Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357360 > unrolled thread

Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 04:50 -0700
    Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-16 09:13 -0700
      Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-16 18:02 -0700
        Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-18 13:42 -0700
          Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-18 23:05 +0200
          Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-18 14:51 -0700
          Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-18 14:52 -0700
            Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-18 15:21 -0700
        Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005 YBM <ybmess@nooos.fr.invalid> - 2015-07-22 14:25 +0200

#357360 — Re: The Chinese poll on Einstein's relativity theories - 2005

Hi Chan

This foreign devil communicates with main land China on a regular basis to resolve technical issues. Judging on the people I am talking to 13.19 percent in agreement with relativity sounds a little short. I would guess it to be in the neighborhood of 93.19 percent. Then again if the pole is done way out in the back country there could be a 90 percent agreement that the earth is flat as anyone willing to open their eyes can plainly see. It really  depends on where the pole is taken. The same pole done in western countries would yield similar results to the ones you quoted.   

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 4:11:46 AM UTC-4, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:57:20 PM UTC+8, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:17:32 PM UTC+8, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > This was a  poll related to The International Year of Physics 2005.
> > > 
> > > About the overall appraisal to the theory of relativity, the website of Beijing Relativity Theory Research Federation once has carried on the voting to the following five
> > > viewpoints, from 12 o'clock, September 23, 2003 to 10 o'clock, May 2, 2005, altogether 1,425 people
> > > participated in the voting, its result as follows: 
> > > (1) The relativity is absolutely wrong, 736 people, account for 51.65%; 
> > > (2) It is entirely accurate, 188 people, account for 13.19%; 
> > > (3) It needs to revise, 406 people, account for 28.49%; 
> > > (4) It has not mattered, 40 people, account for 2.81%; 
> > > (5) It is not unnecessary, 55 people, account for 3.86%. 
> > > 
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Chan Rasjid.
> > 
> > Chan, thanks for the post. While many scientists understand that the theory is wrong they cannot admit this. To do so as Pentcho pointed out would have dire consequences.
> > 
> > Peter Riedt
> 
> I am Chinese. I know the Chinese mentality. If there is anything from the West that is considered high and sacred but wrong, the Chinese would not miss the opportunity to criticize it. But of course, normal people are still fair and rational. I have never heard of any Chinese talking bad about Isaac Newton. I think the Chinese too has a great respect for the name of Isaac Newton despite the English being called "foreign devils" when they first appeared in China.     
> 
> Best Regards,
> Chan Rasjid.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#357398

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 7:50:50 PM UTC+8, John Heath wrote:
> Hi Chan
> 
> This foreign devil communicates with main land China on a regular basis to resolve technical issues. Judging on the people I am talking to 13.19 percent in agreement with relativity sounds a little short. I would guess it to be in the neighborhood of 93.19 percent. Then again if the pole is done way out in the back country there could be a 90 percent agreement that the earth is flat as anyone willing to open their eyes can plainly see. It really  depends on where the pole is taken. The same pole done in western countries would yield similar results to the ones you quoted.   
> 
> On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 4:11:46 AM UTC-4, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:57:20 PM UTC+8, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:17:32 PM UTC+8, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > This was a  poll related to The International Year of Physics 2005.
> > > > 
> > > > About the overall appraisal to the theory of relativity, the website of Beijing Relativity Theory Research Federation once has carried on the voting to the following five
> > > > viewpoints, from 12 o'clock, September 23, 2003 to 10 o'clock, May 2, 2005, altogether 1,425 people
> > > > participated in the voting, its result as follows: 
> > > > (1) The relativity is absolutely wrong, 736 people, account for 51.65%; 
> > > > (2) It is entirely accurate, 188 people, account for 13.19%; 
> > > > (3) It needs to revise, 406 people, account for 28.49%; 
> > > > (4) It has not mattered, 40 people, account for 2.81%; 
> > > > (5) It is not unnecessary, 55 people, account for 3.86%. 
> > > > 
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Chan Rasjid.
> > > 
> > > Chan, thanks for the post. While many scientists understand that the theory is wrong they cannot admit this. To do so as Pentcho pointed out would have dire consequences.
> > > 
> > > Peter Riedt
> > 
> > I am Chinese. I know the Chinese mentality. If there is anything from the West that is considered high and sacred but wrong, the Chinese would not miss the opportunity to criticize it. But of course, normal people are still fair and rational. I have never heard of any Chinese talking bad about Isaac Newton. I think the Chinese too has a great respect for the name of Isaac Newton despite the English being called "foreign devils" when they first appeared in China.     
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > Chan Rasjid.

