Einstein Was Right

[AlphaToOmega]

You still fail to understand the ring laser gyroscope.

You disagree with F=mA

You don't agree with conservation of momentum or the conservation of angular momentum.

You disagree with relativity.

 

You still assume that the author of the paper was joking when he made a claim that Eddington used M=1.47km to derive the predicted values for the deflection of light due to gravity.

I'll give you a hint, its using units that are representative of Schwarzschild's Geometry.

They also gave the correct results.

 

 

Every single comment you make, above, about me is a flagrant misrepresentation (your style of doing things, huh!). With the sole exception of "You disagree with relativity".

 

So other than your comment about the Burniston Brown article, that it was 'full of shit', can you give any serious critique of it? NO? Well... I should get on to a few other relativity discussion forums pretty hastily. Summon their big guns.

 

And did you get any further -- I am really keen to know -- with that Sagnac geometry?

 

Still a relativist, mate, or an ex-relativist, now?

 

You should. As I mentioned very early in this discussion, take it to that forum.

That's what they do, debunk crackpot theories.

 

You're the one claiming that a fibre optic ring gyro makes sense with geometry. Show me.

 

Your description of things on the surface of the Earth breaks conservation of angular momentum.

You cannot agree with the theory if you don't accept its results.

Likewise your explanation of a person moving forward and backward in a train breaks conservation of momentum.

You have stated that Euler's interpretation, F=mA is not the correct interpretation of Newtons theory. Thus you cannot agree with F=mA is you think its been misinterpreted.

 

Serious critique?

OK:

his second postulate that the velocity of light was independent of the motion of the source; and that his first attempt to prove the formula E = m₀c², suggested by Poincaré, was fallacious because he assumed what he wanted to prove, as was shown by Ives (Ives 1952).

 

 

Ives while desperately trying to show relativity was incorrect interpreted his findings incorrectly.

His work is actually a confirmation of relativity.

He was totally unprepared to have actually shown it to be correct rather than incorrect as he thought.

Physicist H.P.Robertson, his friend wrote,

"Ives' work in the basic optical field presents a rather curious anomaly, for although he considered that it disproved the special theory of relativity, the fact is that his experimental work offers one of the most valuable supports for this theory, and his numerous theoretical investigations are quite consistent with it… his deductions were in fact valid, but his conclusions were only superficially in contradiction with the relativity theory—their intricacy and formidable appearance were due entirely to Ives' insistence on maintaining an aether framework and mode of expression. I... was never able to convince him that since what he had was in fact indistinguishable in its predictions from the relativity theory within the domain of physics, it was in fact the same theory... some who have not penetrated to the essence of Ives' theoretical work have seized upon it as overthrowing the special theory of relativity, and have used it as an argument for a return to outmoded and invalid ways of thought."

 

 

Anti relativists such as yourself clutch at his conclusion but fail to grasp he concluded incorrectly.

 

 

Belief in principles because of their mathematical elegance, or cogency, leads also to a distortion of physics, its purpose and its history. Most of the discussion about observers and their imagined measurements is remote from anything that physicists do.

 

 

I guess building the Atomic bomb, Hydrogen bomb, nuclear reactors, the Gravity B probe, centrifuges, GPS etc are all examples of non experiments and applications that fail miserably.

The theories of relativity are tested thoroughly and pass the test. They make astounding predictions which are then verified by experiment. The true test of a theory.

Clearly the author is ignorant of this.

 

Einstein's own part in the development of 'relativity' is particularly instructive from the point of view of scientific method. The early adolescent suspicion of all authority, and consequently of anything called 'absolute'—resulting in the desire to prove all frames of reference equal—led to proofs having to be forced and contrary facts ignored.

 

Is he a psychologist or a physicist?

How does how/why a person coming up with a theory that is constantly proven correct get discounted because his early upbringing?

There is a logical fallacy in action. I leave it to you to find others. There's a lot more.

 

final years devoted to trying to obtain a unitary mathematical treatment of gravitation and electrodynamics ended in failure. It is difficult to think of a more convincing demonstration of the dire effects of abandoning Newtonian method.

