"The establishment defends itself by complicating everything to the
point of incomprehensibility." - Fred Hoyle

However, the errors of relativity are very simple, elementary, and
obvious.

1. Petitio principii:
Many unmistakable examples of Einstein making this logical error have
been correctly pointed out all along. A very good one is the train and
lighting bolt thought experiment which presumes time dilation to
conclude the same.

2. Reification fallacy:

3.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"However, fine-tuning a model full of “fudge factors” while glossing
over the conceptual contradictions has become normalized and
unremarkable in today’s scientific environment." - Unzicker, Alexander.
The Liquid Sun: A Coming Revolution in Astrophysics (pp. 49-50). Kindle Edition.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

To paraphrase Unzicker, criticizing the standard solar model, it is not
that the relativity theory requires sophisticated mathematics or that it
is intellectually challenging for some other reason. It is instead an unintelligible mess. It is pure nonsense.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Freitag000006, 06.12.2024 um 22:07 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:

"The establishment defends itself by complicating everything to the
point of incomprehensibility." - Fred Hoyle

I had the same impression long ago.

Many things in physics are simply way to complicated, because I just
don't think, that nature needs such complicated rules.

Nature should work on a fundamental level very simple and should
therefore require only a few simple rules.

These fundamental principles should, however, generate a plethora of
different patterns, which we find in nature.

But the building blocks themselves should be few and simple.


If you (for instance) had found such 'building blocks' (say in the 19th century) and utilized them for your own benefit, you certainly want
others to search somewhere else.

In the meantime you could acquire tremendous wealth and make yourself a
member of the establishment (established by your wealth).

But you need to divert competition into unpromising realms and feed your competitors with unproductive nonsense.

This should be done 'en masse', because it wouldn't help, if these
others would find out of the swamp anytime soon.


TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 6:08:38 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Freitag000006, 06.12.2024 um 22:07 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:

"The establishment defends itself by complicating everything to the
point of incomprehensibility." - Fred Hoyle

I had the same impression long ago.

Many things in physics are simply way to complicated, because I just
don't think, that nature needs such complicated rules.

Nature should work on a fundamental level very simple and should
therefore require only a few simple rules.

These fundamental principles should, however, generate a plethora of different patterns, which we find in nature.

But the building blocks themselves should be few and simple.

If you (for instance) had found such 'building blocks' (say in the 19th century) and utilized them for your own benefit, you certainly want
others to search somewhere else.

In the meantime you could acquire tremendous wealth and make yourself a member of the establishment (established by your wealth).

But you need to divert competition into unpromising realms and feed your competitors with unproductive nonsense.

This should be done 'en masse', because it wouldn't help, if these
others would find out of the swamp anytime soon.

TH

For example, the standard model of the Sun as composed of gas is so
inaccurate that it requires countless complex explanations without
getting to the bottom of it. Unzicker's book The Liquid Sun makes it
clear that the Sun is liquid metallic hydrogen. Rather than scuttling opponents, the establishment censors them and defends itself by
deplatforming them. People aren't prepared to risk differing much in
very fundamental ways as their careers are at risk. That is why it is
well known that big breakthroughs are often made by people so
phenomenally successful they can take big risks or by mavericks who risk little. Norman Lockyer was phenomenally successful and pioneered archaeoastronomy, although he made some ridiculous mistakes while
delving into Egyptology.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-12-12 06:08:38 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

Am Freitag000006, 06.12.2024 um 22:07 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:

"The establishment defends itself by complicating everything to the
point of incomprehensibility." - Fred Hoyle

I had the same impression long ago.

Many things in physics are simply way to complicated, because I just
don't think, that nature needs such complicated rules.

The unwanted comma seems just right there.

Nature should

Says who? "If�the�Lord�Almighty had�consulted�me�before embarking on
creation thus, I should have recommended something simpler" (Alfonso X
of Castile).

work on a fundamental level very simple and should therefore require
only a few simple rules.

These fundamental principles should, however, generate a plethora of different patterns, which we find in nature.

But the building blocks themselves should be few and simple.

If you (for instance) had found such 'building blocks' (say in the 19th century) and utilized them for your own benefit, you certainly want
others to search somewhere else.

In the meantime you could acquire tremendous wealth and make yourself a member of the establishment (established by your wealth).

But you need to divert competition into unpromising realms and feed
your competitors with unproductive nonsense.

This should be done 'en masse', because it wouldn't help, if these
others would find out of the swamp anytime soon.

TH

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 8:46:19 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

On 2024-12-12 06:08:38 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

Am Freitag000006, 06.12.2024 um 22:07 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:

"The establishment defends itself by complicating everything to the
point of incomprehensibility." - Fred Hoyle

I had the same impression long ago.

Many things in physics are simply way to complicated, because I just
don't think, that nature needs such complicated rules.

The unwanted comma seems just right there.

Nature should

Says who? "If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation thus, I should have recommended something simpler" (Alfonso X
of Castile).

work on a fundamental level very simple and should therefore require
only a few simple rules.

These fundamental principles should, however, generate a plethora of
different patterns, which we find in nature.

But the building blocks themselves should be few and simple.


If you (for instance) had found such 'building blocks' (say in the 19th
century) and utilized them for your own benefit, you certainly want
others to search somewhere else.

In the meantime you could acquire tremendous wealth and make yourself a
member of the establishment (established by your wealth).

But you need to divert competition into unpromising realms and feed
your competitors with unproductive nonsense.

This should be done 'en masse', because it wouldn't help, if these
others would find out of the swamp anytime soon.


TH

So, you are arguing against the parsimony Heger appreciates.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 6:08:38 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Freitag000006, 06.12.2024 um 22:07 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:

"The establishment defends itself by complicating everything to the
point of incomprehensibility." - Fred Hoyle

I had the same impression long ago.

Many things in physics are simply way to complicated, because I just
don't think, that nature needs such complicated rules.

Nature should work on a fundamental level very simple and should
therefore require only a few simple rules.

These fundamental principles should, however, generate a plethora of different patterns, which we find in nature.

But the building blocks themselves should be few and simple.

If you (for instance) had found such 'building blocks' (say in the 19th century) and utilized them for your own benefit, you certainly want
others to search somewhere else.

In the meantime you could acquire tremendous wealth and make yourself a member of the establishment (established by your wealth).

But you need to divert competition into unpromising realms and feed your competitors with unproductive nonsense.

This should be done 'en masse', because it wouldn't help, if these
others would find out of the swamp anytime soon.

TH

In the 1920s, the Royal Society's influence and Eddington helped the
gaseous Sun model become the standard model. Coincidentally, it
supported the interpretation of the eclipse observations as caused by
gravity instead of refraction by supporting the low pressure above the photosphere. The gaseous model is not parsimonious.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)