For some reason, the SRians mind has an inability to answer questions,
particularly those that are not found in standard texts.
Rather than even contribute intelligent comments about serious issues, it can
only resort to abuse, ridicule, procrastination, diversion or, if all else
fails, snipping the question from the message.

Is this behavior symptomatic of hidden psycholgical fear or of being 'response
challenged'?

Why is it that those who reject relativity can readily produce novel theories,
have open minds, curiosity and lots of imagination whilst relativists,
generally, are totally susceptible to the dogma of their leaders? Do they
believe that their favorite theory can already provide all the answers? Is
relativity really the end of the scientific road?

What conclusions can be drawn from this constant SRian display of egotistical
self-delusion?

(Note: Intelligent SRians replies are welcome. Profanity and rudeness will be
taken as concrete evidence that the above statements are correct.)

Henri Wilson.

See why relativity is wrong:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
For some reason, the SRians mind has an inability to answer questions,
particularly those that are not found in standard texts.
Rather than even contribute intelligent comments about serious issues, it
can
only resort to abuse, ridicule, procrastination, diversion or, if all else
fails, snipping the question from the message.

Is this behavior symptomatic of hidden psycholgical fear or of being
'response
challenged'?

Why is it that those who reject relativity can readily produce novel
theories,
have open minds, curiosity and lots of imagination whilst relativists,
generally, are totally susceptible to the dogma of their leaders? Do they
believe that their favorite theory can already provide all the answers? Is
relativity really the end of the scientific road?


If an SRian (as you put it) constantly touted a novel theory, they would not
be an SRian, would they? They would be a proponent of the new theory.
Second, almost all those who reject relativity do so because they don't
understand it or what is required to replace it.

There are people who are curious about what relativity as a theory has to
say about the universe around us (and I count myself one). I don't want to
hear what another theory has to say just yet. Until I have thoroughly
learned the orthodox view I would have nothing to compare it against.

However just to refute your argument totally, I will point out that it's
easy coming up with a new theory if you don't follow the requirements that
it is rigorous, fills a gap and is testable. In fact I'll come up with one
now, as I type, hang on......

Got one.

What if space were not isotropic, as SR claims. What if there was a bias in
a particular direction, as there is with time. How would we know?
Everything would be moving in that direction at roughly the same rate, just
as everything moves through time at roughly the same rate. As there is no
such thing as absolute position it would make no difference and would be as
useful a concept as the ether. But there's more.

If we consider the extrinsic curvature of the universe to be spatial, that
too would have a direction. And if the contents of the universe moved in
that direction as well it would show in our three dimensional viewpoint as
an apparent expansion (or contraction). Furthermore, if we assume that this
timelike directionality was strongest at the big bang, when space and time
were closer in character, and is now fading, this would not only account for
inflation but would enable us to predict that the "force" that is increasing
the expansion rate will fade until eventually it will just be motion against
gravity.

There you are. A theory born of a Sunday morning typing session by an
SRian. Superficially plausible, but with no intellectual rigour to back it
whatsoever. Just like the theories touted by the crackpots, sorry I meant
freethinkers.

I used to write a little science fiction, and occasionally as an exercise I
would sit down and write twelve ideas for plots off the top of my head.
Ideas are a dime a dozen and its the turning of the ideas into stories that
takes the time and skill. Churning out the ideas for theories of the
universe is no different, but turning such an idea into an accepted method
of describing the universe is pretty rare.

By all means amuse yourself, riding your pet hobby-horse, but don't kid
yourself you are Newton or Einstein.

Yours in speculation,

Jon

To Jon,

If you are really interested in a set of logical theories, which have been
around for the last 12 years to replace General and Special Relativity, read
my Selected Papers which you will find at: http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Enjoy, Len.
.................................................. .........

"Jon Hurwitz" wrote in message
...

