Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Now look what's happened Paradox! You declined to answer just one question and now there's four of them stacked up in your 'In' tray. You also wanted a good reason why you should treat my questions seriously? Ok, I'll give you three. 1. If you don't care that you'll acquire a reputation for dodging questions, then go for it - dodge away! Anyone already here who might have been disposed to take you seriously, probably won't do so once they see how adeptly you sidestep questions. Same applies for any newbies who might have been sympathetic to the NPA and anti-Relativism. So, if you really don't care about being taken seriously and just don't care about advancing your cause, then go ahead and play dodgeball with us. As you recently said to me, 'It's up to you.' 2. Think about it! This is your chance cut me to pieces and demolish me. You know full well that I've no formal training in any of the areas you're clearly expert in. So it's a good bet that I've overlooked something or there's a serious flaw in my thinking. Do you really want to pass up the chance of easy meat? 3. Please check out the member with the handle, Rayskidude. He used to call himself the Big M.A.C., meaning Most Annoying Christian. Well, he thought he could f**k me over and did so in January last year, by twisting the wording of one of my questions to suit his own ends. Then, when confronted by me, he refused point blank to admit it and continued to maintain the lie in the face of the evidence I cited. Evidence that's recorded here in this forum, for all to see. To make sure that everyone in this forum could see it and could continue to see his chicanery, I created this thread... All The Questions Dodged By Rayskidude. 1 2 3 7 → (A Permanent Repository of stuff he won't / can't answer.) ...and made sure that it was always easily visible, at or near the top of the sub-forum he frequented the most. Now, if it comes down to it Paradox and you give me no option but to repeat this exercise, I'll do so, but I'll drop the 'can't', ok? You clearly have the ability to answer my questions. You just won't. Please note that this is no threat against you and no promise of future action on my part. It's simply an accurate account of recent history in this forum. You will determine if I go down this path again or not. Also, the fact that I can openly show you all of this is evidence that doing this breaks no forum rules or guidelines. I hope those are 'good' enough for you! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions for Paradox. 1. ...and science needs the seal of endorsement/approval from philosophers, because...? 2. Why does science need or require philosophers to confer anything upon the scientific community? 3. Where and when did philosophers acquire any authority over scientists? 4. Other spheres of human activity can police themselves quite adequately, so why do scientists need philosophers to police them? Looking forward to your answers! BAA. Sorry, BAA, but I have already been led off on about five different tangents as it is, on this thread, and any more will just result in overload for me. If I don't answer anyone's questions here, it's because they're either crap or they are one tangent too many. And, conspiracy theorist that I am, your four 'questions for Paradox' look to me for all the world like a trap designed such that you can fling more comments at me that say how arrogant and what-have-you I am, because a forum such as this demands but a few lines in the way of reply, and any such answer would not serve me or anyone else attempting to answer them, well. But your questions would all require essay-length, if not book-length, if not longer answers. Alright, if you want some form of answer, I'll just do my usual cop-out (as you think of it) -- namely, answering with another question. That is: Why don't we just get rid of philosophers completely? But honestly, as I have said, I really don't want to pursue this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Quite. As I said' date=' the whole domain of proof and falsification is very messy. [/quote'] Since you can't falsify a proof without tearing apart the axiom it was derived from, what definition of "proof" are you using? Idiot. A proof can never be falsified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Paradox why do you seem to catch so much grief from others here? How has this happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Quite. As I said' date=' the whole domain of proof and falsification is very messy. [/quote'] Since you can't falsify a proof without tearing apart the axiom it was derived from, what definition of "proof" are you using? Idiot. A proof can never be falsified. Careful. Your ignorance is showing again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Paradox why do you seem to catch so much grief from others here? How has this happened? Legion, thankyou for asking. I think a lot of it is gee-ing me up; but I concede that I am espousing a controversial veiwpoint