Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Attack of the Childish Pseudonyms: Jewish Apologists "Lionaxe" and "Karl Radl" Whine Some More, But Again State Nothing of Real Substance

Christopher Jon Bjerknes



In a childish personal attack, the Jewish apologist calling itself "Karl Radl" now acknowledges that "Karl Radl" is not its real name and attacks me for not recognizing that it and its childish twin "Lionaxe" are not one in the same pseudonym apologizing for the Jews, but are in fact two distinct Jewish apologists hiding behind pseudonyms. Oh my, how ungracious of me to not recognize that their pseudonymous were not representative of the same Jewish apologist, but two; though such was by no means clear in their statements where they do not identify themselves by their real names, instead opting to hide behind juvenile pseudonyms. "Karl Radl" falsely dubs one lost in the undecipherable maze of their childish games, a liar. Maybe if it told the truth, starting with its real name, it would be able to recognize it.

"Lionaxe" at length fails to demonstrate that Poincare's theories violate the PoR, but instead merely points out what I have already said, that Poincare had a broader theory than Einstein, in that Poincare tried to theorize dynamic causes for the measurement effects he speculated would occur in the thought experiments he stated. The addition of an ether makes Poincare's theory broader than Einstein's, not different in its PoR.

Space and time are abstractions in the mind of man. Scientists measure with real objects, not abstractions, a distinction which eludes "Lionaxe".

Despite all its desperate whining and whimpering, "Lionaxe" fails to demonstrate any privilege in its allegations that Poincare's theory of an ether constitutes a preferred inertial frame of reference. "Lionaxe" instead postulates a redundancy that the addition of an ether constitutes an addition of an ether. "Lionaxe" fails to prove how the existence of the fixed stars likewise constitutes a "privilege". Such is the nature of "Lionaxe's" sophistry: hide from the facts, defame and change the subject.

"Lionaxe" fails to understand that no laboratory in nature obeys Newton's laws of motion, there are no inertial systems in nature. A sincere reader would clearly understand that I was correctly pointing out that Newton's second law has never been observed to hold in nature, and, therefore, there is no measurable system of coordinates which obey it. Uniform inertial motion has never been observed to exist in nature. It is an a priori metaphysical delusion, not an observable system in nature.

Since this is true, Poincare was obliged to refer his readers to the fixed stars or a hypothetical ether at rest with respect to itself in order to create a system of coordinates with which to define hypothetical inertial motion relative to this system, so as to create an operational definition for time and space measurement, and a system of coordinates in which a system of laws are obeyed in the thought experiments which Einstein would later plagiarize. Einstein made the same pronouncement when he referred to the "resting system" and systems in a "definite state of motion" relative to it, as I have proven in my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein. In addition to the pages I have already cited, I would add Einstein's declaration (quoted on page 1837) that Einstein believed that there are inertial systems of coordinates in a definite state of motion, so we must ask relative to what are they in motion, and the answer Einstein gives is relative to the system of coordinates of the vacuum which Einstein equates to Lorentz' ether. "Lionaxe" has not rebutted any of the facts I have presented, but instead changes the subject to Einstein's treatment of kinematics. Einstein's 1905 PoR relies upon the same assumption of "fixed" coordinates and coordinates in uniform motion relative to those coordinates that Poincare had stated before him. Einstein calls the system of the fixed stars the "resting system" and the system of coordinates of the vacuum (singular, not plural). "Lionaxe", despite its best and slimiest insulting attempts, cannot weasel or snake its way out of that historical fact.

If "Lionaxe" would dub Poincare's fixed system a "privileged" inertial reference frame, then in order to be consistent, "Lionaxe" must state the same about Einstein's theory of 1905. Though "Lionaxe" asserts without proof that Poincare believed in absolute motion, his assertions are false, as is well known.

"Lionaxe" is ignorant of the fact that Einstein's assertion of the source independence of light speed in the "system of coordinates of the vacuum" (singular, not plural), is an ethereal proposition and Einstein merely calls the ether a system of coordinates of the vacuum, as opposed to systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion relative to the vacuum.

"Lionaxe" again misses the opportunity to correct itself and admit that I stated that Poincare was first between Poincare and Einstein to state the PoR and that many others iterated it before Poincare, in contradiction to "Lionaxe's" false assertions. The remainder of "Lionaxe's" sophistry leads nowhere and signifies nothing and is therefore not worthy of a response.

Both Jewish apologists "Karl Radl"and "Lionaxe" could not refrain from ad hominem attack and again wasted much of my valuable time sorting through their snide and inappropriate drivel to at arrive at some semblance of an attempted point. Try to be a bit more concise in your sophistry, "Karl Radl" and "Lionaxe", if only as a matter of courtesy.

By the way, do you childish clowns dress up in superhero costumes and suck lollipops when you hide behind your pseudonyms and write your self aggrandizing garbage on the internet intended to persuade those opposed to Jewry to adopt pro-Jewish positions? Do you exchange Hanukkah gifts, little ray guns and Nazi badges, perhaps?

Two more obvious Kosher Klowns than "Lionaxe" and "Karl Radl" would be difficult to imagine, let alone find.

Both Prof. Winterberg and Prof. Logunov's coauthor have made statements to me which differ from their published accounts of the priority disputes regarding Hilbert, Poincare and Einstein. Ask them to speak for themselves. I know what they say in private. If they wish to repeat it in public, then let them.