Re: Relativity, Scepticism and Humility in Science

From: ZZBunker (zzbunker_at_netscape.net)
Date: 10/27/04 

Date: 27 Oct 2004 14:54:09 -0700

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:<3%Dfd.103$K7.53@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> "ZZBunker" <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:e4a0829b.0410251215.567f6365@posting.google.com...
> > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:<S18fd.18022$SW3.16268@fed1read01>...
> > > Dear Eric Baird:
> > >
> > > "Eric Baird" <eric_baird@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> > > news:knlon0953n62ehn8hsq4lj8j9fv08rsjgc@4ax.com...
> > > > On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:50:36 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
> > > > dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
> ...
> > > >>> Look at the case of a centrifuged clock. We can calculate the
> > > >>> clock-slowing effect by using GR-style methods, and combining the
> > > >>> equivalence principle with the general idea of gravitational time
> > > >>> dilation, and seem to get the right answers. We can also do it by
> > > >>> applying SR and calculating the effect as a speed effect.
> > > >>
> > > >>But the later does not obtain a correct result. And even doing this
> does
> > > >>not show that GR was grown from SR. Contrariwise, you have stated
> that
> > > >>entirely different methods are involved.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but the "equivalence principle method" of calculating the
> > > > centrifuge shifts then got itself declared illegal, on the grounds
> > > > that its description of the centrifuge effect was geometrically
> > > > incompatible with SR's version, and so one or both had to be wrong,
> > > > and that since SR was not "allowed" to be wrong, the GR principles had
> > > > to be downgraded and allowed to be suspended when a conflict with SR
> > > > otherwise seemed inevitable.
> > > >
> > > > I don't mind the idea that SR is a first approximation of a more
> > > > thorough theory of relativity, but what we actually seem to be doing
> > > > in practice is finding where the more general principles conflict with
> > > > SR, declaring that SR has to be correct, and saying that the more
> > > > general principles are only general design guides and not properly
> > > > principles at all
> > > >
> > > > So while I like the idea of a general theory of relativity, I think
> > > > that what we actually got was a sort of hacked-about stitched together
> > > > composite of two conflicting sets of ideas, with no overall principles
> > > > dictating the shape of the final theory (other than "SR cannot be
> > > > wrong").
> > >
> > > You are arguing about the engineering view, as compared to the purist's
> > > view. I assure you that GR is a "seamless" whole. It just does not
> avail
> > > itself of closed form solutions, and "when the only tool you
> [understand]
> > > is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail."
> >
> > That is not the engineering point-of-view, that's
> > the mathematician's point-of-a-view. Since
> > mathematicans are still only rank with pyschologists
> > and lawyers as the universes' most technologically
> > ignorant specimens that ever screwed a monkey
> > with a physicsts' used gasket.
>
> Tell that to Shannon.
>
> >
> > The lack of closed form is a priori obvious
> > in GR, as even Einstone and his trains
> > easily proved to the seamly Quantum moron poets
> > of the Bohr atom philosopher ilk,
> > and their equally ignorant French chemist
> > Associates in brain dead.
> >
> > Since the only people on Earth who even use
> > GR are mathematicians and their
> > UN commie H-bomb retarded friends, not Engineers.
>
> What a load of rot. The engineers that designed the GPS system needed it -
> and quite badly - it would not have worked without it.

  Well, guess what? The engineers who designed GPS were
  not Engineers. They were NASA *Psychologists*.
  As any robot Engineer could have have told the
  Feynmann physics ignorami.

>
> >
> > The one and only problem with GR is still
> > what Einstone told the idiot astrologers
> > is "mathematics" at least a billion times.
>
> The biggest problem you have is you do not understand it.

  GR is simplest theory of physics to understand.
  It's the only theory of gravity to be known to
  be definitely wrong. Since Einstone even had to
  cough up the admission at least 10 times to
  the QM astrologers:

  The cosmic expansion fudge factor is defintely wrong.

> >
> > The universal field does not *EXIST*.
> > Oh ye of the Dice throwing, Communist Reeducation Camp,
> > recusively-analgous ocean frogman,
> > Quantum idiocy notoriety.
>
> Usual crank tripe.

  Since in GR, anybody who is not Jewish
  or a Born again Christian is by defintion a crank.
  It doesn't matter to matter as the
  general theory goes. Since our time travel
  detectors have you atomic wave morons surrounded.

> Bill

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relativity, Scepticism and Humility in Science
    ... >> mathematicans are still only rank with pyschologists ... >> ignorant specimens that ever screwed a monkey ... The engineers that designed the GPS system needed it - ... >> what Einstone told the idiot astrologers ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The pleasure of getting knowledge, was Wheels for 700lb guy?
    ... guesswork and outright bullshit so often excreted here. ... The more ignorant they are, the more sincerely *certain* they are. ... From this the lesser engineers have ... process and method gravely telling us their opinion. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Changing over to ceramic bearings.
    ... What advice do the engineers have ... discussing, ignorant, but not uneducatable. ... "Introduction to Engineering Materials: ... "Understanding Physics," Isaac Asimov, 3 volumes, $15 including ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Linux Jibs Open (Saudi Arabia)
    ... Need Linux Admins and Engineers, ... me keeps wondering why should such an ignorant as Ivar stick politics ... zaher el siddik ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)