Most relativists are satisfied with the traditional superficial
explanation of relativity, probably because it makes them feel
superior to those who are mystified by it and who can't understand
why it has to be explained in such a senseless manner. The truth is
that most relativists enjoy the hocus pocus mysticism of relativity
for the same reason that a cultist enjoys occult science.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r.../directory.htm

"Shubee" wrote in message
...
| Most relativists are satisfied with the traditional superficial
| explanation of relativity, probably because it makes them feel
| superior to those who are mystified by it and who can't understand
| why it has to be explained in such a senseless manner. The truth is
| that most relativists enjoy the hocus pocus mysticism of relativity
| for the same reason that a cultist enjoys occult science.
|
| Shubee
| http://www.everythingimportant.org/r.../directory.htm


Yeah, and you are one of them, nothing important Shubert.

"Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o

It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
better than Einstein did.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r.../directory.htm

Shubee wrote:
"Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o

It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
better than Einstein did.

Given that you don't even understand what synchronization is about
this is doubtfull.

On Mar 29, 9:55*am, Shubee wrote:
"Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o

It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
better than Einstein did.

It wouldn't be surprising if you were a reasonably good graduate
student. However, as you are not, it is also not surprising that you
understand relativity rather poorly and pretty darned superficially,
even compared to Einstein.


Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm

On Mar 29, 7:47*am, Shubee wrote:
Most relativists are satisfied with the traditional superficial
explanation of relativity, probably because it makes them feel
superior to those who are mystified by it and who can't understand
why it has to be explained in such a senseless manner. The truth is
that most relativists enjoy the hocus pocus mysticism of relativity
for the same reason that a cultist enjoys occult science.

Well done. Feel superior now?


Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm

On Mar 29, 10:36 am, YBM wrote:
Shubee wrote:
"Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o

It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
better than Einstein did.

Given that you don't even understand what synchronization is about
this is doubtfull.

Believing that clocks have to synchronized with light rays or even
believing that the Lorentz transformation has to be derived from
Poincaré's relativity postulate is extraordinarily naive.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee wrote on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:55:04 -0700:

"Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o

Hi Shubee, interesting that you cite Weinberg.

Precisely he has a section on his textboook on Gravitation and Cosmology
explicitely devoted to criticism of the 'hocus pocus' mysticism by
relativists.

In "The geometric analogy" Weinberg discredits general relativists by
using terms like "metric", "affine connection", and "curvature".

I know of one experimentalist on this thread who likes to write
"manifold".

Of course, Weinberg words were not well-received by relativist community,
as explained in "Weinberg as a relativist heretic" on

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/st...hysicists.html

Main point of Weinberg, Feynman, and others physicists is that typical
relativists' explanations are not fundamental.

--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

Shubee a écrit :
On Mar 29, 10:36 am, YBM wrote:
Shubee wrote:
"Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
better than Einstein did.
Given that you don't even understand what synchronization is about
this is doubtfull.

Believing that clocks have to synchronized with light rays or even
believing that the Lorentz transformation has to be derived from
Poincaré's relativity postulate is extraordinarily naive.

Synchronization can be achieved with light rays as well as many other
means.

Confusing synchronization with clock continuous resetting, as you do,
is worse than naive.

Einstein formalized his version of special relativity by exalting a
simple clock synchronization scheme to the status of a law of physics.
When did I ever insist on such stupidity?

Shubee