"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...
"hanson" wrote in message
k.net...
"EL" wrote in message
"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
So, what gives? Does any Relativist really understand the
Theory of Relativity?
EL wrote:
No.
ueb wrote in message
You are probably right.
Ulrich
[EL]
Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics.
Broser, EL,
your one liner appears to be a summation which has merit indeed.
Not to stray over the entire body of published authors on Relativity
let me confine my observations to these sci.groups on the Use-net.
Advocating as fact, that relativity is *essential for the existence* of
-- *GPS* is profusely and adamantly professed by Uncle Al.
-- *Accelerators* is undauntedly insisted upon by Sam Wormley.
giving and leaving the distinct impression that without Relativity there
would be no functioning atom smashers nor an accurate GPS.
However, when you hear professional experimental physicist talks
about it seem to be much more the case that Al & Sam have put the
cart before the horse. The professional hands-on experiences of the
people below highlights a much more believable picture of the
situation.
Case (a):
In news:mbIkb.826385$Ho3.229793@sccrnsc03 or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...93%40sccrnsc03
one reads about Prof. Franz Heymann, who AFTER a lifetime of work,
as a teamleader at CERN, went into retirement ......to study GR......
Franz apparently didn't need relativity during his 20 years of daily work
at/with an accelerator that was constructed without the need of SR/GR.
Case (b):
in or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...E4A%40fnal.gov
Physicist Eric Prebys working at Fermilab observes: ..." the military
types were a little skeptical about this "relativity stuff",
were a little skeptical about this "relativity stuff", and required that
there be an option to turn off the relativistic corrections
in the GPS system"
Obviously, the GPS system was built and operated without relativity
being considered for its construction........
[Bob]
The bending of light by gravity is considered to be "proof" that Einstein's
theory is correct in many text books. This is despite the fact that many
scientists speculated on this very possibility long before Einstein was even
born and they did it without having to invoke the General Theory of
Relativity.
Case (general):
= Anybody who works in mil/indust. Eng, R&D "does NOT need GR ****"
= Anybody who works in *.edu & for R-grants "does need GR, - No ****"
= Anybody who's in Promo, Sales & Movies "loves GR by the ****load"
= Jews protect GR as their cultural heritage whether "GR is **** or not".
[Bob]
Interesting point. Here's something else I dug up:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
"......It is not surprising, therefore, that genuine physicists were not
impressed: they tended to agree with Rutherford. After Wilhelm Wien had
tried to impress him with the splendours of relativity, without success, and
exclaimed in despair "No Anglo-Saxon can understand relativity!", Rutherford
guffawed and replied "No! they've got too much sense !"[fn. Quoted from the
Rutherford Memorial Lecture to the Physical Society 1954 by P.M.S. Blackett
( Yearbook of the Physical Society ( 1955))] Let us see how sensible they
were."
[Robert]
Does Einstein's theory remain unchallenged, for the most part, simply
because it would be politically incorrect to consider Jews wrong and Whites
right? This doesn't sound like science to me. In fact, it sounds highly
suspect in light of the fact that Einstein's theory (in it's present
incarnation) is a logical contradiction.
Robert
Hence, EL's: "Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics."
appears to hit the button. Or expressed in my own, more colorful world:
"Relativity, like any other theory, is just a ****ing story that attempts
to describe what we see, perceive and measure......after the fact"
Now, since the theoretical physicists, the story tellers, have to make
a living too, I say .. let'em sing...all of them....it's a beautiful
choir......
ahahahaha.........ahahahahanson
[hanson to all respondents]
Thank you guys, for partaking in the choir.
But listen guys, I was NOT knocking relativity, neither SR nor GR.
I raised the issue because of the continuous insinuation & implication
by posters, the teaching industry and the media which promulgate
the impression that SR/GR makes or generates physical objects or
is responsible for their construction or functioning.
1) Neither SR/GR, nor any other theory does cause, generate nor
construct, nor is responsible for the functioning of material objects.
2) Stop telling/talking like SR/GR creates or generates physical
objects or is responsible for their construction or functioning.
3) Start religiously emphasizing that SR/GR are only human mental
concepts, non-material mathematical constructs, stories or tales that
are useful in describing physically material objects/processes/events.
But to many in the community the practice of elevating theory and
its inventors to the status of religious icons and gospel, this unholy
practice provides power and income. This is a natural human trait
and MO, so therefore, I say, let us go back to biz as usual and
...... let'em sing...all of them....it's a beautiful choir......
ahahahaha.........ahahahahanson