On 9/14/2021 1:51 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:18:45 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Tom, I respect your involvement with relativity as well as Paul's and JanPB's, so far.
>>> Each one of you are professionals and work/worked in the physics world.
>>>
>>> But, of course, I do not adhere to such credences, as it's notorious.
>
>> What, are you saying that relativity works fine for Tom, Paul and JanPB,
>> but it doesn't work for you? Now that is a rather bizarre violation of
>> the first postulate.
>
> No, it doesn't. I firmly believe that SR is a mathematical framework NOT LINKED with the real world
> that I inhabit, in any possible way. Why?. Because it's a final stage of a movement within SOME
> physicists that were shocked by the outcome of the Michelson experiment in 1881 and the
> Michelson-Morley experiments between 1885 and 1887. FitzGerald (1889) and Lorentz (since 1892)
> introduced the hypothesis of length contraction, by which Lorentz finally got a MATHEMATICAL
> EXPRESSION by 1904 (corrected by Poincaré).

While it was shocking to the aether scientists, real physicists analyzed
the results to figure out what went "wrong", discard any theories
disproven and try to figure out a solution that actually works. In the
case of M-M, certain (not all) aether theories were disproven but all
the ones not disproven by M-M were disproven by other experiments.

(Remember if an experiment disproves a theory, it is the theory which is
wrong, not the experiment. Mother Nature isn't lying to us)

> The final stroke of a 25 years contest (a game) was
> done by Einstein in 1905.

Game? Contest? You are really bad at trying to analyze what the people
100+ years ago were up to. They were doing physics. Not playing chess
or Monopoly or something.

> ONLY MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTIONS without connections with the real world.

The connections to the real world are given by definitions in the
formulas used. For example:

t' = gamma*(t-vx/c^2)

is just a mathematical expression with no real world connection.
However if I explain that this is how time is viewed in one frame given
time velocity in another, and I give the definitions and meanings of the
variables such as t, t', gamma, c etc. I provide the connection to the
real world.
>
> But when the mathematical framework of that relativity started to gain acceptance within the physics
> community in the next 20-25 years and was believed to BE THE REAL DEAL about how nature works,

Well, just like always, the best theory is the one being used, until a
better one comes along. SR, then later GR were the best.

> then it became dangerous for any rational and logic mind outside of the metaphysical and philosophical
> world.

??? Just a bunch of paranoid nonsense. Science follows the scientific
method, just like always.

> When MATHEMATICS displace PHYSICS, things turn ugly, weird.

Except that never happened. Mathematics is a tool of physics, nothing more.

> More than 116 years after that
> end of contest,

What was the contest? Chess? Arm wrestling? Tiddlywinks?

> people is bombarded with paradoxes,

No paradoxes known.

> incoherence and permanent indoctrination since
> early age to accept these dogmas without questioning them

More incoherent paranoid babble.

> (or you are a cranck, a weirdo, ignorant, etc.).

Cranks get labeled as cranks by their anti-science behavior. Such as
imagining up crap like physics "indoctrination" and so forth, but the
real mark of cranks is disregarding and ignoring actual evidence which
proves their claims false and sticking to them.
>
>
> > > He wanted to became a Newton + Maxwell kind of physics hero (nothing wrong with that).
>>> He wanted a mathematical framework which could deal with gravity, which had no limits of
>>> applicability and that could provide analytical solutions for a NEW physics where:
>
>> I don't think Einstein had a huge ego which needed to be fed like that.
>> I think he simply loved the physics and loved accomplishing things.
>
> I think the opposite of your posture.

I think you are very wrong. Einstein seemed rather humble, esp.
considering the celebrity praise he started to get.

> For me, he was an egomaniac desperate for public recognition ABOVE
> peers.

A rather bizarre view.

>>> I DON'T FIND anything questionable in such pursuit. I question what Einstein and friends
>>> did to achieve such pursuit: They worked on behaviors of cosmic nature in a way detached
>>> of any physical meaning, and relied on pure and abstract mathematical tools to achieve
>>> their goals.
>
>> I think assigning physical meaning to intermediate steps was skipped
>> simply because development was quicker. As long as the results were
>> meaningful in the end.
>
> Meaningful from your point of view, not mine.

Because you are not thinking logically, since your overriding obsession
is your hatred for Einstein, facts are secondary to that. (Don't deny
it, everyone can see your mouth foam whenever the name 'Einstein' is
mentioned)
>
>>> And this is reprehensible from any point of view, not only because it was/is unreal,
>> As long as the final result was real and wasn't self-contradictory, there isn't a problem.
>>> but also because such GR theory opened a Pandora Box that plagued physics ever since,
>> ???
>>
>>> creating paradoxes,
>
>> What plague? What paradoxes? The "paradoxes" in assorted thought experiments aren't actual paradoxes,
>> just something that appears to be a paradox until the situation is analyzed. Like the traveling twin being
>> younger than the stay-at-home twin upon return.
>
> I never played the game of traveling twin paradox. I'm smart enough to not fall in paradoxes, because they
> are fallacious as hell. I prefer to analyze why it's stupid to play such games or not.

These 'paradoxes' were created to be teaching examples. Many people
think of situations similar to that described in the 'paradoxes' and
think they found a flaw, when they haven't.
>
>>> abstract explanations of reality and consumed the life of five generation of
>>> physicists devoted to this subject, with million of man-years power of thought of bright
>>> minds that could have used such enormous amount of effort to help in the development
>>> of a better REAL world.
>
>> The REAL world does involve relativity. Physicists developing relativity isn't "life consumed". From relativity and
>> those physicists, we have the GPS, outgrowths of particle accelerators (which cannot work without SR other than
>> at the lowest power) treating cancer, semiconductors, everything resulting from QFT etc.
>
> See? While you think you are rational, you sound like an irrational fanatic of relativity and his originators.

You are projecting. It is you who is acting irrationally, since your
hatred of Einstein derails your logic.

> I don't know
> why you don't allow yourself to doubt, even for a moment.

I most certainly did doubt when I first heard claims of SR etc.
Velocities don't simply add? The speed of light is c regardless of the
motions of source and destination? That can't be right. But I knew
scientists wouldn't make such claims without evidence. So I studied.

I look at the evidence generated in the years since SR. Muons reach the
earth's surface. Particle accelerators work. I read engineering specs.
The GPS explicitly gives frequencies generated by the satellites, plus
the reason for it (relativity). I had to take college courses in
semiconductor theory which has QFT under it, thus SR under it.

I also look at the behavior of so-called critics, when I see them act
irrationally or illogically when certain subjects are touched, and when
I see crankspeak such as "Einsteinians" I know much of what is being
written is regurgitated garbage from some other crank he read.

Fanatics don't doubt because they don't think. They repeat
> their credence and don't date to question them.

Yes and I can tell when fanatics such as yourself repeat their creed,
esp. when crankspeak shows up, I know the fanatics are spewing what they
read on some other crank source.
>
>>> GR and cosmology, IMHO, have nothing to provide to this human world. It's an sterile effort.
>
>> Other than correctly working GPS systems, there really isn't too much
>> advantage to the common person from GR (not SR), and cosmology perhaps
>> less so, but they are pure science which does tend to have uses decades
>> later and therefore worth pursuing.
>
> We will not reach the stage of Star Trek's technologies EVER.
>
Not a useful argument. Nobody mentioned Star Trek. It is science
fiction, with lots of stuff not possible, with or without relativity.