and I don't suffer fools ('relativity experts' and the like [actually, I include self-interested people -- peer-reviewers and so forth -- in amongst the fools, which strictly I oughtn't]) gladly. So there you have it. I fight my corner, in a ring that wants to be corner-free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I fight my corner, in a ring that wants to be corner-free. Could you please explain this to me in more detail? I think science is due for a revolution. Apparently Kuhn thought that new science often requires the death of old scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I fight my corner, in a ring that wants to be corner-free. Could you please explain this to me in more detail? I think science is due for a revolution. Apparently Kuhn thought that new science often requires the death of old scientists. Sounds more like Pauli, how said science progresses in the intervals between funerals. The dinosaurs -- and their lap dogs -- like to be able to see, and control every part of the ring; they don't like corners that incubate dissent. Pretty serious mix of metaphors, I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Paradox why do you seem to catch so much grief from others here? How has this happened? I can tell you how he totally "won me over". It was with this comment: Ten years ago I would have taken you up (I might just, yet) and would have cut every relativity 'expert' to pieces -- something that really isn't difficult, because not a single one of them is anything special as a mind, philosophically speaking. I have been through it on numerous discussion forums and have got exhausted by it and, to quote Mozart, 'You struggle in vain against absolute stupidity'. Basically he thinks he is the smartest person on the planet and thinks that anyone arguing against any position he taken is absolutely stupid. But catch him out time after time and all that is irrelevant. He remains the smartest person around. Scientists, Physicists have nothing on this philosophy major. He knows best. Ignore the facts, ignore the experiments, ignore the products based on physics. That's all misleading. Good thing we don't manufacture products based on philosophy. We'd be a planet that can offer one product, manure. Come to Earth, the asshole of the Universe. Actually that was really harsh. I have two friends who are philosophy graduates and they are both wise and know their limits. They ask me for advice on technical matters, not the other way around. If I get out of my depth which does happen, I have friends who are physics or maths graduates and I ask them if its physics or maths related. I also believe science and engineering courses should have a philosophy component. Happily I can say that the philosophy guys and girls I know are nothing like what has been shown on this thread but I have met a few who revelled in the desire to prove their own intelligence. The former provide great conversation and intelligent discourse. The latter provide examples that some people cannot be taught a thing, because, they already know everything about everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Sorry, BAA, but I have already been led off on about five different tangents as it is, on this thread, and any more will just result in overload for me. If I don't answer anyone's questions here, it's because they're either crap or they are one tangent too many. And, conspiracy theorist that I am, your four 'questions for Paradox' look to me for all the world like a trap designed such that you can fling more comments at me that say how arrogant and what-have-you I am, because a forum such as this demands but a few lines in the way of reply, and any such answer would not serve me or anyone else attempting to answer them, well. But your questions would all require essay-length, if not book-length, if not longer answers. Alright, if you want some form of answer, I'll just do my usual cop-out (as you think of it) -- namely, answering with another question. That is: Why don't we just get rid of philosophers completely? But honestly, as I have said, I really don't want to pursue this. Thank you Paradox. I suppose I can comfort myself with the news that you don't consider my questions to be crap - just a waste of your valuable time. Such crumbs really do help me thru the day! Btw, I do hope your question about the extermination of all philosophers was a rhetorical one. If I thought for one moment that there was a suicidal sub-text to it, I'd do my level best to try and talk you out of such an action. This world is always in desperate need of people who can bring their creative, practical, helpful skills to bear on it's many problems. So, ending it all would, I feel, be a big mistake on your part. Especially when you could harness your formidable intelligence in acquiring those creative, practical, helpful skills. Why not choose a new career path? One that actually brings concrete benefits the community or society that you live in? Something that makes a real-world difference to the real world? With all good wishes, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Paradox why do you seem to catch so much grief from others here? How has this happened? This... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/45793-evolution/page__st__60 My response to Paradox, when he metaphorically kicked the Falloutdude in the teeth. Yeah Paradox, whatever you say. (Facepalm) There's Ouroboros and me, trying to help Falloutdude and wean him off the pseudo-scientific Creationist crap he's been fed for years and what do you do? You throw a monkey wrench into the works, claiming that... A. None of what I say is true. B. That rather than helping the Dude escape from religion, I'm indoctrinating him into another one. C. You have the proper take on just what 'true' science really is. Thanks pal! Thanks a lot! Did you even spare a thought for the mental anguish the Dude's going thru? I wonder? What the fuck's he going to think now - now that you've pulled the metaphorical rug from under his feet? Couldn't you have put his interests first? Or maybe you just see the words 'Einstein' and 'Relativity' and you just have to charge on in? Is this some kind of reflex you can't control much? Like blinking, maybe? If you've got such a beef with this 'religion', as you call it, why-oh-why didn't you just have the self-control to politely register your disagreement with me and then suggest that you and I debate it in a new thread. I'd have been perfectly happy to do that. But now, well... All I'll say at this juncture is... "I'm sorry that you didn't have sufficient emotional maturity to put the wellbeing of others before your own crusades." BAA. Here's the Dude's profile, Legion. http://www.ex-christian.net/user/12539-falloutdude/ Please take the time to read about his background, his anxieties and his struggle to escape from the clutches of religion. Then consider Paradox's sledgehammer approach. Where's the empathy? Where's the consideration? This is especially relevant, seeing as Paradox says that he knows all about anxiety problems from personal experience. Shame he couldn't put himself in the Dude's shoes, even for a moment? Well, I guess you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, huh? Paradox harmed another human being. A vulnerable one at that. One who he should have had the capacity to treat more kindly, but didn't. ,nuff said? BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Paradox why do you seem to catch so much grief from others here? How has this happened? I can tell you how he totally "won me over". It was with this comment: Ten years ago I would have taken you up (I might just, yet) and would have cut every relativity 'expert' to pieces -- something that really isn't difficult, because not a single one of them is anything special as a mind, philosophically speaking. I have been through it on numerous discussion forums and have got exhausted by it and, to quote Mozart, 'You struggle in vain against absolute stupidity'. Basically he thinks he is the smartest person on the planet and thinks that anyone arguing against any position he taken is absolutely stupid. You keep repeating that passage -- must be the fourth of fifth time now -- as though it's the best you can do. I have just been trying to find the sentence that I know used to be in the NPA blurb (but seems to have been edited) saying how you don't have to be especially intelligent to find insurmountable flaws in theory of relativity (and everyone there knows it). Anyhow, since probably most people in NPA used to be 'believers' in relativity, there is a parallel with ex-Christian.net. Many in NPA will tell you that the logical flaws that can sink relativity were circulating in the back of their mind all along; it just took a decisive moment to bring them over to the other side. And many others will simply tell you that they had never really been so tunnel-visioned as to accept the counter-intuitive concepts, and that the logic was so obviously flawed that it was just a case of trying to work out what had happened to academe. Dingle used to say, before he became a relativity dissident, 'you don't understand relativity, you just accept it'. Huh! Sorry, but I have just never accepted it. And you just need to read Dingle to know how the flaws will, in their own right, cut any relativist to pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Paradox harmed another human being. A vulnerable one at that. One who he should have had the capacity to treat more kindly, but didn't. ,nuff said? BAA. The poster in question showed no sign whatsoever of being harmed. Quite the contrary, I thought. I suppose you thought you were giving him therapy by telling him a pack of confusing physics-lies about the universe. I thought, at the time, your response was the most extraordinary over-reaction. Probably one of your mood swings. I am not going to discuss this any further. Don't keep accusing me of pernicious behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Paradox harmed another human being. A vulnerable one at