Prev: differentiability of convex functions
Next: zero variety?
From: Tom Roberts on 7 Jan 2010 09:48
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:18 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
> Since no self-respecting person has responded negatively to my paper
> showing that Einstein's theories of relativity are nonsense, I take it
> that my objections are perfectly valid as they have now passed
> international scrutiny. Over years and years!

That's nonsense. Few physicists monitor these newsgroups, and fewer still
respond to obviously idiotic postings like yours.

Lack of response does NOT mean that no response is possible, it merely means
that nobody has bothered.

When you publish in a journal like the Physical Review, and survive criticism
there, then you have something. It's HIGHLY doubtful you can do that.

This thread consists merely of unsupported claims and insults. So I don't know
what your TECHNICAL claims actually are. I do know that Minkowski geometry (the
basis of SR) has been proven to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry,
so your objections are OVERWHELMINGLY likely to be mistakes on YOUR part, and
not actual problems with relativity. That is certainly the case with all the
other people who post claims around here that "relativity is nonsense".


> Will any person take the initiative to go to a *court of law* to
> object against these wrong, worthless and debasing teachings - in
> other words, pure lies - by the public funded educational system?

Hopeless. Even the Bible crowd has not succeeded very well in the U.S. court
system (though they have bulldozed the elementary education system -- courts
have rules of evidence, but elections to Boards of Education do not). Evolution
and relativity are two of the best-supported theories we have today; they are as
solidly established as atomic theory and basic mechanics. Relativity is more
subtle and counter-intuitive, and evolution contradicts the religious beliefs of
millions, which is why they come under attack by non-scientists -- such attacks
so far are completely worthless because they are promulgated by people who
simply do not understand the theories they are attempting to attack.


Tom Roberts
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: differentiability of convex functions
Next: zero variety?