Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: Pentcho Valev on 14 Dec 2008 01:56 On Dec 11, 9:06 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in sci.physics.relativity: > GSS wrote: > > On Dec 9, 2:58 am,TomRoberts<tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> The problem around here is that all too many people unfamiliar with > >> modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning > >> faith". > >> . > > You can understand and agree with the mathematical structure of a > > theory like SR or GR. But when you agree with the founding postulates > > of these theories, there is no 'understanding' involved, it is only a > > matter of "unquestioning faith". > > Ah! A deeper-level argument. But still bogus. > > Physics is not a logical deduction system as you imagine. Physics is a > process of producing MODELS of the world, and testing those models > experimentally. "unquestioning faith"" is not involved, because the > postulates of the theory are not needed to be "true", they need only be > VALID (just like the theories themselves). Bravo Honest Roberts! See this: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Albert Einstein 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." Einstein's 1905 light postulate does not need to be true, does it Honest Roberts, it only needs to be VALID! By the way, what "not true but still VALID" could mean, Honest Roberts? > And remember: Einstein's original postulates for SR were chosen within > the milieu of his day; today we use a much more powerful basis for SR, > one which is exceedingly difficult to argue against.... That is one of your greatest discoveries, Honest Roberts! You have even proved that, even if light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, Divine Albert's Divine Theory would be unaffected. That is, you Honest Tom Roberts solemnly declare that, even if Einstein's 1905 light postulate were not true, it is still VALID and therefore Einstein zombie world should believe in Relativity, Relativity, Relativity: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2 Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." "YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 14 Dec 2008 04:51 On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:56:53 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Dec 11, 9:06�pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in >sci.physics.relativity: >> GSS wrote: >> > On Dec 9, 2:58 am,TomRoberts<tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> The problem around here is that all too many people unfamiliar with >> >> modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning >> >> faith". >> >> . >> > You can understand and agree with the mathematical structure of a >> > theory like SR or GR. But when you agree with the founding postulates >> > of these theories, there is no 'understanding' involved, it is only a >> > matter of "unquestioning faith". >> >> Ah! A deeper-level argument. But still bogus. >> >> Physics is not a logical deduction system as you imagine. Physics is a >> process of producing MODELS of the world, and testing those models >> experimentally. "unquestioning faith"" is not involved, because the >> postulates of the theory are not needed to be "true", they need only be >> VALID (just like the theories themselves). > >Bravo Honest Roberts! See this: > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >Albert Einstein 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space >with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion >of the emitting body." > >Einstein's 1905 light postulate does not need to be true, does it >Honest Roberts, it only needs to be VALID! By the way, what "not true >but still VALID" could mean, Honest Roberts? > >> And remember: Einstein's original postulates for SR were chosen within >> the milieu of his day; today we use a much more powerful basis for SR, >> one which is exceedingly difficult to argue against.... > >That is one of your greatest discoveries, Honest Roberts! You have >even proved that, even if light in vacuum does not travel at the >invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, Divine Albert's Divine >Theory would be unaffected. That is, you Honest Tom Roberts solemnly >declare that, even if Einstein's 1905 light postulate were not true, >it is still VALID and therefore Einstein zombie world should believe >in Relativity, Relativity, Relativity: > >http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2 >Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a >nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant >speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both >Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains >of applicability would be reduced)." > >"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY" >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ > >Pentcho Valev >pvalev(a)yahoo.com But Pencho, didn't you know that all the starlight in the universe has its speed magically adjusted so that it travels towards Earth at precisely c?....even if Earth didn't exist when it was emitted. Einstein said so...and he should know.... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. ......
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 14 Dec 2008 05:22 Androcles <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message XWR0l.70233$ir1.332(a)newsfe22.ams2 > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:i%Q0l.8363$as4.5040(a)nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com... >> GSS wrote: >>> On Dec 12, 12:06 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> YOU seem to need faith, because you seem to insist that physical >>>> theories have a logical foundation. That's silly -- this is SCIENCE, not >>>> logic. >>> Yes, I do insist that physical theories must have logical foundation. >>> That is not silly. >>> It is silly to declare that physical theories need not have logical >>> foundation. >> >> When you take my statement out of context, you force the reader to >> interpret it on his/her own terms. This is fraught with error, as there is >> a clear and obvious PUN available -- "logical foundation" could be >> interpreted in at least two ways: >> >> A) the theory must be logically self-consistent. >> B) the postulates of the theory must be true. >> >> (A) is true -- theories must be logically self-consistent; > > You wouldn't know what "logic" or "consistent" means, Roberts. We can only be infinitely thankful for having Androcles to teach us all about "logic": http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORpersistence.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORforever.html Dirk Vdm
