Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: Why is SR still controversial? |
 |
|
Why is SR still controversial?
Elements of reflexion can be found in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
Marcel Luttgens |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 5:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Buyer's remorse ?  )
Sue...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Johnnie In The Billows
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 10:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
Why is SR still controversial?
|
Well, if you say to someone there's a speed (c) that's the same
relative to you whatever speed you're going, it *does* sound weird.
We're robots with limited reactions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pentcho Valev
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 11:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
| Quote: |
Why is SR still controversial?
|
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.
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.
| Quote: |
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
|
Money, money, money....
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Albertito
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 11:51 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
No, there is still a cooling-off period of 1 century 
Einstein's relativity will be ultimately replaced by
Quantum Gravity in year 2108, Yang Earth, The Year of
the Rat. Rat people are easily angered and love to
gossip, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 1:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
Why is SR still controversial?
|
It isn't. The scientific community accepted SR decades ago.
Don't confuse people who don't understand relativity [you] for the
existence of an actual controversy.
[...] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 7:21 am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 11:51 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Jul 14, 5:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:> Why is SR still controversial?
Elements of reflexion can be found in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
Buyer's remorse ? )
Sue...
Marcel Luttgens
No, there is still a cooling-off period of 1 century
Einstein's relativity will be ultimately replaced by
Quantum Gravity in year 2108, Yang Earth, The Year of
the Rat. Rat people are easily angered and love to
gossip,
|
Gnaw...
"Science progresses one funeral at a time."
--M.Planck
Even with modern medicine, the SR jihadists
will be too few in number by 2108 to knock
civilation back even 50 years. much less to
the days of Newton's light corpuscles, their
present effective range.
Sue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 4:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
Why is SR still controversial?
|
It's no more controversial than evolution or the Apollo moon landing.
There are ALWAYS people who are more willing to believe in conspiracy,
even if it makes no real sense to do so.
It should ALWAYS be subject to empirical test. And it is, still today.
I think you confuse violence with scorn. 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;
- think that falsifiability of a scientific theory can be satisfied
with confrontation with common sense;
- confuse complete lack of understanding of what special relativity
actually says with legitimate grounds for doubt.
Fortunately, all three of these grounds for scorn are readily
corrected. Further scorn is heaped upon those who show no interest in
correcting them.
PD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:a9fa6774-272f-4efd-8735-2a12f673b7aa@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
| Quote: |
Why is SR still controversial?
|
It is contraversial only to those who don't (or won't)
understand it and its supporting evidence.
Have you considered the possiblilty that it may be
that people react violently to you in general, and
that the topic of SR as a trigger is simply your
assumption, since you won't change the topic, or
your mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bryan Olson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
Why is SR still controversial?
|
Freedom of thought and expression.
I was unaware. How many have been hospitalized as a result of this violence?
--
--Bryan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
jmorriss@idirect.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 7:21 am, 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?
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.
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....
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
|
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
At last, I can use the phrase,"Your post begs the question!" and use
the phrase correctly!!!
Thanks again... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Burger
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 10:32 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:27:53 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 1:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
[Luttgens]
Why is SR still controversial?
[Eric Gisse]
It isn't. The scientific community accepted SR decades ago.
[Hammond]
Correct Eric!
[Eric Gisse]
Don't confuse people who don't understand relativity [you] for the
existence of an actual controversy.
[Hammond]
Correct again Eric!
[Hammond]
The reason it is "controversial" is because Relativity is
the root scientific mechanism of the common perceptual
phenomena known as "God" (Hammond 2003).
|
No, [Hammond 2oo3] was brain growth deficit, SPoG
The root scientific mechanism of the common perceptual
phenomena known as "God" is [Hammond 2007], CPPKaG
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
George Hammond
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:27:53 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
<jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 1:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
[Luttgens]
Why is SR still controversial?
[Eric Gisse]
It isn't. The scientific community accepted SR decades ago.
[Hammond] |
Correct Eric!
| Quote: |
[Eric Gisse]
Don't confuse people who don't understand relativity [you] for the
existence of an actual controversy.
[Hammond] |
Correct again Eric!
The reason it is "controversial" is because Relativity is
the root scientific mechanism of the common perceptual
phenomena known as "God" (Hammond 2003).
The "controversy" arises because the defenders of
Relativity DON'T HAVE A CLUE that this is so, while the
adversaries of Relativity are hysterical least their worst
fears be realized...... which turns out to be the case.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
===================================== |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BURT
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:29 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 8:53 am, "jmorr...@idirect.com" <jmorr...@idirect.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 7:21 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Why is SR still controversial?
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.
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....
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
At last, I can use the phrase,"Your post begs the question!" and use
the phrase correctly!!!
Thanks again...- Hide quoted text -
- 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Koobee Wublee
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 4:02 am, "Greg Neill" wrote:
| Quote: |
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>
Face it. The twin’s paradox has no resolutions despite all these make-
believe sooth-sayings. The preaching of the solutions to the twin’s
paradox remains shamanistic in a religious sense. <shrug>
| Quote: |
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
Have you considered the possiblilty that it may be
that people react violently to you in general, and
that the topic of SR as a trigger is simply your
assumption, since you won't change the topic, or
your mind?
|
You are very correct. Whenever you point out the fallacy in a
religion, all you get is belligerent and nonsensical reactions. The
same effect is to confront a Muslim that Jehovah is superior than
Allah. You will be presented with the same crap that you throw at
Marcel. If you are intelligent enough, you will understand. If not,
no sweat. The intellectual discussions in the fallacy of the Lorentz
transform will just pass you by as if you are a ubiquitous growth of
vegetables. <shrug> |
|
| 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