that. One who he should have had the capacity to treat more kindly, but didn't. ,nuff said? BAA. The poster in question showed no sign whatsoever of being harmed. Impressive! Not only is Paradox a peerless paragon of philosophy, he's also qualified to make an accurate diagnosis of a stranger's mental well being over the Internet. Add psychology to the long list of his many talents. Quite the contrary, I thought. Yes. Exactly. What you thought. That's what counts here... your thoughts. Not mine, not the FalloutDude's, not anybody's except yours. Only your thoughts are of any value. Only your conclusions are valid. Only your p.o.v. is the right one. Only your logic is self-consistent. Only your definitions are accurate. You are the sole and final arbiter of what the 'truth' is, but we single-celled organisms have no right to expect you to explain how and why this is so. Such an activity would be a waste of your precious time. I suppose you thought you were giving him therapy by telling him a pack of confusing physics-lies about the universe. Since there's no question mark at the end of the above sentence, it's a statement, not a query. Your statement is only partially correct, Paradox. Yes, I was helping him escape from the pit of Creationist nonsense he was mired in. No, I was not telling him a pack of lies. I thought, at the time, your response was the most extraordinary over-reaction. Probably one of your mood swings. Better my mood swings than your paranoid delusions of global conspiracies! I am not going to discuss this any further. Translation = "Thou art dismissed from my royal presence. Begone!" Don't keep accusing me of pernicious behaviour. Who are you to give me (or anyone else here) orders? Yes, this lowly amoeba is daring to question you! Deal with it. BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 You keep repeating that passage -- must be the fourth of fifth time now -- as though it's the best you can do. Funny, that paragraph represents the best of what you can do, not me. Make that, could do. You could have been the smartest person in the world but you couldn't be bothered because its so easy to refute the top minds in their field. I suppose its admission that you are a "has been" or more correctly, a "could have been". I have just been trying to find the sentence that I know used to be in the NPA blurb (but seems to have been edited) saying how you don't have to be especially intelligent to find insurmountable flaws in theory of relativity (and everyone there knows it). Anyhow' date=' since probably most people in NPA used to be 'believers' in relativity, there is a parallel with ex-Christian.net.[/quote'] And yet again, you go with the "you don't have to be especially intelligent to find insurmountable flaws" line when the problem is: You have to be of a significant intelligence and above to understand it and understand intermediate maths and physics. I'll repeat this again, you don't understand it. Hell, you don't understand basic maths and logic so what hope do you have of understanding a complex theory? I can easily argue that after giving up on Christianity you naturally repulse at anything you don't understand. You couldn't understand God, now you know there is no God. You don't understand relativity, so there is no relativity. Similarly to the God concept, you ignored evidence to the contrary that indicated no God and here you ignore evidence that confirms relativity. You even stated, ignore the experiments (evidence), its the logic of relativity that is at question here (faith). Many in NPA will tell you that the logical flaws that can sink relativity were circulating in the back of their mind all along; it just took a decisive moment to bring them over to the other side. And many others will simply tell you that they had never really been so tunnel-visioned as to accept the counter-intuitive concepts' date=' and that the logic was so obviously flawed that it was just a case of trying to work out what had happened to academe. [/quote'] Read your references that you regularly provide here. Look for logical fallacies. Look for illogical conclusions. Post them here to show us your critical thinking and objectiveness in action and demonstrate your lack of bias which in this case is more like an act of faith. Dingle used to say' date=' before he became a relativity dissident, 'you don't understand relativity, you just accept it'. Huh! Sorry, but I have just never accepted it. And you just need to read Dingle to know how the flaws will, in their own right, cut any relativist to pieces. [/quote'] Dingle rofl Here you go: Link Suppose clocks A and B move along the same straight line at uniform speeds differing by 161,000 miles a second. At the instant at which B passes A both read noon. Then, according to special relativity, at the instants when B reads 1 and 2 o'clock, A reads 2 and 4 o'clock respectively… Einstein himself made just this calculation, and concluded that since B recorded a smaller interval than A between the same events, it was working more slowly. But