New challenge to Einstein from experiment?

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"A beautiful theory is oft slayed by an ugly fact." T.H.Huxley

[snip]

There can be no motion without reference to some absolute space.
Einstein was a crank of major proportions and it was only media hype
that brought him status and subsequent forced belief in his crackpot
theories.

The assertions about experiments, accelerators, GPS etc. are for
laughs. There is an infinite number of compensatory theories all
producing the same predictions as SR and GR.

Mike

"Mike" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"A beautiful theory is oft slayed by an ugly fact." T.H.Huxley

[snip]

There can be no motion without reference to some absolute space.
Einstein was a crank of major proportions and it was only media hype
that brought him status and subsequent forced belief in his crackpot
theories.

The assertions about experiments, accelerators, GPS etc. are for
laughs. There is an infinite number of compensatory theories all
producing the same predictions as SR and GR.

Mike

You bet. How anyone could claim V = (u+v)/ ( 1 + uv/c^2) is baffling to
say
the least, but then, I'm not psychologist or psychiatrist.

For c = 1, u = v = 2,
(2+2) / (1 + 4/1^2) = 4 / 5 = 0.8 ?
No wonder he said "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part,
physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
It does mathematically, too.

Androcles

On 1 Feb 2005, Mike wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"A beautiful theory is oft slayed by an ugly fact." T.H.Huxley

[snip]

There can be no motion without reference to some absolute space.

This is what you believe. You view it as a philosophic requirement. Why
is it necessarily true?

Einstein was a crank of major proportions and it was only media hype
that brought him status and subsequent forced belief in his crackpot
theories.

Are you sure it wasn't stuff like the photoelectric effect that got him
status?

The assertions about experiments, accelerators, GPS etc. are for
laughs. There is an infinite number of compensatory theories all
producing the same predictions as SR and GR.

The same could be said of any theory ever; however, SR does predict
correctly for accelerators and such, and so we'll keep using it until
something better comes along.
Your argument only works if one were to claim that SR and GR are the last
word in physics, that they represent Reality. No one in physics claims
this.

Creighton Hogg wrote:
On 1 Feb 2005, Mike wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"A beautiful theory is oft slayed by an ugly fact." T.H.Huxley

[snip]

There can be no motion without reference to some absolute space.

This is what you believe. You view it as a philosophic requirement.
Why
is it necessarily true?

I could ask the same about the epistemological principle used by
Einstein that the laws of physics must have the same form in all
inertially moving reference frames. Epistemology is a branch of
philosophy. The issue here is that from an epistemic perspective
Einstein never showed why that belief of his was justified. I will tell
you how my belief is justified to seperate myself from the crackpot
Einstein.

I justify my belief above based on the fact that a uniform speed moving
body that suddenly strikes a wall produces a given damage that is
invariant of FoR although its kinetic energy is frame dependent.
Actually, the fact that KE is frame dependent was what led Leibniz to
abandon his search for relational dynamics and drove him in a
metaphysical spiral. Einstein never understood the significance of
Leibniz's work, only cared to confirm Newton at the weak limit.


Einstein was a crank of major proportions and it was only media
hype
that brought him status and subsequent forced belief in his
crackpot
theories.

Are you sure it wasn't stuff like the photoelectric effect that got
him
status?

Wrong statement. Ask any person in the street, not even 1% of them
knows he got the Nobel for the photoelectric effect, most think he got
it for relativity. Einstein would be remembered like anyone else
(Dirac, Planck, etc.) if it was not for the greate media hype purpoting
him as the new mesiah of physics.


The assertions about experiments, accelerators, GPS etc. are for
laughs. There is an infinite number of compensatory theories all
producing the same predictions as SR and GR.

The same could be said of any theory ever; however, SR does predict
correctly for accelerators and such, and so we'll keep using it until

something better comes along.
Your argument only works if one were to claim that SR and GR are the
last
word in physics, that they represent Reality. No one in physics
claims
this.

Straw man argument. Whether they do or don't, that's not what counts.
If you claim they are corraborated by experimentation, there is at
least an indirect mapping with reality.

Why should anyone use real experiments to corraborate a theory she
believes does not correspond to reality? What's the purpose of such
activity?