 

Huh. Funny. I could say the same of many anti-relativists. That however makes no difference. Many have tried to prove something and died before they could. Others later proved it.

Does that mean its falsified because the original guy couldn't?

e.g. Ives as described above. Died trying to disprove relativity and all he managed to do was prove it instead.

That's even worse than no being able to disprove relativity.

[Vigile]

I continued to be polite till you pulled this little stunt:

 

You aren't the first poster here who has advised him that he's essentially making his own bed with the types of comments he makes. He likes to fall back on the victim card, but he reminds me of the joke with the christian who continues to beat the atheist over the head with a cross. When the atheist finally gets frustrated and breaks the cross, the xian cries "persecution!"

[AlphaToOmega]

I continued to be polite till you pulled this little stunt:

 

You aren't the first poster here who has advised him that he's essentially making his own bed with the types of comments he makes. He likes to fall back on the victim card, but he reminds me of the joke with the christian who continues to beat the atheist over the head with a cross. When the atheist finally gets frustrated and breaks the cross, the xian cries "persecution!"

 

Its not just the crazy comments, its the inconsistency and hypocrisy.

 

e.g. His little comment that started my sarcasm:

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'.

Apart from calling everyone that disagrees absolutely stupid, apart from the arrogance that proclaims he knows everything and others do not, he also claims that nothing is as special as a mind then goes on to use a paper that argues the exact opposite!

The main thrust that paper seems to disagree with the notion of relativity because it represents the pinnacle of theoretical physics.

The use of mind experiments rather than actual experiments. The analysis of maths to provide answers.

Instead he (the author) wants us to run around looking for Easter eggs when there is a perfectly valid theory that tells us exactly where they are.

[AlphaToOmega]

Well, here's the answer to your questions, which were:

Surely there are three conclusive reasons why acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation calculated:

 

(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the duration of the journey.

 

(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.

 

(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest together and change with motion in the same way independently of direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out to me.] One more contradiction, this time in statics, may be mentioned: this is the lever with two equal arms at right angles and pivoted at the corner. It is kept in equilibrium by two equal forces producing equal and opposite couples. According to the Lorentz transformation equations referred to a system moving with respect to the lever system, the couples are no longer equal so the lever should be seen to rotate, which is, of course, absurd. Tolman tried to overcome this by saying that there was a flow of energy entering one lever arm and passing out through the pivot, just stopping the rotation! Overlooking the fact that energy is a metrical term and not anything physical (Brown 1965, 1966), there would presumably be some heating in the process which is not considered. Statics provides insuperable difficulties for the physical interpretation of Lorentz transforma tion equations and this part of mechanics is avoided in the textbooks—in fact, Einstein omits statics in his definition: "The purpose of mechanics is to describe how bodies change their position in space with time" (Einstein 1920, P. 9).

The answers are here compliments of Ken G on bautforums.com

In the science and technology sub forum

Heading, "What's wrong with this [relativity] article.

direct link

here

You wanted a physicist to answer your questions here you are:

Thank you for taking me up on my offer. That's actually a good paragraph to choose, because one part of it is not pure bunk, though it represents a misconception about relativity that a lot of people have, so it will be useful to show why there are no legitimate objections to relativity anywhere in that paragraph.

First of all, I should point out that the whole thesis of the paragraph is not actually an objection to relativity at all, it is an objection to the way some people explain relativity, in terms of variable time dilation that has something to do with acceleration. We've had threads on this very forum about that, and some knowledgeable people raised the same objection to the twin paradox not being about acceleration. I explained to them why I thought they were wrong, and I'll give the same answers again, in the context of the above arguments.

