Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #428148

Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Date	2017-08-11 08:58 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<omioec$6kk$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <omenjg$1iui$1@gioia.aioe.org> <4385d6f2-897c-4fb9-920b-556d7db381b4@googlegroups.com> <omg2db$1tv4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <b99a387c-0fff-4e2a-8545-59a633746dfc@googlegroups.com> <omhoe7$hbo$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/08/17 23:52, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/9/17 6:13 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
>> Again, that's not a substantive rebuttal.  All your questions about, 
>> and criticisms of, special relativity have been answered.  Do you HAVE 
>> any substantive rebuttal?
> 
> No, of course he doesn't.

Bodkin, I have clearly and consistently explained all my rebuttals of 
Einstein's ridiculous theory.

> He cycles through a short list of empty rejoinders, exhibiting the lack 
> of imagination and drive to even lengthen that list or make it more 
> interesting. Among the short list items:
> 
> - "The only experiments that count are the ones I like."

I don't count experiments that rely on dozens of vague assumptions and 
estimates in order to produce a desired answer. I don't count 
experiments that are based on flawed theory or have other interpretations.

> - "Of course relativity is self-consistent, it's just obviously wrong 
> because of some premise that need not be shown true."

Relativity is perfectly consistent with its flawed and logically 
impossible P2.

> - "Relativity is completely self-contradictory, as I've shown by 
> repeated arguments whose rebuttals I have ignored."

This is nonsense. I have shown quite clearly that Einstein's whole 
theory is based on a flawed postulate which cannot be true because it 
leads to a logical impossibility. The fact that my diagnosis is far too 
hard for any Einstein worshipper does not worry me one iota.
Any average idiot can understand and preach Einstein's SR to fellow 
idiots. Understanding why it is impossible takes real genius.

> - "No experiments have been done that support relativity."

If there had been then there wouldn't be such desperation to find just 
one that actually does...... Hahahhha!

> - "The experiments that have been done that support relativity have 
> results that have error bars and are therefore inconclusive, because 
> true science provides only black or white answers with no error bars 
> whatsoever."

That is basically correct. "Out of the mouths of babes come occasional 
truths"...Confucius

> - "The experiments that have been done that support relativity are all 
> fake, and there is a massive conspiracy to cover that up."

A have resorted to using the word 'fake' for convenience. I accept that 
in some cases, the authors might not have been deliberately cheating but 
were merely fiddling the results in order to appease their superiors and 
prop up their own careers. Most significant is the way any new discovery 
in physics is immediately pounced on by dingleberries in order to 
associate the name Einstein with it, gravitational waves, purely 
Newtonian, being the latest example. The GPS is another.

> - "A true scientist doubts everything, which is why Newton's treatment 
> is to be considered infallible."

No Bodkin. A scientist never regards any law as being the final word. 
There may be refinements. Newton's laws have adequately satisfied all 
astronomical predictions since they were formulated.

> - "No true properties of anything can be observer dependent, because I 
> define 'properties' so that this is impossible."

HAHHHAHAHA! Ah Bodkin, you learned that idea from Einstein's definition 
of clock synchronization. "A pair of clocks is only correctly 
synchronized if they are set to measure OWLS as being c".
I'm don't operate like that plagiarizing hoaxer.
> 
> All Henry is doing is demonstrating is that he can spark a response even 
> by saying things as stupid as these. This he gets some fun from.

I get fun arguing with non-scientists like you, Bodkin, because you are 
so easy to beat.

--

Thread

csiph-web