Hello John,

I am not surprised at all of the result of the poll - 50% clear against, 13% clear for. I remember there was another poll in China with basically the same result - nothing surprising at all; it was China not the West! 

People here like to think there is such a thing as the scientific method - that Einstein's relativity is all, and only, about science. But the big question is whether the people who teaches relativity are using or not using the criterion of the scientific method. You can teach a scientific topic by breaking all known and accepted criteria of the scientific method.

The world has the rational as well as the non-rational. Science is rational based on logic. Religion is a belief system and not based on logical rationalization. Islam has the five pillars which are the analogy of axioms in mathematics. Just as you do not question the axioms, a Muslim does not question the existence of God - it is an article of faith. And an article of faith by definition goes beyond the domain of logic - and rightly so.  

A science can easily be turned over into the realm of the non-rational and the method of belief systems is used to support it. It has a clear precedent in history and the same is happening to Einstein's relativity - it is no more examined based on scientific criterion because the human emotions and prejudices have insidiously overtaken the examination of the science - it is now treated (in the West) in the manner of a religion.      

In the old days, the Church promoted the belief that the earth was the center of the universe. Most people could not 
determine by themselves which should be the correct answer and many would naturally accept the words of their religious mentors. And the priesthood have sacred proofs - verses from the Bible.

In the present case of Einstein's relativity - the bible is the "...many many indisputable experimental evidence in total agreement with...relativity theory... ". But how many of you know how to measure the momentum or rest mass of a proton - they told us so, have been done for us, etc. We trust the CERN physicists just as the common people of old trusts their priests. Most of us have no access to the LHC, and, if we had, we may blow-up the world which the Lord God created by accidentally creating a black hole!

But the like of Copernicus, Galileo have what we call insight - and they see farther ahead than the crowd. So don't believe that the human being can so easily act impartial.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357525