if he had similarly calculated the reading of B for the readings 1 and 2 o'clock of A he would have got 2 and 4 o'clock respectively, and must have reached the opposite conclusion: he did not do this, so missed the contradiction. I invite Ray to fault these calculations, or convince your [readers] that each of two clocks can work faster than the other. I do hope he will not disappoint them. In a nutshell, Dingle considers two systems of inertial coordinates x,t and x',t' with a relative velocity of v, and then notes that the partial derivative of t' with respect to t at constant x is equal to the partial derivative of t with respect to t' at constant x’. He declares this to be logically inconsistent. Needless to say, Dingle’s “reasoning” is incorrect. It consists of the claim that those two partial derivatives must be the algebraic reciprocals of each other, which of course is false. Here's more stuff that shows where Dingle got it wrong: Link You regularly quote people that have been refuted as confirmation for your view but never mention that they were in fact refuted. One of your references that you suggested BAA to read lacks the fundamental understanding of science. You called me an idiot accusing me of not understanding what a proof is when I asked you what your definition of "proof" is. I notice you let it go promptly after I pointed out your ignorance in your reply, yet again. I'm figuring you did a little googling and realised why you were wrong, yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 For Alpha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 You start off your post with personal attacks. I shall ignore those, once more. Movign on... I have just been trying to find the sentence that I know used to be in the NPA blurb (but seems to have been edited) saying how you don't have to be especially intelligent to find insurmountable flaws in theory of relativity (and everyone there knows it). Anyhow' date=' since probably most people in NPA used to be 'believers' in relativity, there is a parallel with ex-Christian.net.[/quote'] And yet again, you go with the "you don't have to be especially intelligent to find insurmountable flaws" line when the problem is: You have to be of a significant intelligence and above to understand it and understand intermediate maths and physics. I'll repeat this again, you don't understand it. Hell, you don't understand basic maths and logic so what hope do you have of understanding a complex theory? I can easily argue that after giving up on Christianity you naturally repulse at anything you don't understand. You couldn't understand God, now you know there is no God. You don't understand relativity, so there is no relativity. Similarly to the God concept, you ignored evidence to the contrary that indicated no God and here you ignore evidence that confirms relativity. You even stated, ignore the experiments (evidence), its the logic of relativity that is at question here (faith). Well, I think you never properly knew Jesus and should go back to him, just like I never properly knew relativity and should go back to it (not that I was ever 'with' it to begin with). So you, oh Superior Knowledge and Understanding*, hold the key because you have the power to understand. Well, let us see. * As for your "You have to be of a significant intelligence and above to understand it and understand intermediate maths and physics" - I would like to see Ouroboros and others lay into you there, for the extreme up-your-own-arse-ishness you exhibit by saying it (whether they will or not is a different matter). Many in NPA will tell you that the logical flaws that can sink relativity were circulating in the back of their mind all along; it just took a decisive moment to bring them over to the other side. And many others will simply tell you that they had never really been so tunnel-visioned as to accept the counter-intuitive concepts' date=' and that the logic was so obviously flawed that it was just a case of trying to work out what had happened to academe. [/quote'] Read your references that you regularly provide here. Look for logical fallacies. Look for illogical conclusions. Post them here to show us your critical thinking and objectiveness in action and demonstrate your lack of bias which in this case is more like an act of faith. Since you have yet to address a single criticism that I have made as to relativity, your request looks just a bit like more relativistic tub-thumping. Dingle used to say' date=' before he became a relativity dissident, 'you don't understand relativity, you just accept it'. Huh! Sorry, but I have just never accepted it. And you just need to read Dingle to know how the flaws will, in their own right, cut any relativist to pieces. [/quote'] Dingle rofl Here you go: Link Suppose clocks A and B move along the same straight line at uniform speeds differing by 161,000 miles a second. At the instant at which B passes A both read noon. Then, according to special relativity, at the instants when B reads 1 and 2 o'clock, A reads 2 and 4 o'clock respectively… Einstein himself made just this calculation, and concluded that since B recorded a smaller interval than A between the same events, it was working more slowly. But if he had similarly calculated the reading of B for the readings 1 and 2 o'clock of A he would have got 2 and 4 o'clock respectively, and must have reached the opposite conclusion: he did not do this, so missed the contradiction. I invite Ray to fault these calculations, or convince your [readers] that each of two clocks can work faster than the other. I do hope he will not disappoint them. In a nutshell, Dingle considers two systems of inertial coordinates x,t and x',t' with a relative velocity of v, and then notes that the partial derivative of t' with respect to t at constant x is equal to the partial derivative of t with respect to t' at constant x’. He declares this to be logically inconsistent. Needless to say, Dingle’s “reasoning” is incorrect. It consists of the claim that those two partial derivatives must be the algebraic reciprocals of each other, which of course is false. Here's more stuff that shows where Dingle got it wrong: Link The mathpages is pathetic. It can't even address Dingle's very most basic and most frequently repeated objection -- and, by the looks of it, neither can you. Dingle, whom you clearly haven't bothered to read, is saying that the fact that, by special relativity, there is and cannot be any such thing as time contraction -- only time dilation -- implies that clocks A and B, each in a different reference frame, are both moving slower than each other. This as he says, 'takes no superintelligence to know is impossible'. Mathpages is one of those many sites that is blatantly in denial because the authors won't admit to themselves that they never saw this obvious flaw. They don't give Dingle anything remotely approaching a balanced hearing, they just mask the whole issue with their half-baked, partial-derivative speak. You regularly quote people that have been refuted as confirmation for your view but never mention that they were in fact refuted. Refuted?? What, like your laughbale 'refutation' of Brown? Or mathpages' of Dingle? Bah! One of your references that you suggested BAA to read lacks the fundamental understanding of science. Oh, here we go. You called me an idiot accusing me of not understanding what a proof is when I asked you what your definition of "proof" is. I notice you let it go promptly after I pointed out your ignorance in your reply, yet again. I'm figuring you did a little googling and realised why you were wrong, yet again. I didn't let it go at all. At least, not for the reasons you assume I did. I just thought it too stupid to comment on, after BAA had vehemently criticised the final sentence of an article I had given a link to, for its sloppy use of the word 'proof', as though 'proof' didn't imply anything to do truth. I suppose you are thinking of one of the two uses of the word proof that are amployed in the mathematical community -- the one which can be defined as "A passage of text purporting to be a mathematical exposition, with the word 'proof' as a heading". Pathetic. Since you had also used the word 'axiom' in the same sentence, I am left wondering whether or not I can assume you are aware that 'axiom' means something completely different to a physical theorist from what it does to a mathematician. So what about the substantial issues, A-to-O? Are we going to get down to any or is this thread exhausted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 And this is what I mean about not telling people that your references have been rebutted: To set the stage, recall that, after his retirement in 1955, the cantankerous British “philosopher of science” Herbert Dingle (1890-1978) embarked on a campaign against Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Dingle himself had written on the subject in earlier years, notably in his 1922 essay “Relativity for All” and his short 1940 monograph “The Special Theory of Relativity”. In these and other writings he expressed approval of what he understood to be special relativity, but, ominously, these writings also reveal that he profoundly misunderstood it. This misunderstanding came to the forefront in the late 1950’s when he began writing letters to the editors of various science magazines (especially Nature) to inform the world that, contrary to widespread belief, special relativity did not predict asymmetric ages for the hypothetical twins in the famous “twin paradox” (when one twin moves inertially and the other travels out and back). After much acrimonious debate, Dingle finally conceded that he was wrong. One can hardly imagine how embarrassing and humiliating it must have been for a man who had written about and lectured on a subject for his entire career to have such an elementary misunderstanding of that subject publicly exposed as he approached his 70th birthday. (As a personal aside, his sense of isolation during these years was increased by the loss of his wife 12 years