Re: The Brilliance of Our Teachers

cnctutwiler_at_wmconnect.com
Date: 03/20/05 

Date: 20 Mar 2005 09:30:28 -0800

Einsteinhoax wrote:
> The Brilliance of Our Teachers
>
> A recent newspaper question and answer column raised an
interesting
> subject. The query noted that, for a science course at a local
school, there
> were two instructors. One of those instructors explained the concepts

> clearly and his students did well on standardized tests. The other
> instructor's teachings were scattered and his students performed
poorly. The
> students, however, believed that the second instructor was brilliant
and
> thought that his explanations are simply over their heads. The query
went on
> to ask why such a misperception occurred.
>
> The answer given was that both groups were easily misled into
believing
> that mysterious people are highly intelligent. When those listeners
heard
> material they didn't grasp, they assumed that the fault was theirs
and not
> the teachers. And, since the listeners considered themselves fairly
> intelligent, it was obvious that the teacher must be brilliant!
>
> Judging from the material posted in these Newsgroups, the effect
would
> seem to be quite pronounced. It is quite plain that the posters
ardently
> believe in the validity of what they have been taught. It is also
quite
> obvious that they are aware, if only sublimely, of the
inconsistencies and
> contradictions within that teaching. If that were not the case, the
subject
> matter would be straightforward by now, the understanding of modern
physics
> would not be so muddled, and the postings would not suggest such a
high
> level of misunderstanding.
>
> The truth of the matter is that the subjects, relativity in
particular,
> seem mysterious and contradictory for one basic reason. The teachers
of the
> subject do not themselves understand it. Because they don't
understand the
> subject they hide behind sophisticated, often unnecessary and
sometimes self
> contradictory mathematical explanations to prevent that lack of
> understanding from being apparent. In order to achieve this goal they
have
> made Physics into the only Science where MECHANISM is not considered.
This
> is illustrated by a quotation from Dr. Hawking who exclaimed, in an
> interview, that he was only interested in mathematics and observation
and in
> the correlation of the two approaches. He didn't care about "reality"
(for
> which we may read mechanism) because he didn't know what reality was.
This
> is unfortunate because the present practice of ignoring mechanism,
and
> overlooking the fact that nothing is known until observation,
mathematics
> and understanding of mechanism are in agreement. Without such an
agreement
> an understanding of the process(es) involved is not assured. It is
only when
> all three requirements have been met that we can have any hope of
knowing
> "who is doing what to whom".
>
> Even more important, without including mechanism in our
understanding
> matrix, we eliminate a vital check on validity. The mathematics of
many
> processes extends to regions which are physically unrealizable.
Without
> considering mechanism these "empty" regions will not be recognized.
An
> example of the effect is the idea that "virtual photons" can explain
forces
> which act at a distance. "Virtual photons" can easily explain
repulsive
> forces acting between material particles, but they can not be used to

> explain attractive forces. The same is true of "gravitons". They
cannot
> produce the attractive force of gravity! "Virtual particles" can only

> produce repulsive forces. An understanding "mechanism" reveals this
> deficiency quite clearly.
>
> To put the relativity concepts into perspective, the current
orthodoxy
> accepts the validity of the idea that there are no absolutes. Length
is what
> yardsticks measure and time is what clocks measure. What is
conveniently
> overlooked is that the forces existing between the atoms in a
yardstick and
> the hairspring of a clock escapement (or their conceptual equivalents
in
> actual test equipment) must be electromagnetic in nature. Not only is

> electromagnetism the only known candidate for these forces, the need
for
> them follows if the questionable idea of modern physics that
interatomic
> forces are produced by the exchange of "virtual photons" is not to
collapse
> instantaneously. In addition, the speed of a clock is affected by the
mass
> of its balance wheel (or equivalent) as given by M=E/C^2 and the
stiffness
> of the forces between the nuclei of the "hairspring" (or equivalent).
Since
> all of the preceding are functions of the velocity of light in the
local
> reference frame, it is rather foolish to make the assertion that
length is
> what yardsticks measure and time is what clocks measure without
taking into
> account the effect that possible changes in the actual velocity of
light
> might have on them. Such changes may be concealed by relativistically

> induced changes in the atomic spacings, stiffnesses and inertial
masses of
> our instruments When one does take these considerations into account,
the
> Principle of Relativity and the invariance of the local velocity of
light
> follow at once for the simple reason that matter must be using the
local "en
> vacuo" velocity of light to control its parameters. A physicist who
does not
> recognize this instinctively is clearly in the wrong line of work. (I

> understand Wal-Mart is hiring.). One does not need to resort to the
> sophisticated and to a large degree defective teachings of an
arrogant
> intellectual elite Once the basics are recognized, the understanding
of the
> process involved do not require advanced mathematics, they are within
the
> capabilities of a bright high school physics student.
>
>
> The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity"
(1987),
> "The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in
Special
> Relativity (1999) located at
> http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
> EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING
ELSE
> WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL
OBSERVATIONS, AND
> IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS
MEET THIS
> REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF
WORKMANSHIP FROM
> THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
>
> All Newsposts by this Website are available at
>
http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.com/einsteinhoax/postinglog.htm
>
> Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on
> a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same
courtesy
> as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our
parts,
> please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
> have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
>
> E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com
>
> The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
over 5
> years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE
> MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
> individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom
without
> questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot
be
> objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
> Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with
one
> exception for which a correction was provided.

Your article is well constructed--the para on elitism crumbled however
with your "hiring at WalMart" comment--showing me you might be on a
Wien's vice Plank cavity radiation plot--meaning similiar elitism
curves but slightly different radiancy points.

Education to educators is like muscles to atheletes--and there are
thugs in athletics as well as education--some hit you with flesh, some
with words--a thick shell, however, protects from both.

Tut

Quantcast