Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.
Time does not dilate.
2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.
Length does not contract.
3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.
Space does not curve.
4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.
Parallel lines do not meet.
Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction,
this necessarily involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.
Time does not dilate.
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.
Time does not dilate.
2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.
Length does not contract.
3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.
Space does not curve.
4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.
Parallel lines do not meet.
Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.
On 27-Oct-24 11:06 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.
Time does not dilate.
2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.
Length does not contract.
3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.
Space does not curve.
4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.
Parallel lines do not meet.
Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.
The theory describes measurements. Unless you want to go down a quantum mechanics rabbit hole, there can be no question that measurements are real.
On 2024-10-27 03:06:16 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
Relativity is perfectly compatible with elementary and advanced logic,
That does not follow from logic or anything mentioned above.
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.
Time does not dilate.
2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.
Length does not contract.
3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.
Space does not curve.
4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.
Parallel lines do not meet.
Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 3:06:16 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.
Since time is an "abstraction": time does not exist
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks
should be.” -- Albert Einstein
“Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall
perish by it.” -- Samuel Butler
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction,
this necessarily involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.
Time does not dilate.
On 27-Oct-24 11:06 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.
Time does not dilate.
2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.
Length does not contract.
3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.
Space does not curve.
4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.
Parallel lines do not meet.
Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.
The theory describes measurements. Unless you want to go down a quantum mechanics rabbit hole, there can be no question that measurements are
real.
Sylvia.
Gary & everyone: Physicists will never be able to derive relativity logically. "...natural selection becomes not just a natural law but a
logical law! That is, it looks like given certain conditions, natural selection logically has to follow. This is a more powerful concept of
natural law than the laws of physics themselves-- after all, physicists
have (so far) not been able to derive quantum mechanics or relativity
from logic....the universe could have been otherwise." - Massimo
Pigliucci "Historical vs. Nomological Sciences" Skeptical Inquirer
Jan/Feb 2011.
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
Gary & everyone: Physicists will never be able to derive relativity
logically. "...natural selection becomes not just a natural law but a
logical law! That is, it looks like given certain conditions, natural
selection logically has to follow. This is a more powerful concept of
natural law than the laws of physics themselves-- after all, physicists
have (so far) not been able to derive quantum mechanics or relativity
from logic....the universe could have been otherwise." - Massimo
Pigliucci "Historical vs. Nomological Sciences" Skeptical Inquirer
Jan/Feb 2011.
No, of course not.
Nothing in science has ever been derived logically.
Logic can at best tell you that a certain theory is not self-consistent.
Paul: Logic can tell you when a theory does not predict anything.
Relativity predicts nothing. It is not even a theory.
Paul: Logic can tell you when a theory does not predict anything.
Relativity predicts nothing. It is not even a theory.
On 2024-11-14 03:52:51 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Paul: Logic can tell you when a theory does not predict anything.
Relativity predicts nothing. It is not even a theory.
Relativity does predict.
Jan: An inconsistent theory does not predict. Relativity is an ideology,
so you are ironically projecting your faults onto others. Then you don't
know what you are defending because you can't tell me what it predicts.
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
Jan: An inconsistent theory does not predict. Relativity is an ideology,
so you are ironically projecting your faults onto others. Then you don't
know what you are defending because you can't tell me what it predicts.
No quoted text, no reply,
On 2024-11-14 21:48:39 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
Jan: An inconsistent theory does not predict. Relativity is an ideology, >> so you are ironically projecting your faults onto others. Then you don't >> know what you are defending because you can't tell me what it predicts.
No quoted text, no reply,
Not even an indication of which Jan he is referring to. Can he not know
that we have two sane people of that name here?
BertieTaylor: Thanks. Yes, the prestige mills called universities sell
what is considered prestigious even when it is ridiculous, as relativity
is. When I confront the relativists with such logical criticisms, they
cannot grapple with them and respond in any way other than ad hominem
attacks on me.
I am reminded of an article I once read in Skeptical Inquirer by the
highly reputed scientist Massimo Pigliucci, who I admire for his
stoicism books. It is called "What's so bad about Ad Hoc Hypotheses?"
and is a reply to an article by a person wanting to dismiss the very
concept of ad hoc. That is, "On Ad Hoc Hypotheses*"
Author(s): J. Christopher Hunt
Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol. 79, No. 1 (January 2012), pp. 1-14.
Length contraction and time dilation were immediately recognized as very
ad hoc after they were proposed after the MME in 1987. This kept most scientists before Einstein from asserting them as literal realities. Pigliucci maintains the concept is quite valid. I suggest it be
steel-manned, not as "making things up" but as thinking of exceptions to
the rules (really new sub-rules) that may or may not be confirmed.
However, in the case of these concepts in relativity, they are both ad
hoc and reification fallacy, making them pure nonsense.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 9:27:15 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-11-14 21:48:39 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
Jan: An inconsistent theory does not predict. Relativity is an ideology, >>>> so you are ironically projecting your faults onto others. Then you don't >>>> know what you are defending because you can't tell me what it predicts. >>>No quoted text, no reply,
Not even an indication of which Jan he is referring to. Can he not know
that we have two sane people of that name here?
Yes. The LCC entity often picks up some trigger word to go of on a rant
of its own, with little or no relation to the input.
It would be best if we all stopped replying to such postings.
This is just a plainly wrong idea of usenet posting, so abuse,
I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity. It is my hope to witness such a phenomenon again.
I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity.
W dniu 15.11.2024 o 14:03, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog pisze:
I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity.
True, the worshippers of The Shit will
die hard.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 13:47:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 9:27:15 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It would be best if we all stopped replying to such postings.
This is just a plainly wrong idea of usenet posting, so abuse,
I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity. It is my hope to witness such a phenomenon again.
I did read somewhere about some success using an AI bot.
The AI knows all the standard arguments, and has a vast store of
responses and refutations.
And it does not automatically generate an adversarial attitude.
But what is more, it has infinite stamina,
it will go on with more counter arguments, it will remain friendly,
and it also has an infinite capacity for suffering fools gladly.
Report of a pilot study at <https://www.fastcompany.com/91203559/how-chatbots-can-win-over-crackpots>
Fascinating!
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 13:47:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:Fascinating!
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 9:27:15 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It would be best if we all stopped replying to such postings.
This is just a plainly wrong idea of usenet posting, so abuse,
I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity. It is my hope to witness such a phenomenon again.
I did read somewhere about some success using an AI bot.
The AI knows all the standard arguments, and has a vast store of
responses and refutations.
And it does not automatically generate an adversarial attitude.
But what is more, it has infinite stamina,
it will go on with more counter arguments, it will remain friendly,
and it also has an infinite capacity for suffering fools gladly.
Report of a pilot study at
<https://www.fastcompany.com/91203559/how-chatbots-can-win-over-crackpots> >>
Yes, but not altogether surprising.
Much crackpottery and 'complot thinking' is primarily
a revolt against authoritiy.
(see this forum for some examples)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:25:17 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,622 |