🚀 go-pugleaf

On 5 Maijs, 06:34, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 6:08 pm, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > PV, it is all so simple.  Special Relativity (SR) is wrong.  General
> > Relativity (GR) is based on SR.  If SR is wrong, it follows logically
> > that GR is wrong.
>
> > What is wrong with SR?  The constancy of the speed of light in ANY
> > reference frame is wrong.  It follows that time dilation and length
> > contraction are wrong.
>
> > How does one correct SR and GR?  It is all so simple.  Throw it away.
> > The very foundations of SR/GR, frame-invariance of the speed of light
> > and frame-variance of time and space, is wrong.
>
> I don't think it is "so simple". Imagine a bellicose Einsteinian
> defending Einsteiniana in the following way:
>
> Bellicose Einsteinian: "Divine Albert's Divine Theory predicted that
> the gravitational redshift factor is 1+gh/c^2, and the Pound-Rebka
> experiment gloriously confirmed this prediction."
>

Pund-Rebka was a one-time experiment.  It does not even have
statistical validity.

> Your reaction? It is obviously not enough to just say: "GR is wrong".
> Note also that the scientific community has been educated by people
> like Popper:
>
> Karl Popper: "...we can argue that it would be a highly improbable
> coincidence if a theory like Einstein's could correctly predict very
> precise measurements not predicted by its predecessors unless there is
> 'some truth' in it."
>

I would not trust Popper.  This is the same guy who co-authored a
strange book on consciousness, along with his buddy Nobel prize winner
Eccles.  Read up on Dan Dennett and see how he dices Eccles and
Popper.

Besides, what accurate predictions?  The post-hoc prediction of the
precession of Mercury, or the doctored bending of light?

Do you know that Man went to the moon and back using basic Newtonian
physics without the need for any relativity?

> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com