Re: Anti-relativists in an IOP article - recognise names

"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message
news:290620062334517523%phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0143-0807/26/6/S09/ejp5_6_s09.pdf

Here are my repsonses to Mr. Raine's papaer above. Although I cannot
say for all cranks, this crank is a little bit different from the rest.
After all, it is a rather interesting article without addressing much
physics or mathematical issues.

1. Introduction

It should be better if the following website is linked.

http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm

2. 'Crank' Relativity

(i) Institutional relativists

Rutherford was right about SR being wrong.

(ii) Inappropriate analogies

The mathematics of SR is ridiculously simple. This crank is not
math-envious of SR. GR takes a little bit understanding of math
involved. However, the math is just an extention of the basics we all
have learnt in high school. The concept of GR is based on even more
postulates than SR. It is rather easy to refute GR through these vast
number of postulates.

(iii) Megalomaniac extention

I guess Mr. Raine has not heard of Mach's Principle.

(iv) Symbolic jumble or spaghetti logic

The fallacy of the Twin's Paradox is very real. Yet, it is hand-waved
away time after time. Even with spacetime diagram, the resolution must
be backed up by mathematics. Yet, where is the mathematics that backs
up any resolution to the Twin's Paradox. In 2006, we have been waiting
for 109 years ever since Larmor introduced Lorentz Transform to the
world. Poincare formed a BS interpretation based on the faulty
mathematics of Lorentz Transform. It is absolutely laughable.

3. Why Einstein

It has nothing to do with Einstein. It has all things to do with
logic, science, and math. Yes, all the things science is supposed to
stand for. Einstein is a nobody. His works were plagiarisms from
other cranks and certain alchemists.

4. What this tells us about science

Flawed since 1897 on. Current version of physics on the topics of
relativity is merely one of the 'crank' versions of relativity. It is
sad, silly, and again laughable all at the same time.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rational numbers, irrational numbers: each dense in real numbers
    ... particular mathematics, including ZFC. ... crank manner, ... infinite sets lack elements and aren't infinite) may ... physical objects, as do functions among those, ad infinitum. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Orlow cardinality question
    ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... >> ideas have already covered much of the area that Cantor defaced. ... > Mathematics is open - anyone can play. ... > minor questions are resolved are another crank warning sign. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Am I a crank?
    ... I like mathematics and play with it in my spare time, ... could find any patterns. ... solve a problem or would a more experienced mathematician have been ... If you want some good examples of crank behavior, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... any Mathematics grad student (and many ... If his thesis remains unmodified, yes, he should expect failure from ... Crank physicists who wish to ... Wilfrid Hodges talking about the two dozen papers submitted him by ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Math and religion - is the very topic crankish?
    ... is a relationship between religion and mathematics does not ... *automatically* render you a crank. ... Generally, science deals with the world we observe, and religion deals ...
    (sci.math)