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 8:20:55 AM UTC+8, John Heath wrote:
> On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 12:13:36 PM UTC-4, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 7:50:50 PM UTC+8, John Heath wrote:
> > > Hi Chan
> > > 
> > > This foreign devil communicates with main land China on a regular basis to resolve technical issues. Judging on the people I am talking to 13.19 percent in agreement with relativity sounds a little short. I would guess it to be in the neighborhood of 93.19 percent. Then again if the pole is done way out in the back country there could be a 90 percent agreement that the earth is flat as anyone willing to open their eyes can plainly see. It really  depends on where the pole is taken. The same pole done in western countries would yield similar results to the ones you quoted.   
> > > 
> > > On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 4:11:46 AM UTC-4, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:57:20 PM UTC+8, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:17:32 PM UTC+8, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > This was a  poll related to The International Year of Physics 2005.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > About the overall appraisal to the theory of relativity, the website of Beijing Relativity Theory Research Federation once has carried on the voting to the following five
> > > > > > viewpoints, from 12 o'clock, September 23, 2003 to 10 o'clock, May 2, 2005, altogether 1,425 people
> > > > > > participated in the voting, its result as follows: 
> > > > > > (1) The relativity is absolutely wrong, 736 people, account for 51.65%; 
> > > > > > (2) It is entirely accurate, 188 people, account for 13.19%; 
> > > > > > (3) It needs to revise, 406 people, account for 28.49%; 
> > > > > > (4) It has not mattered, 40 people, account for 2.81%; 
> > > > > > (5) It is not unnecessary, 55 people, account for 3.86%. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > Chan Rasjid.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Chan, thanks for the post. While many scientists understand that the theory is wrong they cannot admit this. To do so as Pentcho pointed out would have dire consequences.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Peter Riedt
> > > > 
> > > > I am Chinese. I know the Chinese mentality. If there is anything from the West that is considered high and sacred but wrong, the Chinese would not miss the opportunity to criticize it. But of course, normal people are still fair and rational. I have never heard of any Chinese talking bad about Isaac Newton. I think the Chinese too has a great respect for the name of Isaac Newton despite the English being called "foreign devils" when they first appeared in China.     
> > > > 
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Chan Rasjid.
> > 
> > Hello John,
> > 
> > I am not surprised at all of the result of the poll - 50% clear against, 13% clear for. I remember there was another poll in China with basically the same result - nothing surprising at all; it was China not the West! 
> > 
> > People here like to think there is such a thing as the scientific method - that Einstein's relativity is all, and only, about science. But the big question is whether the people who teaches relativity are using or not using the criterion of the scientific method. You can teach a scientific topic by breaking all known and accepted criteria of the scientific method.
> > 
> > The world has the rational as well as the non-rational. Science is rational based on logic. Religion is a belief system and not based on logical rationalization. Islam has the five pillars which are the analogy of axioms in mathematics. Just as you do not question the axioms, a Muslim does not question the existence of God - it is an article of faith. And an article of faith by definition goes beyond the domain of logic - and rightly so.  
> > 
> > A science can easily be turned over into the realm of the non-rational and the method of belief systems is used to support it. It has a clear precedent in history and the same is happening to Einstein's relativity - it is no more examined based on scientific criterion because the human emotions and prejudices have insidiously overtaken the examination of the science - it is now treated (in the West) in the manner of a religion.      
> > 
> > In the old days, the Church promoted the belief that the earth was the center of the universe. Most people could not 
> > determine by themselves which should be the correct answer and many would naturally accept the words of their religious mentors. And the priesthood have sacred proofs - verses from the Bible.
> > 
> > In the present case of Einstein's relativity - the bible is the "...many many indisputable experimental evidence in total agreement with...relativity theory... ". But how many of you know how to measure the momentum or rest mass of a proton - they told us so, have been done for us, etc. We trust the CERN physicists just as the common people of old trusts their priests. Most of us have no access to the LHC, and, if we had, we may blow-up the world which the Lord God created by accidentally creating a black hole!
> > 
> > But the like of Copernicus, Galileo have what we call insight - and they see farther ahead than the crowd. So don't believe that the human being can so easily act impartial.
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > Chan Rasjid.
> 
> Hi Chan
> 
> The second question in the pole:
> 
> (2) It is entirely accurate, 188 people, account for 13.19%; 
> 
> 
> Somehow this does not sound like a question that would come from Beijing Relativity Theory Research Federation. Perhaps the true meaning was lost in the translation. Of the three options I have provided which one comes closest to the true meaning in your mind.   
> 
> accurate information : 准确信息 
> 
> accurate method : 准确方法 
> 
> accurate representation : 准确的表示

I apologize that I can't read Chinese. I have read some articles of relativity by the mainland Chinese in English and I notice that many of them do not write good and clear English.

The paper from which the poll was taken is :
Research and Challenge: Relativity in China
Fu Yuhua
China Offshore Oil Research Center, P.O.Box 4728, Beijing 100027, C
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/1656

