Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[W.D.Clinger]

True to form, Farsight followed up with three emphatic assertions, all contradicted by abundant evidence:

LOL, Clinger, I'm forever providing the scientific evidence. You're the one who runs a mile from it remember? And resorts to ad hominems because you've got no counterargument.

Taking those one at a time:

LOL, Clinger, I'm forever providing the scientific evidence.

As ctamblyn and others have noted, Farsight has never provided any shred of scientific evidence that would lead anyone to choose Farsight general relativity (FGR) over Einstein's general theory of relativity as presented in textbooks such as those by Misner/Thorne/Wheeler or Wald.

Farsight often claims to have presented scientific evidence, but all of the scientific evidence he has cited is perfectly consistent with standard MTW/Einstein relativity, so none of it supports Farsight's against-the-mainstream arguments.

You're the one who runs a mile from it remember?

Farsight, like Rosie Ruiz^WP, is declaring victory long after his hoax has been exposed.

And resorts to ad hominems because you've got no counterargument.

Farsight may not understand my counterarguments, because Farsight doesn't understand very much of what Einstein wrote about relativity, but Farsight is not being honest when he pretends I have no counterargument.

My counterarguments are based on Einstein's own words and math. For example:

• Farsight versus Einstein, part 1
• Farsight versus Einstein, part 2
• Farsight versus Einstein, part 3
• Farsight versus Einstein, part 4
• Farsight versus Einstein, part 5
• some homework problems for Farsight, part 1
• ctamblyn's correction to part 1
• some homework problems for Farsight, part 2
• some homework problems for Farsight, part 3
• some homework problems for Farsight, epilogue 2
• some homework problems for Farsight, part 4

Farsight admitted to being lost as soon as I used the notation of Einstein's equation (3). In Einstein's paper, that equation was followed by 72 more numbered equations and formulas, along with 115 that aren't numbered.

So Farsight understands at most 1% of the foundation of general relativity, as presented by Einstein. With so little knowledge of the foundations, Farsight's unsupported opinions on more advanced topics are worthless.

 

[Farsight]

How can you manage to post this and expect to be taken seriously when what Einstein says is the exact opposite of what I've bolded? Light always moves at c, time changes. As someone who has just a basic knowledge of relativity and hasn't read this whole thread or your writings beyond this page of the thread I can't say your ideas are wrong, but if this is how you argue I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of doubt.

I'm serious, bjornart. I've read the orignal material. And whilst he said that in 1905, he changed his mind when he was developing general relativity. Here's some quotes:

1911: If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c_o, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = c_oo(1 + Φ/c²).
1912: On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential.
1913: I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis.
1915: the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned.
1916: In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when die Ausbreitungs-geschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert.

The German above translates into the speed of light varies with location. The SR principle was a constant c, and c is a speed. The word velocity in the English translations is common usage, like high-velocitry bullet. Not the vector-quantity. The speed of light is not constant, and Einstein said it.

 

[Farsight]

You may refer to your unsupported assertions, factually wrong opinions and quote-mined articles as "evidence" but it's no more valid or convincing than the same sort of rubbish from an IDiot, shroudie, evolution denier, 911 nut, holocaust denier or other wooster.
And you might want to check the actual meaning of 'ad hominem' before you use the term again.

It's valid evidence. What's not at all convincing is the blustering dismissal and denial we see from naysayers like you. I've seen it done better by a YEC.

 

[Farsight]

Pink and blue unicorns...

Bluster...

Bluster...

Bluster...

Charge is conserved

Bluster...

Bluster...

Fine, dismiss Einstein.

No problem.

Big problem. Especially when it comes from somebody who thinks the fine structure constant is the ratio of gravitational coupling compared to electromagnetic coupling.

Bluster...

Bluster...

Bluster...

...Again as posted before if what you are defining as a constant doesn't meet your definition of a constant then there is a problem with your definition or in the consistency of your application thereof....

What part of "running constant" didn't you understand? The fine structure constant is a running constant. That means it isn't constant. And it isn't my definition. So stop wasting my wasting my time with your dismissal and insincerity.

 

[The Man]

Big problem. Especially when it comes from somebody who thinks the fine structure constant is the ratio of gravitational coupling compared to electromagnetic coupling.

You can bluster as much as want, or you can just go back and read what I actually said (as well as the equations I gave you). Should you choose the latter, at no point will you find me claiming what you have now simply and ridiculously attempted to attribute to me. Please try to improve your reading comprehension. It would seem that we have found where you screwed up your algebra in that regard (as I had surmised).

What part of "running constant" didn't you understand? The fine structure constant is a running constant. That means it isn't constant. And it isn't my definition. So stop wasting my wasting my time with your dismissal and insincerity.

What part of "if they remain the same within certain limits then they are effectively constant within those limits" don't you understand? Again some review and improving your reading comprehension is recommended. I am quite sincere in these recommendations and you can 'stop wasting your wasting your time' any time you choose. That choice is, of course, only yours.

 

[catsmate]

It's valid evidence. What's not at all convincing is the blustering dismissal and denial we see from naysayers like you. I've seen it done better by a YEC.

Nope you're still pushing evidence-free assertions, quote-mines from Einstein and opinions, no evidence from you in sight.

