Re: Doubts about relativity 'dogmas'
- From: tnewburgh@xxxxxxxxxxx (Theo Newburgh)
- Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:14:50 GMT
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:
I have challenged the validity of geometric GR on the grounds that it provides
no cause to initiate new 3-space motion (a well-defined physical concept), and
provides no source of new momentum for the target body... And the falsification
arguments stand unchallenged in print.
In case anyone is wondering about Tom's claim, he is mistaken. His
"falsification" consists of a conglomeration of adolescent
misconceptions and misunderstandings that are fully addressed in most
introductory physics text books. Therefore, the refutation of his
claims is abundantly represented in print. It's true that none of
those refutations (as far as I know) refers specifically to his silly
Foundations paper, but there is no reason they should, because
Tom did not originate those misconceptions. Countless high school
students before him have expressed the same misconceptions, and they
are all fully refuted in print.
What Tom really means is that no one has taken the trouble to write a
paper repeating the standard textbook explanations refuting his
"falsification" just to specifically link the refutation to his paper.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Doubts about relativity 'dogmas'
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Doubts about relativity 'dogmas'
- Prev by Date: Re: .Simple SR question...
- Next by Date: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Previous by thread: Re: Gravity, Parity, Eotvos
- Next by thread: Re: Doubts about relativity 'dogmas'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