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
For some reason, the SRians mind has an inability to answer questions,
particularly those that are not found in standard texts.
Rather than even contribute intelligent comments about serious issues,
it
can
only resort to abuse, ridicule, procrastination, diversion or, if all
else
fails, snipping the question from the message.

Is this behavior symptomatic of hidden psycholgical fear or of being
'response
challenged'?

Why is it that those who reject relativity can readily produce novel
theories,
have open minds, curiosity and lots of imagination whilst relativists,
generally, are totally susceptible to the dogma of their leaders? Do
they
believe that their favorite theory can already provide all the answers?
Is
relativity really the end of the scientific road?


If an SRian (as you put it) constantly touted a novel theory, they would
not
be an SRian, would they? They would be a proponent of the new theory.
Second, almost all those who reject relativity do so because they don't
understand it or what is required to replace it.

There are people who are curious about what relativity as a theory has to
say about the universe around us (and I count myself one). I don't want
to
hear what another theory has to say just yet. Until I have thoroughly
learned the orthodox view I would have nothing to compare it against.

However just to refute your argument totally, I will point out that it's
easy coming up with a new theory if you don't follow the requirements that
it is rigorous, fills a gap and is testable. In fact I'll come up with
one
now, as I type, hang on......

Got one.

What if space were not isotropic, as SR claims. What if there was a bias
in
a particular direction, as there is with time. How would we know?
Everything would be moving in that direction at roughly the same rate,
just
as everything moves through time at roughly the same rate. As there is no
such thing as absolute position it would make no difference and would be
as
useful a concept as the ether. But there's more.

If we consider the extrinsic curvature of the universe to be spatial, that
too would have a direction. And if the contents of the universe moved in
that direction as well it would show in our three dimensional viewpoint as
an apparent expansion (or contraction). Furthermore, if we assume that
this
timelike directionality was strongest at the big bang, when space and time
were closer in character, and is now fading, this would not only account
for
inflation but would enable us to predict that the "force" that is
increasing
the expansion rate will fade until eventually it will just be motion
against
gravity.

There you are. A theory born of a Sunday morning typing session by an
SRian. Superficially plausible, but with no intellectual rigour to back
it
whatsoever. Just like the theories touted by the crackpots, sorry I meant
freethinkers.

I used to write a little science fiction, and occasionally as an exercise
I
would sit down and write twelve ideas for plots off the top of my head.
Ideas are a dime a dozen and its the turning of the ideas into stories
that
takes the time and skill. Churning out the ideas for theories of the
universe is no different, but turning such an idea into an accepted method
of describing the universe is pretty rare.

By all means amuse yourself, riding your pet hobby-horse, but don't kid
yourself you are Newton or Einstein.

Yours in speculation,

Jon
.................................................. ..................

"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...
To Jon,

If you are really interested in a set of logical theories, which have been
around for the last 12 years to replace General and Special Relativity,
read
my Selected Papers which you will find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Enjoy, Len.

Len,

I'm not. Which is what I said in my post. Pretty unambigously, I thought.

Jon

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
For some reason, the SRians mind has an inability to answer questions,
particularly those that are not found in standard texts.
As far as I can tell, from my (excuse the term) "relatively" short period of
time visiting s.p.r., an inability to answer questions isn't the issue. The
real reasons are more likely some (or all) of the following:

The question -
1. has been previously dealt with ad nauseum
2. is ambiguous or unintelligible
3. is part of a 5000 word shotgun blast of babble
4. was posted by someone who has a consistent record of monologism
5. is just some pet rant in disguise
6. is just blah blah blah
7. belongs on alt.philosophy
8. belongs on sci.physics.crackpots

The list is only limited by carpal tunnel syndrome.

Perion

"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...

Why is it that those who reject relativity can readily produce novel theories,
have open minds, curiosity and lots of imagination whilst relativists,
generally, are totally susceptible to the dogma of their leaders? Do they
believe that their favorite theory can already provide all the answers? Is
relativity really the end of the scientific road?

