"Big Bird" wrote in message
om...
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" wrote in message
m...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm
wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.

While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it
seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they
are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".

To little children, all knowledge is revealed knowledge. They don't
know anything about reality by firsthand experience, but only form the
words of this or that authority. The reality of their world stands and
falls with the reliability of their authorities. If the authorities
can be shown in error, then their reality shatters.

There's a certain type person who'll retain this way of thinking all
their life -- everything is just dogma and the very idea of seeing
something by themselves is far from their capabilities.

To such a person, it is important to discredit the *person* who
figured something out that they don't like. They cannot grasp that
reality is independent of the people who write about it, that
relativity is a fact even if Einstein were a child molestor. That the
authority of people is worthless in physics.

I think you are right about that; except that it works both ways!
To people who see Einstein as their prophet of science who revealed his
Knowledge to them, any other opinion is dangerous for their reality feeling.
The result is that there are fanatics in this newsgroup on both sides of the
scientific debate.

A number of books are available that are written by scientists who propose
alternatives to Einstein's version of SRT. Also the logic of SRT has been
part of a heated discussion in Nature, after which the editors decided to
ban the subject.

Harald.

Nathaniel A. A. Hill wrote:

I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.

While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".


This sums it up pretty well
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

I think that the relativity group was originally started primarily
to draw off such kooks, but now they usually just SPAM all the
groups.

-E

"EjP" wrote in message
...
Nathaniel A. A. Hill wrote:

I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm
wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.

While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it
seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they
are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".


This sums it up pretty well
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

I think that the relativity group was originally started primarily
to draw off such kooks, but now they usually just SPAM all the
groups.

-E

It's an enlightening article.
You seem to overlook an important aspect: it applies to "people" (=in
general), and not just to "cooks"! ;-)

Nevertheless, it's a pity indeed that so much irrelevant multi-group posting
is going on, and simply postings in the wrong groups. Perhaps the authors
are frustrated with the lack of response in the relevant group?
Then it's an act of despair...

Harald

"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" wrote in message m...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.

While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".

It's simple. Those people are very stupid. They also have huge egos.
They're so stupid and so egotistical that they think they're
brilliant. Their stupidity prevents them from understanding
relativity and their egos prevent them from realizing that their lack
of understanding is due to their own limitations. Thus the only
possibility acceptable to their pathetic little minds is that
relativity is wrong.

Paul Cardinale

"Harry" wrote in message ...
"Big Bird" wrote in message
om...
There's a certain type person who'll retain this way of thinking all
their life -- everything is just dogma and the very idea of seeing
something by themselves is far from their capabilities.

To such a person, it is important to discredit the *person* who
figured something out that they don't like. They cannot grasp that
reality is independent of the people who write about it, that
relativity is a fact even if Einstein were a child molestor. That the
authority of people is worthless in physics.

I think you are right about that; except that it works both ways!
To people who see Einstein as their prophet of science who revealed his
Knowledge to them, any other opinion is dangerous for their reality feeling.

I have not seen anyone I would characterize that way. Those who
believe that relativity is a so-far-correct theory do so on
the only basis that can possibly exist: It fits the data
so far.

The result is that there are fanatics in this newsgroup on both sides of the
scientific debate.

My guess is you are characterizing anybody who is pro-relativity
as a "fanatic", "seeing Einstein as their prophet who revealed
his Knowledge", etc. I don't know of anybody who thinks
relativity will last forever as the last description
of the gravitation, space, and time.

A number of books are available that are written by scientists who propose
alternatives to Einstein's version of SRT.

Alternative theories can be offered on scientific grounds,
and tested against the same standard: Mother Nature. The
kinds of "alternate" theories that show up in spr are not
scientific theories, they are almagamations of mishmash
without equations or logic.

- Randy

EjP writes:

Nathaniel A. A. Hill wrote:

I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering if
anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.
While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it
seems
that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".


This sums it up pretty well
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Hear, hear !!!


I think that the relativity group was originally started primarily
to draw off such kooks,

Correct. One of the reasons 'sci.physics.relativity' was originally created
was to serve as a "honey pot" to suck the anti-relativity crackpots out of
the other newsgroups and trap them in a single area where they would argue
amongst themselves. (Predicatably, like most attempts at "social engineering."
this scheme did not work very well...)


but now they usually just SPAM all the groups.

