"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...

To Dave,

I admire your courage in questioning the relativity establishment. It is
like saying that since the pope is human he must be fallible since only
God
is perfect. Moreover, according to the bible, it is a sin to say that you
are God's equal. So you see the contradiction. Yet, in spite of Galileo
and others, Catholics continue to believe that the pope is infallible in
spite of the fact that successive popes have changed the tenets of the
church over time.


The pope is infallible *only* in matters of faith and morals, not anything
else.
Yours is a typical misunderstanding of the facts, which are readily
available.

--
___________________________
Bonnie Granat
Granat Editorial Services
http://www.editors-writers.info
Fast | Accurate | Affordable

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:04:33 +0000 (UTC), Dave
wrote:

Louis Essen was one of the world's leading physicists in the 1950s and
1960s. He worked at the UK National Physical Laboratory and was the
major developer of the caesium atomic clock. The current definition of
the second as a time unit is based on Essen's caesium clock design.

The definition of the second has to average out to have
exactly 24 hours in a day, otherwise noon would soon come
in the morning or evening.

All anti-relativitists are complete nuts suffering from
some ego trip delusions, not of grandeur, but of knowledge
and logic.

That doesn't mean that everything in every textbook
or paper is correct, it just means that physics is not complete
without a method to treat observation at a distance and at
high energies.

Joe Fischer

In article ,
Jamieson Christie wrote:
[snip]

Like many experimental physicists, Essen did not want to touch
relativity with a bargepole. But since he was the world's leading atomic
clock expert and at the time investigating relativity was effectively
the only practical application for an atomic clock, he decided to get
involved. He was not impressed by what he saw, he thought Einstein's
1905 paper on SR was one of the worst he had ever read, it confirmed a
disparaging viewpoint he had about theoretical physicists and was
apalled by the idea of a "thought experiment". His views on relativity
are given in this link--
http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html
(the website is run by Ray Essen, presumably a relative; the "timelord"
bit is a reference to Essen's nickname in the British press)

It's full of errors and misunderstandings. Essen criticised relativity
because he did not understand it. He describes the assumption that the
velocity of light is constant as "contrary to the foundations of science"
(without saying why), and provides an unclear explanation based on units.

After seeing crackpot detracters of relativity on Usenet for years I've
decided they're not crackpot detracters because they don't understand the
theory. Rather, they don't understand the theory because they have
metaphysical issues with it, and are therefore not even interested in
putting a lot of study into it or resolving apparant problems. I used to
think a few misconceptions could be cleared up and the problem would be
resolved. But the misconceptions are a symptom, not a cause.

And I've qualified the type of detracters because there can certainly be
the other kind that don't like relativity but won't base their arguments
on semi-Newtonian analyses of thought experiments, or giving precedence to
how they think experiments should turn out rather than results as
measured. There can be non-crackpot detracters of relativity.

--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Jamieson Christie wrote:
[snip]

Like many experimental physicists, Essen did not want to touch
relativity with a bargepole. But since he was the world's leading atomic
clock expert and at the time investigating relativity was effectively
the only practical application for an atomic clock, he decided to get
involved. He was not impressed by what he saw, he thought Einstein's
1905 paper on SR was one of the worst he had ever read, it confirmed a
disparaging viewpoint he had about theoretical physicists and was
apalled by the idea of a "thought experiment". His views on relativity
are given in this link--
http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html
(the website is run by Ray Essen, presumably a relative; the "timelord"
bit is a reference to Essen's nickname in the British press)

It's full of errors and misunderstandings. Essen criticised relativity
because he did not understand it. He describes the assumption that the
velocity of light is constant as "contrary to the foundations of science"
(without saying why), and provides an unclear explanation based on units.

After seeing crackpot detracters of relativity on Usenet for years I've
decided they're not crackpot detracters because they don't understand the
theory. Rather, they don't understand the theory because they have
metaphysical issues with it, and are therefore not even interested in
putting a lot of study into it or resolving apparant problems. I used to
think a few misconceptions could be cleared up and the problem would be
resolved. But the misconceptions are a symptom, not a cause.

And I've qualified the type of detracters because there can certainly be
the other kind that don't like relativity but won't base their arguments
on semi-Newtonian analyses of thought experiments, or giving precedence to
how they think experiments should turn out rather than results as
measured. There can be non-crackpot detracters of relativity.

What would you say is the real cause of this prevalent resistence to
relativity based on "metaphysics," rather than the mere symptoms of
it?

I'd say that there are profound misconceptions not only about
relativity, but also about physics, science, and epistemology that are
the real reasons why people wrongly think that physics is supposed to
be about finding the TRUTH about REALITY.

