Re: New challenge to Einstein from experiment?

From: Mike (eleatis_at_yahoo.gr)
Date: 02/01/05 

Date: 1 Feb 2005 06:23:10 -0800

Creighton Hogg wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2005, Mike wrote:
>
> > Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> >
> > > "A beautiful theory is oft slayed by an ugly fact." T.H.Huxley
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > There can be no motion without reference to some absolute space.
>
> This is what you believe. You view it as a philosophic requirement.
Why
> is it necessarily true?

I could ask the same about the epistemological principle used by
Einstein that the laws of physics must have the same form in all
inertially moving reference frames. Epistemology is a branch of
philosophy. The issue here is that from an epistemic perspective
Einstein never showed why that belief of his was justified. I will tell
you how my belief is justified to seperate myself from the crackpot
Einstein.

I justify my belief above based on the fact that a uniform speed moving
body that suddenly strikes a wall produces a given damage that is
invariant of FoR although its kinetic energy is frame dependent.
Actually, the fact that KE is frame dependent was what led Leibniz to
abandon his search for relational dynamics and drove him in a
metaphysical spiral. Einstein never understood the significance of
Leibniz's work, only cared to confirm Newton at the weak limit.

>
> > Einstein was a crank of major proportions and it was only media
hype
> > that brought him status and subsequent forced belief in his
crackpot
> > theories.
>
> Are you sure it wasn't stuff like the photoelectric effect that got
him
> status?

Wrong statement. Ask any person in the street, not even 1% of them
knows he got the Nobel for the photoelectric effect, most think he got
it for relativity. Einstein would be remembered like anyone else
(Dirac, Planck, etc.) if it was not for the greate media hype purpoting
him as the new mesiah of physics.

>
> > The assertions about experiments, accelerators, GPS etc. are for
> > laughs. There is an infinite number of compensatory theories all
> > producing the same predictions as SR and GR.
>
> The same could be said of any theory ever; however, SR does predict
> correctly for accelerators and such, and so we'll keep using it until

> something better comes along.
> Your argument only works if one were to claim that SR and GR are the
last
> word in physics, that they represent Reality. No one in physics
claims
> this.

Straw man argument. Whether they do or don't, that's not what counts.
If you claim they are corraborated by experimentation, there is at
least an indirect mapping with reality.

Why should anyone use real experiments to corraborate a theory she
believes does not correspond to reality? What's the purpose of such
activity?

Mike

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Explaining Time Dilation
    ... But when you disagree it is still I who must point you to a reference. ... > really must stop trying to understand physics through your own private ... Space-time is a math construct. ... it is not a constituent of reality unless and until ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Explaining Time Dilation
    ... But when you disagree it is still I who must point you to a reference. ... > really must stop trying to understand physics through your own private ... Space-time is a math construct. ... it is not a constituent of reality unless and until ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "Einsteins Unfortunate Legacy #1"
    ... Dr. Einstein is credited with being a modern Newton who provided a sea ... change shift in our understanding of physical reality. ... Lorentz Transformation for Velocity is the Lorentz Transformation for Length ... E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: New challenge to Einstein from experiment?
    ... > Einstein never showed why that belief of his was justified. ... > invariant of FoR although its kinetic energy is frame dependent. ... > him as the new mesiah of physics. ... >> word in physics, that they represent Reality. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: New challenge to Einstein from experiment?
    ... > Einstein never showed why that belief of his was justified. ... > invariant of FoR although its kinetic energy is frame dependent. ... > him as the new mesiah of physics. ... >> word in physics, that they represent Reality. ...
    (sci.astro)