What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_...ical_thinking/
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

About the Author
James Lett is a Professor of Anthropology, Department of
Social Sciences, Indian River Community College, 3209
Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL 34981. He is author of The
Human Enterprise: A Critical Introduction to
Anthropologcal Theory and Science, Reason, and
Anthropology: The Principles of Rational Inquiry (1997,
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers). He can be reached by
e-mail at the following address:


Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...fs/Cranks.html

"GSS" wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 12:30 am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"GSS" wrote in message

...
| Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
| developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
| an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
| assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
| of years even in the modern age of instant communications?

Politics, bigotry, ignorance, no mathematical ability, cash incentives.

Why the
| collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
| Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
| of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
| Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
| resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
| 'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
| fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.
|
That's what I mean. In your ignorance you are sustaining the mistaken
belief that Einstein is responsible for length contraction whereas his
equations indicate length EXPANSION. And there is nothing wrong
with a moving frame of reference, any fool riding in a car is at rest
relative to the windscreen and moving relative to the road, it isn't
magic. If it is fictitious then every length, symbol or TV image is
fictitious, from this text which has no ink on your screen to money
which only has value for trade. Discs of metal, gold bars and
diamonds have no survival value, they cannot be eaten. And all
diamonds do is refract light, making pretty colours, otherwise they
are just another rock folly.

| Recently Pentcho Valev had quoted some excerpts from an article,
| "Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" in New
| Scientist, 18 November 2010 by Milena Wazeck.
|
As I said, cash incentives. New Scientist is profitable magazine.

| [Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much
| more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that
| included physics professors and even Nobel laureates. Who were
| Einstein's opponents?

ME!

(...) Gehrcke was an experimental physicist at
| the Imperial Technical Institute in Berlin. Like many experimentalists
| of that era, he felt uncomfortable with the rise of a theory that
| demanded a reformulation of the fundamental concepts of space and
| time. In 1921 he argued that giving up the idea of absolute time
| threatened to confuse the basis of cause and effect in natural
| phenomena. (...) Another motivation was more noble. Einstein's
| opponents were seriously concerned about the future of science. They
| did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they
| opposed the new foundations of physics altogether. The increasing role
| played by advanced mathematics seemed to disconnect physics from
| reality. "Mathematics is the science of the imaginable, but natural
| science is the science of the real," Gehrcke stated in 1921. Engineer
| Eyvind Heidenreich, who found relativity incomprehensible, went
| further: "This is not science. On the contrary, it is a new brand of
| metaphysics." (...) By the mid-1920s Einstein's opponents were facing
| overwhelming resistance, and most refrained from taking a public
| stance against the theory of relativity. Many of them simply gave up,
| and the Academy of Nations ceased to serve as the central organisation
| campaigning against Einstein, though it lingered on until the early
| 1930s. But the anti-relativists did not revise their opinion. In 1951,
| Gehrcke was still writing letters about the fight against relativity.
| "The day will come where everything about this theory will be
| abandoned by the world at large, but when will this be?" he asked. The
| debate about relativity lingers on today. Though the new generation of
| Einstein's opponents have mostly moved their protests online, they
| share some fundamental characteristics with their predecessors.]
|
| It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
| assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
| hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
| intellectuals.

Why not? Ptolemy's epicycles lasted 1400 years. The Neolithic Egyptian
pyramid follies are much older.

| It points to a serious malady in the body of
| 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
| factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.
|
| (a) Growing complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
| physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
| that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.
|
| (b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
| invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
| founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
| depth.
|
| (c) Often particular interpretations of observations made during
| practical experiments are announced as results of those experiments.
|
| (d) With the advent of specialization and super-specialization, the
| expertise in different fields of science has got compartmentalized to
| such an extent that no body expects an 'outsider' to check or correct
| any erroneous assumptions made in a specialized field of research.
|
| (e) All established systems of training new scientists, invariably
| contain an implicit component of 'indoctrination' that encourages
| maintenance of status quo and discourages questioning of the
| established beliefs and dogmas.
|
| However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
| erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
| uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
| of many intellectuals?
|
| Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.
|

It's not about science, it's about faith. A moslem is a moslem because
all his family and friends are moslems and he was raised a moslem.
A jew is a jew because all his family and friends are jews and he was
raised a jew. A xtian is a xtian because all his family and friends are
xtians and he was raised a xtian. A hindu is a hindu because all his
family and friends are hindu and he was raised a hindu. A relativist is
a relativist because all his family and friends are relativist and he was
raised a relativist.

