43Likes
3
Post By Dywyddyr
4
Post By Markus Hanke
1
Post By babe
2
Post By Howard Roark
1
Post By Strange
1
Post By babe
1
Post By John Galt
1
Post By babe
1
Post By Dywyddyr
2
Post By Janus
2
Post By billvon
5
Post By Dywyddyr
1
Post By Strange
1
Post By Janus
1
Post By babe
2
Post By tk421
1
Post By dan hunter
5
Post By RedPanda
1
Post By PhDemon
3
Post By PhDemon
2
Post By tk421
1
Post By dan hunter
1
Post By adelady
August 31st, 2013, 10:00 PM
Before coming to this forum I had no idea that "anti-relativity" was even a thing.
Is there some kind of religious agenda behind it, like with anti-evolution?
I'm... yeah. A bit lost here. What do they want to achieve by convincing other people that relativity is wrong?
Last edited by Daecon; August 31st, 2013 at 10:10 PM.
I suspect there's a number of reasons.
In no particular order:
I don't understand it, therefore it must be wrong and I'll prove it.
I want to be famous so I'll knock the "most famous" scientist in the world off his perch.
Anti-semitism, (Yes, that's an agenda I've seen: Einstein was a Jew, therefore anything he said must be wrong and needs exposing as such to prevent further control by the hidden Jewish elite 1).
My rubber tree told me that it's wrong, and the cat's feeding me all the right equations to prove it. PS can I have another crayon, this one's run out.
1 This is yet another of those super-secret clandestine organisations that just happens to have innumerable websites telling us how utterly secret and unknown they are.
It's basically an ego trip; uncovering "obvious contradictions" in the work of one of the greatest scientists ever makes them feel good about themselves. Of course what they fail to realise is that all they are uncovering is in fact their very own ignorance of the subject matter. Being confronted with that sad truth then sends them into defensive mode, in a vain attempt to save themselves from being exposed as utter fools. Hence the steadfast refusal to accept any explanations and evidence presented to them.
This is what we are seeing again and again both here and on other forums.
Relativity is an obvious target ( as is quantum mechanics ), because in many ways it seems contradictory to our everyday world of human experience; we never see clocks dilated or rulers contracted, nor do we perceive curvature in space and time. Too many people then do not realise that our everyday human world might not be a suitable point of reference when looking at the universe.
Lastly, it must be said that many anti-relativity crackpots are just plain lazy; it is always easier to reject something than it is to sit down and study the material in detail from relevant textbooks. That actually takes effort, which in this day and age seems to have lost its value and appeal.
On the other hand I've seen a large number of curved rulers.Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Maybe I should start my thesis showing relativity's wrong...
On the other hand I've seen a large number of curved rulers.
Maybe I should start my thesis showing relativity's wrong...
And publish it in the International Journal of Woo & Crankery.
I think that they want to suggest that there are "other" ways to view things, their ways.
Relativity.
Add to this :
-I am a retired <fill in the blanks>, I have a lot of time on my hands and I have been studying this incorrect theory for a long time, I found the following errors <fill in the blanks>
-I find relativity very counterintuitive, on the other hand Newtonian/Galilean mechanics/kinematics do not offend my senses the way GR/SR do
-"They" need to fudge up the clocks in order to get GPS working
- "They" are still struggling to measure gravitational waves
- There are a lot of (suppressed) experiments that disprove relativity
- Einstein was a plagiarist and a crook, his papers were written by <fill in the blanks>
- I don't understand QM or GR but I understand SR and I can point out all the errors I have uncovered
That totally sounds like the internet lol!Add to this :
-I am a retired <fill in the blanks>, I have a lot of time on my hands and I have been studying this incorrect theory for a long time, I found the following errors <fill in the blanks>
-I find relativity very counterintuitive, on the other hand Newtonian/Galilean mechanics/kinematics do not offend my senses the way GR/SR do
-"They" need to fudge up the clocks in order to get GPS working
- "They" are still struggling to measure gravitational waves
- There are a lot of (suppressed) experiments that disprove relativity
- Einstein was a plagiarist and a crook, his papers were written by <fill in the blanks>
- I don't understand QM or GR but I understand SR and I can point out all the errors I have uncovered
There is a weird (US only, I suspect) political thing as well. There is a right-wing Wikipedia-like thing which is very anti-relativity. They seem to think it is a left-wing atheist plot, or something. I have no idea why.
OK. We can close this thread now. There is nothing else to say.Relativity.
