Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap
would be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the
Einsteinian church.
On 5/4/23 3:50 PM, Jane wrote:
Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crapThis just displays how ignorant and biased you are. Ignorant of how
would be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the
Einsteinian church.
science actually works, and biased against science and scientists. There
is no "Einstein church" -- that's just a figment of your imagination, indicative of your ignorance and bias.
In the world we inhabit, anyone who was able to demonstrate a
significant error in SR or GR would be a top contender for a Nobel
Prize.
The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter
and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to me
that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and
measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
out that way).
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:25:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to meMost of the proposed alternatives to GR predict violations of
that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
out that way).
the equivalence principle at some level, and if these alternatives
are correct, experiments testing the equivalence principle are
probably (?) within only a few orders of magnitude of sensitivity
of being able to detect EP violations.
Of course, this would be far from being any sort of "refutation"
of GR, merely the ascertaining of limits to its applicability.
On 5/4/2023 3:50 PM, Jane wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote:
Nature was obviously a lot smarter than relativists.
That's an unsupportable opinion. Plenty of mistakes have been made by scientists (of course when one adheres to the relativistic viewpoint as
a matter of belief there is a question whether they are scientists, same applies to opposition.) If relativism is wrong that's just another error
in the search for truth.
We don't have an accurate record regarding how
many errors "nature" has made, eg lifeform evolution on earth let alone
the unknown "attempts" made by nature elsewhere. That assumes there is
only one "nature" in the universe that also encompasses evolution of the universe as well as control of the basic laws of matter, energy, and whatever. The attempts by humans to understand everything is, consequentially, also a legitimate part of "nature" so while I
appreciate your sentiment you are relying, in this short argument, on a bifurcation that doesn't actually exist.
You're awfully quick with criticisms and dismissals but never post
anything to demonstrate you've actually thought most issues discussed
here through. I'm not one to care that you criticize Einstein, but
even there your criticisms there are baseless claims and you provide
no foundation for any of it.
Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap would
be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the Einsteinian
church.
I think you're missing a very important point. All of science has, since
the beginning of that human endeavor, very simply been a variation on
the socially acceptable (everywhere except in Martha Stewart's world)
called "fake it till you make it." Come on, Jane, aren't you just
another cog of that universe? OTOH your hedge word "incurably" is the
saving argument. That opens another discussion regarding how much
evidence is necessary to topple relativity and what sort of evidence
would that be? With all the inconsistencies that exist in science the inconsistencies you find in Einstein's and other supporting work is
simply not enough. I think it needs another Eureka moment to topple the existing well entrenched theories. I'm all ears and so is, I suspect,
most of the world. Don't be shy, show me all of it, the errors as well
as the alternative. I'd be very surprised if it ends up simply rolling
back to a prior "state of the art" but that is as much of an available
option as anything.
If you are who I think you are,
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:25:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter
and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to me
that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and
measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
out that way).
Most of the proposed alternatives to GR predict violations of the
equivalence principle at some level, and if these alternatives are
correct, experiments testing the equivalence principle are probably (?) within only a few orders of magnitude of sensitivity of being able to
detect EP violations.
Of course, this would be far from being any sort of "refutation" of GR, merely the ascertaining of limits to its applicability.
Any theory based on constant light speed is obviously wrong.
On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:51:12 -0500, whodat wrote:
On 5/4/2023 3:50 PM, Jane wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote:
Nature was obviously a lot smarter than relativists.
That's an unsupportable opinion. Plenty of mistakes have been made by
scientists (of course when one adheres to the relativistic viewpoint as
a matter of belief there is a question whether they are scientists, same
applies to opposition.) If relativism is wrong that's just another error
in the search for truth.
Einstein's 'Ether version' of relativity is obviously wrong. Newton's relativism has never been shown to be wrong.
We don't have an accurate record regarding how
many errors "nature" has made, eg lifeform evolution on earth let alone
the unknown "attempts" made by nature elsewhere. That assumes there is
only one "nature" in the universe that also encompasses evolution of the
universe as well as control of the basic laws of matter, energy, and
whatever. The attempts by humans to understand everything is,
consequentially, also a legitimate part of "nature" so while I
appreciate your sentiment you are relying, in this short argument, on a
bifurcation that doesn't actually exist.
You're awfully quick with criticisms and dismissals but never post
anything to demonstrate you've actually thought most issues discussed
here through. I'm not one to care that you criticize Einstein, but
even there your criticisms there are baseless claims and you provide
no foundation for any of it.
Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap would
be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the Einsteinian
church.
I think you're missing a very important point. All of science has, since
the beginning of that human endeavor, very simply been a variation on
the socially acceptable (everywhere except in Martha Stewart's world)
called "fake it till you make it." Come on, Jane, aren't you just
another cog of that universe? OTOH your hedge word "incurably" is the
saving argument. That opens another discussion regarding how much
evidence is necessary to topple relativity and what sort of evidence
would that be? With all the inconsistencies that exist in science the
inconsistencies you find in Einstein's and other supporting work is
simply not enough. I think it needs another Eureka moment to topple the
existing well entrenched theories. I'm all ears and so is, I suspect,
most of the world. Don't be shy, show me all of it, the errors as well
as the alternative. I'd be very surprised if it ends up simply rolling
back to a prior "state of the art" but that is as much of an available
option as anything.
You see...the difference between a true scientist like myself and a self educated, self proclaimed philosopher like yourself
is that I actually
know what i am talking about and state the facts.
I have actually provided strong hints
regarding the terrible error in Paul Andersen's
fifty yo 'refutation' of ballistic light and also Michelson's moving
mirror experiment. I am now waiting to see if any Einstein worshipper has
the intelligence to also find the mistakes and openly accept that they
exist.
If you are who I think you are,
I am not. End of story....you must have known my uncle John....
On Thu, 04 May 2023 23:26:05 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:25:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter
and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to me
that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and
measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
out that way).
Most of the proposed alternatives to GR predict violations of the
equivalence principle at some level, and if these alternatives are
correct, experiments testing the equivalence principle are probably (?)
within only a few orders of magnitude of sensitivity of being able to
detect EP violations.
Of course, this would be far from being any sort of "refutation" of GR,
merely the ascertaining of limits to its applicability.
Any theory based on constant light speed is obviously wrong.
Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap would be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the Einsteinian church.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:25:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to me
that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
out that way).
Most of the proposed alternatives to GR predict violations of
the equivalence principle at some level, and if these alternatives
are correct, experiments testing the equivalence principle are
probably (?) within only a few orders of magnitude of sensitivity
of being able to detect EP violations.
Of course, this would be far from being any sort of "refutation"
of GR, merely the ascertaining of limits to its applicability.
On Thu, 04 May 2023 23:26:05 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:25:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter >> and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to me
that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and
measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
out that way).
Most of the proposed alternatives to GR predict violations of the equivalence principle at some level, and if these alternatives are correct, experiments testing the equivalence principle are probably (?) within only a few orders of magnitude of sensitivity of being able to detect EP violations.
Of course, this would be far from being any sort of "refutation" of GR, merely the ascertaining of limits to its applicability.
Any theory based on constant light speed is obviously wrong.
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:07:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
Any theory based on constant light speed is obviously wrong.And your evidence in support of this claim is what, exactly?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 339 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:43:15 |
| Calls: | 7,467 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,691 |
| Messages: | 5,628,079 |