Androcles wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message ...
| V.K.Tamhane wrote:
| "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
|
| And wrote all nonsense.
|
| Oh, asking you to back up your unsupported claims is "nonsense"?
|
|
| ...
|
| Bill Hobba has confessed that he is a "self appointed defender of
| orthodxy"
|
| Asking you to back up your unsupported claims is "confessing that one is
| a self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy"?
|
|
| [snip totally irrelevant, stupid poem]
|
| *Who* is childish here?
|
|
| Bye,
| Bjoern
You are. All you claims are unsupported.

Coming from you, such an accusation is actually a compliment - and a
sure sign that what I did was good.

Thanks!


Bye,
Bjoern

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message ...
| Androcles wrote:
| "Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message ...
| | V.K.Tamhane wrote:
| | "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
| |
| | And wrote all nonsense.
| |
| | Oh, asking you to back up your unsupported claims is "nonsense"?
| |
| |
| | ...
| |
| | Bill Hobba has confessed that he is a "self appointed defender of
| | orthodxy"
| |
| | Asking you to back up your unsupported claims is "confessing that one is
| | a self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy"?
| |
| |
| | [snip totally irrelevant, stupid poem]
| |
| | *Who* is childish here?
| |
| |
| | Bye,
| | Bjoern
| You are. All you claims are unsupported.
|
| Coming from you, such an accusation is actually a compliment - and a
| sure sign that what I did was good.
|
| Thanks!
|
|
| Bye,
| Bjoern
*Who* is childish here?
Androcles

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:hqJoc.39231$536.7107171@attbi_s03...


V.K.Tamhane wrote:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message

And wrote all nonsense.
...

Bill Hobba has confessed that he is a "self appointed defender of
orthodxy" and he is here to save the world from blasphemy. so this is
for him and for those of his kind.

Question: Can you demonstrate an internal mathematical inconsistency in
SR? Another question: can you produce a vetted reproduced experiment
that shows SR has produced a false prediction within its domain of
applicability?

If the answer to both questions is NO, you have failed to show SR is
false.

There are only two ways of demolishing a scientific theory:

1. Show in internal mathematical inconsistency.

2. Demonstrate emprically that a prediction of theory is false.

Otherwise the theory stands.

Bob Kolker

Ah but he claims 'When I say that there are many who oppose orthodox
science, they are not the men of straw. They are reputed scientists and they
give reason and proof for their stand'. He of course has yet to name them.

Thanks
Bill

"Androcles" wrote in message ...
"V.K.Tamhane" wrote in message
om...
| "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
|
| And wrote all nonsense.
| ...
|
| Bill Hobba has confessed that he is a "self appointed defender of
| orthodxy" and he is here to save the world from blasphemy. so this is
| for him and for those of his kind.


It's not Hobba's fault he isn't very bright.
Some people are born encephalitic.
Androcles.

Franz won't agree.

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:hqJoc.39231$536.7107171@attbi_s03...
V.K.Tamhane wrote:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message

And wrote all nonsense.
...

Bill Hobba has confessed that he is a "self appointed defender of
orthodxy" and he is here to save the world from blasphemy. so this is
for him and for those of his kind.

Question: Can you demonstrate an internal mathematical inconsistency in
SR? Another question: can you produce a vetted reproduced experiment
that shows SR has produced a false prediction within its domain of
applicability?

If the answer to both questions is NO, you have failed to show SR is false.

There are only two ways of demolishing a scientific theory:

1. Show in internal mathematical inconsistency.

2. Demonstrate emprically that a prediction of theory is false.

Otherwise the theory stands.

Bob Kolker

My present serial does not include disproving SR. I think I have
repeated it many times. I am a very small person. So far as your above
arguments are concerned, they are simply wrong, for following reasons,

1. It is not the mathematical equation that can ever be in question.
The equation is a compressed logical but general statement. Physical
concept used during its application is all that is important.
Mathematics is not at all interested in the way it is used. It is just
a tool and a magnificient one at that, but it is up to the user, how
to use it.
As soon as you say, velocity of the light is constant for all
frames, then you arrive at the factor gamma. If at all relativity is
wrong then fault lies in the concept of constancy of light and not in
the mathematics used.
Hence if there is any inconsistency, and I am not claiming there
is one in the theory of relativity, it would be in the concept, and
one has just to examine the concept for its logical inconsistancy. Of
course, I have made statements about such an inconsistancy, but then
the ball is in your court to find the fault in my resoning.

Harold Ensley has pointed out that one moving frame can
influence non moving frame is a fundamental error in the relativity. I
agreed and in support thought of the above mentioned paradox, which
surprisingly remains unexplained.

2. If an experiment agrees with the theory and if the theory is
logically correct then we can take the theory as acceptable. But if
the theory is logically defective and still explains the experiment,
then we can at the most consider the theory as a standby model till we
find the correct one.

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:hqJoc.39231$536.7107171@attbi_s03...
V.K.Tamhane wrote:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message

And wrote all nonsense.
...

Bill Hobba has confessed that he is a "self appointed defender of
orthodxy" and he is here to save the world from blasphemy. so this is
for him and for those of his kind.

Question: Can you demonstrate an internal mathematical inconsistency in
SR? Another question: can you produce a vetted reproduced experiment
that shows SR has produced a false prediction within its domain of
applicability?