I know I am a smart ass....but you guys sometimes throw out one liners that are WAY to hard for me to pass up!!OK. We can close this thread now. There is nothing else to say.Relativity.
Instruction: Adopt plausible anti-relativity mode.
Begin: Just as the the greater number of species that have ever existed are now extinct, so a large proportion of scientific hypotheses have been disproven, or at least outmoded. Indeed, many formerly assured observations have been shown to be faulty. It is reasonable to project that this patteren will continue. That being the case we may expect relativity to be abandoned, replaced, superceded, or so adapted as to lose its current integrity. A powerful pointer that this is the case lies in its incompatibility with quantum theory. They cannot both be right and Occam's razor may favour both being wrong. . Note that its quantitative confirmation, to many decimal places, in many specific instances, does not override its conflict with QM, or the long term trend that hypotheses become obsolete. With that in mind here are some concerns with current relativity theory. Insert specifics. Focusing only on the areas where the theory is confirmed will create a false sense of certainty. Surely this is not a valid scientific response. It can create the impression of following dogma.
End: Anti-relativity mode.
It depends on the person because there are Flat Earthers, Contrarians, Trolls, Fundies, and Dummies.
There are also the deluded and insane fringe lunatics, including the ones who are promoting a theory personally presented to them from the Aliens from Planet X.
Don't ever forget that at one time people laughed at Bozo The Clown too.
On the other hand there are some who are serious and have done the math because they simply think there has to be a better explanation. People who are looking for a theory that manages to combine the big and the small in one grand unified theory of everything. Some of them manage to work themselves into the above groups but some of them don't
The ones who don't fit in the crazy scale are the scary ones because they might be right. They also tend to hold well respected positions as physicists and mathematicians. Some of their works manage to explain everything already known but usually include some weird twist that is either impossible to test or it gives a result that runs contrary to current theoretical predictions. Sometimes their work fails just because it makes the math much too complicated to use.
String theory is one example of such a proposed theory.
I am so confused!!
Which one am I? *L*
Don't worry about it.
You're female so no-one listens to your opinion anyway.
This always struck me as one of the oddest arguments against Relativity. Even if there was any grain of salt to it, who cares if Einstein stole the idea from his gardener, as long as the end result panned out to be valid.
Because the argument goes like this:
"Einstein copied his gardener's work! He's a thief and a liar!"
"who cares if Einstein stole the idea from his gardener, as long as the results are valid?"
"Oh, so now you're going to believe a gardener?"
Rubbish.
The evidence was planted.
The point is that the "gardener" (in this case Mileva Maric or Hilbert, depending on the flavor, SR/GR) were not Jewish, seeThis always struck me as one of the oddest arguments against Relativity. Even if there was any grain of salt to it, who cares if Einstein stole the idea from his gardener, as long as the end result panned out to be valid.
Dywyddyr's post.
I suppose the other argument is: he stole the idea but then messed it up (his gardener had the real theory). Everyone since then has just accepted it. Because Einstein.
....until me, the retired <fill in the blanks> disproved it. Down with the king, long live the (new) king!
That just compounds one silly argument unto another, the idea that Relativity is only accepted on the strength of Einstein's reputation. Einstein gained his reputation from the acceptance of Relativity. He had no reputation when he developed it.
That isn't quite right. Einstein was already active and published before his Special Relativity was presented.
His "Investigations on the theory of Brownian Movement" was in 1905.(He actually published 4 papers that year)
It pretty much proved statistics was a viable way to develop a theory and confirmed the idea that molecules and atoms existed. He also contributed a great deal to Quantum Mechanics.
His later works and fame overshadowed his earlier work but it is unfair to say Albert Einstein's reputation depended on his Relativity work and that he had no reputation before Relativity.
You will now be featherless for life!! *laughing*Don't worry about it.
You're female so no-one listens to your opinion anyway.
I think Janus is correct; your post actually supports what he said. Einstein's papers in 1905 came in rapid succession. The first -- on the photoelectric effect -- was published June 9th; his first SR paper, on September 26. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that Einstein had built much of a reputation in the 3.x months between those two papers. Indeed, even after his SR papers, there was a substantial lag time before anyone paid serious attention.That isn't quite right. Einstein was already active and published before his Special Relativity was presented.
His "Investigations on the theory of Brownian Movement" was in 1905.(He actually published 4 papers that year)
It pretty much proved statistics was a viable way to develop a theory and confirmed the idea that molecules and atoms existed. He also contributed a great deal to Quantum Mechanics.
His later works and fame overshadowed his earlier work but it is unfair to say Albert Einstein's reputation depended on his Relativity work and that he had no reputation before Relativity.
