Simple complaint against Special Realtivity Theory

You gotta ask the question as I did about 4 years ago.
"Why is it that the only theory "wackos" and cranks" seem to attack to much is Special relativity theory?"


The real question is: After a century of people knocking Einstein, why have none of the "nutters" managed to forumlate a solid and undeniable proof of what they maintain to be obvious?

Einstein's special and general relativity were not obvious, and so he published papers working out their implications, and much testing was done that verified his conjectures. In the beginning most people dismissed his theories, or simply ignored them. It wasn't until after proof started to be amassed that they became dogmatically entrenched.

As for why the nutters obsess on over him, some of the complaints have come from those who are antisemitic to be sure and can't tolerate "Jew science." Most focus on him because (A) his theories and popular descriptions of them are widespread and (B) it's easier to get the gist of his ideas without doing the math than it is in some other fields. Even if he weren't an especially attractive target, the number of people who know about his work is high because it is so widely discussed. Assuming the crazies in every group are evenly distributed, that means more crazies in the large set of "Everyone who understands Einstein" than there would be in the "Everyone who understands Ed Witten" set, because the latter is smaller.

That said, as the veritable poster child for genius for about a century, he *is* and unusually attractive target. So the crazies are not evenly distributed, but disproportionately drawn to Einstein.
 
The real question is: After a century of people knocking Einstein, why have none of the "nutters" managed to forumlate a solid and undeniable proof of what they maintain to be obvious?

Einstein's special and general relativity were not obvious, and so he published papers working out their implications, and much testing was done that verified his conjectures. In the beginning most people dismissed his theories, or simply ignored them. It wasn't until after proof started to be amassed that they became dogmatically entrenched.

As for why the nutters obsess on over him, some of the complaints have come from those who are antisemitic to be sure and can't tolerate "Jew science." Most focus on him because (A) his theories and popular descriptions of them are widespread and (B) it's easier to get the gist of his ideas without doing the math than it is in some other fields. Even if he weren't an especially attractive target, the number of people who know about his work is high because it is so widely discussed. Assuming the crazies in every group are evenly distributed, that means more crazies in the large set of "Everyone who understands Einstein" than there would be in the "Everyone who understands Ed Witten" set, because the latter is smaller.

That said, as the veritable poster child for genius for about a century, he *is* and unusually attractive target. So the crazies are not evenly distributed, but disproportionately drawn to Einstein.

What you have written makes prefect sense and I think a good assessment.
The reason behind this thread was to clarify an issue that another poster had and is currently in the thick of it and has been most of his life. [Macm]

It is only because there has been no adequate solution in over 30 years I guess of direct questioning by that poster that has generated the frustrating mess that is currently being seen.

It is true however that not all "graduates" understand SRT properly either and their answers are sometimes inadvertantly adding fuel to the fire rather than quenching it.

The threads OP clearly asks about the Causality of relative time dilation.

Obviously we do not know what causes Time dilation in mainstream science. However it appears that due to the non relative nature of acceleration of a clock we have an issue of a complaint concerning treating time dilation as relative whihc is argueable gained by that acceleration. [ as nothing else has changed to create the relative velocity acheievd except the acceleration of only one clock]

Now I ask is this a fair complaint and one worth asking about or should it just be ignored as the asking of a crank and hidden under all sorts of what appears to be avoidance strategies?

It's a bit like stating the obvious with regards to the traveling nature of the photon. Every time it is mentioned immediately there is a huge defence of amodel yet to be adequately evidenced. Flaming, character assassination, sprious posting, misleading statements , out and out ridicule and that is from those espousing to be professionals.
Of course it is impossible to differentiate light effects from massive detectors...but the amount of defenisve crap this notion inspires is truely amazing... I guess we are only human is the only verdict one can make...

"a photon can not be detected in transit as once it is detected it has been absorbed by the detector and no longer in transit"

So the notion of a traveling photon is impossible to verify therefore may potentially be an incorrect interpretation of the light effects observed.

So is this a "cranks" post or a sensible one?

[ I wonder whether this post will bring a rational response or the usual irrational flaming response? ]
 
Last edited:
so when your girlfriend starts coughing up blood for unexplainable reasons you will continue to go on about how words have no impact on a persons health?
Given the words she and I exchange are pleasant ones I would be absolutely certain that if she were to cough up blood it would be due to a medical condition unrelated to the conversations she and I have. I'd take her to a doctor and they would do whatever tests needed to find out the problem.

You believe that words have no impact on a persons health. that you can use them no matter how you see fit regardless because you feel that they have no impact or you feel they should have no impact?
It's possible for the way one person verbally treats another to have an impact on their health. An abusiver coworker makes you feel stressed, which can lead to health problems over the long term. The health issues are due to excessive levels of adrenaline, lack of sleep, resultant poor diet, that sort of thing. They arise because the body of the person being verbally abused has a biochemical reaction to the 'stress' the person experiences. Stress related illnesses are well known. You're claiming there's some kind of quantum mechanical link between the organs of the abuser and the organs of the abusie (is that even a word?), which is nonsense.

If you find you are stressed from what I've been saying to you then I suggest you stop reading what I say, put me on ignore. In that sense I could have a detrimental effect on your health. However, you claim you are protecting me from health issues, which I think is nonsense. You do not stress me out at all, infact laughing at you I find enjoyable. You cannot possibly be causing me stress and so you do not have any effect on my health. There is no quantum mechanical link between you and I, there is only the kind of links humans form due to inter-personal interactions and given the superficial and rather adversarial nature of how you and I interact on a forum the said inter-personal link has absolutely no value to me, I wouldn't mind if I never spoke to you again.

If the way people behave to you on the internet causes you stress, then stop coming online. If you're coughing blood then you need to see a doctor. Nothing to do with quantum mechanics, you aren't protecting anyone, the only person whose health you have any control over is your own and if you're ill you need medical attention. I neither want nor need your 'protection' because the link you seem to believe exists between us doesn't. I believed in relativity long before you and I crossed paths, why didn't your lack of 'protection' harm me then? Why didn't my heart go out of sync with my body? Because you're wrong.

See a doctor for your coughing blood problem, see a shrink for your detachment from reality.
 
Back
Top