Talkback: Anti-relativity site debunked

Add your comment

From:	tuco	2001-09-07 17:09:44
Subject:	Webpage
Comment:	Can't pretend to know anything relative about the subject matter, but do find your webpage beautifully constructed---- how vain i suppose.
From:	StuH	2002-06-05 17:00:08
Subject:	Pathological Science
Comment:	I had a brief look at the crank relativity page and, sadly, it's pretty much the usual crank drivel. It's arguments can be summarised thus: 'What I don't understand must be wrong. I don't understand relativity (or whatever). Relativity must be wrong. All of the supposedly clever people who think it's right must actually be stupid.' The writer is obviously both paranoid and incredibly arrogant. Plenty more of these jerks are listed here ://www.crank.net/einstein.html I wonder what would happen if you got all the canks in one room together and asked the to explain their theories to each other?
From:	NoTimeTravel	2003-02-21 18:31:08
Subject:	The nasty true
Comment:	All theories of time travel are based on Einstein's spacetime. So, Hawking, Thorne and cia. are strictly saying that motion in spacetime is possible and illuding readers to believe time travel will be possible somehow. Time is completely different from spacial dimensions as we can observe as a FACT of life. You can never travel back or forth in time as you can do in x,y,z. Warmholes are mathematical equations that can not be applied into real life. So is spacetime itself, because it is only a 2-D diagram, indeed. That's why the curvature of spacetime can not be the explanation for gravity. There is a physical mechanism related to gravity that we don't know yet. So, since all of those physicists believe that the mathematical aspects of Einstein's equations can be put into reality, they are craps and they are making you waste your time and money buying theirs books. Time to open your eyes my friend!
From:	Clayton Carter	2003-08-31 13:38:08
Subject:	the truth of relativity
Comment:	Fundamentally the concepts of relativism is dependant upon a mind that must use comparisons in order to gain a feeling of real or of reality. Hence ying and yang, good and evil, man and woman. Relativism is a symptom of a misinterpreted perception of dualism. Almost all well-regarded philosophers dismiss the beliefs behind relativism. Also something you and many other people confuse is that Einstiens Theory of Relativity has hardly anything to do with the philosophical meanings of the word relativity and through decades of equivication the ignorant have taken this term out of context. What I hope to do is enlighten you to your fallacies.
From:	Clayton Carter	2003-08-31 13:40:37
Subject:	part 2
Comment:	First of all you mention how Thorn belives he is smarter than the well known genius'of today. What you have failed to research is what people like Steven Hawking think of his research. In 1999 Hawking said that he feels no one has done more for the understanding of the nature of time than Thorn. Hawking thinks Thorn is smarter than he is, which is exactly what you were trying to refute. Secondly on relativism. Time and space are not relative, they are constants. For time to be relative there must be something to gauge it against. Thinking that your perception of time is the constant to relate to time is wrong. Consider the theory of the form. Take the form of a chair for example, before someone inveted the chair there was still the form for it. The form was not concieved by some mind, it was simply there and I know you will have a hard time trying to relate this to time travel but let me try to explain. Time, space, energy, matter and motion are all the absolutes in our perception of this universe. So consider love or liberty; these are things that exist and yet hold no shape. Time is somewhat the same concept. In space you can measure volume, but space itself cannot be infinately volumonous because it is SPACE, and technically cannot be infinate be definition. It is simply there, much like the form of a chair, or love, is there. Time simply is, regardless of your relativeness towards it. time does not slow or ever change, there isn't a point where there is no time - where time stops. Breaking this barrier of consistently traveling forwards through time is a physical impossibility. Just like how there always is the form of a chair, there always is time, and for time to equal 0 all existence would cease.
From:	clayton carter	2003-08-31 13:41:30
Subject:	part 3
Comment:	Therefor in order to travel through time there is an assuption made that time is dimensional, which it is not. Using the Eistein twin theory consider that when the twin arrives back to earth neither one would be out of their original time. The twin traveling at light speed did not move from a dimension that was known to it as the relative present. Time continued and her 'perception' of being in time changed, not time itself. There is not another dimension of time, just like there are not other dimensions of the forms of chairs or of love. They simply are, and I cannot understand why people feel compelled to refute the fact that they cannot be changed. So understanding that if you were to travel faster than the speed of light, to the point you were traveling so fast you reached the horizon of moving through space in zero time (an actual instant. At that point of zero time for you time will be non-existent, and so will you. Time does not discontinue for the rest of the universe though, it continues to be, not flowing or moving in comparison to anything else, just being. And that is my main point - just being - I know it is very hard to understand, and I am probably confusing your understanding of a relative universe, but there are forms which have being and no substance, can you comprehend that? Just like space, time has a being in existence, and yet has no substence. At this point, if you are shaking your head no thinking 'he is so wrong' than prove to me otherwise, I am open to truth not beliefs.
