Eleaticus wrote:
Disclaimer: approval for *.answers is based on form, not content.
Opponents of the content should first actually find out what
it is, then read Einstein"s paper (in Dover Book's _the Principle
of Relativity_) and think, the last being something they didn't
have to do previously (knowing it was right before they read it).
Flaming the hardworking, selfless, *.answers moderators evidences
ignorance and atrocious netiquette.

And people criticizing relativity should set their sights beyond Einstein.
Many authors have written about it since his time. The chance of them all
making the same error is quite remote.

Bill




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003

Bill Hobba wrote:

Eleaticus wrote:
Disclaimer: approval for *.answers is based on form, not content.
Opponents of the content should first actually find out what
it is, then read Einstein's paper (in Dover Book's _the Principle
of Relativity_) and think, the last being something they didn't
have to do previously (knowing it was right before they read it).
Flaming the hardworking, selfless, *.answers moderators evidences
ignorance and atrocious netiquette.

And people criticizing relativity should set their sights beyond Einstein.
Many authors have written about it since his time. The chance of them all
making the same error is quite remote.


What do you base that conclusion on? The answer is bias, pure and
simple. Bias is exactly why your conclusion is wrong. The chance of bias
leading to supporting arguments is rather high, as you have just
demonstrated. You have asserted in your mind that SR "must be correct
because so many couldn't have been wrong", and ironically, those many
used exactly the same argument to persuade themselves into agreement.
You should keep in mind that agreement is not universal, there are those
who don't follow, could these very many have also been wrong? You, and
those like you, are the very cause of the 'so many' in agreement, and I
for one am not impressed by either the demeanor or the logical prowess
of the group as a whole.

You didn't even get electromagnetism right.

http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Electromagnetism: First Principles




Bill

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003

"Richard" skrev i melding
...

Bill Hobba wrote:

And people criticizing relativity should set their sights beyond Einstein.
Many authors have written about it since his time. The chance of them all
making the same error is quite remote.


What do you base that conclusion on? The answer is bias, pure and
simple. Bias is exactly why your conclusion is wrong. The chance of bias
leading to supporting arguments is rather high, as you have just
demonstrated.

The answer is experimental evidence.
SR is a consistent theory experimentally confirmed by
a lot of experiments, and falsified by none.

Remember that the bias was against SR in the beginning of
the 20. century. A lot of scientist reluctantly accepted SR
as the experimental evidence made it impossible to reject it.

You have asserted in your mind that SR "must be correct
because so many couldn't have been wrong", and ironically, those many
used exactly the same argument to persuade themselves into agreement.

"Persuade themselves into agreement"? :-)
SR seems to be correct because no experiment has
ever shown it to be wrong.
It is as simple as that.

It would indeed take a lot of persuasion of oneself
to think that such a well confirmed theory is wrong.

You should keep in mind that agreement is not universal, there are those
who don't follow, could these very many have also been wrong?

The agreement IS universal out there in the real world.
It isn't even an issue. The opposition against SR died out
with the last ether biased scientist of the 19. century.
Today there is hardly a single serious physicist who would question SR.

Those in this NG who "don't follow" are - sorry to say it - cranks
who have failed to understand SR. Their arguments are the same
naive misconceptions over an over again. They are presenting
the same naive "proofs" of SR being insconsistent as were
rejected a long time ago. Dingle all over again.
(But Dingle did it better.)

You, and
those like you, are the very cause of the 'so many' in agreement, and I
for one am not impressed by either the demeanor or the logical prowess
of the group as a whole.

I think you, as a "disbeliever" of SR should be impressed by this NG,
where you find so many with a religious belief that SR is wrong.
(A religious belief is belief contrary to experimental evidence,
or where experimental evidence is considered irrelevant.)

Because you will not find them out there in the real world of science,
outside this playpen of a NG. The discussions in this NG are of course
of no importance whatsoever to physics. Nobody takes them seriously.

It isn't a question of belief.
It is a question of hard evidence.
And all the evidence supports SR.

Paul