Prev: 9-11 Kooks - It was proven impossible to be an Inside Job
Next: 9-11 Inside Job
From: Martin Brown on 7 Jun 2010 08:26
On 07/06/2010 12:36, Me, ...again! wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>> __________________________________
>>>> Yes, so? Are you claiming that the thousands of experiments that
>>>> confirm SR all have flaws? How do you explain how particle
>>>> accelerators that are built using SR work if SR is false?
>>>
>>> No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of
>>> thought.
>>>
>>
>> I am aware of only one "school of thought".
>
> Well, "Sue"....whomever she is.... brought out just a while ago this
> wikipedia entry about "emergent gravity". I can't tell if its a giant
> April Fools joke, a science fiction story, or what...but I've heard of
> some of those names before.

You don't seem able to distinguish between *special* relativity which
deals only with moving frames of reference at any speed v<c and the
later theory of *general* relativity which includes the additional space
time effects of mass and gravity.

There are various alternative mathematical formalisms that may one day
play a part in advancing theoretical physics but for the moment are
pretty esoteric with a *very* steep learning curve. Clifford algebras
are one such candidate. It isn't so much new physics as a new notation
that makes some physics appear as an emergent property of the geometry.
They are also used in some types of computer game rendering and video
recognition too.
>
>> I have heard zero - lets repeat that, zero - alternative theories to
>> SR. What exist by the crank-case full are theories which claim to be
>> different to SR, but are in fact mathematically identical in their
>> predictions and so are the same theory dressed up in different verbiage.
>
> They sure sound different to me, but then I'm not claiming to be an expert.

This point has been laboured before but you have to work through the
mathematics for yourself to see that SR is a genuine consequence of
making the laws of physics identical in all inertial frames.
>
>> For you to demonstrate a second "school of thought", you have to
>> produce an alternative theory which has more than one or two nutcases
>> proposing it
>
> Well, the two dozen books I listed means at least two dozen nutcases.

Pretty much - although I would be more inclined to describe them as
hangers on to the "Einstein was wrong" bandwagon who exploit the
mathematical illiteracy of the general public to sell their books.
Clearly they are onto something because they have you hook line and
sinker. It is all a conspiracy of the secret illuminati. Yeah right!!!

> - a
>> "school" as it were, and it has to be different to SR in that it makes
>> testably different predictions, and it has to explain the huge body of
>> experimental evidence.
>>
>> This does not exist.
>>
>> There is no "second school of thought" with respect to the predictions
>> of Special Relativity, and there is no point on hedging yourself
>> against SR being wrong.
>
> Once upon a time, everyone thought the Earth was the center of the
> universe and nutcases that disagreed were burned at the stake.

Bruno was burned at the stake over his conflict with the Catholic church
mainly over pantheism and denying the Virgin Mary. He was a Copernican
but that wasn't why they wanted him silenced and his books banned. No
such comparison holds today the cranks can all self publish.

Galileo was threatened with a lead ear wash, but he had tried the
patience of the established Church one time too many. I was bemused when
they finally admitted he might be right after all in 1992.

Anyway all the nutcases have to do in this instance is to demonstrate
just one experiment that proves special relativity incorrect. We are not
threatening any sanctions beyond laughing at their risible attempts to
deny that Einstein's special relativity is correct.

Regards,
Martin Brown
From: Me, ...again! on 7 Jun 2010 08:52


On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Martin Brown wrote:

> On 07/06/2010 12:36, Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:
>>
>>> __________________________________
>>>>> Yes, so? Are you claiming that the thousands of experiments that
>>>>> confirm SR all have flaws? How do you explain how particle
>>>>> accelerators that are built using SR work if SR is false?
>>>>
>>>> No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of
>>>> thought.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am aware of only one "school of thought".
>>
>> Well, "Sue"....whomever she is.... brought out just a while ago this
>> wikipedia entry about "emergent gravity". I can't tell if its a giant
>> April Fools joke, a science fiction story, or what...but I've heard of
>> some of those names before.
>
> You don't seem able to distinguish between *special* relativity which deals
> only with moving frames of reference at any speed v<c and the later theory of
> *general* relativity which includes the additional space time effects of mass
> and gravity.

This is all far beyond my original purpose of posting the book list. And,
I have explained what _I_ was trying to do. And, I was pleased that I got
my answer: there was, as I expected, a wide spectrum of responses.

I also mentioned two books that I did read cover-to-cover, and both
containing material written by university faculty (so should be considered
non-'nutter' level people).

> There are various alternative mathematical formalisms that may one day play a
> part in advancing theoretical physics but for the moment are pretty esoteric
> with a *very* steep learning curve.

Which is why I recognize, right now, that maybe I should not waste my time
on them.

Clifford algebras are one such candidate.
> It isn't so much new physics as a new notation that makes some physics appear
> as an emergent property of the geometry. They are also used in some types of
> computer game rendering and video recognition too.