Correction: "Now" is the wrong modifier. A more accurate statement
is that they _STILL_ SPAM all the other groups anyway, just like they did
before the creation of 'sci.physics.relativity' --- but now they also
include 'sci.physics.relativity' in their list of groups to SPAM...


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
m...
"Harry" wrote in message
...
"Big Bird" wrote in message
om...
There's a certain type person who'll retain this way of thinking all
their life -- everything is just dogma and the very idea of seeing
something by themselves is far from their capabilities.

To such a person, it is important to discredit the *person* who
figured something out that they don't like. They cannot grasp that
reality is independent of the people who write about it, that
relativity is a fact even if Einstein were a child molestor. That the
authority of people is worthless in physics.

I think you are right about that; except that it works both ways!
To people who see Einstein as their prophet of science who revealed his
Knowledge to them, any other opinion is dangerous for their reality
feeling.

I have not seen anyone I would characterize that way. Those who
believe that relativity is a so-far-correct theory do so on
the only basis that can possibly exist: It fits the data
so far.

Could you post a few worked out examples of GTR
fitting the data for ionization potentials,
electro-negativity, antenna gain, a spring/mass/damper system,
a pendulum system, a gyro, or even a Moon shot?

--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

In article ,
Randy Poe wrote:
"Harry" wrote in message

I think you are right about that; except that it works both ways!
To people who see Einstein as their prophet of science who revealed his
Knowledge to them, any other opinion is dangerous for their reality feeling.

I have not seen anyone I would characterize that way. Those who
believe that relativity is a so-far-correct theory do so on
the only basis that can possibly exist: It fits the data
so far.

A lot of people come in with things like "Einstein was wrong, relativity
is flawed, here's a contradiction in relativity", and so on. But when
anyone argues with them on that point I think the only sides they
recognize to the argument is "Einstein was wrong, the universe doesn't
work that way" and "Einstein said it, I believe it, that settles it."
They don't seem to recognize the subtle point that there is a third
position, "Relativity is consistent and experimentally well validated, it
will probably be proven wrong one day but it's not wrong for the reasons
you say."

And the related argument, "However the universe REALLY works, you haven't
given any indication that your claim of it is more than a personal
preference."


--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

Harry wrote:
"EjP" wrote in message
...

Nathaniel A. A. Hill wrote:


I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm

wondering if

anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.

While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it

seems

that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they

are

"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".


This sums it up pretty well
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

I think that the relativity group was originally started primarily
to draw off such kooks, but now they usually just SPAM all the
groups.

-E


It's an enlightening article.
You seem to overlook an important aspect: it applies to "people" (=in
general), and not just to "cooks"! ;-)


Well, I see that article as going a long way toward defining
a "kook". Lot's of people debate what separates a kook from
someone who is ahead of their time. After all, plenty of
great ideas were initially ridiculed, and plenty of
great scientist have also held beliefs that were ultimately
shown to be incorrect. Does that put them on a par with,
say, Ken Seto or Henri Wilson? I think not. As the
saying goes "They laughed at Einstein...but they also
laughed at Bozo".

The briefest definition of a scientific kook that I can think
of would be "Someone with very strong beliefs in areas far
outside of their knowledge and experience".

Is is possible that relativity will someday be found to
be incomplete? Absolutely. Is it possible that there
are mathematical errors somewhere in Einstein's papers
that haven't yet been found? Unlikely, but possible.
Is it possible that Einstein made trivial algebraic
errors that were missed for almost a century? NO,
that's not really possible. Yet that's the basis of
the vast majority of the anti-relativity posts - that,
combined with weird conspiracy theories, of course.

-E

Nevertheless, it's a pity indeed that so much irrelevant multi-group posting
is going on, and simply postings in the wrong groups. Perhaps the authors
are frustrated with the lack of response in the relevant group?
Then it's an act of despair...

Harald

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:27:31 +0000 (UTC),
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

And the related argument, "However the universe REALLY works, you haven't
given any indication that your claim of it is more than a personal
preference."

This, in my very limited ability to have an opinion on the matter,
seems to be the most often applicable argument, at least in the case
of the more "serious" counter-arguments to GR/SR.