(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...
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 a student who is by nature inclined to be interested in physics
gets a good look at the wide applicability of Newtonian physics, and
who fails to receive from that school a warning that, despite enormous
effort on the part of classically trained physicists to apply Newton's
program to all of physics, those physicists failed to get Newton's
theory to cover every phenomena we know of, then as a result some of
those students have been so strongly IMPRINTED implicitly with the
profound misconception of "Newton Rules" that I doubt that any form of
re-education is ever going to disabuse them of it. Newtonian physics
becomes the religion of all such conceptually damaged people.

If the Educational System in the West doesn't teach this stuff right
the first time, it's just too late for most of them. The educational
system creates cranks and crackpots. The most important truth revealed
on this newgroup is this: It is impossible to justifiy one's formal
point of view based only on the facts; one has to present a
philosophical argument to justify why one has chosen the viewpoint one
has. The educational system post WWII thinks that the facts speak for
themselves and so offers no philosophical justification to students
for its acceptance of modern physics. The student can only rightfully
view this as baldface dogmatism. It's all so unnecessary as there are
wonderful and powerful justifications to accept modern physics that
were invented by the greats such as Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg,
but which to today's physics students lay unknown in unread essays in
long unopened books and which are virtually never reference in
textbooks, not never noted by instructors as essays that should be
read by the student. (In fact the modern official attitude by the
Physics Establishment is that the student should hold such quaint
"philosophizing" in contempt!) Such students have every right to see
the resulting dogmatism of the Establishment as the "religion" of the
Physics Establishment. If we would at least present the rationales
given by Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg then the student would not go
away with the false impression that the final doctrines held by these
physicists are completely "arbitrary." They may never accept the same
rationales as those physicists did, but at least they can understand
why those physicists adopted the viewpoints that they did adopt! Why
do you suppose that those top physicists took the time to write and
publish essays to explain their rationales if not to have a record of
their philosophies for later generations to read? Why then don't we
encourage physics students to read them? What does our silence on this
suggest to students about the worth of reading such essays?

So I leave you with this question: In hindsight, is it really so wise
a decision by the Establishment post WWII to strip out virtually all
historical and philosophical matters relating to the education of
physics students?

Physics without philosophy is just engineering.

Patrick

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?

Most anti-science cranks just criticize for the sake of
criticizing or for religious reasons of one sort or
another, and will rail against the prevailing
theory of the time, and particularly against key figures
in the development of the theory. As famous as Einstein
is, he doesn't hold a candle to the influence and fame
of Newton, so it's no great surprise that Newton attracted
plenty of bashers.

I think Newton-bashers fell into two camps:
- People who didn't like the notion of relativity
at all; i.e. people who believed the Earth
should be stationary, usually for religious reasons.
This class of people generally moved right on
to bashing Einstein.
- People with kooky "alternate theories" that they
were trying to push (sound familiar?). The most
famous of these were variations of "gravity
push" theories, which like the anti-relativity
"alternate theories" are totally inconsistent
with experiment. Some of these still circulate
and can legitimately be called "Newton bashing"
although they don't mention him by name any
more.

-Eric

"Jamieson Christie" wrote in message
...
[snip]

[...]

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

I think that last remark does less than justice to Essen. He spent a lot of
his time comparing the most accurate and precise clocks available (including
those he had built), and certainly knew that portable secondary-standard
clocks ran faster on the top floor of his building at NPL than in the
basement, for example. My impression is that he was not arguing that moving
clocks do not become desynchronised, but rather that if they do, motion can
not be purely relative, but must have some "absolute" attribute. (Ives and
Builder had already said much the same, as had Dingle, although he reached a
different conclusion.)

Iow, he held that if the returning twin is really to be younger than his
brother who stayed at home, Einstein's theory must be indistinguishable from
that of Lorentz, and I think he was objecting to what he saw as the
widespread misunderstanding of SR (especially of the second postulate),
rather than its actual predictions (notwithstanding his objections to the
details of the Hafaele-Keating clock-comparisons, which he evidently thought
fell well short of his exacting experimental standards).

Trevor Morris

"Trevor Morris" wrote in message
...

Iow, he held that if the returning twin is really to be younger than his
brother who stayed at home, Einstein's theory must be indistinguishable
from
that of Lorentz, and I think he was objecting to what he saw as the
widespread misunderstanding of SR (especially of the second postulate),
rather than its actual predictions (notwithstanding his objections to the
details of the Hafaele-Keating clock-comparisons, which he evidently
thought
fell well short of his exacting experimental standards).

The main problem with the Hafele-Keating paper, is that they did not publish
sufficient data for an independent reviewer to confirm their application of
the correlated rate-change analysis technique. Had they only published their
clock intercomparison data, most of the bitter criticisms directed against
their paper over the years could be dismissed with no problem.

The PUBLISHED graphs in the Hafele-Keating paper are only sufficient to
establish, to an 0.05 level of statistical significance, that the eastward
and westward moving clock ensembles experienced relative clock discrepancies
of the correct sign and of magnitude consistent with the predictions of
general relativity. Anybody familiar with the principles of correlated
rate-change analysis, however, would understand how this technique could be
applied to deduce the timing and magnitude of the random rate changes that
their clocks experienced, and which make their published graphs difficult to
interpret.

Crackpots, however, do not want to understand correlated rate-change
analysis, and consistently refuse to accept that meaningful results could
possibly have been derived from the results published in their 1972 paper.
Without the actual clock intercomparison data to work with, people such as
myself can only answer their objections by saying, "the analysis can be
done." In these newsgroups, I have posted several times demonstrating the
principles of correlated rate-change analysis applied to "toy" problems, and
have often wished that I had Hafele and Keating's clock original
intercomparison data so that I could independently confirm their analysis
and answer crackpot objections in a more definitive fashion.