The truth of this statement is illustrated by the fact that the physicists
of the last century with the curiosity and imagination to produce all
the novel theories which revolutionized physics completely,
all rejected relativity.
Or didn't they?

Paul

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
For some reason, the SRians mind has an inability to answer questions,
particularly those that are not found in standard texts.
Rather than even contribute intelligent comments about serious issues, it
can
only resort to abuse, ridicule, procrastination, diversion or, if all else
fails, snipping the question from the message.

Is this behavior symptomatic of hidden psycholgical fear or of being
'response
challenged'?

When I asked the same old question that they had heard a thousand times
before, I received more intelligent answers than insults and snide remarks.
As for the latter, I think that being able to be a bit rude to eachother at
times is healthy and fun, within reasonable limits.

When I found their answers evasive (from my frame of reference) they no
doubt found my inability to accept their carefully prepared arguments,
exasperating. Yet many persisted, demonstrated patience and a genuine desire
to educate.

Why is it that those who reject relativity can readily produce novel
theories,
have open minds, curiosity and lots of imagination whilst relativists,
generally, are totally susceptible to the dogma of their leaders?

I think this is true of a small minority, but there are very intelligent
people in the Einstein camp who would reject SR if they had a good reason.
If there is a logic flaw in SR (you know I think there is), it is we who who
reject the theory who have failed to do a relatively simple thing: make the
logic flaw clear and undeniable.

How can we be so incompetent? It should be simple. One possible explanation
is, there is no flaw, it's a trick of the light, so to speak and when they
reject our arguments against relativity, they are trying to save us.

But I prefer not to go there.

Stephen


Do they
believe that their favorite theory can already provide all the answers? Is
relativity really the end of the scientific road?

What conclusions can be drawn from this constant SRian display of
egotistical
self-delusion?

(Note: Intelligent SRians replies are welcome. Profanity and rudeness will
be
taken as concrete evidence that the above statements are correct.)

Henri Wilson.

See why relativity is wrong:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

"Jon Hurwitz" wrote in message
...

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
For some reason, the SRians mind has an inability to answer questions,
particularly those that are not found in standard texts.
Rather than even contribute intelligent comments about serious issues,
it
can
only resort to abuse, ridicule, procrastination, diversion or, if all
else
fails, snipping the question from the message.

Is this behavior symptomatic of hidden psycholgical fear or of being
'response
challenged'?

Why is it that those who reject relativity can readily produce novel
theories,
have open minds, curiosity and lots of imagination whilst relativists,
generally, are totally susceptible to the dogma of their leaders? Do
they
believe that their favorite theory can already provide all the answers?
Is
relativity really the end of the scientific road?


If an SRian (as you put it) constantly touted a novel theory, they would
not
be an SRian, would they? They would be a proponent of the new theory.
Second, almost all those who reject relativity do so because they don't
understand it or what is required to replace it.

There are people who are curious about what relativity as a theory has to
say about the universe around us (and I count myself one). I don't want
to
hear what another theory has to say just yet. Until I have thoroughly
learned the orthodox view I would have nothing to compare it against.

However just to refute your argument totally, I will point out that it's
easy coming up with a new theory if you don't follow the requirements that
it is rigorous, fills a gap and is testable. In fact I'll come up with
one
now, as I type, hang on......

Got one.

What if space were not isotropic, as SR claims. What if there was a bias
in
a particular direction, as there is with time. How would we know?
Everything would be moving in that direction at roughly the same rate,
just
as everything moves through time at roughly the same rate. As there is no
such thing as absolute position it would make no difference and would be
as
useful a concept as the ether. But there's more.

If we consider the extrinsic curvature of the universe to be spatial, that
too would have a direction. And if the contents of the universe moved in
that direction as well it would show in our three dimensional viewpoint as
an apparent expansion (or contraction). Furthermore, if we assume that
this
timelike directionality was strongest at the big bang, when space and time
were closer in character, and is now fading, this would not only account
for
inflation but would enable us to predict that the "force" that is
increasing
the expansion rate will fade until eventually it will just be motion
against
gravity.

There you are. A theory born of a Sunday morning typing session by an
SRian. Superficially plausible, but with no intellectual rigour to back
it
whatsoever. Just like the theories touted by the crackpots, sorry I meant
freethinkers.

I used to write a little science fiction, and occasionally as an exercise
I
would sit down and write twelve ideas for plots off the top of my head.
Ideas are a dime a dozen and its the turning of the ideas into stories
that
takes the time and skill. Churning out the ideas for theories of the
universe is no different, but turning such an idea into an accepted method
of describing the universe is pretty rare.

By all means amuse yourself, riding your pet hobby-horse, but don't kid
yourself you are Newton or Einstein.

Yours in speculation,

Jon


I dabble a bit in sci-fi myself; I create a monthly online "adult" comic
strip about a frequently under-dressed young lady in space that doesn't yet
earn enough to give up the day job I also like to dabble in completely
rigour-free speculative theories of everything. My personal fave is my
fundamental quark theory. It goes summat like this...

If you write down the fundamental particles in order of their electric
charges, you get...
electron
anti-up q
down q
neutrino
anti-down q
up q
positron (anti-electron)

It thus seems reasonable to one as lacking in advanced physics education as
myself to consider the electron and negatively charged quarks, and the
neutrino, as differing their amount of "something" by one unit each. The
electron has 3 of it, the anti-up 2, the down 1, and the neutrino hasn't got
any of it at all, poor thing. The remainder of the list have negative values
of it, whatever it is. Since it seems to be limited to 3 of it, whatever it
may be, I've chosen to arbitrarily decide that this quality is
"dimensionality"; so the electron has 3 dimensions, the up 2, down 1, and
the neutrino has, er, none (which is a bit of a problem, I'll leave it to
somebody else to explain that).

So, the electron is allowed out on its own becuase it has the same number of
dimensions as the rest of the universe; the others have to be confined in
quantities that add up to 3; and if you try to seperate them you're trying
to create "flat space" which is why you need an infinite amount of energy to
pull them apart.

Rather neatly, quark colour is then easily explained away; a down quark has
1 dimension which may be the X, Y, or Z plane. The up has 2, which may be
XY, XZ, or YZ, 3 colours again (so in a sense, a red up quark is really a
green/blue combo). Presumably the particles decide locally what directions
their X, Y and Z planes point in, in some kind of confused quantum
mechanical manner.

Testable prediction: the up quark is actually an anti-quark so shouldn't
obey the symmetry CPT.

Complete nonsense of course, but I came up with it after too many beers
about a decade ago and have been trying to think up some interesting
consequence I could hang a good tale on ever since; something to do with
accidentally creating an area of 2 or 1 dimensional space or something

Still can't think of a good cod-scientific reason why it should result in
electric charge tho.

Ian

PS It's me that doesn't earn enough, not my buxom futuristic heroine
(www.jaxtrawstudios.com BTW)

PPS I WILL GIVE $1000 TO ANYONE WHO CAN CONVINCE ME THAT I AM RIGHT.

"HenriWilson" wrote in message ...
For some reason, the SRians mind has an inability to answer questions,

For some reason, the idiot's mind has an inability to listen to
responses they get to the questions they ask.

Dirk Vdm

HenriWilson wrote:

For some reason, the SRians mind has an inability to answer questions,
particularly those that are not found in standard texts.
Rather than even contribute intelligent comments about serious issues, it can
only resort to abuse, ridicule, procrastination, diversion or, if all else
fails, snipping the question from the message.


The universe doesn't care about arguments among humans. But the universe is
knowable, in part, to human for empirical data of observation and experiment.
For example, what is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Henri, your mind may be too closed to learn from this URL, but for some,
it may be a useful resource.