Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Androcles
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
 |
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:uj3vk5-l3m.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics>
| wrote
| on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:19:59 +0100
| <WZZek.80571$7v1.9904@newsfe30.ams2>:
| >
| > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >
news:7848fe06-b919-4bb8-8b3e-468e67e6b32c@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| > On Jul 14, 4:02 am, "Greg Neill" wrote:
| >> <mluttg...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
| >>
| >> > Why is SR still controversial?
| >>
| >> It is contraversial only to those who don't (or won't)
| >> understand it and its supporting evidence.
| >
| > You will never understand why it is controversial without
| > understanding the other side's point of view. <shrug>
| >===========================================
| >
| > Ok, how does Sagnac work, fuckhead?
| > You will never understand anything.
| >
|
| Take it easy, Androcles; he's on your side. ;-)
No way, the fuckhead is a crank aetherialist without an argument.
Why is aether still controversial? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:43 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 6:28 pm, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0...@4ax.com>,
hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
snip
Take out the speedometer from your car,
paint the windows black,
(let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
Then tell me how you determine your speed.
From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
sounds?
--
Odysseus
|
The correct answer is "you can't". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:41 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 2:23 am, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:29:09 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com
wrote:
- Show quoted text -
Relativity is a failure. It is just an appearence theory.
Each object has its own motion through space. It is not absolutely
necessary to appeal to something external to discover your motion
through space.
Acceleration creates motion. A clock and a scale can measure your
acceleration and therefore your final motion. Motion is detectable at
the point of its creation.
MItch Raemsch
Take out the speedometer from your car,
paint the windows black,
(let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
Then tell me how you determine your speed.
|
Read it off the GPS display.
Get a newer car if it doesn't have one.
Sue...
| Quote: |
w.
--
German "Ramsch" = junk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Koobee Wublee
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:17 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 4:53 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 4:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?
It's no more controversial than evolution or the Apollo moon landing.
|
I cannot dispute evolution with logical argument, but SR can be
strongly invalidated by the twin’s paradox, and the Apollo moon
landing hoax can easily be exposed by examining the amount of
radiation from the Van Allen Belts to the moon.
| Quote: |
There are ALWAYS people who are more willing to believe in conspiracy,
even if it makes no real sense to do so.
|
It is a cheap shot conjuring up the conspiracy accusation. <shrug>
The same argument can be applied to your conspiracy whenever you do
not believe in a certain God. <shrug>
| Quote: |
It should ALWAYS be subject to empirical test. And it is, still today.
|
Yes, however these empirical tests should be performed without bias.
Is that too much to ask?
| Quote: |
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
I think you confuse violence with scorn.
|
I think you are not aware of the same religious inquisition during the
renaissance. Back then, if you do not believe in the God proclaimed
by the State, you will be physically prosecuted. Today, if you are an
academics find fallacy in SR, you are ridiculed to where you will not
achieve anymore advancement in your career.
| Quote: |
Scorn is directed at those who
- are not aware of the bulk of the experimental work that has been
done to date, and are too lazy to look it up;
|
How about the ones who are too lazy to understand these experiments?
| Quote: |
- think that falsifiability of a scientific theory can be satisfied
with confrontation with common sense;
|
Yes, that should be the case. Somehow, the twin’s paradox fell
through the crack. Oops!
| Quote: |
- confuse complete lack of understanding of what special relativity
actually says with legitimate grounds for doubt.
|
What SR preaches is very elementary. It is somewhat embarrassing that
the academics have failed to understand that in 100 years.
| Quote: |
Fortunately, all three of these grounds for scorn are readily
corrected.
|
No, it is not easy to go against the state religion. Have you not
paying any attention to history?
| Quote: |
Further scorn is heaped upon those who show no interest in
correcting them.
|
Yes, indeed. The ones who BELIEVE IN SR do not even try to UNDERSTAND
SR. <shrug>
Of course, that brings up the Orwellian education one again where:
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
All of the above apply very appropriately to SR and GR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Odysseus
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:28 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0tj4@4ax.com>,
hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
<snip>
| Quote: |
Take out the speedometer from your car,
paint the windows black,
(let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
Then tell me how you determine your speed.
|
From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
sounds?
--
Odysseus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
"Odysseus" <odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message
news:odysseus1479-at-807A1B.20280215072008@news.telus.net...
| In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0tj4@4ax.com>,
| hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
|
| <snip>
|
| > Take out the speedometer from your car,
| > paint the windows black,
| > (let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
| >
| > Then tell me how you determine your speed.
|
| From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
| sounds?
|
Much easier than that, Inertial Navigation has been around for years.