Let's start with what is right, and then we can see what is wrong. What is right is that the central idea of relativity is the concept of proper time, which is the idea that time is owned by the clock that measures it, or if you prefer, by the path taken (through spacetime) between two events by the clock that measures it. The key realization, supported by observation, is that the proper time depends not on the events themselves, but on the path taken between the events. In particular, different paths between the same two events will measure different proper times between those events. Though surprising compared to how we normally think of elapsed time (an absolute that depends on nothing but the events), this recognition is entirely analogous to the everyday knowledge that the distance we cover when we walk between two locations will depend on the path we take between those locations.

i) This claim is simply false. There's not a lot more to say, it makes an argument that is incorrect. Let me reframe the claim in the analogous situation of taking a crooked path between two locations. In the analogy, acceleration is akin to rotating your direction relative to the straight path between the locations. So the claim above is now "By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of rotating at the start, and at the halfway point where you rotate back toward the ending location, could be made negligible compared with the uniform direction you followed in between, which is proportional to the duration of the journey." See? The statement is simply wrong, although it may sound "truthy" if we allow ourselves to be led by it. The truth is that the angle of rotation at the beginning that veered from the destination, and the angle of rotation at the halfway point that veered back toward the destination, are certainly going to matter to the total distance covered, regardless of how long the journey is.

ii) Again the same analogy will serve us here. Now we simply imagine a second traveler who takes the straight path, but until the first traveler turns to aim toward the same final location, it is not clear which traveler is taking the crooked path. Instead, we just have two walkers on diverging paths, and each thinks the other is diverging from their own path. That is the analog of the bogus concept of "uniform time dilation." Now let's translate false claim (ii) into this analogy: "If there is no absolute crookedness of either path prior to the first walker turning, and the effect, if any, is due to that turn, then the use of a distance formula depending only on the steady direction of each walker and its duration cannot be justified." Baloney, this is just how we could calculate the distance traveled by both walkers, we have a formula that depends only on the steady directions they take in each straight segment of their paths, it's called the Pythagorean theorem.

(iii)This objection to the role of acceleration is also bogus, but in a more subtle way that people on here have also raised. It's really a semantic objection, not a substantive one-- it says you don't need to accelerate a clock, you can just set one clock to another as they pass. But this construction misses the whole point of proper time-- proper time is the time measured by a clock following a path, and the acceleration referred to is about the crookedness of the path (the straight path in spacetime is the only unaccelerated path in SR). So acceleration refers to a path, not a clock, yet if the clock follows the path, then it is the same acceleration. If we use different clocks following pieces of the path, the clocks themselves need not accelerate, but the path is still an accelerated path. The clocks add nothing to the issue, their lack of acceleration is irrelevant-- if the proper time is a function of the path, then the acceleration is a function of the path as well. Hand clocks around all you like, I just scoff at all the pointless bother. Certainly the predictions of relativity don't care, nor are they challenged in the least by any of those three issues.

If you think there are problems with this, then by all means go there and discuss them.

You claimed you never got a rebuttal for the article. Now you have and for the sections you asked.

You can no longer make that claim.

[AlphaToOmega]

Interesting you say that because Einstein himself said that the experiment would be at fault under these circumstance (hence prompting an online article by Roberto Monti entitled 'The Real Einstein'.

You mean this crap?

link

 

You know, I said it on bautforum.com and I'll repeat it here for all to read, I am truly embarrassed to have given you the benefit of doubt and not checked your references before wasting others time on this sit.

 

Dismissal of anything that does not support what the agenda is, which is to discredit relativity, to cout of context statement which you also have a habit of doing up to flat out lies.

One Logical fallacy after another.

I thought you were a PhD in Philosophy?

Surely you recognise a logical fallacy when you see one?

 

Then you wonder why people give up arguing with you.

 

Here, here's a nice hot steaming pile of shit. There you go. I discredited your sources with the same logic they have used to discredit relativity.

[Paradox]

Well, here's the answer to your questions, which were:

Surely there are three conclusive reasons why acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation calculated:

 

(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the duration of the journey.

 

(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.

 

(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest together and change with motion in the same way independently of direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out to me.] One more contradiction, this time in statics, may be mentioned: this is the lever with two equal arms at right angles and pivoted at the corner. It is kept in equilibrium by two equal forces producing equal and opposite couples. According to the Lorentz transformation equations referred to a system moving with respect to the lever system, the couples are no longer equal so the lever should be seen to rotate, which is, of course, absurd. Tolman tried to overcome this by saying that there was a flow of energy entering one lever arm and passing out through the pivot, just stopping the rotation! Overlooking the fact that energy is a metrical term and not anything physical (Brown 1965, 1966), there would presumably be some heating in the process which is not considered. Statics provides insuperable difficulties for the physical interpretation of Lorentz transforma tion equations and this part of mechanics is avoided in the textbooks—in fact, Einstein omits statics in his definition: "The purpose of mechanics is to describe how bodies change their position in space with time" (Einstein 1920, P. 9).

