Subjects covered by this NG instead of SR and GR
Titan Point
of cranks claiming one or more of the following:
- relativity is wrong but gives the right answers because of a fluke
- relativity is wrong because Einstein made mistakes
- time does not exist
- time does exist but its got three undetectable dimensions
- time must be absolute because it doesn't make sense to me otherwise.
- the ether exists but is undetectable
- the ether exists but predicts the same results as SR
- SR is wrong (see my carefully drawn ASCII diagram)
- SR is wrong (see my non-mathematical thought experiment)
- SR is wrong because Einstein plagiarized other people who believed in my
(crank) theory
- my theory shows SR to be wrong and you can't prove otherwise
- SR is wrong because Einstein was a Jew
- SR is wrong because Einstein was a humanist
- SR is wrong because when I put in arbitrary factors I can't make the
math work
- SR and GR are both wrong because I don't understand the math
- SR and GR both predict things that we know intuitively must be wrong
- SR and GR are wrong because they don't include God in the equation.
- SR and GR are wrong because the voices in my head say so.
- SR and GR are wrong because someone gave me a condescending answer on
this NG
- SR and GR are wrong because some other crank agreed with me.
- the experiments proving SR and GR are flawed
- the experiments proving SR and GR were done by biased "believers"
- science is a religious cult
- science is a religious cult whose high priests are keeping me awake at
night
- I say so and you can't prove otherwise.
- I have already *proved* that SR is false in another thread.
- Relativity leads to a philosophical paradox.
- I have proved that SR is wrong but the Science Establishment is
suppressing my discovery (see my geocities website)
- click this link to have a bigger penis
Please add your own contributions
TP
Dirk Van de moortel
"Titan Point" <titan...@missthisout.myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.12.19....@missthisout.myrealbox.com...
> Frankly not a lot of relativity theory goes on in here but an awful lot
> of cranks claiming one or more of the following:
[snip overview]
> Please add your own contributions
>
> TP
- Relativity is wrong because logic is BULL!
Thanks for summarizing.
Your effort is worth a place on
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalGems.html#RelSub
Title: "Subjects covered in sci.physics.relativity".
Good job :-)
Dirk Vdm
Titan Point
Is that a fumble or a touchdown? Was there a flag on the play?
TP
Dirk Van de moortel
Decisive touchdown. Compare with context.
Fumbles are definitely next door!
Dirk Vdm
David McAnally
>"Titan Point" <titan...@missthisout.myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:pan.2002.12.19....@missthisout.myrealbox.com...
>> Frankly not a lot of relativity theory goes on in here but an awful lot
>> of cranks claiming one or more of the following:
>[snip overview]
>> Please add your own contributions
>>
>> TP
>- Relativity is wrong because logic is BULL!
That was Henry Wilson, wasn't it? Describing the statement that P ==> Q
is the same as not Q ==> not P as BULL! Do you think that somebody should
try to explain to Wilson sometime?
David McAnally
--------------
Dirk Van de moortel
"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message news:attgsp$clb$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
Wilson all the way:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#LogicBull
Explaining would be simple.
Convincing would be something entirely different since clearly
it would imply that he rejects Newton Mechanics as well.
With your admirable patience perhaps you can have a go at it,
but I'm a bit sceptic ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
I almost hate to even touch such perfection as exhibited above,
but you might want to consider adding:
-- The math is right, but the theory is wrong.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Fluhrer
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.02121...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Titan Point wrote:
>
> > Frankly not a lot of relativity theory goes on in here but an awful lot
> > of cranks claiming one or more of the following:
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> I almost hate to even touch such perfection as exhibited above,
> but you might want to consider adding:
>
> -- The math is right, but the theory is wrong.
- SR is wrong because it doesn't describe *why* things happen.
--
poncho
Frank Wappler
Titan Point wrote:
> Frankly not a lot of relativity theory goes on in here but
> an awful lot of cranks claiming one or more of the following:
[... snip well-organized and lengthy but imbalanced list ...]
> Please add your own contributions
... in the sense which (most?) other replies added their
own contributions, i.e. listing additional distracting claims
which have appeared in this newsgroup:
- even without measurement, real number values can be asserted
with confidence as experimental results
- distinct measurement procedures yield nevertheless
commensurate result values
- relativity is experimentally falsifiable
- relativity is experimentally corroborated
Please add your own contributions.
