Re: final proof Einstein 1905 is crap.

From: Titan Point (titanpoint_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/22/04 

Date: 22 Nov 2004 01:46:16 -0800

Creighton Hogg <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0411190900330.10096-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu>...
> On 19 Nov 2004, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<pFdnd.33798$z3.2745@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fd0fc2fa.0411130117.14e7bb25%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
> >
> > You are unqualified. My comments stand.
> >
> > >
> > > One more obvious proof that Einstein's derivation in 1905 is just as much
> > > crap as his 1916/1962 derivation.
> >
> > Einstein died in 1955.
>
> That's not a good excuse for having a poor derivation in '62.

It does explain the poor handwriting. It's bloody dark in there.