🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Aug26.074741.17446@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

>In article <snodgras.714777577@crash> snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass)  
>writes:
>>       If you look into the 'overwhelming' support for relativity, you'll
>> find that once you subtract out the self-reference, the assumptions, the
>> handwaving, and the enthusiastic proponents, you're left with -- nix. But
>> if you really want to believe, with all your heart, just tap your ruby
>> slippers. "There's no theory like relativity."

>Nix? Not one shred, eh? Boy, all us physicists have sure been duped.
>Thank god an armchair philosopher has come along to straighten us out.

You pretend that I didn't make any arguments to support my point,
when 1) I pointed out that the bending of light in a gravitational
field does not support relativity against a material theory of gravity,
and 2) that arguments such as muon decay do not support (cannot support)
time dilation -- which again is suggesting non-material cause of physical
phenomena.

      If you have arguments against these two _technical_ points, why don't
you make them? Show us your vaunted grasp of Einstein's ideas.
I am prepared to show _exactly_ how any supposed proof of either special
or general relativity is based on either an unfounded assumption or a
questionable interpretation of results.


      I'm not so naive as to think anyone will be persuaded by my
arguments so as to reject relativity along with me, but I believe I
can rely on rational minds to see that relativity was a _choice_ made
on philosophical, rather than empirical, grounds. That it was _justified_
by gathering evidence, rather than (like say the theory of evolution)
forced upon by evidence.

>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

      John E. Snodgrass
      -----------------
      snodgras@crash.cts.com