Regards, Frank W ~@) R
Karl Forsberg
Some slightly more subtile ones:
- SR and undeformable objects does not go together very well. Hence SR
must be unphysical.
- Implicitly assuming galilean transformations, Lorentz transformations
lead to a contradiction.
- If I assume that I move that the speed of light, SR gives weird
results.
- At the time when Einstein formulated SR, there was not really enough
supporting experiments. Hence SR must be wrong.
- I claim that Einstein said that acceleration and gravity are exactly
equivalent. They are not. Hence GR must be wrong.
Titan Point
..snd if you tell people that, they just won't believe you ;-)
Titan Point
Found another one:
- GR is a mathematical trick, a simplification.
John Zinni
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:30:54 +0000, Karl Forsberg wrote:
[snip]
> Found another one:
>
> - GR is a mathematical trick, a simplification.
Shouldn't that be "mathemagical"? ;-)
Actually, I really like the word "mathemagic", especially if you think of it
in a context similar to the following quote ...
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke
--
Cheers
John Zinni
and...@attglobal.net
Sorry, but NO scientific theory really describes "why
things happen". A valid scientific theory only has
to agree with experiment.
You need to understand that physics is an experimental science
and that the only criterion that any theory has to meet is to
agree with all repeatable experiments.
Scientific theories relate experimental observations.
They can't explain things, because then the explanation
is relative to the experiments. A theory can explain
all experiments done until today and then fail tomorrow
because it doesn't predict the result of an experiment
done tomorrow.
John Anderson
BGilmour
I have just discovered a scientific principle which is about to
revolutionize physics as we Know it.
It proves Einstein was wrong, and that we can discard GR and SR.
Quantum menchanics is shown to be false.
A Nobel will surely.................Uhmmmm.........Ahhh....... wait a sec
........Humph..........Damn........I..ah.. forgot to carry the one....
I'll get back to you on this one.
Hayek
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Thanks for summarizing.
> Your effort is worth a place on
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalGems.html#RelSub
> Title: "Subjects covered in sci.physics.relativity".
> Good job :-)
You definitely lowered yourself downto pathetic mode....
"
- time does not exist
"
Proves you do not know the difference between a whale,
an apple or some physics....
That Titanpoint is a hopeless case, became obviously
clear lately.
Tu quoque ?
from:
arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0211021
In Chapter :
6 Dimensional Analysis :
[]
"More significantly,
time can be eliminated as a dimension."
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
Titan Point
I think, John, that Scott already knew that.
Titan Point
I'm going to get the Nobel Prize with this simple ASCII diagram of a
thought experiment....wait...
TP ;-)
Hayek
Titan Point wrote:
>> I almost hate to even touch such perfection as
>> exhibited above, but you might want to consider
>> adding:
>>
>> -- The math is right, but the theory is wrong.
>>
>
> ..snd if you tell people that, they just won't
> believe you ;-)
As in :
The math is right but we are not sure if we are
counting apples or whales. But anyway, the number add up
and are correct.
Pathetic.
Hayek
John Zinni wrote:
Ask the GR-ians the difference between time and
inertia..., Clearly, they do not know what they are
dealing with, thus it has to be mathemagics for them,
as Clarke defined it...
Hayek
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> Decisive touchdown. Compare with context. Fumbles are
> definitely next door!
Good that you are there to tell him the difference....
He would be so lost without you...
Just as you think that it cannot get any worse,
it gets even more pathetic...
This is definitely, absolutely TP's all time low...
Have I fumbled or touchdowned,
and not even knowing the difference,
and DVdm having to confirm it.
Where were you when your buddy needed help disproving
that his apples turned out to be whales ?
Afraid to get burned ?
Hayek
and...@attglobal.net wrote:
>
> Sorry, but NO scientific theory really describes "why
things happen". A valid scientific theory only has
> to agree with experiment.
If one understands 'why' things happen, usually science
leaps forward. Phlogiston theory and epicycloids stood
because nobody understood 'why' it happened. Some vague
relation with mathemagics was enough.
If you understand how 'time' ticks there can be no such
thing as SR, describing 'relative' motion of two objects
in empty space.
> You need to understand that physics is an
> experimental
>
>
science
> and that the only criterion that any theory has to
meet is to
> agree with all repeatable experiments.
One repeatable experiment with mutual clock
retardation... Just one....
>
> Scientific theories relate experimental observations.
If that was applied, then Hafele-Keating would falsify
SR. Proving clock retardation is NOT enough. SR needs to
prove MUTUAL clock retardation. It *is* a phlogiston
theory, something escapes somewhere but things just do
not add up. Pardon my use of 'clock retardation', the
more correct term for 'time' dilation. How can you
dilate what does not exist ? See the problem with 'lack
of understanding' ? And even clock retardation is
incorrect, it should be 'inertial increase'.
A clock is just an inertiameter.
> They can't explain things, because then the
> explanation is relative to the experiments. A
> theory can explain all experiments done until today
> and then fail tomorrow because it doesn't predict
> the result of an experiment done tomorrow.
Epicycloids failed all experiments, yet people
desperately continued to believe in them.
Are you willing to let go of the 'time' dimension ?
SR needs this time dimension. In fact it was the cause
of the 'time' dimension myth. It is even hinted at in
the beginning in the latest 'time machine' movie.
That makes SR mankinds biggest blunder. Before SR people
'believed' in the now. See what Einstein himself said
about it then. Nowadays nobody beliefs in the 'now'
anymore. Everybody time travels and even quantum leaps
into parallel dimension. Every respectable computergame
has a 'hyperspace' button.
At Hayeks crest we call it 'dimentia'.
The promised excerpt :
"
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Time_2.html
Quote
On 21 September 1908 Minkowski began his famous lecture
at the University of Cologne with these words:-
The views of space and time which I wish to lay before
you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics,
and therein lies their strength. They are radical.
Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are
doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind
of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.
He also said:-
Nobody has ever noticed a place except at a time, or a
time except at a place.
Weyl quickly understood the new notion that Minkowski
put forward. He wrote:-
The scene of action of reality is ... a four-dimensional
world in which space and time are linked together
indissolubly. However deep the chasm that separates the
intuitive nature of space from that of time in our
experience, nothing of this qualitative difference
enters into the objective world which physics endeavours
to chrystalise out of direct experience. It is a four
dimensional continuum, which is neither "space" nor "time".
Before we move on from special relativity, we must
consider one aspect which seems particularly difficult
in Minkowski 's 4-dimensional space-time, and indeed in
any version of relativity. Since time is only meaningful
for a single observer, with different observers at
different places having their own local times, what does
"now" mean. Einstein believed that this was a human
concept which was not meaningful in the mathematical
description of the universe. Rudolf Carnap reported
Einstein's views:-
Einstein said that the problem of the "now" worried him
seriously. He explained that the experience of the "now"
means something special for people, something
essentially different from the past and future, but that
this important difference doe not and cannot occur
within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped
by science seemed to him a matter of painful but
inevitable resignation.
In fact Einstein wrote:-
... there is something essential about the "now" which
is outside the realm of science.
In fact all relativity seems to have done is to make us
realise that time is a much more difficult concept than
Newton's absolute time. However it has made no
contribution to answering the fundamental question "what
is time?".
Unquote
Would Einstein still complain today that the "now"
means something special for people ? "something
essentially different from the past and future"?
As to me, this is Einsteins biggest blunder : the now
is physical and time is not. He just reversed the two.
"Time" is special to people, but it does not occur in
physics.
And note the words of Minkowski :
"
The views of space and time which I wish to lay before
you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics,
and therein lies their strength. They are radical.
"
What where the experiments then ? MMX ? What else ?
BGilmour
accepted as true.
"Titan Point" <titan...@missthisout.myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.12.19....@missthisout.myrealbox.com...
Abhi
> of cranks claiming one or more of the following:
"The speed of light in empty space is the same for all observers in
uniform motion regardless of their motion or the motion of the source
of light."
Certainly lot of crankness is going around from last 100 years.
-Abhi.
Abhi
> Attention Scientific community;
endangered species.
-Abhi.
Titan Point
Someone brought up the adjective "mathemagical" which means (I can't do
the math so the theory is wrong)
TP
and...@attglobal.net
>
> and...@attglobal.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Sorry, but NO scientific theory really describes "why
> things happen". A valid scientific theory only has
> > to agree with experiment.
>
> If one understands 'why' things happen, usually science
> leaps forward. Phlogiston theory and epicycloids stood
> because nobody understood 'why' it happened. Some vague
> relation with mathemagics was enough.
>
Science usually leaps forward when you find things that
accepted theories can't explain. So the theory that
explained "why things happened" can't do it anymore.
