You don't have to believe in relativity. However, if you then want your life to be consistent with your views I would suggest that you avoid using GPS (so no air travel), nuclear medicine (so don't get cancer), nuclear generated electricity, and sunbathing. I would like to suggest that you avoid using gravity, but living on Earth that would be quite difficult. Fortunately gravity still works even for those who don't believe in it.
-
Do any untainted results exist of any SR or any relativistic 'news releases' ?
No, because none exist. So the burden of proof is on you sir.
This is the unfortunate 'house of cards' Einstein referred to; built upon Poincare, Lorentz, Faraday and Maxwell's hard work.
Personally, I took a year to focus on the origins of relativity and its influence on current scientific thinking. Many texts are available on this subject. You would benefit from reading one.
-
Do any untainted results exist of any SR or any relativistic 'news releases' ?
No, because none exist. So the burden of proof is on you sir.
This is the unfortunate 'house of cards' Einstein referred to; built upon Poincare, Lorentz, Faraday and Maxwell's hard work.
Personally, I took a year to focus on the origins of relativity and its influence on current scientific thinking. Many texts are available on this subject. You would benefit from reading one.
-
As Waly already stated, your favorite aliens may well have a different mathematical language to describe the same physical phenomena. And their constructs may be more effective for certain physics than others.
To the opposite side, GPS, among so many others, empirically validates relativity as a phenomenon. Any new description of the universe we observe is going to need to account for that.
And my world of biomed relies on physics working, not sure what planet you're on.
To the opposite side, GPS, among so many others, empirically validates relativity as a phenomenon. Any new description of the universe we observe is going to need to account for that.
And my world of biomed relies on physics working, not sure what planet you're on.
You clearly have little idea of how science works. As I and others have said, much modern technology relies on relativity being true; if it were false it would have to be false in a very clever way which gives all the external appearances of being true, because the technology actually works. Such a replacement for relativity would have to be more complex than relativity, so violates Occam's Razor - which thus far has been a fairly reliable guide to how physics works, as virtually everything is about as simple as it can possibly be and still satisfy all the necessary requirements of symmetry and conservation laws.jfetter said:
I have philosophical concerns about relativity, but I cannot argue that it is false because all the evidence points to it being true. The same goes for quantum mechanics. All I can assume is that we do not yet understand them well enough to see the true simplicity which lies at their hearts.
This.
If you want to demonstrate that relativity is false, then you have to explain how GPS compensates for time dilation due to gravity WITHOUT relativity. The flat earth gibberish that you have so far offered up will not be adequate to address this challenge.
I'll be waiting.
Well, I was hoping not to address the GPS question but it persists.
A sensitive subject it is and deals more with ethics rather than science.
So the question is: who here was involved in the GPS system from first proto-PCB to final code tweek?
Ultimately the issue is creditability. Who can we believe?
Every project fudges, the software engineer, the project manager , public relations and so on.
And thats OK if the Alice-in-Wonderland project is a success or if good hard data is won for future use.
But as far as somehow validating a cobbled theory, its a no-go.
Yes, peer reviewed papers in all of the journals tell us how it all works.
After five decades of product development in communications, biomedical, industrial instrumentation and controls, I have ceased believing any hype.
But if you want to be a believer, well that is ok too.
Leaves more room for people like me.
-
A sensitive subject it is and deals more with ethics rather than science.
So the question is: who here was involved in the GPS system from first proto-PCB to final code tweek?
Ultimately the issue is creditability. Who can we believe?
Every project fudges, the software engineer, the project manager , public relations and so on.
And thats OK if the Alice-in-Wonderland project is a success or if good hard data is won for future use.
But as far as somehow validating a cobbled theory, its a no-go.
Yes, peer reviewed papers in all of the journals tell us how it all works.
After five decades of product development in communications, biomedical, industrial instrumentation and controls, I have ceased believing any hype.
But if you want to be a believer, well that is ok too.
Leaves more room for people like me.
-
Last edited:
And, pray, do tell, how did you manage to get anything done in the past 50 years without taking those same leaps of faith? And how many orthogonal leaps of faith by other engineers need to be made to show that these phenomenon are consistent and reliable?
Knowledge on a universal basis is cobbled up. No different in any field. It's all refinement.
Knowledge on a universal basis is cobbled up. No different in any field. It's all refinement.
Is somebody is expecting to politely argue that jfetter is incorrect in his assumptions and rationale? Not me, color me blue if this is not trolling in its purest form.
I wonder what is gained by arguing with fringe nutters. They will go off and rave and nothing will come of it. Nothing mankind has ever achieved could possibly have come from apes, it had to be alien intervention. BTW I think I saw that they have reduced the centimeter GPS to an affordable module.
Last edited:
You are discussing religion - the religion of ignorant wingnuttery. We're talking about science, because we are engineers and use science in our jobs.
Why don't you go troll some plumbers and try to convince them that water pressure isn't real; it's just a masonic conspiracy?
It fits right in with all the other "scientific" bullet points.
Thanks.
Hats off to anyone who dares to reach the shore of topological space. This is terra incognita for me, thus I should shut up and I will do.
I am only interested in the way of thinking.
Most probably, intuitionism is what you referred to in the first instance.
I am bound to classical approach regarding assumptions and proof .
Thank you for providing the stimulus to look a bit further away from my friendly space
George
Please note that "curl" notation predated Maxwell, it was a Hamiltonian notation ( Oliver Heaviside just hated quatenions)
http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/MathematicalClassificationofPhysicalQuantities_Maxwell.pdf
George
http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/MathematicalClassificationofPhysicalQuantities_Maxwell.pdf
George
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.