Three accelerometers, integrate to get speed, integrate speed to get
position. Nowadays the GPS does it all for you, saving you the
trouble. That's typical Wabnigga, can't see past the end of his nose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e670bbf2-5d0b-4bd0-abf4-d4d8555f32fd@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 4:53 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 4:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?
It's no more controversial than evolution or the Apollo moon landing.
|
I cannot dispute evolution with logical argument, but SR can be
strongly invalidated by the twin’s paradox, and the Apollo moon
landing hoax can easily be exposed by examining the amount of
radiation from the Van Allen Belts to the moon.
| Quote: |
There are ALWAYS people who are more willing to believe in conspiracy,
even if it makes no real sense to do so.
|
It is a cheap shot conjuring up the conspiracy accusation. <shrug>
The same argument can be applied to your conspiracy whenever you do
not believe in a certain God. <shrug>
| Quote: |
It should ALWAYS be subject to empirical test. And it is, still today.
|
Yes, however these empirical tests should be performed without bias.
Is that too much to ask?
| Quote: |
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
I think you confuse violence with scorn.
|
I think you are not aware of the same religious inquisition during the
renaissance. Back then, if you do not believe in the God proclaimed
by the State, you will be physically prosecuted. Today, if you are an
academics find fallacy in SR, you are ridiculed to where you will not
achieve anymore advancement in your career.
| Quote: |
Scorn is directed at those who
- are not aware of the bulk of the experimental work that has been
done to date, and are too lazy to look it up;
|
How about the ones who are too lazy to understand these experiments?
| Quote: |
- think that falsifiability of a scientific theory can be satisfied
with confrontation with common sense;
|
Yes, that should be the case. Somehow, the twin’s paradox fell
through the crack. Oops!
| Quote: |
- confuse complete lack of understanding of what special relativity
actually says with legitimate grounds for doubt.
|
What SR preaches is very elementary. It is somewhat embarrassing that
the academics have failed to understand that in 100 years.
| Quote: |
Fortunately, all three of these grounds for scorn are readily
corrected.
|
No, it is not easy to go against the state religion. Have you not
paying any attention to history?
| Quote: |
Further scorn is heaped upon those who show no interest in
correcting them.
|
Yes, indeed. The ones who BELIEVE IN SR do not even try to UNDERSTAND
SR. <shrug>
Of course, that brings up the Orwellian education one again where:
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
All of the above apply very appropriately to Aether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 10:35 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Odysseus" <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message
news:odysseus1479-at-807A1B.20280215072008@news.telus.net...
| In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0...@4ax.com>,
| hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
|
| <snip
|
| > Take out the speedometer from your car,
| > paint the windows black,
| > (let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
|
| > Then tell me how you determine your speed.
|
| From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
| sounds?
|
Much easier than that, Inertial Navigation has been around for years.
Three accelerometers, integrate to get speed, integrate speed to get
position. Nowadays the GPS does it all for you, saving you the
trouble. That's typical Wabnigga, can't see past the end of his nose.
|
Androcles doesn't know the difference between inertial navigation and
the global positioning system. The list of things Androcles does not
know is pretty impressive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 3:06 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 9:51 am, PD wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:03 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The conclusion of MMX according to consensus is that these two beams
of light arrive at the detector without any PHASE difference. The
emission theory of light can easily account for the result of this
experiment. In the emission theory, light particles are treated like
any others including baseballs.
I see. So it is your position that in the emission theory, there are
no waves and so there is no phase and so there is no phase difference?
Please let this be your position.
It sounds like you have a secret weapon up your sleeves ready to hit
me over the head with. OK, I will bite. Yes, that is indeed my
position. The emission theory of light cannot cope with wave-like
nature as described by the Maxwell equations. This is something
Androcles the nitwit cannot understand. Is this also something you
have trouble with?
|
Well, if that's your position, then the emission theory is not worth
further discussion, as it is inconsistent with wave behavior of light
observed since 1801 (Thomas Young). Holding something that has been
well known for 207 years hardly constitutes keeping a secret weapon up
my sleeve.
Idiot....
| Quote: |
Since the emission theory does not
agree with electromagnetism, it has enabled many adventurous minds to
work out the mathematical model since. Most of these conjectures are
stupid and rather absurd down right. That should be very
understandable. <shrug
[...] Special Revelativity really is that simple.
Yes, that is true. It is so simple that anyone with any intelligence
would be able to see through the fallacy in it. However, the religion
of SR has taken hold right at the instance when the Lorentz transform
was introduced. In doing so, we are witnessing so many wise guys that
were told the beauty in the Lorentz transform (which is a truth) but
not the absurdity within and choose to spread the gospel of SR to all
the corners of classrooms mindlessly. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 3:11 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 12:44 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 10:11 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 5:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?