earlier.) Dingle’s reaction was to convince himself that, since he hadn’t understood special relativity, it must be because special relativity didn’t make sense. Over the next two decades, until his death in 1978 at the age of 88, he devoted himself to discrediting the theory, arguing (in articles and letters to magazine editors) that special relativity was not just empirically wrong (as in its prediction of asymmetric aging, which he still suspected to be false in nature), but logically self-contradictory. With each new claim, he revealed more clearly how utterly he had always failed to understand the subject, and this in turn hardened his conviction that the theory was simply self-evident nonsense. By the time he reached the age of 80, few magazine editors would agree to publish any more of his letters, and his old colleagues had long since decided that the kindest thing to do was to simply let his rants pass in silence. This convinced Dingle that there was a giant conspiracy in the “physics establishment” to silence him, and that all scientists were either complete idiots or else lacked the intellectual integrity to admit they were wrong, preferring to acquiesce in the world-wide pro-relativity conspiracy. Hey that last paragraph sounds like someone I know on this forum... Here's the thing. You cite all these references so must also have read about the history behind them. Dingle for example. He uses the same flawed reasoning that you "un-refuted" paper of yours uses. Its been refuted many times. e.g. here You fail to mention that Dingle had to concede that he was wrong because he didn't understand the concept of relativity correctly in a very publicly and humiliating way. You use his work, that he has admitted was wrong and present it as factual. What that tells me is that you haven't realised that you are misunderstanding relativity and ignore all evidence to that tells you that you are misunderstanding it. I'm betting you also believe that parallel lines can never meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I am not going to continue with this exchange with you misprepresenting me and other people so flagrantly at every possible opportunity. I have already provided the link to Dingle's book -- here it is again http://russamos.narod.ru/l-dingle.htm#contents and if you had any intellectual integrity, A-to-O, you would read it before persistently trotting out passages of mathpages critique for no other reason than that you haven't you the exalted understanding, that you haughtily claim you have, to be able to make any criticisms yourself. Really, I have had enough of this crap and am on the point of asking one of the moderators (not Ouroboros, BTW) to lock this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Really, I have had enough of this crap and am on the point of asking one of the moderators (not Ouroboros, BTW) to lock this thread. Please do. Ask Nivek or Webmaster. I'm not going to do it since it was started by Neon Genesis, not you, and I don't see you having any right to demand it closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I am not going to continue with this exchange with you misprepresenting me and other people so flagrantly at every possible opportunity. I have already provided the link to Dingle's book -- here it is again http://russamos.naro...le.htm#contents I have. They are the ranting's of a mind that is obsessed, delusional and paranoid. If you can't even see that then I wonder about your objectivity. and if you had any intellectual integrity, A-to-O, you would read it before persistently trotting out passages of mathpages critique for no other reason than that you haven't you the exalted understanding, that you haughtily claim you have, to be able to make any criticisms yourself. As I said, I've read it. See my opinion of it above. I ask that anyone else reading this thread also read Paradox's link quoted in this reply and ask that they give their honest opinion to the state of the mind that wrote it. Really, I have had enough of this crap and am on the point of asking one of the moderators (not Ouroboros, BTW) to lock this thread. You call my arguments crap yet you cite references like that garbage above as well as many other references that read like a who's who of ignorance with a splash of paranoia and delusion thrown in. Lets recap this thread. 1) You were under the impression that optical gyroscopes rotate at high speed...WRONG 2) You think you can solve an optical fibre gyrometer that involves a moving medium by reflections within the moving medium....WRONG 3) You think Euler misinterpreted Netwon's law. I showed you twice after much teeth pulling to get you to tell me what you thought Newton meant by force which resulted in the following: A ) You thought we (the mainstream scientists) interpret force as instantaneous as opposed to impulse...WRONG B )You showed that you don't understand derivatives by making t=0 thus implying instantaneous, when that is strictly forbidden by the maths while claiming it is instant yet the maths says clearly that t>0 C ) You said Newton meant mv2-mv1, excellent, I showed you that is what Euler derived in a different form and showed you how to do it. TWICE I derived f=ma, but you fail to understand it or accept it. 4) You think walking in opposite directions at the exact same speed on Earth will result in the two travelling a different distance when they meet...WRONG 5) You use references by people who are clearly out of their depth of understanding in physics. 