Quote:
(1) The relativity is absolutely wrong, 736 people, account for 51.65%;
(2) It is entirely accurate, 188 people, account for 13.19%; 
(3) It needs to revise, 406 people, account for 28.49%; 
...
From the above result we can see that, considering the theory of relativity is entirely accurate only
occupies few, but considering the theory of relativity is absolutely wrong has unexpectedly surpassed
the half. Considering some people have not made the overall appraisal to the theory of relativity, moreover
the viewpoint of "needs to revise" also may further subdivide. Therefore in order to be advantageous for
the discussion, this paper mainly includes the following viewpoints of the overall appraisal and the
partial appraisals to the theory of relativity: 
(1) The theory of relativity is entirely accurate, may further develop and enhance in its frame; 
(2) The theory of relativity is absolutely wrong, needs to open the new road to displace it; 
(3) The theory of relativity’s achievements outweigh its errors, needs to correct its part of mistakes
and to amend the theory of relativity; 
(4) The theory of relativity’s errors outweigh its achievements (or the achievements correspond
with the errors), needs to open the new road to displace it based on absorbing its reasonable
parts; 
(5) It does not involve the overall appraisal to the theory of relativity, only discusses the concrete
questions related directly or indirectly to the theory of relativity.

In the non-mainstream factions, the people which hold the first viewpoint are extremely few; ...

End quote.

I did goggle about Beijing Relativity Theory Research Federation but found nothing much. I think it is a federation not just of physicists who accepted relativity, but also for physicists who challenge the validity of relativity. The author Fu Yuhua don't seem to write proper English. We can make a good guess of the meaning of "entirely accurate" as the opposite of "absolutely wrong, as a theory that is completely validated; no evidence have been found to contradict it.    

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357752

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 3:51:06 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 12:26:50 PM UTC-6, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I myself is fully convinced that Einstein's relativity, SR and GR, are
> > invalid; but I have never seriously examined any of the empirical evidence
> > nor experiments involving relativity - not one! Neither do I understand
> > any of the related physics.
> 
> So you have NO basis for your belief.  Your opinion is sterile.
> 
> "People with opinions just go around bothering each other." -- Buddha
> 
> "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed
> opinion.  No one is entitled to be ignorant." -- Harlan Ellison
> 
> > It is actually very easy to reject (that's with me only) special relativity
> > as long as one knows some fundamentals of mechanics and the relevant
> > mathematics.
> 
> IOW, rejecting out of ignorance.
> 
> > But whether one chooses to accept or reject relativity is a great mystery
> > - no scientific method or lack of is ever involved in the final outcome!
> 
> I don't know how you came to this particular uninformed opinion.
> 
> > About the original poll result, the great question is whether the sample
> > population has any bias.
> 
> There is no question that ignorance is a bias.
> 
> > So how in the world could you believe (yes! believe!) that Einstein's
> > relativity theories could be invalid.
> 
> This is irrelevant, just as those with uniformed opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> > It is easy to reject special relativity; just answer the Dingle question:
> > "which of the two clocks runs slow".
> > Many have given me their answers:
> > 1) Sylvia Else - it is about projections, etc...each viewing the others
> > tell a different story. 
> > 2) Tom Roberts - a clock does not really run slower...the passing observers
> > each "measures" different rates...the "LOCAL" is not same as the "GLOBAL"
> 
> Why do you believe those answers are different?
> 
> > .... But I can't tell where is local and where is global! I just kept quiet
> > thereafter - SILENCE IS GOLDEN.
> 
> That is good.  You still may be thought a fool, but if you opened your
> mouth you would remove all doubt.  But I really think it's too late :-)
> 
> > 3) Paul Anderson,  Dirk van Toon using Minkowski's spacetime geometrical
> > diagrams.
> 
> They're right, too.
> 
> > Sorry to say, they "spoke" in a language too advanced for me and so I told
> > them "You all must have misunderstood your own mother tongue!"
> 
> That wasn't very nice of you.
> 
> > None has given an answer that I am satisfied with.
> 
> That's YOUR problem, not theirs.  It appears to me that you have made up
> your mind that relativity is wrong and have hermetically sealed your mind
> from anything that disagrees with your prejudice.
> 
> > On a serious note, debate is useless here; no amount of debate would settle
> > the question.
> 
> Debate NEVER settles any scientific question.  REAL scientists perform
> experiments, or wait until experiments have been repeated by others before
> accepting the conclusions.  The only thing debate can do is entice someone
> here to study and ponder the experiments and the logic behind them.  This
> includes actually doing math problems and understanding it all.
> 
> > It is for this reason alone that I do not engage in any long-drawn and
> > serious debate on whether Einstein's theory is valid or invalid.  
> 
> I think it's because you don't want your prejudices violated.
> 
> > There are two categories of people who holds strong opinion on whether
> > Einstein's relativity theory is valid or invalid:
> > 1) those who studied the subject and arrive at a conclusion through
> > their own understanding.
> > 2) those who rely and trust the authorities of others.
> > 
> > I belong to the first group - I discovered that the relativity theories
> > are invalid independently all on my own.
> 
> Just like all those ignorant Chinese that answered the poll.  OTOH, I came
> to SR with the intention of refuting it, but came away accepting it because
> I actually studied, pondered, worked problems, questioned the premises,
> questioned the logical deductions.  IOW, I now have an informed opinion.
> You don't.
> 
> > In the end, whether Einstein's relativity is valid or invalid is not
> > really important - the world goes on. 
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > Chan Rasjid.
> 
> This is true ... if you don't come face to face with problems that cannot
> be explained by your parochial beliefs.  That is, if you refuse to consider
> that there are those (like Tom Roberts) who actually DO come face to face
> with them.  That is a form of hiding from the truth.
> 
> Gary

Gary : "People with opinions just go around bothering each other." -- Buddha

The true saying is this:
"Those who cling to perceptions (saññā) and views (diṭṭhi)
Wander (vicarati) the world offending (ghaṭṭeti) people."

Is not the Buddha prescient 2500 years in advance. He warned of the days of relativity when people start to have
"views", "perceptions" as the reality from the mortal body of an "observer" who looks outside at clocks passing. The Buddha taught us NOT TO LOOK, but look inwards - not as an observer of what and where others are looking.
 
You might have forgotten that all the while in the past, I said there is no "observer" in physics. But all of you always say "as view by this that observer...", this projection, that geometry. The Buddha categorically warned about the temptations of the mathematics of projections and geometry.

Chan Rasjid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357754

Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:5be40035-d49b-4cc9-9bac-ebe2f92b7886@googlegroups.com...

|Is not the Buddha prescient 2500 years in advance. He warned
|of the days of relativity when people start to have
|"views", "perceptions" as the reality from the mortal body of an
|"observer" who looks outside at clocks passing.

No mortal observer has EVER seen those relativistic miracles.
All relativistic sentences "observer observes" are just
- they imagined observer, observation and what he will
tell.
It didn't match real observers even in Galileo time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357759

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 2:42:33 PM UTC-6, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 3:51:06 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 12:26:50 PM UTC-6, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I myself is fully convinced that Einstein's relativity, SR and GR, are
> > > invalid; but I have never seriously examined any of the empirical evidence
> > > nor experiments involving relativity - not one! Neither do I understand
> > > any of the related physics.
> > 
> > So you have NO basis for your belief.  Your opinion is sterile.
> > 
> > "People with opinions just go around bothering each other." -- Buddha
> > 
> > "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed
> > opinion.  No one is entitled to be ignorant." -- Harlan Ellison
> > 
> > > It is actually very easy to reject (that's with me only) special
> > > relativity as long as one knows some fundamentals of mechanics and
> > > the relevant mathematics.
> > 
> > IOW, rejecting out of ignorance.
> > 
> > > But whether one chooses to accept or reject relativity is a great mystery
> > > - no scientific method or lack of is ever involved in the final outcome!
> > 
> > I don't know how you came to this particular uninformed opinion.
> > 
> > > About the original poll result, the great question is whether the sample
> > > population has any bias.
> > 
> > There is no question that ignorance is a bias.
> > 
> > > So how in the world could you believe (yes! believe!) that Einstein's
> > > relativity theories could be invalid.
> > 
> > This is irrelevant, just as those with uniformed opinions are irrelevant.
> > ....
> > Debate NEVER settles any scientific question.  REAL scientists perform
> > experiments, or wait until experiments have been repeated by others before
> > accepting the conclusions.  The only thing debate can do is entice someone
> > here to study and ponder the experiments and the logic behind them.  This
> > includes actually doing math problems and understanding it all.
> > ....
> > This is true ... if you don't come face to face with problems that cannot
> > be explained by your parochial beliefs.  That is, if you refuse to consider
> > that there are those (like Tom Roberts) who actually DO come face to face
> > with them.  That is a form of hiding from the truth.
> > 
> > Gary
> 
> Gary : "People with opinions just go around bothering each other." -- Buddha
> 
> The true saying is this:
> "Those who cling to perceptions (saññā) and views (diṭṭhi)
> Wander (vicarati) the world offending (ghaṭṭeti) people."