SRT is still controversial because the SRians failed (refused) to
realize that a clock second do not have the same duration (absolute
time content) in different frames. The fact that a clock second does
not have the same duration (the same absolute time content) in
different frames is the reason why every observer measures the speed
of light as a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,3458 m long physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new concept for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity---called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT
as a subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. A paper on IRt entilted "Imroved
Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Ken unfortunately can no longer process comments on his theory, due to
advancing senility. Please be warned that nothing you say to him today
will be retained tomorrow.
Hey idiot there is no comment on my theory.
|
Another example of his not retaining today anything that was told to
him yesterday.
| Quote: |
Elements of reflexion can be found inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
Because it threatens their religion belief.
Physicists LOVE revolutions.
No they don't.
|
Check the Nobel Prizes.
Read the below.
| Quote: |
Nobel prize winners almost ALL broke
conventional wisdom. See how they were punished for that? But they
have to be revolutions that turn out to be right. Revolutions for the
sake of revolution are not constructive. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Koobee Wublee
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 10:26 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 3:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
I see. So it is your position that in the emission theory, there are
no waves and so there is no phase and so there is no phase difference?
Please let this be your position.
It sounds like you have a secret weapon up your sleeves ready to hit
me over the head with. OK, I will bite. Yes, that is indeed my
position. The emission theory of light cannot cope with wave-like
nature as described by the Maxwell equations. This is something
Androcles the nitwit cannot understand. Is this also something you
have trouble with?
Well, if that's your position, then the emission theory is not worth
further discussion, as it is inconsistent with wave behavior of light
observed since 1801 (Thomas Young).
|
I disagree. If someone were to come along and present a better theory
of electromagnetism that models light as particles but with wavelike
properties, the emission theory might have hope. After all, the
emission theory agrees with the null results of the MMX. However,
there is no chance in hell that the emission theory and
electromagnetism can coexist. <shrug>
| Quote: |
Holding something that has been
well known for 207 years hardly constitutes keeping a secret weapon up
my sleeve.
|
I was calling your bluff, and I was right. <shrug>
You have lost this round, and there is no need to be such a sore
loser. <shrug> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Koobee Wublee
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 1:07 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e670bbf2-5d0b-4bd0-abf4-d4d8555f32fd@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 4:53 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 4:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?
It's no more controversial than evolution or the Apollo moon landing.
I cannot dispute evolution with logical argument, but SR can be
strongly invalidated by the twin’s paradox, and the Apollo moon
landing hoax can easily be exposed by examining the amount of
radiation from the Van Allen Belts to the moon.
There are ALWAYS people who are more willing to believe in conspiracy,
even if it makes no real sense to do so.
It is a cheap shot conjuring up the conspiracy accusation. <shrug
The same argument can be applied to your conspiracy whenever you do
not believe in a certain God. <shrug
It should ALWAYS be subject to empirical test. And it is, still today.
Yes, however these empirical tests should be performed without bias.
Is that too much to ask?
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
I think you confuse violence with scorn.
I think you are not aware of the same religious inquisition during the
renaissance. Back then, if you do not believe in the God proclaimed
by the State, you will be physically prosecuted. Today, if you are an
academics find fallacy in SR, you are ridiculed to where you will not
achieve anymore advancement in your career.
Scorn is directed at those who
- are not aware of the bulk of the experimental work that has been
done to date, and are too lazy to look it up;
How about the ones who are too lazy to understand these experiments?
- think that falsifiability of a scientific theory can be satisfied
with confrontation with common sense;
Yes, that should be the case. Somehow, the twin’s paradox fell
through the crack. Oops!
- confuse complete lack of understanding of what special relativity
actually says with legitimate grounds for doubt.
What SR preaches is very elementary. It is somewhat embarrassing that
the academics have failed to understand that in 100 years.
Fortunately, all three of these grounds for scorn are readily
corrected.
No, it is not easy to go against the state religion. Have you not
paying any attention to history?
Further scorn is heaped upon those who show no interest in
correcting them.
Yes, indeed. The ones who BELIEVE IN SR do not even try to UNDERSTAND
SR. <shrug
Of course, that brings up the Orwellian education one again where:
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
All of the above apply very appropriately to Aether.
|
In your dreams. <shrug> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Parker
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On 14 Jul, 12:21, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 11:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Why is SR still controversial?
|
It is not. As I have been saying I think there is evidence of ulterior
motives.
| Quote: |
Because it is based on Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Nature
has decided that the speed of photons SHOULD depend on the speed of
the light source so sooner or later Einstein zombie world will have to
acept Nature's decision.
