On 19 June 2014 14:34, <ghib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 19 June 2014 02:01, <jr...@trexenterprises.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
>>> relativity theories is faulty.
>>>
>>
>> In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all
>> non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based
>> on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely
>> falling observers. What's wrong with the logic?
>>
>>>
>>> Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity.
>>> Clock speeds may be affected but not time. Time passes at the same rate
>>> everywhere in our Universe.
>>>
>>
>> Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the link
>> I posted?
>>
>> If not, here is a direct link to it ... http://www.astronomy.ohio-
>> state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html
>>
>> Look in particular at the "photon clock" and tell me where the flaw in
>> the logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people
>> who've tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may become
>> worthwhile to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation
>>
>
> p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm definitely
> not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of the
> people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in my
> eyes during the time I've been
>
Thank you, I appreciate that :-)
> (not longer to remain I might add, if for nothing else due to levels of
> ostrasization now well past the level at which anyone would be able to
> justify ongoing attention for long).
>
I'm sorry to hear that.
>
> But, for reasons that were/are related to some of the interests I have
> been pursuing on these lists - this particular context not being a direct
> interest but more something changed or clarified from the norm. And
> mentioning here because in this case, the changes are much more about
> crystalizing what was already intuitive for the majority of people, I would
> strongly guess including you...
>
> John Ross, who incidently I do agree deserves your kind attention due to
> much evidence of long term hard work at his end, however...unfortunately
> and possibly rather sadly....has clearly succumbed to one of the top
> risks we all face when our ideas for whatever reason have been either
> exposed to isolated conditions for a long time.....or...I
> believe...circumstances a lot of celebrities understand all too
> well...which is about becoming exposed to the mind-set typically found in
> fan clubs.
>
Yes. Working away on something in isolation for years may be OK for a work
of literature, but less so for science - especially nowadays, with rapid
developments, a huge number of scientists (it's no longer the preserve of
the idle rich, as seems to have been the case a couple of centuries back)
and readily available information ... although Mr Ross obviously knows a
few scientists personally, too. Fan clubs are an interesting one, I hover
on the edges of some fan groups and they can get so intense...
>
> Exposure there just as harmful, because it's very hard not to be
> influenced by ambient ideas when they are coming from all direction. So
> that one, overlooked perhaps, can create the same basic properties that we
> see in Mr. Ross. Joining the two scenarios I might illustrate something
> like 'domestication'.....due to another fleeting memory...I get them when I
> address you for some reason,..this one was one of those postcards with a
> silly drawing on the front and a joke caption. It was a bunch of salivating
> wolves peeping through a bush to wood frame 'outback' house with a dog
> sitting outside chained to a post.
>
> One wolf is saying to another "I'm telling ya, it ain't worth saving him
> no more...look at his eyes! HE'S BEEN DOMESTICATED
>
I'm fairly sure that's a "Far Side" cartoon and the caption's a bit longer
- listing symptoms ("those glazed eyes", etc) - hang on a minute while I
try my google-fu...nope, can't find it. But I'm 99% sure I know the one you
mean.
>
> Anyway, in the Ross case it's a case of the more intuitive and well
> recognized status. He has built himself into something, that no matter the
> value of the original ideas...and there may be....also at some point began
> to include probably small, rationalizations...that may well have started
> out innocently as simplifications purely for thinking clearly about things,
> that were large and complicated, and which may not have had anything to do
> with the ideas at all.
>
> But rationalizing is one of those things that once in a process, if near
> the core of thinking even if not directly about the important thoughts
> themselves, will nevertheless be carried by the knock-on consequences
> perceived in the key ideas to other parts of the emergent structure of
> thought, until eventually at a certain distance from the origin, thet
> rationalizations and their consequences will dominate the process, for that
> person.
>
I think you are right. (After reading those 2 paragraphs I also have huge
doubts about almost everything I believe, but then that's probably good...)
>
> In the case of John Ross, the rationalizing make this process useless for
> him personally. So I say this just as a pointer, that I hope there's a
> personal value in play for you. Which there can well be, when someone is
> acclepted and on the inside of a human network, which is also substantially
> present and taking note, or potentially.
>
> But not for John. The best anyone can do for him, is wish him well in his
> journey, which definitely looks to have - at some point anyway - involved a
> large amount of the stuff that we tend to associate with good guys. Wish
> him well. Maybe he'll come out the other end with a stunning theory that
> changes the world. If he gets through that valley of the dead theory, all
> by his vulnerable little self. That's the way it. Can't change it for the
> better. Not for him. Can only make it worse...reduce his chances of making
> it through.
>
> Yes, I see ... but will throwing stuff at him concerning flaws at least
help his ideas get stronger, in a Neitzschean kind of way? His basic idea
seems kind of vaguely plausible, but he's added a lot of extras that don't
appear to work will a lot of existing observations. So he may need to keep
the core idea and "kill his babies" with some of the other stuff.
PS please don't leave. Who is ostracising you? I don't get to read
everything, so I didn't realise... there's a lot of blooming buzzing
confusion on this forum (which I would say is good on the whole).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
