Anti-gravity and the search for Dr. Ning-Li, page 6

Wow...lots to reply to.

Zorgon, holy crap isn't the word. The resonance thing will be the subject of my 10 year olds science experiment next year. That is why the big workshop will be so valuable to me in the new house.

The bit in the quote about the ocean waves' energy really makes me think about Schaubauer (sp?) and his musings after watching the waters' twists and spirals emit "sparkles" of light in the Black Forest streams. That is a very interesting idea when paired with thoughts of resonance.

I am interested in the "stone" reference you make. It would seem that there are several references to sacred stones that had "magical" properties. The "philosophers stone", for example. The question then becomes, how do people stumble on these finds? How does information THAT sweet just drop into their laps? There was a guy that royals of renaissance Europe claimed could make gold using a philosophers stone and some sort of alchemy. He disappeared, if memory serves me (stupid History channel....provide me with all that good information while inducing my mind into an alpha wave state....talk about ineffecient learning). Did he stumble on a small cache of this stuff, and then find his way into obscurity as his supply dwindled?

I also seem to remember something similar to a stone story in the Lobsang Rampa stories. I will have to look that up if the day comes that I will have a few moments to spend on it.

boreddude....Einstein MAY be brilliant, or his "biggest folly" could actually describe the majority of his work (instead of being one of his descriptions of a theory that may have since been "proven" true).

This link was provided to me recently. I think, perhaps, yesterday. It turns out that there are provable aspect of Einsteins work that are either not his to claim, or openly disputed (and swept under the rug) by reputable scientists.

freespace.virgin.net...

Some of the info in this link I have heard before, most of it I haven't. I cannot verify it. I will say that I do not intend to question how brilliant Einstein was. That is unquestionable. But even brilliant people, alas, are fallible. For example:

Have Einstein's relativity theories ever been "generally accepted"?
Many prominent scientist have expressed their doubts, but one in particular should have been listened to. Louis Essen, professional metrologist, inventor of the atomic clock and co-author of a book on the experimental estimation of the speed of light thought Einstein's ideas ridiculous. He may well have forfeited a Nobel Prize for saying this rather too publicly. As he said, Einstein’s theories arbitrarily made “space and time intermixed by definition and not as the result of some peculiar property of nature … If the theory of relativity is regarded simply as a new system of units it can be made consistent but it serves no useful purpose”.

See his essay, www.btinternet.com...

Whilst on the subject, see also:

New Scientist book review, May 13, 2002, page 48: Margaret Wertheim reviews Robert Marc Friedman's “The Politics of Excellence” (Time Books):

"Seen as a purveyor of metaphysical nonsense that would corrupt the vigorous strain of experimental physics admired by conservative Nobel committee members, Einstein’s nomination provoked an extraordinary depth of hostility."

[Though his nomination for the Nobel prize was not for his relativity ideas, these would have contributed to the impression of "metaphysical nonsense".]

Dingle, H, “The Case Against Special Relativity”, Nature 216, 119-22 (1967)

McCrea, W H, “Why the Special Theory of Relativity is Correct”, Nature 216, 122-4 (1967)

and later correspondence: Nature, vol 217, Jan 6 1968, p19

Or, the possible misattribution to Einstein of what appears to have already been documented (5 years prior):

Did Einstein discover E=mc2?
Well, no! I received the following from Theo Theocharis, August 23, 2000, and relayed it to APS News on his request:

In the APS News, Vol. 9, No. 8, August/September 2000, p. 2, the "This Month in Physics History" column was entitled "September 1905: Einstein's Most Famous Formula", and it stated:

"But it was later that year [1905], in a paper received by the Annalen der Physik on September 27, applying his equations to study the motion of a body, that Einstein showed that mass and energy were equivalent, a startling new insight he expressed in a simple formula that became synonymous with his name: E=mc2. However, full confirmation of his theory was slow in coming. It was not until 1933, in Paris, when Irène and Frédéric Joliot-Curie took a photograph showing the conversion of energy into mass."

The "100 YEARS AGO" item in the 6 April 2000 issue of Nature (Vol. 404, p. 553) is taken from the 5 April 1900 issue of Nature (note the dates), and it states:

"The calculations of M. Henri Becquerel show that this energy is of the order of one ten-millionth of a watt per second. Hence a loss of weight of about a milligram in a thousand million years would suffice to account for the observed effects, assuming the energy of the radiation to be derived from the actual loss of material."

The assumption that accounts for the stated (in the 5 April 1900 issue of Nature) figures is E=mc2. But according to APS News, this is "Einstein's most famous formula" which in September 1905 was "a startling new insight".

I think that there is a problem that ought to be resolved.

I am unsure if this issue has been resolved or not. I likely will not research it much more, as this information really only serves to reinforce my probablistic thought process.