We have. Every single experiment that has been done confirma |
Relativity.
| Quote: |
Elements of reflexion can be found inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Philosophers of science dealing with axiomatic (deductive) systems
have devised what may be called the hat-of-the-magician model of
science. That is, in philosophical construals, the theory is taken to
constitute the interior of the hat of a magician where you put ties
which are then turned to rabbits. Then Popper only worries when a wolf
rather than a rabbit jumps out of the hat (that is the only way of
falsifying a theory accoding to Popper), Feyerabend vindicates the
existence of the hat in a world where "anything goes" etc. The
magician (e.g. Divine Albert) is free to rearrange the interior of the
hat so that always rabbits and never wolfs jump out of it. On
realizing, in 1907, that the light postulate is false, Divine Albert
quickly but tacitly reintroduce the equations given by the emisson
theory of light (Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)) and deduces
the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 gloriously confirmed in 1960
by Pound and Rebka.
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
Money, money, money....
Where is the money going? Four letters beginning with "I". |
- Ian Parker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 12:43 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 10:26 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 3:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
I see. So it is your position that in the emission theory, there are
no waves and so there is no phase and so there is no phase difference?
Please let this be your position.
It sounds like you have a secret weapon up your sleeves ready to hit
me over the head with. OK, I will bite. Yes, that is indeed my
position. The emission theory of light cannot cope with wave-like
nature as described by the Maxwell equations. This is something
Androcles the nitwit cannot understand. Is this also something you
have trouble with?
Well, if that's your position, then the emission theory is not worth
further discussion, as it is inconsistent with wave behavior of light
observed since 1801 (Thomas Young).
I disagree. If someone were to come along and present a better theory
of electromagnetism that models light as particles but with wavelike
properties,
|
But in such a way that is inconsistent with Maxwell's equations, which
lead directly to the solutions with wavelike properties. Hmmm....
| Quote: |
the emission theory might have hope. After all, the
emission theory agrees with the null results of the MMX. However,
there is no chance in hell that the emission theory and
electromagnetism can coexist. <shrug
Holding something that has been
well known for 207 years hardly constitutes keeping a secret weapon up
my sleeve.
I was calling your bluff, and I was right. <shrug
Idiot....
You have lost this round,
|
Have I? What have I lost? Is there a judge keeping score? If so, on
the basis of what?
| Quote: |
and there is no need to be such a sore
loser. <shrug |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 3:07 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e670bbf2-5d0b-4bd0-abf4-d4d8555f32fd@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 4:53 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 4:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?
It's no more controversial than evolution or the Apollo moon landing.
I cannot dispute evolution with logical argument, but SR can be
strongly invalidated by the twin’s paradox,
|
Doesn't seem to have been, despite the twin puzzle being around for
quite some time. Do you think everyone finds it as confusing as you
do?
| Quote: |
and the Apollo moon
landing hoax can easily be exposed by examining the amount of
radiation from the Van Allen Belts to the moon.
|
OK, so you ARE a nut job. Thanks. [Rest of incoherent babbling left to
stand on its own.]
| Quote: |
There are ALWAYS people who are more willing to believe in conspiracy,
even if it makes no real sense to do so.
It is a cheap shot conjuring up the conspiracy accusation. <shrug
The same argument can be applied to your conspiracy whenever you do
not believe in a certain God. <shrug
It should ALWAYS be subject to empirical test. And it is, still today.
Yes, however these empirical tests should be performed without bias.
Is that too much to ask?
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
I think you confuse violence with scorn.
I think you are not aware of the same religious inquisition during the
renaissance. Back then, if you do not believe in the God proclaimed
by the State, you will be physically prosecuted. Today, if you are an
academics find fallacy in SR, you are ridiculed to where you will not
achieve anymore advancement in your career.
Scorn is directed at those who
- are not aware of the bulk of the experimental work that has been
done to date, and are too lazy to look it up;
How about the ones who are too lazy to understand these experiments?
- think that falsifiability of a scientific theory can be satisfied
with confrontation with common sense;
Yes, that should be the case. Somehow, the twin’s paradox fell
through the crack. Oops!
- confuse complete lack of understanding of what special relativity
actually says with legitimate grounds for doubt.
What SR preaches is very elementary. It is somewhat embarrassing that
the academics have failed to understand that in 100 years.
Fortunately, all three of these grounds for scorn are readily
corrected.
No, it is not easy to go against the state religion. Have you not
paying any attention to history?
Further scorn is heaped upon those who show no interest in
correcting them.
Yes, indeed. The ones who BELIEVE IN SR do not even try to UNDERSTAND
SR. <shrug
Of course, that brings up the Orwellian education one again where:
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
All of the above apply very appropriately to Aether. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
93 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