The answers are here compliments of Ken G on bautforums.com

In the science and technology sub forum

Heading, "What's wrong with this [relativity] article.

direct link

here

You wanted a physicist to answer your questions here you are:

Thank you for taking me up on my offer. That's actually a good paragraph to choose, because one part of it is not pure bunk, though it represents a misconception about relativity that a lot of people have, so it will be useful to show why there are no legitimate objections to relativity anywhere in that paragraph.

First of all, I should point out that the whole thesis of the paragraph is not actually an objection to relativity at all, it is an objection to the way some people explain relativity, in terms of variable time dilation that has something to do with acceleration. We've had threads on this very forum about that, and some knowledgeable people raised the same objection to the twin paradox not being about acceleration. I explained to them why I thought they were wrong, and I'll give the same answers again, in the context of the above arguments.

Let's start with what is right, and then we can see what is wrong. What is right is that the central idea of relativity is the concept of proper time, which is the idea that time is owned by the clock that measures it, or if you prefer, by the path taken (through spacetime) between two events by the clock that measures it. The key realization, supported by observation, is that the proper time depends not on the events themselves, but on the path taken between the events. In particular, different paths between the same two events will measure different proper times between those events. Though surprising compared to how we normally think of elapsed time (an absolute that depends on nothing but the events), this recognition is entirely analogous to the everyday knowledge that the distance we cover when we walk between two locations will depend on the path we take between those locations.

i) This claim is simply false. There's not a lot more to say, it makes an argument that is incorrect. Let me reframe the claim in the analogous situation of taking a crooked path between two locations. In the analogy, acceleration is akin to rotating your direction relative to the straight path between the locations. So the claim above is now "By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of rotating at the start, and at the halfway point where you rotate back toward the ending location, could be made negligible compared with the uniform direction you followed in between, which is proportional to the duration of the journey." See? The statement is simply wrong, although it may sound "truthy" if we allow ourselves to be led by it. The truth is that the angle of rotation at the beginning that veered from the destination, and the angle of rotation at the halfway point that veered back toward the destination, are certainly going to matter to the total distance covered, regardless of how long the journey is.

ii) Again the same analogy will serve us here. Now we simply imagine a second traveler who takes the straight path, but until the first traveler turns to aim toward the same final location, it is not clear which traveler is taking the crooked path. Instead, we just have two walkers on diverging paths, and each thinks the other is diverging from their own path. That is the analog of the bogus concept of "uniform time dilation." Now let's translate false claim (ii) into this analogy: "If there is no absolute crookedness of either path prior to the first walker turning, and the effect, if any, is due to that turn, then the use of a distance formula depending only on the steady direction of each walker and its duration cannot be justified." Baloney, this is just how we could calculate the distance traveled by both walkers, we have a formula that depends only on the steady directions they take in each straight segment of their paths, it's called the Pythagorean theorem.

(iii)This objection to the role of acceleration is also bogus, but in a more subtle way that people on here have also raised. It's really a semantic objection, not a substantive one-- it says you don't need to accelerate a clock, you can just set one clock to another as they pass. But this construction misses the whole point of proper time-- proper time is the time measured by a clock following a path, and the acceleration referred to is about the crookedness of the path (the straight path in spacetime is the only unaccelerated path in SR). So acceleration refers to a path, not a clock, yet if the clock follows the path, then it is the same acceleration. If we use different clocks following pieces of the path, the clocks themselves need not accelerate, but the path is still an accelerated path. The clocks add nothing to the issue, their lack of acceleration is irrelevant-- if the proper time is a function of the path, then the acceleration is a function of the path as well. Hand clocks around all you like, I just scoff at all the pointless bother. Certainly the predictions of relativity don't care, nor are they challenged in the least by any of those three issues.

If you think there are problems with this, then by all means go there and discuss them.