I like my version better.  It's gritty and it gets right to the point.

> Is not the Buddha prescient 2500 years in advance. He warned of the days
> of relativity

Actually, he warned of those who deny reality.

> when people start to have "views", "perceptions" as the reality from the
> mortal body of an "observer" who looks outside at clocks passing. The
> Buddha taught us NOT TO LOOK, but look inwards - not as an observer of
> what and where others are looking.

Well, I'M an observer.  I like to observe.  People are amazing and they do
amazing (even bizarre) things.  One cannot hope to experience for oneself
all the variety in this world.  The existence of oneself is mysterious,
but one can spend too much of one's life examining his navel.

> You might have forgotten that all the while in the past, I said there is
> no "observer" in physics.

My existence refutes that assertion.

> But all of you always say "as view by this that observer...", this
> projection, that geometry. The Buddha categorically warned about the
> temptations of the mathematics of projections and geometry.
> 
> Chan Rasjid.

I guess that explains why I'm not a Buddhist :-)

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357760

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 4:42:33 AM UTC+8, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 3:51:06 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 12:26:50 PM UTC-6, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I myself is fully convinced that Einstein's relativity, SR and GR, are
> > > invalid; but I have never seriously examined any of the empirical evidence
> > > nor experiments involving relativity - not one! Neither do I understand
> > > any of the related physics.
> > 
> > So you have NO basis for your belief.  Your opinion is sterile.
> > 
> > "People with opinions just go around bothering each other." -- Buddha
> > 
> > "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed
> > opinion.  No one is entitled to be ignorant." -- Harlan Ellison
> > 
> > > It is actually very easy to reject (that's with me only) special relativity
> > > as long as one knows some fundamentals of mechanics and the relevant
> > > mathematics.
> > 
> > IOW, rejecting out of ignorance.
> > 
> > > But whether one chooses to accept or reject relativity is a great mystery
> > > - no scientific method or lack of is ever involved in the final outcome!
> > 
> > I don't know how you came to this particular uninformed opinion.
> > 
> > > About the original poll result, the great question is whether the sample
> > > population has any bias.
> > 
> > There is no question that ignorance is a bias.
> > 
> > > So how in the world could you believe (yes! believe!) that Einstein's
> > > relativity theories could be invalid.
> > 
> > This is irrelevant, just as those with uniformed opinions are irrelevant.
> > 
> > > It is easy to reject special relativity; just answer the Dingle question:
> > > "which of the two clocks runs slow".
> > > Many have given me their answers:
> > > 1) Sylvia Else - it is about projections, etc...each viewing the others
> > > tell a different story. 
> > > 2) Tom Roberts - a clock does not really run slower...the passing observers
> > > each "measures" different rates...the "LOCAL" is not same as the "GLOBAL"
> > 
> > Why do you believe those answers are different?
> > 
> > > .... But I can't tell where is local and where is global! I just kept quiet
> > > thereafter - SILENCE IS GOLDEN.
> > 
> > That is good.  You still may be thought a fool, but if you opened your
> > mouth you would remove all doubt.  But I really think it's too late :-)
> > 
> > > 3) Paul Anderson,  Dirk van Toon using Minkowski's spacetime geometrical
> > > diagrams.
> > 
> > They're right, too.
> > 
> > > Sorry to say, they "spoke" in a language too advanced for me and so I told
> > > them "You all must have misunderstood your own mother tongue!"
> > 
> > That wasn't very nice of you.
> > 
> > > None has given an answer that I am satisfied with.
> > 
> > That's YOUR problem, not theirs.  It appears to me that you have made up
> > your mind that relativity is wrong and have hermetically sealed your mind
> > from anything that disagrees with your prejudice.
> > 
> > > On a serious note, debate is useless here; no amount of debate would settle
