On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:35:58 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > On 19 June 2014 14:34, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 19 June 2014 02:01, <[email protected]> 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 are such a sweet person! I meant to say "not MUCH longer to remain..." so I've still got one or two items to stay around for. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
