A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Is a Crystal-clear Theory Preferable to Dogmatic Riddles?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> University Hall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Eugene Shubert
the new William Miller
the new William Miller


Joined: 06 Apr 2002
Posts: 1006
Location: Richardson Texas

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:50 pm    Post subject: Is a Crystal-clear Theory Preferable to Dogmatic Riddles? Reply with quote

Everyone understands that special relativity has a certain domain of applicability. In that domain, there is an enormous array of physical phenomena that can be admirably accounted for and explained by a single thesis. But what if the postulates of that thesis are conceptually perplexing, disturbing and mysteriously elusive abstractions that can be replaced by a simpler and more intuitive axiom set? In that instance, shouldn't we welcome the better, more fundamental explanation and think about retiring the traditional, cumbersome, archaic approach to its rightful place in the museum of the history of physics?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Back to top
Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
'); //-->
Eugene Shubert
the new William Miller
the new William Miller


Joined: 06 Apr 2002
Posts: 1006
Location: Richardson Texas

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jim Pennino wrote:
"conceptually perplexing, disturbing and mysteriously elusive abstractions" to who?

I like to explain Einstein's theory of Relativity in the most illuminating, common sense manner possible. Most experts are satisfied with being vague and obscure. There is a reason for this. There are two opposing forces in the universe. One power likes to obfuscate and perplex. The other enlightens.

Isn't it an axiom in science that simple, streamlined explanations are to be preferred above inelegant, dogmatic, church sanctioned riddles?

Jim Pennino wrote:
If it is just the crackpots and uneducated that babble on here all the time [the newsgroup sci.physics.relativity], I'm not concerned.

Let's ignore the many crackpots and uneducated rabble around here and treat them as ignorant knuckleheads who have been duped into believing that the theory of relativity can be understood without math. Just so there's no real doubt, I'm targeting my challenge to the eggheads and popularizers of modern physics who have been teaching these fools everything that they know.
Back to top
Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
'); //-->
Eugene Shubert
the new William Miller
the new William Miller


Joined: 06 Apr 2002
Posts: 1006
Location: Richardson Texas

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:09 pm    Post subject: Uncle Al Reply with quote

Uncle Al wrote:
Eugene Shubert wrote:
>
> Everyone understands that special relativity has a certain domain of applicability.
[snip]

Idiot.

> But what if the postulates of that thesis are conceptually perplexing, disturbing and mysteriously elusive abstractions that can be replaced by a simpler and more intuitive axiom set?

Told ya.

[snip crap]

Hey stooopid, what is perplexing about

1) Lorentz Invariance, and
2) Lightspeed is identical for all inertial observers

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether

Idiot.

--
Uncle Al

Uncle Al:

Back to top
Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
'); //-->
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> University Hall All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group