Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 03:45:57 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: <08afcbc76c6609501eaf449cc2d8c848@www.novabbs.com> References: <27cf5f58333a92a17fb129caf2cafdd7@www.novabbs.com> <537e781ac4a0a282dbcfea6e7bc4484a@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3843030"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$pXtZ.5cTM4Kpa56B0I70pua1/diePBhkK9r.uBV3onxWcHtKAFpm. X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 2304 Lines: 21 BertieTaylor: Thanks. Yes, the prestige mills called universities sell what is considered prestigious even when it is ridiculous, as relativity is. When I confront the relativists with such logical criticisms, they cannot grapple with them and respond in any way other than ad hominem attacks on me. I am reminded of an article I once read in Skeptical Inquirer by the highly reputed scientist Massimo Pigliucci, who I admire for his stoicism books. It is called "What's so bad about Ad Hoc Hypotheses?" and is a reply to an article by a person wanting to dismiss the very concept of ad hoc. That is, "On Ad Hoc Hypotheses*" Author(s): J. Christopher Hunt Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol. 79, No. 1 (January 2012), pp. 1-14. Length contraction and time dilation were immediately recognized as very ad hoc after they were proposed after the MME in 1987. This kept most scientists before Einstein from asserting them as literal realities. Pigliucci maintains the concept is quite valid. I suggest it be steel-manned, not as "making things up" but as thinking of exceptions to the rules (really new sub-rules) that may or may not be confirmed. However, in the case of these concepts in relativity, they are both ad hoc and reification fallacy, making them pure nonsense.