Students haven't the slightest idea what knowledge is, so how are they
supposed to know what scientific knowledge is? Students haven't the
slightest idea what a theory is, so how are they supposed to know what
the theory of relativity is, or even what Newton's theory is? They
haven't the slightest idea what a model, law, or hypothesis are
either.

Patrick

In article ,
Patrick Reany wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jamieson Christie wrote:
[snip]

Like many experimental physicists, Essen did not want to touch
relativity with a bargepole. But since he was the world's leading atomic
clock expert and at the time investigating relativity was effectively
the only practical application for an atomic clock, he decided to get
involved. He was not impressed by what he saw, he thought Einstein's
1905 paper on SR was one of the worst he had ever read, it confirmed a
disparaging viewpoint he had about theoretical physicists and was
apalled by the idea of a "thought experiment". His views on relativity
are given in this link--
http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html
(the website is run by Ray Essen, presumably a relative; the "timelord"
bit is a reference to Essen's nickname in the British press)

It's full of errors and misunderstandings. Essen criticised relativity
because he did not understand it. He describes the assumption that the
velocity of light is constant as "contrary to the foundations of science"
(without saying why), and provides an unclear explanation based on units.

After seeing crackpot detracters of relativity on Usenet for years I've
decided they're not crackpot detracters because they don't understand the
theory. Rather, they don't understand the theory because they have
metaphysical issues with it, and are therefore not even interested in
putting a lot of study into it or resolving apparant problems. I used to
think a few misconceptions could be cleared up and the problem would be
resolved. But the misconceptions are a symptom, not a cause.

And I've qualified the type of detracters because there can certainly be
the other kind that don't like relativity but won't base their arguments
on semi-Newtonian analyses of thought experiments, or giving precedence to
how they think experiments should turn out rather than results as
measured. There can be non-crackpot detracters of relativity.

What would you say is the real cause of this prevalent resistence to
relativity based on "metaphysics," rather than the mere symptoms of
it?

I'd say that there are profound misconceptions not only about
relativity, but also about physics, science, and epistemology that are
the real reasons why people wrongly think that physics is supposed to
be about finding the TRUTH about REALITY.

Broadly speaking, something along the lines of "I know something about how
the universe REALLY works, and [insert theory here] ain't it." Usually
relativity, sometimes QM, rarely anything else. A variation is
"Einstein's math makes all the right predictions, but the theory is wrong
because that's not how nature REALLY works."

To go farther than that is probably to dive into bad pop psychology.
Once something is figgered out it stays figgered out. The extrapolation
of "common sense" far beyond common experience. Whatever.

Maybe it has something to do with philosophical training. But they're
looking for the TRUTH about REALITY. They want certainty. The claim of
special knowledge about how the universe REALLY works, a sort of revealed
knowledge. Even if the Newtonian picture is demonstrably falsified
there's a certain faith that "unknown forces and influences" (I believe
that's how Spaceman put it) cause those phenomena while the Newtonian, or
Newtonian-like, picture is preserved. Even if it looks non-Newtonian,
it's really Newtonian. It's no longer an experimental conclusion, it's an
assumption by which experimental results are interpreted.

There's a lot of analogs with religion there. And some of the greats of
philosophy were deeply religious. Add maybe no sort of philosophical
training will "take" in their minds; they might be able to recite the
material, but still tell you why it's as wrong as relativity is.

I have no idea, I'm just babbling. But it might be more ingrained and
harder to dislodge than you think.

I sometimes wonder if these people are more or less prone outside of
science (e.g. in social situations) to hang on to first impressions, to
hold grudges, to resist change or training at work and to do things the
old way because "that's the way we've always done 'em", etc. But I have
absolutely no data. I can imagine it going either way, actually.

--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible

"Eric Prebys" wrote in message ...
"Dave" wrote in message
...

scientific papers? One of the big consequences of the paper was that
mainstream scientific journals stopped accepting anti-relativity papers
in the 1970s and anti-relativists came to be viewed as cranks.


Actually, I'm reading Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the
Name of Science", which was written in 1952. He has a whole
chapter called "Down with Einstein", which makes it clear that
anti-relativists had already established themselves as
cranks in the 1950's.

The one sort of interesting things about the chapter was
that in 1952, there were still people who could remember the
"Newton-bashers" who had preceded the Einstein-bashers.

Oh, that's good.

And because I've learned from the history of science, I expect
relativity to one day show inadequacies and be replaced by something
better. When that time comes, the new theory won't please the
Einstein-bashers any more than the theory we have now does. But then
they'll be so busy bashing the new theory that they'll want to drag
the world back to relativity. Always one paradigm shift behind.