Current portable atomic clocks are nearly three orders of magnitude more
stable than the clocks of thirty years ago, and crackpot objections to the
H-K experiment have long been rendered moot by the routine demonstration of
low speed relativistic effects as an everyday fact of life. I do not
understand why crackpots persist in focusing on these ancient results.

Minor Crank

"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...

To Bonnie,

I don't agree that the pope is infallible in any way shape or form.

I don't particularly care what you believe. I was correcting your error in
stating what Catholics believe. Catholics believe the pope is infallible
with regard to matters of faith and morals. They do not ask non-Catholics to
believe that.


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

There is no Twins' Paradox under the Principle of Relativity theorized by
Lorentz. The paradox is there under the Theory of Special Relativity which
was a rephrase of the Principle of Relativity.

Under PoR, the speed of light is constant locally. Under SR, the speed of
light is constant through out the universe and beyond.

Under SR, we are struggling with the unification theory, surprised by the
even horizon of our universe, pondering on why the universe is accelerating
its expansion, etc. Under PoR, all these problems would go away.

* * *

"Dave" wrote in message
...
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. His
official NPL bio is given on this
link--http://www.npl.co.uk/about/famous_na...uis_essen.html

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)

At first the NPL management tolerated his anti-relativity position
through the 1960s. Then in 1972 they were worried about Essen's
objections to the Hafele and Keating experiment which was reported in
the open literature (Science, 177, pp168-170, 1972) and asked Essen to
leave, which he did. Essen's thoughts on the Hafele and Keating
experiment were "The discrepancies between the results for different
clocks were many times greater than the effect being sought, and yet by
ignoring the results they did not like and performing some undescribed
statistical analysis the authors claimed to have confirmed Einstein's
theory and specifically the clock paradox". It sounds like Essen had
access to some report the paper was based on or just knew that the
accuracy of atomic clocks was not good enough for the particular
experiment to work.

In 1996 Alan Kelly managed to acquire the original 1971 USNO test report
for the Hafele and Keating experiment and from this it appears that
Essen's objections were vindicated. An online paper summarising the test
report is given on this
link--http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm
The original report apparently includes sentences like "Most people
(myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by
any one of these clocks is indicative of anything" and "the difference
between theory and measurement is disturbing". So this begs the question
as to why the Hafele and Keating 1972 paper was so heavily spin
doctored. Were they trying to save face over a badly planned expensive
experiment? Was there sufficient confidence from US military experiments
on moving and elevated atomic clocks to put out an open literature
validation of relativity? Does this kind of thing go on a lot with
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.

Whatever happened, Louis Essen irritated the academic physics
establishment and paid the penalty by having to take early retirement.
So the moral of the story is do not stand up for what you believe in
like Essen did, particularly if it involves attacking Einstein. If you
think something is crap, sit back and keep quiet if you want to keep
your job. Better still, appear to support the crap if you can. Nearly
all physicists automatically follow this advice without needing to be
told.

In article 8c6db.593078$Ho3.113826@sccrnsc03,
Minor Crank wrote:

Current portable atomic clocks are nearly three orders of magnitude more
stable than the clocks of thirty years ago, and crackpot objections to the
H-K experiment have long been rendered moot by the routine demonstration of
low speed relativistic effects as an everyday fact of life.

Can you cite a few of the type you mean?

I do not
understand why crackpots persist in focusing on these ancient results.

Some have also tried to attack relativity by questioning Michelson and
Morley's procedure, claiming their experiment is a foundation of
relativity, and ignoring that experiments of that type have been done ever
since then, with variations in procedure and increasing precision, right
up to the present day. Some crackpots are just like that. Probably they
latch on to a particular experiment and don't realize that any others even
exist.

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

To all:

RELIGION

The religious experience
Is an expression of the
Personal relationship between
A man and his Creator.

It is as private
As having sex with one's wife
Few men will hire another man
To do it for them.

Yet in most organized religions
The priest is the appointed broker
Between a man and
His God.

Consequently organized religion
Is the death to genuine religious experience
Because it turns a sacred bond into a
Public spectacle and commercial enterprise.

One day the archangel Gabriel met
His fallen friend Lucifer who boasted that:
"Sooner or later all men
Fall under my spell".

Gabriel responded:
"But what about Jesus
He was without sin"
To which Lucifer replied:

“You are right
But after He departed
I built Him
A church“.


J. L. G., Oct. / Nov., 1999.
Revised: Jan. 6, 2001.

Enjoy, Len.

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message ...

If you have experimental disproof of any of the modern theories, and
the experiments are reproduced and no reasonable explanation for the
disparity can be found within the theories, you will become an instant
hero. The quickest ticket to Stockholm is a surefire proof that
relativity or quantum theory is wrong.

I have a surefire proof, based on a reproducible gedanken experiment,
that an absolute and universally synchronized time order exists in the
standard model of big bang cosmology and that this fact precludes the
possibility of anything falling into a black hole. I haven't received
any invitation to Stockholm yet.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Eugene Shubert

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...

After seeing crackpot detractors of relativity on Usenet for years I've
decided they're not crackpot detractors 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 apparent 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.

Gregory, That's an extraordinarily insightful thesis. I agree.

And I've qualified the type of detractors 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 detractors of relativity.

I can only think of one author in this category.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm

Eugene Shubert