🚀 go-pugleaf

On 22 Nov, 23:47, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > Evolutionists object to having their kids 'taught'
> > creationism, or intelligent design.
>
> That objection is not just from "evolutionists", but from all people who
> understand science. Neither creationism nor intelligent design are
> _scientific_. I have no objection to them being taught in church school.
> Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory.
>
> > Both of the latter are wrong.
>
> The issue is not really wrong or right, it is science vs non-science.
> For instance, Newtonian mechanics is known to be not valid ("wrong") in
> domains where thousands of experiments are performed each year, but we
> still teach it to physics and engineering students. It is _scientific_,
> but is not the last word -- within its domain it is still quite valid
> and useful, even though there are other domains in which it is useless.
> So part of the lesson is how to determine in which domains the theory is
> valid.

Of course Newtonian mechanics is useless in some domains Roberts
Roberts. It cannot explain how a long train can be trapped inside a
short tunnel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=

and also Newtonian mechanics cannot explain how a 80m long pole can be
trapped inside a 40m long barn:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

In other words Roberts Roberts, Newtonian mechanics is useless in the
domain secretly called by Einstein criminals "Destruction of Human
Rationality".

>
> > Why should "science", that should be espousing THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD,
> > allow the 'teaching' of Einstein--also, hugely WRONG?
>
> First, relativity is not "wrong". It is almost certainly incomplete, but
> within very large domains it is a valid physical theory (i.e. it agrees
> with experiments and observations -- that _IS_ the scientific method).
> Second, relativity is a scientific theory, so it is appropriate to teach
> it in science class.
>
>         Einstein is a historical figure, and there is an important
>         distinction between Einstein (the man) and relativity (the
>         theory he discovered).
>
> TomRoberts

Too many red herrings Roberts Roberts. If you want to discuss any
problem with relativity, you should initially refer to something that
happened in 1907 and that criminal brothers cleverer than you have
already referred to:

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Quantum
theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have
appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of
relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the
laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the
speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the
source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory
are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary
relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not
absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF
INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

Pentcho Valev