Fine.

I have to do a lot of things today and start pretty soon, so I have to go
away now and get started. Maybe back tonight, later, or tommorrow.

//////////////////

>>> I have heard zero - lets repeat that, zero - alternative theories to
>>> SR. What exist by the crank-case full are theories which claim to be
>>> different to SR, but are in fact mathematically identical in their
>>> predictions and so are the same theory dressed up in different verbiage.
>>
>> They sure sound different to me, but then I'm not claiming to be an expert.
>
> This point has been laboured before but you have to work through the
> mathematics for yourself to see that SR is a genuine consequence of making
> the laws of physics identical in all inertial frames.
>>
>>> For you to demonstrate a second "school of thought", you have to
>>> produce an alternative theory which has more than one or two nutcases
>>> proposing it
>>
>> Well, the two dozen books I listed means at least two dozen nutcases.
>
> Pretty much - although I would be more inclined to describe them as hangers
> on to the "Einstein was wrong" bandwagon who exploit the mathematical
> illiteracy of the general public to sell their books. Clearly they are onto
> something because they have you hook line and sinker. It is all a conspiracy
> of the secret illuminati. Yeah right!!!
>
>> - a
>>> "school" as it were, and it has to be different to SR in that it makes
>>> testably different predictions, and it has to explain the huge body of
>>> experimental evidence.
>>>
>>> This does not exist.
>>>
>>> There is no "second school of thought" with respect to the predictions
>>> of Special Relativity, and there is no point on hedging yourself
>>> against SR being wrong.
>>
>> Once upon a time, everyone thought the Earth was the center of the
>> universe and nutcases that disagreed were burned at the stake.
>
> Bruno was burned at the stake over his conflict with the Catholic church
> mainly over pantheism and denying the Virgin Mary. He was a Copernican but
> that wasn't why they wanted him silenced and his books banned. No such
> comparison holds today the cranks can all self publish.
>
> Galileo was threatened with a lead ear wash, but he had tried the patience of
> the established Church one time too many. I was bemused when they finally
> admitted he might be right after all in 1992.
>
> Anyway all the nutcases have to do in this instance is to demonstrate just
> one experiment that proves special relativity incorrect. We are not
> threatening any sanctions beyond laughing at their risible attempts to deny
> that Einstein's special relativity is correct.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
From: Martin Brown on 8 Jun 2010 04:18
On 07/06/2010 13:52, Me, ...again! wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> On 07/06/2010 12:36, Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>
>>>> __________________________________
>>>>>> Yes, so? Are you claiming that the thousands of experiments that
>>>>>> confirm SR all have flaws? How do you explain how particle
>>>>>> accelerators that are built using SR work if SR is false?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of
>>>>> thought.
>>>>
>>>> I am aware of only one "school of thought".
>>>
>>> Well, "Sue"....whomever she is.... brought out just a while ago this
>>> wikipedia entry about "emergent gravity". I can't tell if its a giant
>>> April Fools joke, a science fiction story, or what...but I've heard of
>>> some of those names before.
>>
>> You don't seem able to distinguish between *special* relativity which
>> deals only with moving frames of reference at any speed v<c and the
>> later theory of *general* relativity which includes the additional
>> space time effects of mass and gravity.
>
> This is all far beyond my original purpose of posting the book list.
> And, I have explained what _I_ was trying to do. And, I was pleased that
> I got my answer: there was, as I expected, a wide spectrum of responses.

Not that wide. I doubt if you have enough responses to get even single
digit statistical significance. If you do classify the responses it
would be amusing to see how many objectors were purely anti-Semitic,
partly anti-Semitic, anti-SR, anti-GR, anti-everything, and clueless.

And also the proportion of people prepared to defend relativity which
looks to be surprisingly few given that this is cross-posted into a
relativity group, but I expect many of them have given up on you by now.
>
> I also mentioned two books that I did read cover-to-cover, and both
> containing material written by university faculty (so should be
> considered non-'nutter' level people).

Don't assume faculty means != 'nutter'.
Academic freedom can cover a multitude of sins.

And you asked for credentials. No I am not going to give any.

Arguments about science stand or fall on the basis of their content and
not based on any kind of appeal to authority.
>
>> There are various alternative mathematical formalisms that may one day
>> play a part in advancing theoretical physics but for the moment are
>> pretty esoteric with a *very* steep learning curve.
>
> Which is why I recognize, right now, that maybe I should not waste my
> time on them.

But the basis for special relativity is fairly easy to grasp now. People
have refined the proofs to a point where most intelligent people could
follow them if they overcame their terror of mathematics.

BTW what did poor old Jai Maharaj fans to to suffer this invasion?

Regards,
Martin Brown
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: 9-11 Kooks - It was proven impossible to be an Inside Job
Next: 9-11 Inside Job