| Further, kindly refer to my following two papers published in a
| mainstream international journal of physics, which clearly establish
| that the theory of Relativity is founded on erroneous assumptions and
| sustained by mistaken beliefs.
|
| 1. Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
| Abstract: According to special theory of relativity, all motion is
| relative and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
| reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
| inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
| universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
| the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
| propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
| frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
| called "absolute motion." The proposed experiment establishes the
| feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
| up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
| points on the surface of earth. With current technological
| advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
| computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
| Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
| shift in fundamental physics.
|
| This paper demonstrates that the second postulate of SR is wrong, and
| that the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time are correct. It
| describes a simple doable experiment to confirm the same.
|https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...
|
| 2. Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
| Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
| theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
| spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
| spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
| spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
| continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
| a physical entity.
|
| This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
| belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
| "curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
| physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
| to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves.
| The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
| 'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
| tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
| 'graphical' template.
|https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...
|
| GSS
|http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

You've added nothing useful, made no new discovery.
You have some utterly religious bull**** about the "permittivity
of free space" based on your own faith. YOU are adding to the
mystique.
Why (is it) the collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or
correct the follies of a few individuals for hundreds of years?
Because gurcharn sandhu keeps on spreading the bull****, thick
and rich.
--Androcles

For hundreds of years???
===============================================
Yes (three exclamation marks !!!)
You are no scientist, you read somewhere that c = 1/sqrt(eps0 * mu0)
so you add it to your drool, dress it up it with "it is well-known" without
a single scrap of supporting evidence, passing it along to the next
generation so that they can repeat *YOUR* ****ING BULL****
while you prattle on about "collective wisdom of millions of scientists".
A bull****ter is a bull****ter because all his family and friends are
bull****ters and he was raised a bull****ter. THIS MEANS YOU!
Politics, bigotry, ignorance, no mathematical ability, cash incentives.

You are doing it for the money, hoping for increased sales of your
bull**** book.
gurcharn sandhu keeps on spreading the bull****, thick and rich.

Science requires an objective and utterly honest person.

Science requires money, and large sums of it. The people who provide the
money are ignorant of science. The people who get the money are often*
not the honest ones, but the ones who promise the highest return on
investment - that is, promise a preconceived conclusion.

Those who get the money tend to be dishonest. Those that don't get the
money starve and end up working at McDonald's.

* Not always, but often. As a grad student, I worked with some wonder
researchers in both private industry and acadamia, and some principle
investigators had a talent and really mastered the ART of obtaining
funding. One professor not only secured funding for himself, but for his
soon to be out of work fellow profs as well! His resume was like a book
with publications, and his proposals worked like an intricate network of
inter-related research.

As a PI in private research, I've obtained government funding too, but I
was not an artist at it like my mentor. I was simply better than the
other people asking for funding - mostly because I really learned the
material in school and never cheated in my entire life.

On Sep 4, 2:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
* *http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_...ical_thinking/
* *http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

About the Author
* * * * * * *James Lett is a Professor of Anthropology, Department of
* * * * * * *Social Sciences, Indian River Community College, 3209
* * * * * * *Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL 34981. He is author of The
* * * * * * *Human Enterprise: A Critical Introduction to
* * * * * * *Anthropologcal Theory and Science, Reason, and
* * * * * * *Anthropology: The Principles of Rational Inquiry (1997,
* * * * * * *Rowman and Littlefield Publishers). He can be reached by
* * * * * * *e-mail at the following address:

Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
* *http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...fs/Cranks.html

What is a crank?

Let's define a crank.

I would say a crank is someone who ignores something fundamental to a
generally accepted theory.

Let's suppose the person who figured out general relativity states,
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable".

It would be obvious according to any definition of crank that anyone
who insists there is no ether in relativity is a crank.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 13:27:14 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_...ical_thinking/
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

About the Author
James Lett is a Professor of Anthropology, Department of
Social Sciences, Indian River Community College, 3209
Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL 34981. He is author of The
Human Enterprise: A Critical Introduction to Anthropologcal
Theory and Science, Reason, and Anthropology: The
Principles of Rational Inquiry (1997, Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers). He can be reached by e-mail at the
following address:


Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...fs/Cranks.html

"The rule of logic is frequently violated by pseudoscientists."

Hey Wormley! Have you figured out what a 'post hoc' fallacy is? What
about a bandwagon fallacy? Appeal to authority fallacy?

Just asking, because YOU USE THEM EVERY DAMNED POST YOU MAKE. Now you
have the chutzpa to post a url about logic and how pseudoscientist like
yourself use fallacies and bad logic.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 12:33:57 -0700, mpc755 wrote:

On Sep 4, 2:27Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
Â* Â*http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_...ical_thinking/
Â* Â*http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

About the Author
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*James Lett is a Professor of Anthropology,
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Department of Social Sciences, Indian River
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Community College, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Ft.
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Pierce, FL 34981. He is author of The Human
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Enterprise: A Critical Introduction to
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Anthropologcal Theory and Science, Reason, and
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Anthropology: The Principles of Rational Inquiry
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*(1997, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers). He can
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*be reached by e-mail at the following address:
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*

Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
Â* Â*http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...fs/Cranks.html

What is a crank?

Let's define a crank.

I would say a crank is someone who ignores something fundamental to a
generally accepted theory.

Let's suppose the person who figured out general relativity states,
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable".

You "figured that out", huh?

It would be obvious according to any definition of crank that anyone who
insists there is no ether in relativity is a crank.

We'll put this in the "anyone who disagrees with mpc755 is a crank file,
and treat it with the respect it is due.

On Sep 3, 9:38*am, GSS wrote:
Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
of years even in the modern age of instant communications? Why the
collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.

Recently Pentcho Valev had quoted some excerpts from an article,
"Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" in New
Scientist, 18 November 2010 by Milena Wazeck.

[Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much
more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that
included physics professors and even Nobel laureates. Who were
Einstein's opponents? (...) Gehrcke was an experimental physicist at
the Imperial Technical Institute in Berlin. Like many experimentalists
of that era, he felt uncomfortable with the rise of a theory that
demanded a reformulation of the fundamental concepts of space and
time. In 1921 he argued that giving up the idea of absolute time
threatened to confuse the basis of cause and effect in natural
phenomena. (...) Another motivation was more noble. Einstein's
opponents were seriously concerned about the future of science. They
did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they
opposed the new foundations of physics altogether. The increasing role
played by advanced mathematics seemed to disconnect physics from
reality. "Mathematics is the science of the imaginable, but natural
science is the science of the real," Gehrcke stated in 1921. Engineer
Eyvind Heidenreich, who found relativity incomprehensible, went
further: "This is not science. On the contrary, it is a new brand of
metaphysics." (...) By the mid-1920s Einstein's opponents were facing
overwhelming resistance, and most refrained from taking a public
stance against the theory of relativity. Many of them simply gave up,
and the Academy of Nations ceased to serve as the central organisation
campaigning against Einstein, though it lingered on until the early
1930s. But the anti-relativists did not revise their opinion. In 1951,
Gehrcke was still writing letters about the fight against relativity.
"The day will come where everything about this theory will be
abandoned by the world at large, but when will this be?" he asked. The
debate about relativity lingers on today. Though the new generation of
Einstein's opponents have mostly moved their protests online, they
share some fundamental characteristics with their predecessors.]

It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
intellectuals. It points to a serious malady in the body of
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.

(a) Growing *complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.

(b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
depth.

(c) Often particular interpretations of observations made during
practical experiments are announced as results of those experiments.

(d) With the advent of specialization and super-specialization, the
expertise in different fields of science has got compartmentalized to
such an extent that no body expects an 'outsider' to check or correct
any erroneous assumptions made in a specialized field of research.

(e) All established systems of training new scientists, invariably
contain an implicit component of 'indoctrination' that encourages
maintenance of status quo and discourages questioning of the
established beliefs and dogmas.

However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?

Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.

Further, kindly refer to my following two papers published in a
mainstream international journal of physics, which clearly establish
that the theory of Relativity is founded on erroneous assumptions and
sustained by mistaken beliefs.

1. *Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
Abstract: According to special theory of relativity, all motion is
relative and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
called "absolute motion." The proposed experiment establishes the
feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
points on the surface of earth. With current technological
advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
shift in fundamental physics.

This paper demonstrates that the second postulate of SR is wrong, and
that the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time are correct. It
describes a simple doable experiment to confirm the same.https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

2. *Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
a physical entity.

This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
"curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves.
The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
'graphical' template.https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

Space and time are immaterial physicality; the fundamental backdrop of
primary aether for the closed 4D universe.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Sep 4, 3:50*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 12:33:57 -0700, mpc755 wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
* *http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_...ical_thinking/
* *http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

About the Author
* * * * * * *James Lett is a Professor of Anthropology,
* * * * * * *Department of Social Sciences, Indian River
* * * * * * *Community College, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Ft..
* * * * * * *Pierce, FL 34981. He is author of The Human
* * * * * * *Enterprise: A Critical Introduction to
* * * * * * *Anthropologcal Theory and Science, Reason, and
* * * * * * *Anthropology: The Principles of Rational Inquiry
* * * * * * *(1997, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers). He can
* * * * * * *be reached by e-mail at the following address:
* * * * * *

Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
* *http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...fs/Cranks.html

What is a crank?

Let's define a crank.

I would say a crank is someone who ignores something fundamental to a
generally accepted theory.

Let's suppose the person who figured out general relativity states,
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable".

You "figured that out", huh?

It would be obvious according to any definition of crank that anyone who
insists there is no ether in relativity is a crank.

We'll put this in the "anyone who disagrees with mpc755 is a crank file,
and treat it with the respect it is due.

It is anyone who disagrees with Einstein is a crank file.

Einstein said, "According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable".

I know this is very hard for you to understand, however, the above
means there is an ether in relativity.

If you insist there is no ether in relativity, which is fundamentally
the opposite of what Einstein stated, then you are a crank.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 13:03:43 -0700, mpc755 wrote:

On Sep 4, 3:50Â*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 12:33:57 -0700, mpc755 wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:27Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
Â* Â*http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_...ical_thinking/
Â* Â*http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

About the Author
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*James Lett is a Professor of Anthropology,
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Department of Social Sciences, Indian River
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Community College, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Ft.
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Pierce, FL 34981. He is author of The Human
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Enterprise: A Critical Introduction to
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Anthropologcal Theory and Science, Reason, and
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Anthropology: The Principles of Rational Inquiry
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*(1997, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers). He
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*can be reached by e-mail at the following
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*address:

Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
Â* Â*http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...fs/Cranks.html

What is a crank?

Let's define a crank.

I would say a crank is someone who ignores something fundamental to a
generally accepted theory.

Let's suppose the person who figured out general relativity states,
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable".

You "figured that out", huh?

It would be obvious according to any definition of crank that anyone
who insists there is no ether in relativity is a crank.

We'll put this in the "anyone who disagrees with mpc755 is a crank
file, and treat it with the respect it is due.

It is anyone who disagrees with Einstein is a crank file.

Einstein said, "According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable".

Newsflash: Einstein didn't understand GR very well. Hilbert told him how
to solve the equations.

But I tend to not like people who intentionally take quotes out of
context.

"Einstein 1920: We may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there
not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this
aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic
of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through
time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Which kinda put the lie to your idiot posting, huh?

Now, go troll somewhere else. Why not share your genius with
sci.chemistry. Why do all the asswipes have to come to sci.physics?

snip intentional lies

On Sep 4, 4:10*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 13:03:43 -0700, mpc755 wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:50*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 12:33:57 -0700, mpc755 wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
* *http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_...ical_thinking/
* *http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

About the Author
* * * * * * *James Lett is a Professor of Anthropology,
* * * * * * *Department of Social Sciences, Indian River
* * * * * * *Community College, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Ft.
* * * * * * *Pierce, FL 34981. He is author of The Human
* * * * * * *Enterprise: A Critical Introduction to
* * * * * * *Anthropologcal Theory and Science, Reason, and
* * * * * * *Anthropology: The Principles of Rational Inquiry
* * * * * * *(1997, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers). He
* * * * * * *can be reached by e-mail at the following
* * * * * * *address:

Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
* *http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...fs/Cranks.html

What is a crank?

Let's define a crank.

I would say a crank is someone who ignores something fundamental to a
generally accepted theory.

Let's suppose the person who figured out general relativity states,
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable".

You "figured that out", huh?

It would be obvious according to any definition of crank that anyone
who insists there is no ether in relativity is a crank.

We'll put this in the "anyone who disagrees with mpc755 is a crank
file, and treat it with the respect it is due.

It is anyone who disagrees with Einstein is a crank file.

Einstein said, "According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable".

Newsflash: Einstein didn't understand GR very well. Hilbert told him how
to solve the equations.

But I tend to not like people who intentionally take quotes out of
context. *

"Einstein 1920: We may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there
not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this
aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic
of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through
time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Which kinda put the lie to your idiot posting, huh?

Now, go troll somewhere else. Why not share your genius with
sci.chemistry. Why do all the asswipes have to come to sci.physics?

snip intentional lies

Which is exactly what I am saying. Einstein said, "According to the
general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable." Now,
I realize this is impossible for you to understand, but this means
there is an ether in relativity.

Einstein goes on to define ponderable media as consisting of parts
which can be tracked through time. If you actually read the article
you would understand every time Einstein mentions motion with respect
to the ether it is defined as individual particles which can be
separately tracked through time. This is also the same definition of
ponderable media Einstein uses.

Einstein also removes from the ether its immobility. This means the
ether of relativity is mobile. The mobility of the ether of relativity
as defined by its connections with the matter and the state of the
aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the
aether.

What part of, "According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable", confuses you into thinking there isn't
an ether in relativity?

I correctly understand "According to the general theory of relativity
space without ether is unthinkable" means there is an ether in general
relativity.