You claimed you never got a rebuttal for the article. Now you have and for the sections you asked.

You can no longer make that claim.

 

Well, that's as clear as mud. Not a single person on your list -- not even the author himself -- would have got any clear picture of the principles of relativity from any of that. I imagine that the author just made himself more confused.

 

There is an even more straightforward objection, which Brown -- very unusually for him -- seems to have overlooked; and it was indeed the idea that prompted the suggestion of a paradox. The principle of relativity is based on the principle of symmetry between any two reference frames. That is to say that, whatever happens to the physics of co-moving bodies in frame A by virtue of their velocity, happens also to co-moving bodies in frame B, because velocity is purely reciprocal. The idea that velocity is reciprocal (i.e. relative to reference frame) is considered by relativists a *general physical, empirical, philosophical principle*. The velocity of A relative to B is indistinguishable from the velocity of B relative to A. Now tell me, why shouldn't both twins end up younger than each other?

 

Now of course, objections arise in the form of acceleration, which is taken to be absolute. but if you scrutinise everything I say in the above paragraph, you will see that there are absolutely no grounds for any such objections.

[bornagainathiest]

I hope BAA is reading this thread, by the way

 

He is...

 

...and he's finding it interesting, but not on a scientific level.

Having candidly admitted that astrophysics, cosmology and suchlike are simply his fields of interest, not expertise, BAA remembers reading two debates (in other forums) where certain 'experts' proceeded to inform other experts about how they were right and everyone else was wrong.

 

1.

A middle manager (in the publishing industry) telling a Geneticist that ALL the scientists on the Human Genome project (numbering many 1,000's) had ALL become YEC's.

This was because the project's results disproved Evolution, but there was a global conspiracy to hush this up and maintain the Great Darwinian lie. When said Geneticist mentioned that several of his friends had participated on that project and were not YEC's, said manager refused to acknowledge that his information was bogus or that he'd lied. Nor could said publisher properly answer the questions said Geneticist put to him. That didn't stop said publisher from defiantly and obdurately maintaining his position, even in the face of contradictory eye-witness testimony and professional expertise. No. Because the so-called evidence didn't square with his mind-set, the only way he could deal with it was to deny it, to reject it or to treat it with scorn.

 

2.

A self-taught (no accredited tuition, no field experience - only book learning at home) geology 'expert' telling a qualified, working Geologist with decades of experience behind him that the Earth was 6,000 years old.

Yes, once again this was an untrained, unqualified YEC 'expert' telling a trained and qualified expert how everything the man had been taught and all that he'd put into practice was both wrong and also part of a Satanic global conspiracy to undermine the eternal truth of God's Word. Once again, when questioned about matters geological, the 'expert' couldn't answer a single question put to him by the expert. But that didn't cause him to doubt one iota. If anything, all of the so-called evidence presented by the Geologist simply served to strengthen the 'expert's' resolve. Once again, the evidence was denied, rejected and treated with scorn.

 

Sadly, what BAA sees going down in this thread looks very much like a re-run of those other debates. (Granted, those 'experts' were YEC's, but that's just due to the type of forum BAA frequents.)

 

All BAA knows is that if his teeth hurt, he doesn't go to the optometrist to get them fixed!

 

BAA.

[Vigile]

All BAA knows is that if his teeth hurt, he doesn't go to the optometrist to get them fixed!

 

BAA is in a world of hurt because there is a global conspiracy, which has resulted in the infiltration of each and every single dental association across the planet by the fluoride industrialists, casting doubt on the entire foundation of dental thought. Anyone shining light on this monstrous conspiracy is cast aside and marginalized as an outlier, or worse, a crank.

 

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if this guy is just having us on.

[Ouroboros]

All BAA knows is that if his teeth hurt, he doesn't go to the optometrist to get them fixed!

 

BAA is in a world of hurt because there is a global conspiracy, which has resulted in the infiltration of each and every single dental association across the planet by the fluoride industrialists, casting doubt on the entire foundation of dental thought. Anyone shining light on this monstrous conspiracy is cast aside and marginalized as an outlier, or worse, a crank.

 

Hesy-Re (considered the first dentist in Egypt 2600 BC) was WRONG! He plagiarized everything he did and he was completely wrong, and you can know this from subjective philosophical analysis of your dentition formula! The truth is that teeth are a form of finger-forms that harden from ultraviolet electrical compression waves. Yay!

 

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if this guy is just having us on.

I don't think so. In the discussion with him I looked around on the web, and there actually are many with these views, more than I originally thought. There are a couple of alternative theories that they are discussing to replace special/general relativity. No joke. Most definitely not. Here's a list of websites, all of them dedicated to disprove Einstein and relativity: http://www.crank.net/einstein.html

 

And here's a scientists comical response (and info site) to the anti-relativists: http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/EwW/Einstein-was-Wrong.htm. He got so many emails about how wrong, how very wrong--no, really, super-duper wrong--relativity and Einstein was, that he had to make special instructions how to send those emails to him (or not).

 

And there are several books published about how incredible "wrong" Einstein was. Here's one: http://www.amazon.com/Was-Einstein-Wrong-Enrique-Morales-Riveira/dp/1412022436/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

[Vigile]

He got so many emails about how wrong, how very wrong--no, really, super-duper wrong--relativity and Einstein was, that he had to make special instructions how to send those emails to him (or not).

 

I'm guessing they all have the same thing in common, an overwhelming need to defend their blessed assurance that we aren't alone in this world and have a creator of some sort.

[Ouroboros]

He got so many emails about how wrong, how very wrong--no, really, super-duper wrong--relativity and Einstein was, that he had to make special instructions how to send those emails to him (or not).

 

I'm guessing they all have the same thing in common, an overwhelming need to defend their blessed assurance that we aren't alone in this world and have a creator of some sort.

I can't say what exactly drives this group, but I do get the feeling they fall into the same category as conspiracy theorists and alien abductees. It just gives that vibe. I just can't see why this group is so vehemently aggressive about their views. It's almost hate against Einstein. Do you remember Thor? The "Christ Conspiracy" geek that went ape-shit every time anyone attempted to just take a stance just slightly different? That's the feel here.

 

And one thing though, it's not like they're completely wrong. There are some truths here and there. For instance, from his postings, I looked into the "Einstein plagiarism" and yes, he did copy stuff from other scientists and mathematicians. But here's the crux though, Newton did too. Newton and Liebniz invented calculus, but they did not invent addition or multiplication. Einstein built upon what other people already had built. All scientists stand on the shoulders of the previous scientists. No one starts from scratch and invent math, physics, and so on. So was his fault that he didn't give credit where credit was due? That's possible. But does plagiarism automatically equate wrongness? Was Einstein wrong because he copied? That can only mean that what he copied was also wrong. So he did come up with something on his own. he can't be blamed for the things he copied of being wrong. And there are most definitely problems with physics, astronomy, etc that still have to be resolved, and perhaps--or most likely--"relativity" isn't the last word in how the world can be modeled. I'm not sure "Einstein is evil and wrong, so wrong, so incredible wrong, and relativity is from the capitalist hungry science community that worship Einstein as a god" is the right approach to find the alternative.

 

A better approach is to establish a new solid hypothesis and get funding. But of course, they can't since the big Einstein conspiracy is blocking their attempts. I guess that's why we can't read any of their books, articles, or discussions online, because they're censored by the mega-capitalistic Einsteinian group... no, wait, they're not! We can read their views and some do experiments. So what's the true intention behind their claims then? Not that they're not heard, but something else...

 

In a few places I saw that people are concerned about Einstein's relativity. It suggests that everything is subjective, and nothing is absolute. OOh. That's bad for the absolute morality believers. Yes. I've seen that argument. Relativity is dangerous because it undermines absolute morality... (Oh, and Einstein was a Jew. Real science can't come from Jews... )

[Paradox]

I notice "Mr Obvious" replied to his mate who was helping him give some kind of 'rebuttal' to Brown's critique of special relativty, on the physics discussion board, simply

 

"I wonderful description of relativity that I've never heard before."

 

Well I don't think anyone, alive or dead, had ever heard that description of relativity before!

