Re: final proof Einstein 1905 is crap.

From: William Creighton (wchogg_at_hep.wisc.edu)
Date: 11/22/04 

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:01:30 -0600

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Titan Point wrote:

> 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.

Also, coordination does decrease rather rapidly when one is a zombie.