From:	Clayton Carter	2003-08-31 13:47:07
Subject:	barely related
Comment:	I want everyone who reads my comments to understand I am 20 years old, and have only my severely inexperienced concepts of physics and philosophy to use in my description of the universe. I do not feel I am wrong, but in no way am I closed to the idea. I do feel that I am intuitively much more intelligent than most people but intuition can get me no where against solid fact. So if you were to argue my points use unalienable facts. When you say something try to take it from point A and develop it to point D, so that I cannot question its truth. But I will consider all points of view. Please feel free to contact me on any subjects you feel discussing.
From:	me	2004-09-16 22:46:53
Subject:	anti relativity???
Comment:	If you're gonna put up some blather about such a site, at least put some sort of proper link to the site so the rest of us can see what you're blathering about. I personally think that Einstein and a few other icons wandered a little too far into LaLa land. Mr. Kant went a little farther than the others and was netted and dragged off to the loony bin: Transfinite is not a concept that the finite human mind was meant to wrap itself around. Kant wasn't the only physicist to visit the Cookie Farm. Just because we Kant disprove a concept doesn't mean it has any reality apart from the fantasy that spawned it. An Ancient Greek confounded the philosophic world for millenium before Newton's Calculus proved that a rabbit could actually beat a tortoise in a race. If we have to suffer your pointless pontifications, then at least point us to the Pont. me
From:	just1post	2005-01-17 23:15:50
Subject:	this post
Comment:	Clayton, I see you are only open to truths and not believes. Yet, you say nothing can exsist past the speed of light. This is not known for sure. For that infinite amount of time before light is given off an object there must be something that exsist. Just becuase you would be moving faster then the light does not mean nothing would exsist. As you said time is not something that we can measure, time just is . Meaning that at no matter what speed you move you will exsist. We use light to tell our time therfore people think that when you moving speed of light you are moving as fast as time. There have been studies now that have slowed the speed of light to 38mph and they say that they can slow it more. But according to what you said, any partical that were to cross or move through that beam of light faster then 38 mph it would cease to exsist. Maybe visually you wouldnt see anything, but you would still exsist beyound the speed of light just lets say in the dark as you would probably see nothing. Yet who knows.
From:	Yogesh Patil	2006-09-06 12:55:30
Subject:	Criticism.
Comment:	Dear friends, Don't you think that now a days, you pay more importance to who creates the theories, than the theory itself. i say this for the anti-relativity site guy. You seem bent on disproving relativity and making it public, discrediting einstein for developing, nay, discovering that. The point is, everything in this universe exists as is beyound our control, i.e., the fundamental laws are not for us to decide, except in maths may be since we've defined it to understand this universe beter. however, all great scientists who have come and passed this small planet called earth are in fact only humans, a life whose existance we cannot fathom, and hence all have done the same thing, assembled pieces of information to make this seemingly confusing universe fathomable. the person who assembles such available pieces of information should indeed, i think be credited with that work. it is not the person who has assembled it that should distract us, but if the assembly itself is correct or not. of course, the site gives examples of disproving relativity, but today, relativity explains many things to a great extent and is therefore a way towards human development of science. note that once upon a time, we thought of newtons, nay classical physics was correct, but then as science developed, realised that it was only to an approximation. similarly, relativity might be such a step, if you disagree, then do not demonise the theory, and call your site 'Anti' relativity; but something like 'is relativity the final and ultimate theory? I dont think so' if you can give a theory which explains more things than what relativity can, only then can you presume the authority to shun it!
From:	Bob Hannon	2008-04-30 19:44:43
Subject:	Einstein's Special Relativity
Comment:	The fallacy of Einstein's Special Relativity is in his algebra, which has rarely been scrupulously analyzed. The 'anti-relativity forum' seems much more a 'Defense of Special Relativity forum' than its name implies.