Joined: Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 534
Location: Aussie Prawn Facility; District 10
Posted:
Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:29 am
F-wit-ism knows no bounds it seems. See! People, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If I were on the side of the woo-meisters, I could make
anything
up. But, noooo, I just had to go an become a liberal science-supporting pinko. So as a result, I have to insist on all that pesky
evidence
and that the hypotheses and thories pass peer-review... and actually make.... y'know SENSE!!
Probably took the poor bugger three times as long as that to knock it down, but I'll bet it was fun! Greetings from OZ.
P.S. in regard to the so-called lack of any product or use of relativity (yes there is) I had a similar exchange with a REAL scientist who did not accept that the GPS system uses relativity physics... what do you expect from a geneticist! Hah.
"GPS, bitches"
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
HighPriestessLois Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
Posts: 45
Location: Arizona USA
Posted:
Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:01 pm
Are they serious?? O_o
_________________ "Love is what separates us from animals!"
"No, Lister, what separates us from animals is that we don't use our tongues to clean our own genitals."
topos Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 09, 2004
Posts: 69
Posted:
Sat May 15, 2010 5:08 pm
That guy is far too stupid to be taking issue with a theory as elegant as relativity. He doesn't seem to recognize the distinction between special and general relativity, even.
There are some smart people who have had some concerns with it, though. T. E. Phipps, Jr, for example (the son of Phipps from Phipps and Taylor, who made the first measurement of the magnetic moment of atomic hydrogen, and who has a PhD in physics from Harvard), observes that the Thomas precession must violate angular momentum conservation, and he believes apparently that therefore relativity can't be true.
I recognized independently that the T.P. must violate angular momentum conservation, but I don't reject relativity. Rather, I think the implications of this should be explored. I think angular momentum is conserved in the end after all, but only after some considerable complications that are one of the causes of quantum behavior. I have some evidence of this, for example that the spin and ortbit precession frequencies equate only if the orbital angular momentum is h-bar.
Also I wrote two papers and got them on arxiv, although not in journals so far. But I have some physics professors who agree with me. One is at Princeton. He put my paper on his web page.
If anybody is interested in this please look at my blog because it needs a few clicks to even register on google, which it doesn't yet. Thanks!
Edit: I don't mean that the Princeton professor agrees with everything I say. In fact I have never spoken with him or exchanged email. But he put my paper on the Thomas precession on his archive of E&M papers for his students to use in research. That is all I know about that.
View next topic View previous topic
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