6) You cite references by people that have what can best be described as mental issues. 7) You think you are the smarter than any physicist and can "cut them all to pieces" yet you refuse to do so when offered the chance. 8) You showed what you thought of any view contrary to yours by equating it to "arguing with complete stupidity" 9) You are willing to call me an idiot but can't handle me giving factual descriptions of your references and your behaviour. 10) You fail to see any validity in the above list but I'm more than sure there are enough people here that do. When I challenge you on your references, your views, your knowledge you cry foul and want the thread closed. Yet, you claim the "big" problem with science is that it shuts off opposing views. Stopping publication of the "facts" as you see it. But here we are, you wanting to shut down a thread because you can't handle the opposition. That's called hypocrisy. You argue with us but refuse to disclose that you use different definitions. The definition of force for example. After pages of debate you complain about me rebutting your argument based on you not having given "your" definition of force. Well, excuse me. The principle of debating requires us to disclose fully any terms that you hold different to what is commonly understood. If you don't then that's what's called deception. Much like touting references from people known to have been rebutted. Classy. Did I miss anything? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScifiChick Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Did I miss anything? Not that I can see, although I'm certain you'll be told that you're rude and insulting, yet when Paradox calls people 'idiot' and the like, that's meant to be polite? I've read this whole thread, and so far, everything that Paradox accuses others of doing, are, in fact, things he's doing himself. He takes projection to a whole new level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Oh, there is one more. We're all accused of relying on faith even though we're relying on accurate predictions and experiments. The only person here arguing against the mainstream theories of physics is a person who believes in God. God requires faith. Science requires evidence. Do the maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I can't help myself. xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 AlphaToOmega wrote... I can easily argue that after giving up on Christianity you naturally repulse at anything you don't understand. You couldn't understand God, now you know there is no God. You don't understand relativity, so there is no relativity. Similarly to the God concept, you ignored evidence to the contrary that indicated no God and here you ignore evidence that confirms relativity. You even stated, ignore the experiments (evidence), its the logic of relativity that is at question here (faith). Paradox replied... Well, I think you never properly knew Jesus and should go back to him, just like I never properly knew relativity and should go back to it (not that I was ever 'with' it to begin with). So you, oh Superior Knowledge and Understanding*, hold the key because you have the power to understand. Well, let us see. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted 13 May 2011 - 07:40 PM (#100) Falloutdude, on 13 May 2011 - 07:33 PM, said: So you are a christian? Paradox replied... I don't call myself a Christian any more, simply because I can't see enough evidence to believe Jesus existed (rather the contrary); but strangely my God hasn't changed since when I was. Or at least I don't think he has. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That sounds like a paradox, Paradox. You tell the Falloutdude that you can't see enough evidence to believe that Jesus existed. But you think that A2O never knew this (probably non-existent) Jesus? So if he never knew this (probably non-existent) Jesus in the first place, how can he go back to him? Paradoxical, Paradox. Btw, since it's beneath your dignity to answer my questions, please consider these as rhetorical ones. BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Paradox I have few allies who recognize the deficiencies of contemporary physics. Let us suppose for a moment that you are absolutely correct in that this science has much to learn (perhaps even to unlearn). Does your style of approach towards people make them more likely or less likely to explore this possibility? And please man, I beg you. Stop asking for threads to be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts