Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker

• Previous message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
• In reply to: David Cross: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
• Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:24:59 GMT

 David Cross:
>On 12 Mar 2005 20:52:38 -0800, jgreen@seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote:
>
>>Face it; Newton put man on the moon, and Huygen et al, NOT einstein.
>>The only supporters of his, are those who have an intellectual and
>>emotional stake in R never being disproved. The true scientists carry
>>on launching the rockets (quite successfully) with nary an e=mc^2 in
>>sight! The "theoreticals" invest their talents in bending the data
>>from any available operating system, from accellerators to GPS, to
>>suit R formulae, when simple c'=c+v, an understanding of doppler, and
>>the rejection of magic and circular logic , suffices.
>
>I have a very simple question: Does your alternative theory of mechanics
>explain something seemingly esoteric as relativistic effects on atomic
>electrons? Einstein's SR plus the Dirac extensions to quantum mechanics seem
>to do so quite well!
 
  Another caveat: jim greenwood is no better than eleaticus at
logic and is just as impervious to facts.

>
>All this comes from a theory of mechanics you pooh-pooh.
>
>I like to think I've learned a few things over the years and one of them is
>realizing that the world doesn't change itself to work the way you want it to
>just because you don't like the esthetics of the math that describes it.
>
>I have no idea what it is about people who just can't accept that any change
>to the velocity of light can be measured via a differential effect (as in the
>Michelson-Morley experiment) and if there isn't a directional dependence on
>the velocity, that's probably a bloody good clue that light is a bit unusual,
>and that's just the bloody way it is!

  My conclusion after reading the same ill-conceived objections for
a while are that there exist people who are simply incapable of
overcoming their preconceptions about how nature works (and probably
anything else) no matter what facts are staring them in the face.
They are like the typical armchair quarterback who ``knows better''
than the quarter back, the coaches or anything else despite having
never done anything with a football but hold it in his lap and
possibly knock over his own beer. They want to be perceived as
being smart, witty and knowledgeable, yet are unwilling to put any
effort into doing any more than trying to fake it.

• Previous message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
• In reply to: David Cross: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
• Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]