Rotchm:

"Since GR implies SR, if GR is true, then SR is."

But conversely:

Since GR implies SR, if GR is FALSE then so too is SR.

And GR can and has been the subject of many solid criticisms, so its not a FACT, its a hypothesis of Mathematics, its nothing to do with Physics at all. But STR is claimed to be dealing with Physics.

GR never even attempts to explain the mechanics of the force we call Gravity. All GR does is provide a mathematical construct based on curvature in place of mathematics based on flat. But that is simply an alternative way of recording things. It's only a Mathematical structure as an alternative to the linear structure, and either can be used effectively. Its like using Cartesian coordinates in place of Polar coordinates, it make no difference at all.
A mathematical equation is not responsible for a ball falling to the ground.. Its only a way of calculating how that ball will accelerate.
So GR FAILS to explain gravity, and Newton admitted that he would not even be willing to make any guess.
Truth is no one know what gravity is or how it does what it does.

So GR is only Math, not a explanation, but SRT is supposed to be an explanation, so how can you claim that GR "implies" anything about the Physics of STR?

Its only a math equation waiting for some mathematician to plug in some numbers and do some calculation. That's all GR is.

If you believe otherwise, then you clearly don't understand GR, and need to go get an education.

everything isalllies wrote:
> Rotchm:
>
> "Since GR implies SR, if GR is true, then SR is."
>
> But conversely:
>
> Since GR implies SR, if GR is FALSE then so too is SR.

You have issues with basic logic, "everything isalllies", as
the converse is "if SR is false then too is GR"
(Hint: "A => B" eq "not B => not A" and not "not A => not B")

It's not a big surprise to see you choking on basic logic, almost
all of cranks of your kind, "everything isalllies" have deep mental
issues of this kind.

Anyway, GR is right, so is SR, you are an idiot and a STUPID crank
who think that writing a word in CAPITAL is making a point.

We've seen hundreds of kooks of your kind down here. You are not
even original in your stupidities. Could you just f*ck yourself?

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:29:27 AM UTC+11, Python wrote:
> everything isalllies wrote:
> > Rotchm:
> >
> > "Since GR implies SR, if GR is true, then SR is."
> >
> > But conversely:
> >
> > Since GR implies SR, if GR is FALSE then so too is SR.
> You have issues with basic logic, "everything isalllies", as
> the converse is "if SR is false then too is GR"
> (Hint: "A => B" eq "not B => not A" and not "not A => not B")
>
No you are still wrong as you seem to always be, Any normal person can see that the statement concerns the assumption that GR is TRUE, then makes a logical implication that therefore SR is also true because GR refers to it.

So anyone but you, can see that all I did was to assume the opposite that "GR is wrong", therefore because SR is encompassed within GR then it too must be wrong.

But really its possible that GR is wrong or right, and SR does not have to follow, i was just saying... but again it went straight over your head.

>
> Anyway, GR is right, so is SR, you are an idiot and a STUPID crank
> who think that writing a word in CAPITAL is making a point.

Sorry but capitalisation is there to use to emphasise portions of text that I feel are of most value.
Capitalising everything is defeating the purpose. Normal people understand this too. Except you of course.

Any yet again I find that when Einstein fan boys get challenged and have no reason or logic based response, they do what they all end up doing, and that is to attack the messenger and pretend that there is no valid criticism because the messenger is crazy. If you really could provide a decent coherent reply you would not need to keep calling me a stupid or or a kook would you...... but you cant.
The fact that you find it necessary to use those terms in a Physics discussion reveals your level, which is that of a gutter dwelling bottom feeder.

<
> We've seen hundreds of kooks of your kind down here. You are not
> even original in your stupidities. Could you just f*ck yourself?

