Is opposition to Einstein from fundies?

On Jun 14, 4:25*pm, eric gisse wrote:
That anti-science, anti-intellectualism, and anti-knowledge are common
mindsets among cranks and right winger is kinda suggestive.

There are plenty of anti-science and anti-intellectuals among
left wingers! I have some very vivid memories of the student unrest in
the New York city university system and in my New York city high
school. I remember when the concept of "politically correct" included
the rationality of "Western science" and "dead white men."
The antirational mind-set is not intrinsically right or left. I
suspect the left versus right split is becoming less important. I am
not sure it really was ever well defined.
You have to watch your own bias against right-wingers. A lot of
these anti-science cranks dislike businessmen, bankers, the rich, the
establishment, and all the things disliked by every true communist.
A lot of these cranks change political sides frequently, or don't
subscribe to any formal platform. Conservapedia does not necessarily
speak for all conservatives. In fact, I would not characterize any of
these cranks as truly conservative. William F. Buckley probably would
not of contributed to the Conservapedia.
I think it is a matter of opportunity. These cranks usually like
to pose as members of the "downtrodden". They make a big show of being
with the "downtrodden", whatever that minority is. Of course, they
stab this "downtrodden" in the back if it gets them anything.
These people would be as happy stabbing Newton in the back as
Einstein. Right now, scientists who believe Newton was completely
correct are the minority. So of course, these cranks will claim to
represent the downtrodden Newtonians.
The cranks generally don't understand a thing about units, but
that too makes them a downtrodden minority. I mean, people who can't
keep their units straight are obviously being discriminated against. I
don't know if they are the right or the left, but they are definitely
part of the downtrodden.

On Jun 14, 2:31 am, abzorba wrote:
It seems that every 2nd post in these froups is from people who are
judging Einstein to be some kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the
wool over the scientific world's eyes, and who still does so. These
few posters, with no certification to their names have uncovered this
vast plot and post their "refutations" here.

I can't understand what all the hoopla is about. Recently,
Conservapedia had a huge barney over it, and, from what I can gather
it was based on Andy Schlafly (Roger Ramjet's) sudden insight that
AE's Relativity might mean some kind of moral relativity. Is this the
view of dissenter's here?

Yes, this is the view of some of the cranks here. They feel that
Einstein started "moral relativity". However, they never tell us what
where the phrase "moral relativism" came from, or what Einstein had to
do with it. I am surprised -Not- that they don't have
Read the book "Relativity- A Richer Truth" by Phillipp Frank
(1950). It is a philosophical book on the relationship between science
and ethics. It has a preface by Albert Einstein.
The book relates how Frank regards the scientific method with
regard to ethics. He comes to some conclusions which seem reasonable
and interesting. However, the foreword was written by Einstein. This
preface is interesting in itself, because it actually describes where
Einstein stood on the issues of ethics. BTW: He was for ethics.
Albert Einstein in the foreword writes, "For pure logic all
axioms are arbitrary, including the axioms of ethics. But they are no
means arbitrary from the psychological and genetic view. They are
derived from our inborn tendencies to avoid pain and annihilation, and
from the accumulated emotional reaction of individuals to the behavior
of their neighbors.
It is the privilege of man's moral genius, expressed by inspired
individuals, to advance ethical axioms which are so comprehensive that
men will accept them as grounded in the vast mass of their individual
emotional experiences. Ethical axioms are found and tested not very
differently from the axioms of science. Die Wahrheit liegt in der
Bewahrung. Truth is what stands the test of experience."
I don't know if any of the antiscience people have seen this.
However, I offer it to them. If you think that Einstein promoted an
amoral philosophy, read this preface. If they want to disagree with
Einstein's moral philosophy, then I suggest that they read some of
it.
I myself see Einstein as being a bit naive with regards to
ethics. Many people seek pain and annihilation. If not for themselves,
they seek it for others. Maybe this is the "moral relativism" that
"antirelativists" don't like.
"

There DOES seem to be the notion that God must know when everything
happened and how much everything weighs, and so SR and GR cannot be
right. Is this the elephant in the room in these debates? That
opposition to these theories is coming from Young Earth Creationists
who are not being honest as to the REAL reason as to why they are in
such vitriolic disagreement with AE, and the rest of the informed
world as to his theories?

A lot of Young Earth Creationists believe this. While relativity
has nothing per se to do with age of the universe, it is used to
extrapolate current conditions in the universe to a time billions of
years ago. Therefore, it has come to be associated with Deep Time. It
isn't that the theory itself uses the hypothesis of Deep Time.
The Creation of the universe could have been 6 KYA and most of
relativity could still be true. One would have to throw away that last
chapter on cosmology, but that isn't the core of relativity. Just like
one can believe that atoms decay at a fixed rate, and still believe
the earth was created 6 KYA. However, the existence of such a model
stimulates one to consider the existence of time before 6 KYA. It
isn't the theory, it is the scientific methodology that they want to
stamp out.

Because from what I read, they certainly SOUND like they are from
Conservapedia, with the "hahaha hah aha that's one up for us" type of
juvenile belligerence that seems compulsory here.

To be absolutely fair, antirelativity isn't strictly coming from
the religious fanatics. I know some of the antirelativity cranks here.
Some are atheists. At the very least, some are antiBible. Androcles,
Hanson, Guth and Wilson are decidedly antiGenesis. They are
fanatically antiJewish, both against the religion and against the
nonexistent "race" that Jews are supposed to represent. I don't think
you can possibly associate these four with Young Earth Creationism.
A lot of Young Earth Creationists hate Einstein, too. I used to
argue with Geocentrists, who believe that the earth is stationary.
They were all Young Earth Creationists and religious fanatics. I
remember Goldberg, Bouw and Marshall Hall. These people would probably
kill each other if there weren't atheists to blame everything on.
In short, I don't think it is religion or even Young Earth
Creationism which is the blame for this antirelativity. I don't think
it is antirelativity so much as antiscience. Or maybe it isn't so much
antiscience as antithought.

Myles (Back to the flat world for some...) Paulsen

If you really believe Genesis word for word, that is the way it has
to be !-)

better to say, Einstein was a raconteur. see _Einstein's Mistakes_
for a blow-by-blow account of his corresponence & papers. well,
it might be quite dry, in most repsects.

On Jun 14, 9:14*am, kenseto wrote:
On Jun 14, 2:31*am, abzorba wrote:

It seems that every 2nd post in these froups is from people who are
judging Einstein to be some kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the
wool over the scientific world's eyes, and who still does so. These
few posters, with no certification to their names have uncovered this
vast plot and post their "refutations" here.

I can't understand what all the hoopla is about. Recently,
Conservapedia had a huge barney over it, and, from what I can gather
it was based on *Andy Schlafly (Roger Ramjet's) sudden insight that
AE's Relativity might mean some kind of moral relativity. Is this the
view of dissenter's here?

No....our objection to SR are as follows:
1. Two clocks in relative motion and between meetings the clock that
accumulated less clock seconds can claim the clock that accumulated
more clock seconds as running slow.
It is only true if both can agree as to when and where the two
clocks were synchronized. Since they won't agree as to when and where,
the statement isn't true.
2. SR claims: An 80 ft. pole can fit into a 40 ft. barn with both
doors close simultaneously
This statement isn't true because the observers can't agree as
to the pole being 80 feet. At least one observer sees the pole as
being shorter than 40 feet.

.....SR also claims: an 80 ft pole cannot
fit into a 40 ft barn with both doors close simultaneously.
This statement isn't true because the moving observer doesn't see
both doors being simultaneously closed. One observer sees one door
open and the other closed at the same time.


3. In the bug and the rivet paradox....the bug dies twice--before and
after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
The bug dies once to both observers.
4. The meter length is redefined to be 1/299,792,458 light-
second...this redefinition of the meter is designed to make the SR
postulate to be true in all frames of reference.
This definition was made so that one can standardize electronics
and optical devices that designed for moving at a high speed relative
to the earth.
5. The SR concept of relativity of simultaneity asserts that the speed
of light is anisotropic in the observed M' frame whereas the SR
postulate asserts that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames.
The SR concept of relativity of simultaneity does not assert
that the speed of light is anisotropic in the observed frame M'. The
SR concept of relativity of simultaneity allows the frequency of light
to be anisotropic in the observed frame, M'. This effect is called
relativistic Doppler effect.
6. Even though SR posits that the one-way speed of light is a
universal constant...Physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of
light directly using two e-synched clocks.
The two clocks have to be synchronized at the same time and the
same place, then separated, to measure the one way speed of light.
According to SR, the act of separating the two clocks ruins the
synchronization.

I'd say, Yes;
from "quadratic equation fundamentalists."

saith Bucky,
"c-to-the-second-power" is the rate of growth
of the wavefront -- and that don't matter
to a Newtonian untheory of a rock o'light!

On Jun 14, 9:59*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear abzorba:

On Jun 13, 11:31*pm, abzorba wrote:

It seems that every 2nd post in these froups
is from people who are judging Einstein to be
some kind of dupliticitous Jew who pulled the
wool over the scientific world's eyes, and
who still does so. These few posters, with no
certification to their names have uncovered
this vast plot and post their "refutations"
here.

It is easier answered with "Asperger's syndrome". *They get a wrong
notion early on, and devote their lives to bulwarking both their
misunderstanding, and their attack on their misunderstanding.
What you are describing is obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD),
not Asperger's syndrome (ASY). The arguments by definition start with
obsessions, which are thoughts that come uncontrollably. The need to
reply is a compulsion. However, the ones with OCD often have some
additional personality quirk. I believe that the ones with OCD are
mostly divided between dyslexics (DYS) and Asperger's syndrome
disordered (ASD). Very few people on these things are neurologically
typical (NT).
People with ASD have difficulty dealing with logical
contradictions. However, they understand logic quite well. They handle
abstract concepts quite well. They often prefer abstract reasoning to
concrete reasoning. Sometimes, they are a little slow with concrete
reasoning (i.e., intuition). People with ASY often are attracted to
scientific careers. They are often socially unaware. They can't sort
out social priorities. They are often disturbed by logical
contradiction. ASDs confuse NTs with long chains of logic.
According to Piaget, abstract concepts include force,
displacement and velocity. I would add symmetry and invariance to the
list of abstract concepts useful in physical analysis. These are the
concepts that physicists often call fundamental.
People with DSY have problems with formal reasoning. They can't
handle abstract concepts. Sometimes, they are really good with
concrete concepts. However, they don't do long chains of logic. They
jump to conclusions rapidly, and hold on for dear life. They are not
bothered by logical contradiction. They have difficulty dealing with
asymmetry (left-right). DYSs confuse NTs with logical contradiction.
Concrete concepts include mass, momentum, energy, and charge. In
addition, conservation laws are concrete concepts.
Although I am not a psychiatrist, I believe I know what is
happening on these news groups. Most of the people who argue have OCD.
The antiscience posters have in addition DYS. The ones that "defend"
science have ASD. Although the antiscience shmucks are unimportant,
ASDs have to contradict them.
1 out of 8 maybe. *Most "dissenters" cannot avoid frame jumps if their
lives depended on it, and the balance simply can't believe their
teachers might have tought them something that was known to be wrong
(Newton) however useful it might otherwise be.
Here you are definitely wrong. I think I can prove it. Ask any one
of them questions about Newtonian physics. Wait till one of them
starts to talk about the accuracy of Newton, and then ask them
detailed questions about the structure of Newtonian physics. If one of
them talks about the wonders of classical optics, ask questions
related to classical optics. With very few exceptions, you will find
they don't understand classical physics. They were never able to learn
classical physics from their teachers.
Classical physics to a large degree is based on abstract
concepts. Newton, for example, did not use any conservation laws in
Principia. Principia considers forces, positions and velocities.
Newton uses proportionality equations. He presents geometry theorems
based on formal logic. His diagrams are usually secondary to the logic
of his theorems. Few of the science cranks can handle formal logic.
Therefore, they can't handle Newton any better than they can handle
Einstein.
The science cranks usually like referring to conservation laws. To
the limited extent they know anything, it is conservation of energy.
They don't understand wave interference because it involves abstract
concepts like superposition. However, they like to talk about photons
because they envision a conservation of photon number. Now, photons
are not really conserved.
Most of the science cranks can't handle vector algebra in any
context. Vector algebra relies on abstract notions of spaces.
All this shout "dyslexia" to me. The science cranks have dyslexia.
I believe there are similar test you can make up to verify that
the science defenders have Asperger's syndrome. However, I have a
little difficulty here. It have difficulty seeing what is outside my
own box :-)
You may ask questions concerning social priorities. Ask
questions concerning whether people are good or evil. The ASDers will
have difficulty in anything that involves evaluating a person. They
have difficulty understanding social hierarchies.

They are NOT right in the biblical sense. *They are however "Caeser's
coin", of and about the "house on sand", and that they do really well.
Broad social concepts that have very little to do with physics.
Basically, these science deniars are dismissing logic. They prefer to
think of everything based on social hierarchies rather than abstract
physical concepts.
Anyone who thinks abstract and physical are antonyms probably has
dyslexia !-) There are two types of physical concepts according to
Piaget: abstract and concrete. The dyslexics will never get it.
I am not trying to insult dyslexics in general, here. Just those
dyslexics who feel that they are smarter than everyone else. Just like
I am not trying to praise Asperger's syndrome. I just want to point
out that abstract analysis is the major part of physical science.