Responses to "100 reasons why Special/General Relativity are impossible"

[nick c]

This thread is for forum members wishing to respond to the "100 reasons why Special/General Relativity are impossible" thread here.

[antosarai]

(...)
Not having posts on this thread is not an attempt to curtail counter-criticism, it is just to make it easier for people to read the reasons given as they would otherwise be buried by responses.
(...)

Not sure forum admins will allow postings with responses blocked.

In any case, isn't a forum purpose precisely to exchange arguments? If you want to post/list your reasons undisturbed by responses, shouldn't you instead use a WWW site and then post its link?

[Zyxzevn]

Can the "100 reasons" avoid logical fallacies?
I often see the comparison between aether and relativity.
That is a fallacy, because you never proved that aether was correct.

Another problem is that relativity uses relative observations.
This is not wrong at all.
It is how we see things from a certain observer.
It makes it harder to follow, and more mathematical.
Like what time does the clock on the other object show?

Crowthers is a good source for showing how the maths
in general relativity often mixes up variables (like in "black holes").

I personally like to focus more on the fundamental ideas:

Special Relativity (SR):
Are all physical processes independent of the speed of a neutral observer?

General Relativity (GR):
Is gravity always equal to acceleration?

If the fundamental ideas are wrong we don't need to look any further.
In another thread I already showed that electric charges do not experience acceleration in gravity.

From SR we can look at some consequences..
1. Does length actually change with speed? (length contraction)
2. Does clock-speed actually change with speed? (time dilation)
3. Are there other ways in which we can express a form of relativity and how?

GR is also mixed with a lot of mathematical constructs.
Are these mathematical constructs actually valid?
1. Can we define time as a fourth dimension?
2. Can we express relativity in a simple Tensor transformation?
3. Is energy always conserved in the mathematical system?
4. Does gravity(acceleration) actually bend light?
5. Is parameter lambda > 0 ? Why was this parameter there? What else is possible?
6. Are the tensor equations used in a correct way? Creator of Tensors says: no!
7. etc.

[Cargo]

The Electric Force, is free from and omnipresent over, the Gravity Force. Relativity is the greatest scam ever created.

[JP Michael]

The Electric Force, is ... omnipresent over, the Gravity Force.

At least this part is empirically verified.

When does gravity trump electromagnetism? (Rhetorical question)

[Zyxzevn]

..Relativity is ..

Don't confuse general relativity (gravity) and special relativity (velocity)

With special relativity you can get some kind of magnetism for free from the electric field.
You can do the same with some (other) Emission theories too.
I find that a very interesting approach,
because both are clearly connected.

[EtherQuestions]

(...)
Not having posts on this thread is not an attempt to curtail counter-criticism, it is just to make it easier for people to read the reasons given as they would otherwise be buried by responses.
(...)

Not sure forum admins will allow postings with responses blocked.

In any case, isn't a forum purpose precisely to exchange arguments? If you want to post/list your reasons undisturbed by responses, shouldn't you instead use a WWW site and then post its link?

You can exchange arguments here.

[EtherQuestions]

Can the "100 reasons" avoid logical fallacies?
I often see the comparison between aether and relativity.
That is a fallacy, because you never proved that aether was correct.

Another problem is that relativity uses relative observations.
This is not wrong at all.
It is how we see things from a certain observer.
It makes it harder to follow, and more mathematical.
Like what time does the clock on the other object show?

Crowthers is a good source for showing how the maths
in general relativity often mixes up variables (like in "black holes").

I personally like to focus more on the fundamental ideas:

Special Relativity (SR):
Are all physical processes independent of the speed of a neutral observer?

General Relativity (GR):
Is gravity always equal to acceleration?

If the fundamental ideas are wrong we don't need to look any further.
In another thread I already showed that electric charges do not experience acceleration in gravity.

From SR we can look at some consequences..
1. Does length actually change with speed? (length contraction)
2. Does clock-speed actually change with speed? (time dilation)
3. Are there other ways in which we can express a form of relativity and how?

GR is also mixed with a lot of mathematical constructs.
Are these mathematical constructs actually valid?
1. Can we define time as a fourth dimension?
2. Can we express relativity in a simple Tensor transformation?
3. Is energy always conserved in the mathematical system?
4. Does gravity(acceleration) actually bend light?
5. Is parameter lambda > 0 ? Why was this parameter there? What else is possible?
6. Are the tensor equations used in a correct way? Creator of Tensors says: no!
7. etc.

Can the "100 reasons" avoid logical fallacies?
I often see the comparison between aether and relativity.
That is a fallacy, because you never proved that aether was correct.

I never used (or ever would use either) the aether as a fundamental critique of relativity in my x/100 reasons. That was just my regular posts on other threads about both of the topics.



Special Relativity (SR):
Are all physical processes independent of the speed of a neutral observer?

General Relativity (GR):
Is gravity always equal to acceleration?


Exactly what I will be posting about.