Re: Anti-relativists in an IOP article - recognise names
- From: dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bilge)
- Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 22:53:14 GMT
Koobee Wublee, the bumbling boobie:
"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.
In what way? The only difference between you and any other crackpot is
your choice of personal pet peeves about which to wax ignorant while
claiming to be an expert. It goes without saying that all cranks are litte
different in that respect.
[...]
2. 'Crank' Relativity
(i) Institutional relativists
Rutherford was right about SR being wrong.
That conflicts with your next comment about the mathematics being
simple. Rutherford had an excuse. You don't.
(ii) Inappropriate analogies
The mathematics of SR is ridiculously simple.
Then why is it that you cannot understand the resolution of the
twin paradox?
This crank is not math-envious of SR.
In that case, you merely don't understand it.
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.
Which are self-consistent if the ``basics we all have learnt in high
school'' are self-consistent.
The concept of GR is based on even more postulates than SR.
Yu mean, the equivalence principle? See:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/title.html
esp. sec. 3.1.
It is rather easy to refute GR through these vast number of postulates.
Which ``vast number of postulates,'' and why are you neglecting
the fact that classical physics requires an equivalent set of postulates
which differ only in what is assumed by the postulate? For example,
galilean relativity assumes (1) an affine space to define the spacetime,
(2) a metric, (3) a group of transformations which define a lie algebra.
The affine space isthe same affine space upon which relativity
is based, so the only differences are the choice of metric and
lie algebra. Nature happens to be the arbiter of correctness here.
(iii) Megalomaniac extention
I guess Mr. Raine has not heard of Mach's Principle.
Since mach's principle has no rigorous definition which is used
consistently, why should anyone bother mentioning it?
(iv) Symbolic jumble or spaghetti logic
The fallacy of the Twin's Paradox is very real.
For you, yes. But only because you think you understand relativity
despite the glaring evidence to the contrary.
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.
On your planet? I don't know. Here on earth, one can take a trip
to a library and seek resources called textbooks. One can also exploit
the world wide web.
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.
Have you proved that hyperolic geometry is inconsistent? If so,
you have proved that euclidean geometry is inconsistent. You should
immediately stop posting to usenet and write an article for Nature,
as that would be one of the more amazing discoveries of the past
several millenia. If not, you shoud stop posting to usenet and
slink away in embarrassment.
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.
In other words, it really is all about einstein.
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.
I certainly hope no one ever trusted you to do any engineering
that the unsuspecting public presumes to be safe unless you had
someone checking every number you calculated.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Anti-relativists in an IOP article - recognise names
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Anti-relativists in an IOP article - recognise names
- Prev by Date: Re: The Present.
- Next by Date: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
- Previous by thread: Re: "The Right Angle Lever Paradox"
- Next by thread: Re: Anti-relativists in an IOP article - recognise names
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
