Though I rarely engage in the discussion because, #1 I don't really know enough to really contribute and #2 because It usually ends up as a flame war, there are often discussion in this topic on Relativity. James R usually sets the record straight on a lot of things while MacM and Quantum Quack challenge him.

I found this today and thought it might be an excellent opportunity for JamesR or someone else to both show everyone what we need to know about Relativity and to perhaps make some money.

http://www.pirelliaward.com/einstein.html

-AntonK

Though I rarely engage in the discussion because, #1 I don't really know enough to really contribute and #2 because It usually ends up as a flame war, there are often discussion in this topic on Relativity. James R usually sets the record straight on a lot of things while MacM and Quantum Quack challenge him.

I found this today and thought it might be an excellent opportunity for JamesR or someone else to both show everyone what we need to know about Relativity and to perhaps make some money.

http://www.pirelliaward.com/einstein.html

-AntonK

I would have been far more interested to see a funded "Best Challenge" to Relativity. :D

Also it is only a matter of opinion that James R "sets the record straight". He does frequently correct the record in a technical way but more often than not his contributions fail to resolve the issue.

A specific example is regarding the issue of FTL objects being currently observed. We argued at length and he made numerous claims which are in fact not true. He claimed the issue had long been resolved by Relativity and presented the "Illusion Solution".

I argued that that solution failed to account for the lack of "Blue Shifted" data in their claim that ALL such observations were "Illusions" caused by material moving at relavistic speeds in our line of sight.

I subsequently found a more recent study that showed that the "Illusion Solution" infact had a probability of being true in < 1/2 % of all such observations.

So I would take note of his technical knowledge but do not think that his is always the ultimate answer. It is merely the pat answer held by Relativists.

He in fact just this week in another thread dared me to even mention the FTL issue "Since he had already set me straight on that subject". The simple truth is he has not resolved that issue. So you should be a bit less ready to accept his proclamations of absolute correctness.

but more often than not his contributions fail to resolve the issueGenerally because you misinterpret what he says and then complain that it isn't 'intuative'.

Generally because you misinterpret what he says and then complain that it isn't 'intuative'.

That is laughable. I have not once ever stated "Beacuse it is not intuitive".

Your statement fails to address the fact that I did indeed post a bonafide indepth study of this issue which showed James R's solution was < 1/2 % of all such observations.

Perhaps you should try to address that issue rather than make pointless and feloneous innuendo.

Perhaps you should try to address that issue rather than make pointless and feloneous innuendo.It would be much easier to do if you actually read the posts of people who already did that.

Hell, you're currently arguing about how relativity says a quasar should make a car require more energy on earth... which you have yet to support. Meanwhile just about everyone and there mom has told you that relativity says exactly the opposite.

Does any multimedia genius want to collaborate with me to win the 30,000 Euro?


MacM:

Take you silly complaints elsewhere. You are off topic again.

Does any multimedia genius want to collaborate with me to win the 30,000 Euro?


MacM:

Take you silly complaints elsewhere. You are off topic again.

James R: I could use an extra sou or two. We could do a good cop bad cop routine and come up with something informative.
geistkiesel.

Glad to see I caught some people's interest. When and if it finally gets completed, I'd love to spend some serious time going through it to understand it.

However, I do have to agree, with all the discussion and debate that goes on here, I'd like to see a sponsored Challenge. The truth is, if there are flaws in Relativity that are not simply misunderstandings of a person's inability to comprehend it, then I'd like to see peer revied ideas presented and discussed.

-AntonK

Glad to see I caught some people's interest. When and if it finally gets completed, I'd love to spend some serious time going through it to understand it.

However, I do have to agree, with all the discussion and debate that goes on here, I'd like to see a sponsored Challenge. The truth is, if there are flaws in Relativity that are not simply misunderstandings of a person's inability to comprehend it, then I'd like to see peer revied ideas presented and discussed.

-AntonK

Precisely. There can be no advantage to advocating a false idea if it is an Alternative or if it is Relativity.