Mike

On 1 Feb 2005, Mike wrote:


Creighton Hogg wrote:
On 1 Feb 2005, Mike wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"A beautiful theory is oft slayed by an ugly fact." T.H.Huxley

[snip]

There can be no motion without reference to some absolute space.

This is what you believe. You view it as a philosophic requirement.
Why
is it necessarily true?

I could ask the same about the epistemological principle used by
Einstein that the laws of physics must have the same form in all
inertially moving reference frames. Epistemology is a branch of
philosophy. The issue here is that from an epistemic perspective
Einstein never showed why that belief of his was justified. I will tell
you how my belief is justified to seperate myself from the crackpot
Einstein.

I justify my belief above based on the fact that a uniform speed moving
body that suddenly strikes a wall produces a given damage that is
invariant of FoR although its kinetic energy is frame dependent.
Actually, the fact that KE is frame dependent was what led Leibniz to
abandon his search for relational dynamics and drove him in a
metaphysical spiral. Einstein never understood the significance of
Leibniz's work, only cared to confirm Newton at the weak limit.

That doesn't seem to hold much water. The relative kinetic energy of the
two bodies, the projectile and the wall, is the same in all reference
frames. It's the kinetic energy with respect to *you* that varies
according to your reference frame. I don't see how that invalidates
anything related to relativity.


Einstein was a crank of major proportions and it was only media
hype
that brought him status and subsequent forced belief in his
crackpot
theories.

Are you sure it wasn't stuff like the photoelectric effect that got
him
status?

Wrong statement. Ask any person in the street, not even 1% of them
knows he got the Nobel for the photoelectric effect, most think he got
it for relativity. Einstein would be remembered like anyone else
(Dirac, Planck, etc.) if it was not for the greate media hype purpoting
him as the new mesiah of physics.

You're back-projecting. What the average person on the street thinks
today has nothing to do with what scientists thought in the early 1900's.
Your argument can't explain why Einstein's work was accepted *back
then*.


The assertions about experiments, accelerators, GPS etc. are for
laughs. There is an infinite number of compensatory theories all
producing the same predictions as SR and GR.

The same could be said of any theory ever; however, SR does predict
correctly for accelerators and such, and so we'll keep using it until

something better comes along.
Your argument only works if one were to claim that SR and GR are the
last
word in physics, that they represent Reality. No one in physics
claims
this.

Straw man argument. Whether they do or don't, that's not what counts.
If you claim they are corraborated by experimentation, there is at
least an indirect mapping with reality.

Why should anyone use real experiments to corraborate a theory she
believes does not correspond to reality? What's the purpose of such
activity?

We are attempting to model the real world as best we can, but every
working physicist knows that our theories are not the last word and that
there's no way to prove that they exactly correspond to reality.
You can argue that there are an infinite number of theories that can
reproduce the results of SR. That's nice, but all that really matters is
that SR works.

Androcles wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"A beautiful theory is oft slayed by an ugly fact." T.H.Huxley

[snip]

There can be no motion without reference to some absolute space.
Einstein was a crank of major proportions and it was only media
hype
that brought him status and subsequent forced belief in his
crackpot
theories.

The assertions about experiments, accelerators, GPS etc. are for
laughs. There is an infinite number of compensatory theories all
producing the same predictions as SR and GR.

Mike

You bet. How anyone could claim V = (u+v)/ ( 1 + uv/c^2) is baffling
to
say
the least, but then, I'm not psychologist or psychiatrist.

For c = 1, u = v = 2,
(2+2) / (1 + 4/1^2) = 4 / 5 = 0.8 ?
No wonder he said "the velocity of light in our theory plays the
part,
physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
It does mathematically, too.

Androcles

Obviously it is a formula so that when

c = u = v = 1 --- V = 1

f(x,y) = (x+y)/(1+xy)

f(x=0, y) = y

f(x, y=0) = x

f(x=1, y=1) = 1

Simple trickery. Lets give it a name from now on: The Paranoia Formula.
Mike

Creighton Hogg wrote:

[snip]

That doesn't seem to hold much water. The relative kinetic energy of
the
two bodies, the projectile and the wall, is the same in all reference

frames. It's the kinetic energy with respect to *you* that varies
according to your reference frame. I don't see how that invalidates
anything related to relativity.

Are we talking hydraulics here?

It does invalidate everything and in the simplest way possible. It
simply says that all phenomena do not have the same interpretation in
all moving reference frames but in all reference frames when considered
as a relative phenomenon. There is where the problem lies.

How would you know which relative kinetic energy to use in general? In
my example in was easy because you know the effect. In general
situations that entails reference to some absolute space, in the bast
case scenario, if the end effect is not know but it is the object of
prediction.

Mike

In article .com,
Mike wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"A beautiful theory is oft slayed by an ugly fact." T.H.Huxley

[snip]

There can be no motion without reference to some absolute space.
Einstein was a crank of major proportions and it was only media hype
that brought him status and subsequent forced belief in his crackpot
theories.

That does not explain the attraction his theories had in the scientific
community when Einstein was the challenger to the status quo, before he
had media hype and appearances in textbooks.


--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.

"Mike" wrote in message
oups.com...

Creighton Hogg wrote:
On 1 Feb 2005, Mike wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"A beautiful theory is oft slayed by an ugly fact." T.H.Huxley

[snip]

There can be no motion without reference to some absolute space.

This is what you believe. You view it as a philosophic requirement.
Why
is it necessarily true?

I could ask the same about the epistemological principle used by
Einstein that the laws of physics must have the same form in all
inertially moving reference frames. Epistemology is a branch of
philosophy. The issue here is that from an epistemic perspective
Einstein never showed why that belief of his was justified. I will
tell
you how my belief is justified to seperate myself from the crackpot
Einstein.

I justify my belief above based on the fact that a uniform speed
moving
body that suddenly strikes a wall produces a given damage that is
invariant of FoR although its kinetic energy is frame dependent.
Actually, the fact that KE is frame dependent was what led Leibniz to
abandon his search for relational dynamics and drove him in a
metaphysical spiral. Einstein never understood the significance of
Leibniz's work, only cared to confirm Newton at the weak limit.


Einstein was a crank of major proportions and it was only media
hype
that brought him status and subsequent forced belief in his
crackpot
theories.

Are you sure it wasn't stuff like the photoelectric effect that got
him
status?

Wrong statement. Ask any person in the street, not even 1% of them
knows he got the Nobel for the photoelectric effect, most think he got
it for relativity. Einstein would be remembered like anyone else
(Dirac, Planck, etc.) if it was not for the greate media hype
purpoting
him as the new mesiah of physics.


"Relativity" my arse. They've never heard of it, and half of then
couldn't even say it.

"Who was Einstein ?".
"Err...it'll come to me... hold on... oh yeah, I know... the E = mc^2
guy."

Androcles.




The assertions about experiments, accelerators, GPS etc. are for
laughs. There is an infinite number of compensatory theories all
producing the same predictions as SR and GR.

The same could be said of any theory ever; however, SR does predict
correctly for accelerators and such, and so we'll keep using it until

something better comes along.
Your argument only works if one were to claim that SR and GR are the
last
word in physics, that they represent Reality. No one in physics
claims
this.

Straw man argument. Whether they do or don't, that's not what counts.
If you claim they are corraborated by experimentation, there is at
least an indirect mapping with reality.

Why should anyone use real experiments to corraborate a theory she
believes does not correspond to reality? What's the purpose of such
activity?

Mike

Mike wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"A beautiful theory is oft slayed by an ugly fact." T.H.Huxley

[snip]

There can be no motion without reference to some absolute space.

Just because you say so doesn't mean it is so.

Einstein was a crank of major proportions and it was only media hype
that brought him status and subsequent forced belief in his crackpot
theories.

People like you, who know less history than they do physics, constantly
amuse me.

Einstein did things that had nothing to do with relativity. Are you
even remotely familiar with his work on the photoelectric effect? Or
perhaps Brownian motion?

Was his work on the photo-electric effect and Brownian motion a fraud,
just like you think relativity is?


The assertions about experiments, accelerators, GPS etc. are for
laughs. There is an infinite number of compensatory theories all
producing the same predictions as SR and GR.

Yea, why listen to observational evidence? You already know how the
universe works, why look?



Mike