I believe the only "final truth" we can say about relativity is it's
good enough for now. One day it won't be. But whatever is wrong with
it, it's not "religion" to say it's not the things thrown out on this
newsgroup.

What's there to bash about Newton, anyway?

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I believe the only "final truth" we can say about relativity is it's
good enough for now. One day it won't be. But whatever is wrong with
it, it's not "religion" to say it's not the things thrown out on this
newsgroup.

The best you can say of any theory is - so far, so good-.



What's there to bash about Newton, anyway?

Action at a distance. Also Newton savaged Descartes notion of vortices.

Bob Kolker

On 25 Sep 2003 18:47:21 -0700, (Gregory L.
Hansen) wrote:

"Eric Prebys" wrote in message ...
"Dave" wrote in message
...

scientific papers? One of the big consequences of the paper was that
mainstream scientific journals stopped accepting anti-relativity papers
in the 1970s and anti-relativists came to be viewed as cranks.


Actually, I'm reading Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the
Name of Science", which was written in 1952. He has a whole
chapter called "Down with Einstein", which makes it clear that
anti-relativists had already established themselves as
cranks in the 1950's.

The one sort of interesting things about the chapter was
that in 1952, there were still people who could remember the
"Newton-bashers" who had preceded the Einstein-bashers.

Oh, that's good.

And because I've learned from the history of science, I expect
relativity to one day show inadequacies and be replaced by something
better. When that time comes, the new theory won't please the
Einstein-bashers any more than the theory we have now does. But then
they'll be so busy bashing the new theory that they'll want to drag
the world back to relativity. Always one paradigm shift behind.

I believe the only "final truth" we can say about relativity is it's
good enough for now. One day it won't be. But whatever is wrong with
it, it's not "religion" to say it's not the things thrown out on this
newsgroup.

What's there to bash about Newton, anyway?

Well, Aristotle and his contemporaries had the original "final truths"
about nature and who was this Newton who was second guessing him
anyway? Or, for that matter, Galileo or Kepler?

To Bonnie,

I don't agree that the pope is infallible in any way shape or form. He
certainly doesn't speak for me or for the majority of the world population.
Besides what would happen if the leaders of other religions declared
themselves infallible regarding faith and morals? We now would have
thousands of people with contradicting theological views declaring that they
had all the answers! Just do as I say and you will go straight to heaven!
If not you will go to hell.

Fortunately most other religious leaders are not as arrogant. Most of the
more tolerant religions allow for a diversity of opinion and don't expel
church members that disagree with the leader. For that matter for a
religion to remain current and alive discussion among its followers is
essential.

This is exactly what is wrong with the relativist cult. Their experts have
declared themselves infallible when it comes to special and general
relativity and quantum mechanics.
If you disagree with them you get black listed and or fired. So much for
progress in science!

Len.
.................................................. .
"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...

"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...

To Dave,

I admire your courage in questioning the relativity establishment. It
is
like saying that since the pope is human he must be fallible since only
God
is perfect. Moreover, according to the bible, it is a sin to say that
you
are God's equal. So you see the contradiction. Yet, in spite of
Galileo
and others, Catholics continue to believe that the pope is infallible in
spite of the fact that successive popes have changed the tenets of the
church over time.


The pope is infallible *only* in matters of faith and morals, not anything
else.
Yours is a typical misunderstanding of the facts, which are readily
available.

--
___________________________
Bonnie Granat
Granat Editorial Services
http://www.editors-writers.info
Fast | Accurate | Affordable

[snip]

After seeing crackpot detracters of relativity on Usenet for years I've
decided they're not crackpot detracters because they don't understand the
theory. Rather, they don't understand the theory because they have
metaphysical issues with it, and are therefore not even interested in
putting a lot of study into it or resolving apparant problems. I used to
think a few misconceptions could be cleared up and the problem would be
resolved. But the misconceptions are a symptom, not a cause.

That's a very good point. Some of the cranks clearly have working brains,
as they come up with ingenious arguments to try to support their position,
but there is a mental block somewhere that prevents them from accepting
relativity. Deep down they believe it's wrong, and no mere argument is
going to sway them.

And I've qualified the type of detracters because there can certainly be
the other kind that don't like relativity but won't base their arguments
on semi-Newtonian analyses of thought experiments, or giving precedence to
how they think experiments should turn out rather than results as
measured. There can be non-crackpot detracters of relativity.

Essen was clearly such, a capable physicist with a blind spot. Having
spent his working life developing clocks he "knew" that if you synchronise
two clocks, moving one of them around is not going to un-synchronise them.

Jamieson Christie