Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: Virtual light never seen
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 6 Jun 2010 18:39 On 06/06/2010 21:12, Edward Green wrote: > On Jun 2, 7:44 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > <...> > >> If the equations are the same the "what REALLY happens" is just >> philosophy or religion. > > I don't agree. "What we think really happens" conditions where the > next advance is looked for. Call it what you will, humans are prone > to interpret equations, and what we interpret will shape the form (or > form the shape ;-) of further progress. Therefore it's worthwhile to > try to understand what's behind the equations -- those that don't > bother at best will make progress within the paradigm, but never > discover the next one. I suppose we should be grateful that the Einstein nuts never got around to debunking Bell's Inequality :-) -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 7 Jun 2010 06:29 > On Jun 7, 4:13 am, Martin Brown<|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > [...] >> >> Manufacturing controversy to get viewer ratings and sell books is what >> it is all about. > > >> The sad thing is that basic SR could now be understood >> by bright secondary school students if it was taught properly. Anyone who knows Pythagoras Th. can derive the STR equations http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm Dirk
From: Peter Webb on 8 Jun 2010 10:32 > > Since the controversy -- as I've demonstrated with two dozen books written > in the last ten years--is ongoing, the only generous conclusion I can make > is that science has failed to resolve the controversy decades after E/R > came out. > No, an Amazon book search does not say anything about the state of science. Google non-fiction books about "angels" or "Atlantis" or "9/11" and see what truth emerges. A disbelief in SR can very fairly be compared to a belief in a flat earth. There are particle accelerators all over the world operating for 50+ years that have accelerated particles to near light speed and measure these affects on a huge scale every single day, and indeed would not operate without SR being compensated for in the design, there is huge, compelling and independent evidence from many other forms of experiment, astronomical observation, satellite measurements, cosmic ray showers, blah blah blah ... That is why there is and can be no doubt as to the fact that the equations of SR *exactly* model the Universe as we see it, and nobody physicist seriously disbelieves it is true.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 9 Jun 2010 20:51 On 10/06/2010 01:29, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Jun 9, 5:36 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee"<koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> So, you don't understand SR after all. > > You don�t understand relative simultaneity. You don�t understand SR. > There is no point to go on discussing. Good. Go away. Oh... I forgot... you Einstein nuts can only get an audience in NGs like alt.fan.jai-maharaj and cesspits of ignorance like sci.physics Spamming us in sci.chem for good measure because it's lonely out there in nut-land. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 16 Jun 2010 08:32
On 16/06/2010 12:37, Me, ...again! wrote: > > > > I would rather start with discussions of the experimental support for > the theories and the discussions (which have been mentioned on some of > the better websites I've already visited) of legitamate objections to > the theories. Since there is not a single experiment shown to falsify either STR or GTR it will be a short thread. There are alternatives that do just as well, but none make predictions that differ that are easily testable. [Except maybe Al's] -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |