Re: The true crackpots


<mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128064418.158978.78620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| PD wrote:
| "Ah, so let's refine your objection.
| It is NOT the case that SR is crackpottery because it refers to
| idealized cases that never hold exactly in nature. If we were to argue
| that, then we'd have to throw out Newtonian gravity and Coulomb's law
| and Newton's first law. So we won't argue that.
|
| Instead what you're *now* arguing is that Newton's first law is OK to
| hang onto, even though it never applies *exactly*, because it produces
| predictions that you believe and which make sense to you.
|
|
| On the other hand SR, which also never applies *exactly* but
| nevertheless seems to make good predictions that match up with
| experiment, is crackpottery, because it produces predictions that you
| don't believe and which don't make sense to you.
|
|
| So your argument is, basically, you don't know *what's* wrong with it,
| but something is."
|
| I repeat my response of yesterday, because Androcles thought that I
was
| perhaps responding to him:
|
| You are implying (claiming?) that a conceptually false theory like SR
| is on an equal footing with e.g. Newton's first law because both don't
| apply exactly, but nevertheless make good predictions that match up
| with experiments.
|
|
| You should realize that Newton's first law doesn't lead to logical
| aberrations like "mutual time dilation". As SR ignores that two
clocks
|
| moving at different velocities wrt a same clock which can be
considered
|
| at rest (like the track clock in your example or a CMBR clock) don't
| tick at the same rate (contrarily to its prediction), one should not
| call it a correct theory. Otoh, predictions like time slowing or mass
| increase of particles moving at high velocities are not an exclusivity
| of SR.
|
|
| Marcel Luttgens

This fall when you are raking oak leaves, remember the problem isn't
that
you lack a leaf blower, it is the acorn your predecessor planted.
The acorn of the problem with SR, no matter how many examples you find
as a conseuence, is Einstein's definition of time. Get to that and ALL
the problems vanish.
Androcles





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The true crackpots
    ... > moving at some velocity wrt each other, which automatically lead to ... It is NOT the case that SR is crackpottery because it refers to ... Instead what you're *now* arguing is that Newton's first law is OK to ... predictions that you believe and which make sense to you. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The true crackpots
    ... You are implying that a conceptually false theory like SR ... You should realize that Newton's first law doesn't lead to logical ... moving at different velocities wrt a same clock which can be considered ... predictions like time slowing or mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the science for SR and LET?
    ... any kind of particle-particle interaction. ... clock has a different rate when moving than when it ... You don't know how SR produces these predictions? ... one of those common sense intuitions that turns out ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the science for SR and LET?
    ... the same predictions, ... The *rate* of a clock is not an intrinsic property of the clock, ... inertial observers looking at the *same* clock ... you seem not to want to let measurements dissuade you of it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A puzzle
    ... IOW, you point to motion ... You say a clock tells time. ... >> charge and gravity and many other properties of nature. ... >> time dilates and some predictions are made on this basis while others ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)