Tom Potter wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
m...

"Harry" wrote in message

...

"Big Bird" wrote in message
e.com...

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?

Ah, Potter-logic to the rescue.

I suppose Maxwell's Equations are invalid because I don't
typically use them when I'm wiring my house?

-E

--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

Australopithecus Afarensis wrote:

You have a very good observation. However, your research has missed these
ubiquitous posts worshipping Einstein.

Since they are "ubiquitous", perhaps you can give an example of one.
Try as I might, I can only find either explanations, mathematical
derivations, or citations to experimental evidence. Nothing I would
personally categorize as "worship".

-E

One particular cult from the desert
of the Southwest even patiently combs through all the literature ever
created by man from "The Iliad" to "Gravity" to determine if it is OK to
wipe their asses after taking a dump. If Einstein did not say to do so,
they won't do so.

* * *

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

Harry:

"EjP" wrote in message

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"! ;-)

No, I think you might have missed the point that the article
provides the means to distinguish a kook from "people in general".

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...

There exists something known as the "Followups-to:" header with
which one may set further followups to the relevent newsgroup
in one's response.

"EjP" wrote in message ...
Australopithecus Afarensis wrote:

You have a very good observation. However, your research has missed these
ubiquitous posts worshipping Einstein.

Since they are "ubiquitous", perhaps you can give an example of one.
Try as I might, I can only find either explanations, mathematical
derivations, or citations to experimental evidence. Nothing I would
personally categorize as "worship".

Indeed. After having read his comment, I have been
looking for evidence of worship. I can't find any.
I think it's a bit like the creationists calling the theory
of evolution "just another religion".

Dirk Vdm

"Tom Potter" wrote in message ...
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?

Su Since GTR is indistinguishable from classical
solutions for all of these up to our ability to measure,
then applying classical Newtonian mechanics is
equivalent to applying GTR.

You realize that Newtonian theory is measurably
incorrect for describing a pendulum, right? You realize
that we are already using approximations for your
mechanical examples which are in error by far larger
than any relativistic corrections when we use
classical physics?

- Randy

In article , (Randy Poe) writes:
"Tom Potter" wrote in message ...
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?

Su Since GTR is indistinguishable from classical
solutions for all of these up to our ability to measure,
then applying classical Newtonian mechanics is
equivalent to applying GTR.

You realize that Newtonian theory is measurably
incorrect for describing a pendulum, right?

Pendulum? How so (I mean, other than relativistic corrections)?

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:16:41 GMT, wrote:

In article , (Randy Poe) writes:
You realize that Newtonian theory is measurably
incorrect for describing a pendulum, right?

Pendulum? How so (I mean, other than relativistic corrections)?

I had in mind the simple-harmonic description when I wrote that.

Well, I don't want to name any one, but I will give you a hint.

Look for blah blah blah says how great Einstein is through quotes after
quotes from books after books.

* * *

"EjP" wrote in message
...
Australopithecus Afarensis wrote:

You have a very good observation. However, your research has missed these
ubiquitous posts worshipping Einstein.

Since they are "ubiquitous", perhaps you can give an example of one.
Try as I might, I can only find either explanations, mathematical
derivations, or citations to experimental evidence. Nothing I would
personally categorize as "worship".

-E

One particular cult from the desert
of the Southwest even patiently combs through all the literature ever
created by man from "The Iliad" to "Gravity" to determine if it is OK to
wipe their asses after taking a dump. If Einstein did not say to do so,
they won't do so.

* * *

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

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...


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?

Su Since GTR is indistinguishable from classical
solutions for all of these up to our ability to measure,
then applying classical Newtonian mechanics is
equivalent to applying GTR.

As I wrote:
"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?"

In other words, is GTR a viable and cost-effective
approach to solving real world problems,
or is it a Tower of Babel that wastes
minds, money and time?

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
(As is money and time.)

--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

"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.

Do such people exist? You have the entire groups.google.com archive at
your disposal to show us a couple examples of this.

But of course you can't.

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

Except that the "fanatics" on the one side are entirely the product of
your overactive imagination.