> > > the question.
> > 
> > Debate NEVER settles any scientific question.  REAL scientists perform
> > experiments, or wait until experiments have been repeated by others before
> > accepting the conclusions.  The only thing debate can do is entice someone
> > here to study and ponder the experiments and the logic behind them.  This
> > includes actually doing math problems and understanding it all.
> > 
> > > It is for this reason alone that I do not engage in any long-drawn and
> > > serious debate on whether Einstein's theory is valid or invalid.  
> > 
> > I think it's because you don't want your prejudices violated.
> > 
> > > There are two categories of people who holds strong opinion on whether
> > > Einstein's relativity theory is valid or invalid:
> > > 1) those who studied the subject and arrive at a conclusion through
> > > their own understanding.
> > > 2) those who rely and trust the authorities of others.
> > > 
> > > I belong to the first group - I discovered that the relativity theories
> > > are invalid independently all on my own.
> > 
> > Just like all those ignorant Chinese that answered the poll.  OTOH, I came
> > to SR with the intention of refuting it, but came away accepting it because
> > I actually studied, pondered, worked problems, questioned the premises,
> > questioned the logical deductions.  IOW, I now have an informed opinion.
> > You don't.
> > 
> > > In the end, whether Einstein's relativity is valid or invalid is not
> > > really important - the world goes on. 
> > > 
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Chan Rasjid.
> > 
> > This is true ... if you don't come face to face with problems that cannot
> > be explained by your parochial beliefs.  That is, if you refuse to consider
> > that there are those (like Tom Roberts) who actually DO come face to face
> > with them.  That is a form of hiding from the truth.
> > 
> > Gary
> 
> Gary : "People with opinions just go around bothering each other." -- Buddha
> 
> The true saying is this:
> "Those who cling to perceptions (saññā) and views (diṭṭhi)
> Wander (vicarati) the world offending (ghaṭṭeti) people."
> 
> Is not the Buddha prescient 2500 years in advance. He warned of the days of relativity when people start to have
> "views", "perceptions" as the reality from the mortal body of an "observer" who looks outside at clocks passing. The Buddha taught us NOT TO LOOK, but look inwards - not as an observer of what and where others are looking.
>  
> You might have forgotten that all the while in the past, I said there is no "observer" in physics. But all of you always say "as view by this that observer...", this projection, that geometry. The Buddha categorically warned about the temptations of the mathematics of projections and geometry.
> 
> Chan Rasjid.

The Buddha said that a new Buddha would appear 2500 years after him - I think it is exactly now. The new Buddha 
should also be talking Buddhism - about Susila Budhi Dharma.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357763

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 3:52:16 PM UTC-6, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The Buddha said that a new Buddha would appear 2500 years after him - I
> think it is exactly now.

That would be ... ME! :-)

> The new Buddha should also be talking Buddhism - about Susila Budhi Dharma.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Chan Rasjid.

This has never worked out.  Judaism predicted a Messiah, but He didn't
teach the party line when He came.  Religions tend to evolve away from
their beginnings into apostasy.  Just look at Christianity today and
compare that to the Bible.

"Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their
lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their
fear toward me is taught by the precept of men" -- Isaiah 29:13

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358174

Le 18/07/2015 20:26, chanrasjid@gmail.com a écrit :
> http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/UnsolvedProblemsRelativity.pdf
> I am aware of this article.

Then you should be aware that this is not *an* article, but a bunch of
them.

You should be aware too that these papers are a pieces of shit.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web