 

[Farsight]

Shows a creationist the fossils and the continental drift. That's not evidence, he says.
Shows him the rock strata and the magnetic reversals. That's not evidence, he says.
Shows him the isotope dating and the uranium and lead. That's not evidence, he says.

Show a groupie the Shapiro delay and the optical clocks. That's not evidence he says.
Show him pair production and annihilation. That's not evidence he says.
Show him the Einstein-de Haas effect and electron diffraction. That's not evidence he says.

 

[Tubbythin]

Shows a creationist the fossils and the continental drift. That's not evidence, he says.
Shows him the rock strata and the magnetic reversals. That's not evidence, he says.
Shows him the isotope dating and the uranium and lead. That's not evidence, he says.

Show a groupie the Shapiro delay and the optical clocks. That's not evidence he says.
Show him pair production and annihilation. That's not evidence he says.
Show him the Einstein-de Haas effect and electron diffraction. That's not evidence he says.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/irony.gif[/qimg]

It is evidence. Just not evidence for what you are suggesting.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Shows a creationist the fossils and the continental drift. That's not evidence, he says.
Shows him the rock strata and the magnetic reversals. That's not evidence, he says.
Shows him the isotope dating and the uranium and lead. That's not evidence, he says.

Show a groupie the Shapiro delay and the optical clocks. That's not evidence he says.
Show him pair production and annihilation. That's not evidence he says.
Show him the Einstein-de Haas effect and electron diffraction. That's not evidence he says.

I agree that none of these things are evidence. Evidence is more than facts, evidence must be facts together with some explanation of those facts. Farsight realizes that he has at best a poor explanation of the facts, so he tries to dodge the issue.

 

[Farsight]

I'm not the one who dodges the issue. Au contraire, I realize that I explain the facts really well, as per this recent example. And that you don't like it.

 

[Daylightstar]

When did you write your 'paper' again? 1997?
What has it accomplished since then?

 

[Daylightstar]

When did you write your 'paper' again? 1997?
What has it accomplished since then?

2007 it seems. Same question applies.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not the one who dodges the issue. Au contraire, I realize that I explain the facts really well, as per this recent example.

You are the one who is dodging the issue and misleading about what we are stating:

• Shapiro delay and the optical clocks is evidence for standard GR, not Relativity+.
• Pair production and annihilation is evidence for standard particle physics, not Relativity+.
• Einstein-de Haas effect and electron diffraction is evidence of standard physics (quantum electrodynamics), not Relativity+.

This is really simple stuff, Farsight. If you theory can only replicate the existing physics then it is useless.

We realize that you can explain some simple things but display ignorance of the basics of physics, e.g. a stationary object still travels through time.
Or we have the rather dumb circular definition of time is motion but motion is defined using time!

 

[Reality Check]

Farsight: Do you understand the fallacy of argument by authority

Here's some quotes:

Once once again with the inanity of the Einstein quotes which shows that the answer to Farsight: Do you understand the fallacy of argument by authority? asked on 27th March 2012 is still no !

 

[Kwalish Kid]

When did you write your 'paper' again? 1997?
What has it accomplished since then?

One thing was accomplished. Farsight originally made a prediction that he contradicted elsewhere in his book by something like 50 orders of magnitude. He just erased that prediction from the book when the mistake was pointed out. Nothing about the reasoning that produced that prediction was changed, of course. Farsight has never, to my knowledge, actually admitted that he was wrong or why he made the original prediction.

 

[Daylightstar]

Do you recall what the prediction and contradiction were about?

 

[Farsight]

When did you write your 'paper' again? 1997?

No, I did relativity+ in 2008/2009, though I'd written bits starting from 2006.

What has it accomplished since then?

It's made a contribution in the fight against speculative celebrity woo and a return to robust evidential physics. I've certainly noticed a shift, and that the things I've been saying are featuring more and more in papers and media. They aren't labelled as relativity+ of course, but don't forget that that's just my working title, and it's based on a host of papers that haven't enjoyed much publicity. We're getting there.

 

[Tubbythin]

It's made a contribution in the fight against speculative celebrity woo and a return to robust evidential physics. I've certainly noticed a shift, and that the things I've been saying are featuring more and more in papers and media. They aren't labelled as relativity+ of course, but don't forget that that's just my working title, and it's based on a host of papers that haven't enjoyed much publicity. We're getting there.

Have any of these papers/media referenced your work explicitly?
Are we talking journal or news papers?

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Do you recall what the prediction and contradiction were about?

Briefly. I'll see if I can dig up an old copy from when I first came upon it. Farsight made a prediction of the size of the universe based on the compton wavelength of a proton or something like that. He never worked it out, though since he was only claiming that it was the reciprocal of the wavelength or something like that, it wasn't that hard to do. Later in the paper he endorsed the size of the universe as supposedly given in some WMAP paper or something similar. When you did the math, the difference was huge.

I'm sure Farsight can explain.

 

[Farsight]

Not really. It was something minor to do with the Dirac large numbers hypothesis and the relative strength of the forces and Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide! I had a look for it but couldn't find it. I think I changed a couple of words or took a line out or something. It was no big deal. It wasn't as if I got mass or gravity wrong.