From: mluttgens on 14 Dec 2008 09:19 On 9 déc, 03:14, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > On Dec 8, 7:41 pm, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > > > > > > > On 8 déc, 22:58, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > GSS wrote: > > > > An unquestioning faith is the keystone of all regions. > > > > I assume you meant "religions". Yes. > > > > The problem around here is that all too many people unfamiliar with > > > modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning > > > faith". > > > > "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" > > > -- Arthur C, Clarke > > > > "Sufficiently advanced understanding is indistinguishable from faith." > > > -- Tom Roberts > > > > The key is to advance YOUR OWN understanding so that you can distinguish > > > them. > > > > > However, > > > > demanding an unquestioning faith in any of the scientific disciplines > > > > will surely lead to stagnation and self destruction in that > > > > discipline. > > > > No scientific discipline "demands" that. What they require is > > > UNDERSTANDING, not faith. But to you, and to all too many people around > > > here, the two are indistinguishable. > > > > > The so called 'crackpots' and 'cranks', are extremely important > > > > members of the scientific community, who are nurturing the important > > > > discipline of Physics and preventing its degeneration into a religious > > > > faith. > > > > Not true. There is no instance in the history of physics of someone > > > making a contribution to the field without understanding the > > > then-current theories and experiments. Contrary to your claim, crackpots > > > and cranks who do not understand the now-current theories and > > > experiments are not any part of the scientific community. People who > > > present dissenting opinions with full knowledge of current theories and > > > experiments are neither crackpots nor cranks -- one obvious difference > > > is these latter can get published in the mainstream literature. Cranks > > > and crackpots generally cannot get published in the mainstream > > > literature, because a major purpose of peer review is to avoid wasting > > > readers' time with "impossible" nonsense (see my next paragraph for the > > > meaning of "impossible" here). > > > > > Exploration of all possible alternatives, hypothesis and > > > > viewpoints, is absolutely essential for the well being and progress of > > > > any scientific discipline. > > > > Yes. The key word is "possible", which in science means "consistent with > > > all known experiments". Without knowing the current experimental record, > > > a crackpot or crank simply does not understand what is and is not POSSIBLE. > > > > One must generally understand the then-current theories > > > used when the experiment was published, in order to be > > > able to read their paper(s) intelligently. The MMX is an > > > excellent example of this, as are Miller's measurements. > > > Such papers are inherently embedded in the context and > > > milieu of physics when they were written. > > > > > It is certainly not necessary that all dissenting opinion must be > > > > workable, brilliant or acceptable to the mainstream. > > > > No. But it _IS_ necessary that USEFUL "dissenting opinion" be POSSIBLE > > > (in the above sense). Impossible "dissenting opinion" is useless and can > > > be safely ignored. That's why so few real scientists pay attention to > > > this newsgroup -- >90% of the posts are nonsense (or worse), and >99% of > > > the "dissenting opinions" are IMPOSSIBLE (in the above sense). > > > > > Dissenting > > > > opinion must be treated as an essential part of the exploration > > > > process, to explore various inadequacies and shortcomings in the > > > > current paradigm and to explore various alternatives. > > > > Not when such "dissenting opinion" is IMPOSSIBLE (in the above sense).. > > > > The scientific literature is full of "dissenting opinion". Practically > > > all of modern physics was once "dissenting opinion". And there are > > > several current schools of thought about extending relativity ("doubly > > > special relativity", "loop quantum gravity", "string theory", ...). But > > > you won't hear about them around here, because they are all advanced > > > topics far beyond the capabilities of just about everybody who > > > contributes to this newsgroup; there are MUCH better forums in which to > > > discuss them (primarily the literature, not the internet). The cranks > > > and crackpots around here are in a completely different world, which is > > > unrelated to science (and thus uninteresting to most scientists). > > > > Tom Roberts > > > What is you proof that light velocity is independent of the velocity > > of the observer? How do you explain his observed red or blueshift? > > > Marcel Luttgens- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Easy. The frequency shifts are not velocity shifts. Thank you, next time, I shall use this argument before the court, cf. State of Florida v. Aquilera (1979). This famous case is known widely as the Miami Radar Trial. The court's opinion stated that the reliability of radar speed measuring devices <...> has not been established beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, * nor has it met the test of reasonable scientific certainty *. Marcel Luttgens
From: Eric Gisse on 14 Dec 2008 09:22
On Dec 14, 12:51 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:56:53 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > >On Dec 11, 9:06 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in > >sci.physics.relativity: > >> GSS wrote: > >> > On Dec 9, 2:58 am,TomRoberts<tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> The problem around here is that all too many people unfamiliar with > >> >> modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning > >> >> faith". > >> >> . > >> > You can understand and agree with the mathematical structure of a > >> > theory like SR or GR. But when you agree with the founding postulates > >> > of these theories, there is no 'understanding' involved, it is only a > >> > matter of "unquestioning faith". > > >> Ah! A deeper-level argument. But still bogus. > > >> Physics is not a logical deduction system as you imagine. Physics is a > >> process of producing MODELS of the world, and testing those models > >> experimentally. "unquestioning faith"" is not involved, because the > >> postulates of the theory are not needed to be "true", they need only be > >> VALID (just like the theories themselves). > > >Bravo Honest Roberts! See this: > > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > >Albert Einstein 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space > >with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion > >of the emitting body." > > >Einstein's 1905 light postulate does not need to be true, does it > >Honest Roberts, it only needs to be VALID! By the way, what "not true > >but still VALID" could mean, Honest Roberts? > > >> And remember: Einstein's original postulates for SR were chosen within > >> the milieu of his day; today we use a much more powerful basis for SR, > >> one which is exceedingly difficult to argue against.... > > >That is one of your greatest discoveries, Honest Roberts! You have > >even proved that, even if light in vacuum does not travel at the > >invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, Divine Albert's Divine > >Theory would be unaffected. That is, you Honest Tom Roberts solemnly > >declare that, even if Einstein's 1905 light postulate were not true, > >it is still VALID and therefore Einstein zombie world should believe > >in Relativity, Relativity, Relativity: > > >http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c01... > >Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a > >nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant > >speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both > >Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains > >of applicability would be reduced)." > > >"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY" > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ > > >Pentcho Valev > >pva...(a)yahoo.com > > But Pencho, didn't you know that all the starlight in the universe has its > speed magically adjusted so that it travels towards Earth at precisely > c?....even if Earth didn't exist when it was emitted. Not just Earth, but you know that and are being deliberately asinine. > > Einstein said so...and he should know.... > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. > > ..... |