[bornagainathiest]

All BAA knows is that if his teeth hurt, he doesn't go to the optometrist to get them fixed!

 

BAA is in a world of hurt because there is a global conspiracy, which has resulted in the infiltration of each and every single dental association across the planet by the fluoride industrialists, casting doubt on the entire foundation of dental thought. Anyone shining light on this monstrous conspiracy is cast aside and marginalized as an outlier, or worse, a crank.

 

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if this guy is just having us on.

 

Arrrgh!

 

My ****ing teeth!

 

If only my dentist would fix my glasses I'd be able to find my way to the optometric guy and he could fix my teeth!

[Vigile]

Do you remember Thor? The "Christ Conspiracy" geek that went ape-shit every time anyone attempted to just take a stance just slightly different?

 

I must have missed him. I'm sure I'll survive.

 

And one thing though, it's not like they're completely wrong. There are some truths here and there.

 

True. The fact is, people do lie, conspiracies do exist and influence and political pressures do in fact shape the end products. It takes a mighty leap, however, to jump from these truths to the idea that everything we know is wrong and the conclusions of conspiracy theorists have somehow bypassed all obstacles and arrived at "the truth." There is also, in my mind anyway, a huge difference between commonly accepted truths involving such things as Kennedy's assassination and 9/11 and scientific truths given much wider access to the data, world-wide competition with scientists motivated to uncover and expose faulty data or faulty interpretations of the data, testable results, predictability, etc... In fact, this is the beauty of science. Everything we are told can be wrong. The scientific method is the only reasonable way we have at filtering out the nonsense. If it too is intolerably corrupted, we literally know nothing. As an arm chair, layman observer, I would just note that if that is true, my computer wouldn't operate properly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki never occurred and we actually did not make any excursions into outer space. But what the hell do I know?

[Paradox]

Arrrgh!

 

My ****ing teeth!

 

If only my dentist would fix my glasses I'd be able to find my way to the optometric guy and he could fix my teeth!

 

Careful, mate, because you are in danger of invoking the 'the crocodile is too long for its colour' metaphor, which has been used to illustrate the way that relativists mix up their units (as did Eddington) with flagrant disregard for incommensurability.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA remembers watching a British Broadcasting Company drama (years ago, when visiting friends over there) set in turn of the (19th) century Austria.

 

The action centered around industrial workers pursuing compensation from their employers for all manner of weird and wonderful ailments, which they claimed had been caused by their working conditions. Investigation of their claims involved going before a panel of doctors, who would review each case on it's merits and then make a judgement.

 

What's this got to do with this thread?

 

One claimant kept coming back, day after day, certain that she was ill, even though the medics could find nothing wrong with her. Eventually one of the doctors summed her case up in a few succinct words.

 

"Her need to find out what's wrong with her is what's wrong with her."

(His emphasis on screen, not mine.)

 

BAA thinks that sometimes we can get so caught up in something that it takes us over, without our really noticing it. Then, before too long, it's consumed our lives and everything else takes a back seat to it. By then it's too late - 'it' has taken us over and we think that 'it' is normal. So, when others don't see 'it', can't see 'it'or try to persuade us otherwise...

 

...they're ALL against us!

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

True. The fact is, people do lie, conspiracies do exist and influence and political pressures do in fact shape the end products. It takes a mighty leap, however, to jump from these truths to the idea that everything we know is wrong and the conclusions of conspiracy theorist have somehow bypassed all obstacles and arrived at "the truth." There is also, in my mind anyway, a huge difference between commonly accepted truths involving such things as Kennedy's assassination and 9/11 and scientific truths given much wider access to the data, world-wide competition with scientists motivated to uncover and expose faulty data or faulty interpretations of the data, testable results, predictability, etc...

Exactly.

 

Einstein was probably both right and wrong, just like Newton. Newton copied the first law from Galileo, and the second law was based on motion and force as Descartes saw it, and the way we understand his second law is really just a misinterpretation by Euler. (Or something like that.) So who's right? Who's wrong? If a model of the physical world works in certain conditions, then they work in those conditions. But if they don't work in other conditions, well, it doesn't mean that they suddenly won't work in the first conditions.

[Ouroboros]

"Her need to find out what's wrong with her is what's wrong with her."

(His emphasis on screen, not mine.)

That's funny.

 

BAA thinks that sometimes we can get so caught up in something that it takes us over, without our really noticing it. Then, before too long, it's consumed our lives and everything else takes a back seat to it. By then it's too late - 'it' has taken us over and we think that 'it' is normal. So, when others don't see 'it', can't see 'it'or try to persuade us otherwise...

 

...they're ALL against us!

It seems to have some similarities to OCD.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Careful, mate, because you are in danger of invoking the 'the crocodile is too long for its colour' metaphor, which has been used to illustrate the way that relativists mix up their units (as did Eddington) with flagrant disregard for incommensurability.

 

Never heard of that one, mate!

 

I don't move in your circles, remember?

 

If you really didn't want me to understand it, why didn't you just cite the moniker of the guy who first coined it, like you did with Kant?

Y'know, don't bother explaining yourself for us plebs, just keep it obscure and esoteric!

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

I tried to look up the too long crocodile allegory... I found instructions to a drink, wiki page about crocs, and some videobites from San Diego zoo.

[Vigile]

One claimant kept coming back, day after day, certain that she was ill, even though the medics could find nothing wrong with her. Eventually one of the doctors summed her case up in a few succinct words.

 

"Her need to find out what's wrong with her is what's wrong with her."

(His emphasis on screen, not mine.)

 

BAA thinks that sometimes we can get so caught up in something that it takes us over, without our really noticing it. Then, before too long, it's consumed our lives and everything else takes a back seat to it. By then it's too late - 'it' has taken us over and we think that 'it' is normal. So, when others don't see 'it', can't see 'it'or try to persuade us otherwise...

 

...they're ALL against us!

 

Nice analogy.

[Paradox]

Newton copied the first law from Galileo, and the second law was based on motion and force as Descartes saw it, and the way we understand his second law is really just a misinterpretation by Euler. (Or something like that.)

 

 

More like: the first and third laws came from Descartes, and the second from Huygens [1629 – 1695] (who was also the originator of

 

'Forces' (now termed [kinetic] energy) are equal to mv²

[nowadays halved to mv²/2).

 

That mv² perplexes me... I think of the velocity of light, c. Now that immediately makes me think of E = mc²..... Hmmmm).

[Ouroboros]

Newton copied the first law from Galileo, and the second law was based on motion and force as Descartes saw it, and the way we understand his second law is really just a misinterpretation by Euler. (Or something like that.)

 

 

More like: the first and third laws came from Descartes, and the second from Huygens [1629 – 1695] (who was also the originator of

 

'Forces' (now termed [kinetic] energy) are equal to mv²

[nowadays halved to mv²/2).

 

That mv² perplexes me... I think of the velocity of light, c. Now that immediately makes me think of E = mc²..... Hmmmm).

Wait. You said recently that the F=ma (most of the time called Newton's second law) came from Euler who misunderstood Newton. Or did I misunderstand you?

[Ouroboros]

He never even said F= ma, as you would know if you had read other posts of mine on this forum.

I think I missed that post. Isn't F=ma Newton's second law of motion?

 

Nope. It's Euler's formualtion of it based on a mistranslation.

???

 

So it was someone called Huygen Euler?

[Paradox]

Newton copied the first law from Galileo, and the second law was based on motion and force as Descartes saw it, and the way we understand his second law is really just a misinterpretation by Euler. (Or something like that.)

 

 

More like: the first and third laws came from Descartes, and the second from Huygens [1629 – 1695] (who was also the originator of

 

'Forces' (now termed [kinetic] energy) are equal to mv²

[nowadays halved to mv²/2).

 

That mv² perplexes me... I think of the velocity of light, c. Now that immediately makes me think of E = mc²..... Hmmmm).

Wait. You said recently that the F=ma (most of the time called Newton's second law) came from Euler who misunderstood Newton. Or did I misunderstand you?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens#Mechanics

 

You'll see that Huygens formulated it in quadratic form. As far as I know it was never actually stated as F = ma until Euler got hold of what Newton had formulated from Huygens.