So people come up with new theories that agree with
the old one in areas where it worked but differ from
it in general.
So what's the point of saying that theories explain things?
They're all going to eventually be found wanting in some respect.
Also, theories use primitive terms and axioms. The theories
predict how experimental results are related based on these
concepts. But the primitive terms and axioms are never
explained. Newton never explained why his three laws happen.
He just used them to relate the outcomes of different experiments
John Anderson
Hayek
and...@attglobal.net wrote:
> Hayek wrote:
>
>> and...@attglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, but NO scientific theory really describes
>>> "why
>> things happen". A valid scientific theory only has
>>> to agree with experiment.
>>
>> If one understands 'why' things happen, usually
>> science leaps forward. Phlogiston theory and
>> epicycloids stood because nobody understood 'why'
>> it happened. Some vague relation with
>> mathemagics was enough.
>>
>>
>
> Science usually leaps forward when you find things
> that accepted theories can't explain. So the
> theory that explained "why things happened" can't
> do it anymore.
Newtonian physics explained why one could have motion
without friction.
> So people come up with new theories that agree with the
> old one in areas where it worked but differ from it
> in general.
>
> So what's the point of saying that theories explain
> things?
Bohr got a Nobel prize for the atomic model.(1913)
About everything was wrong about it, but it leaped us
forward into a new level of understanding.
> Also, theories use primitive terms and axioms. The
> theories predict how experimental results are
> related based on these concepts. But the primitive
> terms and axioms are never explained. Newton
> never explained why his three laws happen.
Oh, yes, but you forget to compare to the previous
model. Objects moved until their 'motion was exhausted'.
> He just used them to relate the outcomes of
> different experiments
He just had a better model, and the mental paradigm
shift that accompagnied it.
Btw , did you know that Newton was gay ?
Saw it on the bbc documentary "10 greatest Britons"
I thought all great physicists were womanisers, Einstein
and Feynman as examples... :-)
John Kennaugh
>Frankly not a lot of relativity theory goes on in here but an awful lot
>of cranks claiming one or more of the following:
What makes life interesting is the knowledge that one day one of those
'cranks' may well take over the asylum.
--
John Kennaugh
and...@attglobal.net
>
> and...@attglobal.net wrote:
>
> > Hayek wrote:
> >
> >> and...@attglobal.net wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, but NO scientific theory really describes
> >>> "why
> >> things happen". A valid scientific theory only has
> >>> to agree with experiment.
> >>
> >> If one understands 'why' things happen, usually
> >> science leaps forward. Phlogiston theory and
> >> epicycloids stood because nobody understood 'why'
> >> it happened. Some vague relation with
> >> mathemagics was enough.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Science usually leaps forward when you find things
> > that accepted theories can't explain. So the
> > theory that explained "why things happened" can't
> > do it anymore.
>
> Newtonian physics explained why one could have motion
> without friction.
>
Hunhh?? I don't think that it even assumed that you could
have motion without friction let alone explained it.
> > So people come up with new theories that agree with the
> > old one in areas where it worked but differ from it
> > in general.
> >
> > So what's the point of saying that theories explain
> > things?
>
> Bohr got a Nobel prize for the atomic model.(1913)
> About everything was wrong about it, but it leaped us
> forward into a new level of understanding.
>
People get Nobel prizes for theories that show how
different experimental results can be related by
a theory. Those are not explanations.
The Bohr atom is a perfect example. It helped
to push quantum mechanics. It ultimately didn't
explain atomic physics at all beyond the hydrogen atom.
> > Also, theories use primitive terms and axioms. The
> > theories predict how experimental results are
> > related based on these concepts. But the primitive
> > terms and axioms are never explained. Newton
> > never explained why his three laws happen.
>
> Oh, yes, but you forget to compare to the previous
> model. Objects moved until their 'motion was exhausted'.
>
I don't have to compare to the previous model.
Both models made some assumptions. Neither
explained why the assumptions are correct.
> > He just used them to relate the outcomes of
> > different experiments
>
> He just had a better model, and the mental paradigm
> shift that accompagnied it.
>
But neither model explains why the assumptions in the models
are correct.
> Btw , did you know that Newton was gay ?
> Saw it on the bbc documentary "10 greatest Britons"
>
Perhaps. But who cares? Does that add anything to any
discussion about physics?
John Anderson