On 1/6/2022 12:51 AM, everything isalllies wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:29:27 AM UTC+11, Python wrote:
>> everything isalllies wrote:
>>> Rotchm:
>>>
>>> "Since GR implies SR, if GR is true, then SR is."
>>>
>>> But conversely:
>>>
>>> Since GR implies SR, if GR is FALSE then so too is SR.
>> You have issues with basic logic, "everything isalllies", as
>> the converse is "if SR is false then too is GR"
>> (Hint: "A => B" eq "not B => not A" and not "not A => not B")
>>
> No you are still wrong as you seem to always be, Any normal person can see that the statement concerns the assumption that GR is TRUE, then makes a logical implication that therefore SR is also true because GR refers to it.
>
> So anyone but you, can see that all I did was to assume the opposite that "GR is wrong", therefore because SR is encompassed within GR then it too must be wrong.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. The reverse of "Since GR implies SR, if GR is true, then
SR is true." is "Since GR implies SR, if SR is false, then GR is false."

But I'm not surprised you screwed that up. You cranks never are very
smart... it must be a prerequisite to being a crank to be a member of
the Room Temperature IQ Society. You guys make great entertainment!
(I'm not here for the physics, as there is very little physics here.
I'm just watching all you cranks make complete fools of yourselves.
Great entertainment.

On 06-Jan-22 4:51 pm, everything isalllies wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:29:27 AM UTC+11, Python wrote:
>> everything isalllies wrote:
>>> Rotchm:
>>>
>>> "Since GR implies SR, if GR is true, then SR is."
>>>
>>> But conversely:
>>>
>>> Since GR implies SR, if GR is FALSE then so too is SR.
>> You have issues with basic logic, "everything isalllies", as
>> the converse is "if SR is false then too is GR"
>> (Hint: "A => B" eq "not B => not A" and not "not A => not B")
>>
> No you are still wrong as you seem to always be, Any normal person can see that the statement concerns the assumption that GR is TRUE, then makes a logical implication that therefore SR is also true because GR refers to it.
>
> So anyone but you, can see that all I did was to assume the opposite that "GR is wrong", therefore because SR is encompassed within GR then it too must be wrong.

Odd that as soon as I saw your reasoning, I realised it was fallacious
for the same reason Python did.

If it is asserted that all vertebrates have four legs, then that implies
that all dogs have four legs [*]. If a dog were discovered that did not
have four legs, then that would invalidate the statement that all
vertebrates have four legs.

But a realisation that not all vertebrates have four legs would not
invalidate the statement that all dogs have four legs.

Sylvia

[*] Those who comment that dogs are sometimes missing a leg, and
therefore do not have four, will be ignored.

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 08:47:32 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 06-Jan-22 4:51 pm, everything isalllies wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:29:27 AM UTC+11, Python wrote:
> >> everything isalllies wrote:
> >>> Rotchm:
> >>>
> >>> "Since GR implies SR, if GR is true, then SR is."
> >>>
> >>> But conversely:
> >>>
> >>> Since GR implies SR, if GR is FALSE then so too is SR.
> >> You have issues with basic logic, "everything isalllies", as
> >> the converse is "if SR is false then too is GR"
> >> (Hint: "A => B" eq "not B => not A" and not "not A => not B")
> >>
> > No you are still wrong as you seem to always be, Any normal person can see that the statement concerns the assumption that GR is TRUE, then makes a logical implication that therefore SR is also true because GR refers to it.
> >
> > So anyone but you, can see that all I did was to assume the opposite that "GR is wrong", therefore because SR is encompassed within GR then it too must be wrong.
> Odd that as soon as I saw your reasoning, I realised it was fallacious
> for the same reason Python did.
>
> If it is asserted that all vertebrates have four legs, then that implies
> that all dogs have four legs [*]. If a dog were discovered that did not
> have four legs, then that would invalidate the statement that all
> vertebrates have four legs.
>
> But a realisation that not all vertebrates have four legs would not
> invalidate the statement that all dogs have four legs.
>
> Sylvia
>
> [*] Those who comment that dogs are sometimes missing a leg, and
> therefore do not have four, will be ignored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huckleberry_Hound
A dog or not?