The full comment by Janus was, "That just compounds one silly argument unto another, the idea that Relativity is only accepted on the strength of Einstein's reputation. Einstein gained his reputation from the acceptance of Relativity. He had no reputation when he developed it."I think Janus is correct; your post actually supports what he said. Einstein's papers in 1905 came in rapid succession. The first -- on the photoelectric effect -- was published June 9th; his first SR paper, on September 26. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that Einstein had built much of a reputation in the 3.x months between those two papers. Indeed, even after his SR papers, there was a substantial lag time before anyone paid serious attention.That isn't quite right. Einstein was already active and published before his Special Relativity was presented.
His "Investigations on the theory of Brownian Movement" was in 1905.(He actually published 4 papers that year)
It pretty much proved statistics was a viable way to develop a theory and confirmed the idea that molecules and atoms existed. He also contributed a great deal to Quantum Mechanics.
His later works and fame overshadowed his earlier work but it is unfair to say Albert Einstein's reputation depended on his Relativity work and that he had no reputation before Relativity.
Einstein had been published from 1901. The thing is that almost any of the papers he got published would have earned him a place in history.
His presentation of the four papers in the one year was almost like a home run in a baseball game by an already recognized batter.
Even his 1921 Nobel was not for relativity but for his paper on the photoelectric effect of light (photons).
Einstein would have still been famous if he had never said anything about gravity at all just from all of his other contributions..
So like I said, it is unfair to say Albert Einstein's reputation depended on his Relativity work and that he had no reputation before Relativity.
Last edited by dan hunter; March 4th, 2014 at 07:38 AM. Reason: spelling typo
Einstein himself was a lot more modest about his explanation for gravity then those who assessed his work in the years after that.
It is that selfdoubt that makes him a true scientist, genuin in his persuit for the truth, always ready to change his accomplishements for the better.
This attitude of uncertainty was completely erased for the public eye by those who further built his reputation, allowing no possible error margin in his work.
Personally i am not against the theory of relativity, i am in favor of a corrected theory.
If Einstein hadn't produced such great work, then scientists would not be able to build on it to improve it today.
Normally people wait until they have finished the sentence before contradicting themselves.
It's like that film Candyman, someone innocently starts a thread about anti-relativity cranks and one appears...
The fact that you call this a contradiction, only confirms my assumptions of the black or white mentality.Normally people wait until they have finished the sentence before contradicting themselves.
...and the fact you don't only confirms ours that you are totally clueless...
Anyway I thought you'd left in the huff to find another forum that would take your nonsense seriously. I'm guessing by the fact you came back here you had no luck...
(boldface italics mine)
Einstein had published only 4 or 5 papers before his miracle year. It was solid work supporting the idea that atoms are real, but no one seemed to have been particularly impressed. His first submission of his doctoral thesis was rejected. He continued on as a patent clerk, having been turned down for every academic position he applied for. That situation is not particularly consistent with the notion that he already had a reputation prior to developing SR.
The best evidence from history is that no one was paying attention to Einstein in the years leading up to his miracle year. He was just another guy publishing not particularly earth-shattering papers at a slow pace. That would support Janus' statement.
Agreed, and in fact, as you noted, his Nobel was for his photoelectric effect explanation. But that happened many years later, and is thus irrelevant to the statement Janus made (and boldfaced above). That's the specific issue I've been addressing.The thing is that almost any of the papers he got published would have earned him a place in history.
You may deem it unfair, but it seems to reflect the historical record.So like I said, it is unfair to say Albert Einstein's reputation depended on his Relativity work and that he had no reputation before Relativity.
I do! Yes indeed I do!
Anyhow, at least the QM deniers don't argue the only reason QM was accepted is that Einstein was famous.
But wasn't that decision affected by the raging controversy around relativity? (And its weird linking to anti-semitism.)Even his 1921 Nobel was not for relativity but for his paper on the photoelectric effect of light (photons).
Why Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity | Stuart Clark | Science | theguardian.com
That's what I'd heard -- Lenard was a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-semite, and he campaigned particularly hard to deny Einstein a prize. The Nobel Committee no doubt had its hands full.
They were consistent, they repeated the shameful performance in the case of Lise Meitner.That's what I'd heard -- Lenard was a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-semite, and he campaigned particularly hard to deny Einstein a prize. The Nobel Committee no doubt had its hands full.
| « Pursuing Optometry | Why isn't there a name for the energy produced when matter and antimatter annihilate each other? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