If the answer to both questions is NO, you have failed to show SR is false.

There are only two ways of demolishing a scientific theory:

1. Show in internal mathematical inconsistency.

2. Demonstrate emprically that a prediction of theory is false.

Otherwise the theory stands.

Bob Kolker
My object in the present serial is not challenging the
theory of relativity. I am a very small man. My statements against the
relativity could be taken as questions raised by me. (In fact they are
not at all new). However your above arguments are simply wrong, for
the following reasons,

1. There can never be any inconsistency in the mathematical equation.
It is a compressed and general logical statement. Mathematics is not
interested in how you use it. It is just a tool, and a magnificent one
at that, and correctness depends on the concept behind its usage. When
you say that velocity of the light is constant for all the frames,
then you arrive at the factor of gamma. If there is any mistake, it
lies in this concept and not in the mathematics used.
2. Harold Ensley has said that a fundamental error in the relativity
is the idea that a moving frame can influence a stationary frame. In
support I thought of the above paradox, which surprisingly remains
unexplained.
3. If an experiment is explained by the logically correct theory, then
we can accept the theory as correct. If the experiment is explained by
logically incorrect theory, then at the most we can accept the theory
as a standby model till we arrive at a correct one. Afterall every
thing revolves around this process of logic. Aren't we thinking
species?

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
V.K.Tamhane wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message

And wrote all nonsense.

Oh, asking you to back up your unsupported claims is "nonsense"?

You know nothing about my claim, you know nothing about what I
wrote so far, you know nothing about how Bill replied. If you have
patience to go through the previous history on the present serial, I
am ready to rake up the issue.

...

Bill Hobba has confessed that he is a "self appointed defender of
orthodxy"

Asking you to back up your unsupported claims is "confessing that one is
a self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy"?
Certainly not! He has declared in no uncertain words that he will
oppose anybody who goes against the established theory. If you are
interested in arguments I will reproduce everything for you.

[snip totally irrelevant, stupid poem]

*Who* is childish here?

The only way Bill may understand.
Bye,
Bjoern

V.K.Tamhane wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

V.K.Tamhane wrote:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message

And wrote all nonsense.

Oh, asking you to back up your unsupported claims is "nonsense"?


You know nothing about my claim,

I see, for example, that you claimed that Dirk said certain things about
Bill. Bill said that Dirk never said anything like that, and asked you
to support your claim. You simply ignored this request so far. That
speaks *volumes* about you...


you know nothing about what I wrote so far,

Huh? I read your posts in this thread.


you know nothing about how Bill replied.

I read Bill's replies in this thread, too.


If you have
patience to go through the previous history on the present serial, I
am ready to rake up the issue.

The previous history of your encounters with Bill is entirely irrelevant
to the simply fact that you didn't support your claim about what Dirk
said about Bill in anyway. You simply snipped Bill's request. Again,
that speaks *volumes* about you.



...

Bill Hobba has confessed that he is a "self appointed defender of
orthodxy"

Asking you to back up your unsupported claims is "confessing that one is
a self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy"?

Certainly not! He has declared in no uncertain words that he will
oppose anybody who goes against the established theory.

Another unsupported claim. Where did he say that? Quote, please.


If you are
interested in arguments I will reproduce everything for you.

For starters, you could reproduce the comment which, according to you, Dirk
made about Bill.


[snip totally irrelevant, stupid poem]

*Who* is childish here?


The only way Bill may understand.

Thanks for admitting that *you* were childish.


Bye,
Bjoern

V.K.Tamhane wrote:

[snip]

I
agreed and in support thought of the above mentioned paradox, which
surprisingly remains unexplained.

You still haven't established that there *is* a paradoxon. So far, you
have only a totally handwavy argument. What about presenting an actual
calculation? You completely ignored my post where I suggested that to
you so far.


2. If an experiment agrees with the theory and if the theory is
logically correct then we can take the theory as acceptable. But if
the theory is logically defective and still explains the experiment,
then we can at the most consider the theory as a standby model till we
find the correct one.

You haven't shown so far that SR is logically defective.


Bye,
Bjoern

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:hqJoc.39231$536.7107171@attbi_s03...
SNIP

Question: Can you demonstrate an internal mathematical inconsistency in
SR?

Two years ago I wondered, and I tried everything, becoming more and more
aware of the sheer quantity of people who tried - now it seems to me that
Poincare was right when he claimed that it works. ;-)
Note that some derivations are crappy, which isn't good to convince critical
readers that the result is correct anyway.

Another question: can you produce a vetted reproduced experiment
that shows SR has produced a false prediction within its domain of
applicability?

No. I would like to repeat a not yet independently reproduced experiment
later this year, but as it happens, I waste too much of my time in
discussion groups...

If the answer to both questions is NO, you have failed to show SR is
false.

Completely right - except if one includes a certain *interpretation* when
one talks about SRT. Regretfully the FAQ does not point out the essential
difference between these two meanings of "SRT".

There are only two ways of demolishing a scientific theory:

1. Show an internal mathematical inconsistency.

2. Demonstrate empirically that a prediction of theory is false.

Otherwise the theory stands.

Bob Kolker

Agree.

Harald