagiarist.

If the derivation is total nonsense and the result is considered to be
correct, the only logical conclusion indicates plagiarism.

Is Schwarzschild a plagiarist of Laplace for having arrived at the same
value for the radius beyond which light cannot escape?

No.

.

Relevant Pages