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 6:47:32 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 06-Jan-22 4:51 pm, everything isalllies wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:29:27 AM UTC+11, Python wrote:
> >> everything isalllies wrote:
> >>> Rotchm:
> >>>
> >>> "Since GR implies SR, if GR is true, then SR is."
> >>>
> >>> But conversely:
> >>>
> >>> Since GR implies SR, if GR is FALSE then so too is SR.
> >> You have issues with basic logic, "everything isalllies", as
> >> the converse is "if SR is false then too is GR"
> >> (Hint: "A => B" eq "not B => not A" and not "not A => not B")
> >>
> > No you are still wrong as you seem to always be, Any normal person can see that the statement concerns the assumption that GR is TRUE, then makes a logical implication that therefore SR is also true because GR refers to it.
> >
> > So anyone but you, can see that all I did was to assume the opposite that "GR is wrong", therefore because SR is encompassed within GR then it too must be wrong.
> Odd that as soon as I saw your reasoning, I realised it was fallacious
> for the same reason Python did.
>
> If it is asserted that all vertebrates have four legs, then that implies
> that all dogs have four legs [*]. If a dog were discovered that did not
> have four legs, then that would invalidate the statement that all
> vertebrates have four legs.
>
> But a realisation that not all vertebrates have four legs would not
> invalidate the statement that all dogs have four legs.
>
> Sylvia
>
> [*] Those who comment that dogs are sometimes missing a leg, and
> therefore do not have four, will be ignored.
Sylvia, yours is a straw man fallacy as you falsely attribute the statement about GR and SR to a example that really does not fall into the same type of category.

GR is like an apple tree, and SR is like an apple growing on the tree, as the tree is good to have then so too is the apple. This is nothing like the logical fallacy you reefer to.
I only said that if you believe that the apple tree is bad, (for some reason) then the apple is also not good.

This really has little to do with my claim that Einsteins STR is nonsense does it?

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rotchm:
>
> "Since GR implies SR, if GR is true, then SR is."
>
> But conversely:
>
> Since GR implies SR, if GR is FALSE then so too is SR.
>
> And GR can and has been the subject of many solid criticisms, so its not
> a FACT, its a hypothesis of Mathematics, its nothing to do with Physics
> at all. But STR is claimed to be dealing with Physics.
>
> GR never even attempts to explain the mechanics of the force we call
> Gravity. All GR does is provide a mathematical construct based on
> curvature in place of mathematics based on flat.

There are lots of people like you who have some internal concept of what it
means to “explain it physically” and when it comes to spacetime curvature,
their response is, “yeah, that can’t be it, that’s not a physical
explanation.”

So let’s dive into that a bit. What are the features that are essential to
a physical explanation — any physical explanation — that you think MUST be
there, and if lacking them fail to be a physical explanation.

Let’s jump ahead and anticipate your first response: “Space is nothing. It
has no properties. It cannot influence anything. Only matter has
properties. Only matter can influence other matter.” Correct? Do you feel
this is true?

If so, explain the effect an electric field in a VACUUM has on any charged
object. You may have never learned that an electric field IS a property OF
space. Remember space? That thing you might have insisted can have no
properties?

> But that is simply an alternative way of recording things. It's only a
> Mathematical structure as an alternative to the linear structure, and
> either can be used effectively. Its like using Cartesian coordinates in
> place of Polar coordinates, it make no difference at all.
> A mathematical equation is not responsible for a ball falling to the
> ground. Its only a way of calculating how that ball will accelerate.
> So GR FAILS to explain gravity, and Newton admitted that he would not
> even be willing to make any guess.
> Truth is no one know what gravity is or how it does what it does.
>
> So GR is only Math, not a explanation, but SRT is supposed to be an
> explanation, so how can you claim that GR "implies" anything about the Physics of STR?
>
> Its only a math equation waiting for some mathematician to plug in some
> numbers and do some calculation. That's all GR is.
>
> If you believe otherwise, then you clearly don't understand GR, and need
> to go get an education.
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables