Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #619757

Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Subject	Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?
Date	2023-09-05 22:00 -0700
Organization	To protect and to server
Message-ID	<64F8075E.1E17@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
References	<04ff2fde-8e36-4746-961a-311f8a45ebb7n@googlegroups.com> <kktmekF4s46U1@mid.individual.net> <64EA5156.3073@ix.netcom.com> <64EB9160.65F@ix.netcom.com> <klo10qFe2usU1@mid.individual.net>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am 27.08.2023 um 20:09 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>> By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why can't they defend that with reason?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
> >>>
> >>> Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> >>> twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if
> >>> it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can
> >>> contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
> >>>
> >>> Sylvia.
> >>
> >> "the vast majority of physicists" are lemmings and cranks and cooks.
> >> "the vast majority of physicists" are too stupid to contradict what they don't understand!
> >> "the vast majority of physicists" didn't and don't understand a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> >> twenties.
> >>
> >> Keep in mind that a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> >> twenties didn't even mentioned Gravity once.
> 
> Also not mentioned were acceleration and induction.
> 
> SRT is more or less 'acceleration free', which includes gravity.
> 
> It is not a particularily likely restriction, because some sort of
> gravity or other forms of acceleration should be present everywhere.
> 
> Also Einstein's discription of induction was, at least, odd, but
> actually the word 'induction' cannot be found at all in his paper.
> 
> So we are not sure, whether or not he had induction in mind. But at
> least he mentioned moving magnets and wires and electric fields inside
> conductors.
> 
> Missing was, for instance, the requirement for a conductor to form a
> closed loop, if current shall flow throug it.
> 
> Usually the influence of moving magnets upon loops of wire is called
> 'induction', but not so in Einstein's paper.
> 
> Also streight linear motion with constant velocity is a rather harsch
> restriction, because that's not how the universe behaves.
> 
> ...
> 
> TH

Simply, Albert Einstein didn't think about "acceleration". Like he
forgot Gravity existed then.






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Thread

csiph-web