Re: How serious are the implications of Einstein relativity's fraud to the honest realm of theoretical physics?

On Jan 4, 5:24 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3 ene, 22:44, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:




Sorry PD, my English isn't very good. Let's see what is the meaning
of
iconoclast in a good dictionary:

Noun, Singular iconoclast
Plural iconoclasts
iconoclast (plural iconoclasts)

   1. One who destroys religious images or icons, especially an
opponent of the Orthodox Church in the 8th and 9th centuries, or a
Puritan during the Reformation.
   2. One who opposes orthodoxy and religion; one who adheres to the
doctrine of iconoclasm.
   3. One who attacks cherished beliefs.

Ohhh,  I see,  so Einstein  Relativity is a religion!!!!!!!!

Two comments:
1. You didn't use the right definition in my context.

Yes, I did, Your context is Einstein Relativity, and it appears
more as religion than science. You relativists do not apply the
scientific method to test relativity.

What on earth gave you that idea?

If some phenomena seem to
disprove relativity, you invent epicycles to preserve the sacred
cult, that's dishonest. Since Galaxy rotation curves seem not to fit
very well on GR, you invent dark matter.

Dark matter is a *hypothesis*. If it is not found, then GR will be in
trouble. That is why there is so much interest in the search for dark
matter.

Since GR can't account
for a correct cosmological constant, you invent dark energy.

Newtonian gravity doesn't account for WHY it falls as 1/r^2, either,
it only notes that it does.
GR doesn't tell you what the cosmological constant should be, only
that its presence is included. GR doesn't tell you how much mass there
should be in the universe, either, only that if there is so much mass,
then this is the behavior you would expect the universe to have.
Theories don't provide answers to all the why questions. Never have,
never will. There is not a SINGLE scientific theory that answers all
the why questions.

Since
GR and QM do not agree, you prefer to suspect QM is wrong,

That's not true, either. No one is suspecting QM is wrong at all, and
I don't have the foggiest idea why you think it is. There is a huge
effort to develop a QM theory of gravity that works. No one is saying
that QM is wrong.

instead of suspecting GR is, or both. Since ...

2. You prefer to be both an iconoclast and right. You haven't
demonstrated the latter. At all. So at the moment it appears you're
putting more stock in demonstrating that you are an iconoclast than in
demonstrating that you're right. As I said earlier, it appears it's
more important to you to be an iconoclast than to be right.

Einstein was firstly an iconoclast, destroying newtonian gravity, and
then
reconstructing it in a little corner of his prodigious and wonderful
GR,
telling us the tale that newtonian gravity was only the weak limit of
GR.
He knew that newtonian gravity had to be wrong, so he invented an
ad hoc theory, so difficult to understand that nobody on earth can
attain explicit solutions to N-body problems, with N>1. That's
frustrating,
fella.

So your complaint is that GR is hard? I've got news for you. Newtonian
mechanics is hard. If you don't think so, I suggest you pick up a copy
of Goldstein. Do you think that N-body problems are solved for
Newtonian gravity? Got news for you -- they're hard in Newtonian
physics, too.

You seem to be under the illusion that if a model of nature is
important, then it should be easy and accessible, more so than
preceding theories. You have this asinine presumption that nature
should bend to your level of intuitiveness, rather than the other way
around. You have assumed that, if nature turns out to be so hard that
a common man can't understand it easily, then it must be a human
conspiracy to make it inaccessible and thereby turn it into a cult.

Got news for you, buddy. Nature is strange IN REALITY. Stranger than
we thought. It is by its character hard to understand. That's what
makes it fun. You find it frustrating. That's not nature's fault; it's
your problem. We do not, as physicists, get to CHOOSE whether nature
is simple to understand or hard to understand. We do not, as
physicists, CHOOSE to make nature hard so that laypeople can't
understand it. Nature is exactly what it is, hard or not hard to human
minds, and it is our job to bend our minds to wrap around what nature
really is, not what we want it to be.

But, who dare to clain GR is wrong?. Those who dare argue
against
GR are dubbed as crackpots, they are heretics, iconoclasts, ...
Isn't that a religion?
Let us see what says a good dictionary about the meaning of religion:

religion (plural religions)

   1. A system of beliefs, including belief in the existence of at
least one
      of the following:
      a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after
the death
      of one's body.
          * He couldn't abide by any religion that didn't allow for
wrongdoers
          to be punished after death.
   2. A number of customs and rituals associated with such beliefs.
          * When it comes to religion, she doesn't believe, but she
loves
           to attend the ceremonies.
   3. Anything that involves the association of people in a manner
resembling
       a religious institution or cult.
          * At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion.
   4. Any system or institution which one engages with in order to
foster a sense
      of meaning or relevance in relation to something greater than
oneself.

Well, I would say that your context is case 4, at the moment.
It seems that GR is greater than yourself. What a pity!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages