I found Ricker's article searching for "Right Angle Lever Paradox". I was prepared to find formulas I might or might not agree with. But I was totally shocked at the wording that went with them.

I saw the section on Lorentz Transformations, which correctly explains that different coordinate systems cannot be mixed. So far so good. Then he says he has refuted Einstein's theory of relativity. Which Einstein? The one who sells bagels?

Suppose a restaurant specializes in fried frog legs, and you ask some customers what it's like. They tell you it tastes like fried chicken. You order it and take it home and examine it chemically. You discover that (surprise!) it's made from the legs of a frog. Then you announce that you've refuted the fried chicken theory.

The Lorentz boost resembles length contraction and time dilation. But its complete usage is, and has been since Einstein, the same as what Ricker presents as his new heretical revelation.

If Ricker found a textbook that describes relativity wrong, I'm not surprised. Relativity is very complicated, and textbooks are written by people, who make mistakes. Despite what some philosophers claim, a textbook is not a holy book. If it has formulas that fail mathematical rigor, the formulas are wrong.

In re: Collin, Ricker's Folly August 3 2008 at 3:58 AM

I found Ricker's article searching for "Right Angle Lever Paradox". I was prepared to find formulas I might or might not agree with. But I was totally shocked at the wording that went with them.

Collin, the wording does not change the formula. You call folly of his verbiage yet speak not to his formulas; be they (the formulas) folly or fact?

I saw the section on Lorentz Transformations, which correctly explains that different coordinate systems cannot be mixed. So far so good. Then he says he has refuted Einstein's theory of relativity. Which Einstein? The one who sells bagels?

No, not the Einstein who “sells bagels”, the Einstein who sells paradox.

Suppose a restaurant specializes in fried frog legs, and you ask some customers what it's like. They tell you it tastes like fried chicken. You order it and take it home and examine it chemically. You discover that (surprise!) it's made from the legs of a frog. Then you announce that you've refuted the fried chicken theory.

No, the “tastes like” fried chicken theory has not been tested so your analogy is paradoxical. You have tested for composition and concluded for taste. A frogs leg is a frogs leg; if you ask me what a frogs leg tastes like and I tell you it taste like chicken you can not call me a liar when you discover that it is a frogs leg yet you know nothing of how it tastes, so the folly is yours.

The Lorentz boost resembles length contraction and time dilation. But its complete usage is, and has been since Einstein, the same as what Ricker presents as his new heretical revelation.

You accuse Ricker of heresy yet you value Relativity on its paradox. The multiplicity of paradox (absurdities) in Relativity does not make it any less absurd just as two wrongs do not make one right.

If Ricker found a textbook that describes relativity wrong, I'm not surprised. Relativity is very complicated, and textbooks are written by people, who make mistakes.

Special Relativity is not complicated it is fantasy based on paradox so General Relativity is therefor, falsity based on fantasy.

Despite what some philosophers claim, a textbook is not a holy book.

I know of no philosopher who makes that claim but there are many who claim Relativity to be a “Holy Grail” and those who claim dissidents to Relativity as being heretical. If rebuking absurdity (paradox) is heretical then it is with them I will cast my lot.

If it has formulas that fail mathematical rigor, the formulas are wrong.

If the physics are paradoxical then the maths are pointless and by the same token if the maths are paradoxical the physics are meaningless.

Heresy is a charge made by deceivers against those who seek, or reveal, a truth.

bob s

I did not accuse Ricker of heresy. I accused him of failing to be a heretic.

This site claims that relativity is a paradox. Can you prove this? The formulas have been experimentally verified. (No fair crying conspiracy. Anyone can say that.) If your objection to relativity is that it denies the passage of time, it doesn't. It merely shows how the correct distinction between space and time cannot be distinguished from any other, as experiments have shown.

We know time passes because we feel it passing, but we can't measure it with devices. This shows the immense superiority of human mental perception over any machine. You new-agers should be proud of this.

What is the meaning of referring to "Divine Albert" and his "zombies"? Aren't those phrases typical of deceivers?

Re: Collin, Ricker's Folly August 3 2008, 4:00 PM

I did not accuse Ricker of heresy. I accused him of failing to be a heretic.

You did not and here is what you said; “But its complete usage is, and has been since Einstein, the same as what Ricker presents as his new heretical revelation.” the phrase “as his new heretical revelation” is referring back to what Ricker is presenting therefor you said, Ricker is being a heretic albeit “new”. If you meant otherwise you should be more Succinct.

But why did you evade my question? which was, “be they (the formulas) [Rickers] folly or fact?”. Why should you have an expectation of having your questions answered when you clearly evaded mine. Could it be you can not falsify Ricker’s maths? <that’s another question Collin!

This site claims that relativity is a paradox.

It is not a claim Collin, it is a fact and in fact that is what brought you here, in fact, it was your opening statement; “I found Ricker's article searching for "Right Angle Lever Paradox"” unless you meant it was Ricker’s article that was doing the searching, but no, I think it was you who was doing the searching and it is you who called it a paradox before you even read any of Ricker’s articles and if there is no paradox then why were you searching for a paradox? <another question!

Can you prove this?

Can I prove what? You failed to identify what “this” is that you are asking proof of.

The formulas have been experimentally verified.

Evidently Mr. Ricked has proved otherwise. Can you prove that Mr. Ricker did not prove otherwise?

(No fair crying conspiracy. Anyone can say that.)

No fair evading my question either. And it is not “crying conspiracy” a person ‘cries’ tears and ‘accuses’ conspiracy. What accusation of conspiracy are you referring to? <question! I make no accusation of any conspiracy involving Relativity S or G. Relativists are to dunderheaded to be able to conspire to organize a conspiracy.

If your objection to relativity is that it denies the passage of time, it doesn't.

I do not object to Relativity, I reject Relativity. There is no law against dunderheadedness.

It merely shows how the correct distinction between space and time cannot be distinguished from any other, as experiments have shown.

From any other what? <question!

We know time passes because we feel it passing, but we can't measure it with devices.

How dunderheaded is that statement; ‘We can feel time passing but we can’t measure it!!!’

This shows the immense superiority of human mental perception over any machine. You new-agers should be proud of this.

You write as poorly as Cincirob reads; ‘we’ new-agers should be proud of what? <question! I endure the passage of time Collin, my clock tells me what time it is and it is a machine.

What is the meaning of referring to "Divine Albert" and his "zombies"? Aren't those phrases typical of deceivers?

The song “Devine Albert” is a product of Relativists, check this out;
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
As to “zombies”, it means, (among other things) apathetic, or completely unresponsive person, which, is an opinion and ‘dunderhead’ means, a stupid person. “...[T]ypical of deceivers?” I don’t know, you seem better qualified to answer that question than I.

bob s

You did not and here is what you said; “But its complete usage is, and has been since Einstein, the same as what Ricker presents as his new heretical revelation.” the phrase “as his new heretical revelation” is referring back to what Ricker is presenting therefor you said, Ricker is being a heretic albeit “new”. If you meant otherwise you should be more Succinct.

Notice the words "the same as". I'm saying Ricker agrees with Einstein. But he understands Einstein so little that he thinks he's being a heretic.

But why did you evade my question? which was, “be they (the formulas) [Rickers] folly or fact?”

Einstein's formulas and Ricker's formulas are both fact, and they agree with each other. Ricker does not realize this.

Could it be you can not falsify Ricker’s maths?

I hadn't tried. I went in assuming Ricker was an authority on relativity. I've worked on some unusual physics of my own, so when I see that of others I try to go in with an open mind. But when I read Ricker using relativity to claim to disprove relativity, I realized he was being disingenuous.

I think it was you who was doing the searching and it is you who called it a paradox before you even read any of Ricker’s articles and if there is no paradox then why were you searching for a paradox?

I was searching for a misunderstanding of relativity, that happens to be called "paradox" because someone gave it that name. I am not responsible for that name.

Can you prove that Mr. Ricker did not prove otherwise?

The section I'm complaining about did not refer to experiments. It referred to the provenance of interpreting the maths correctly. Ricker implies that Einstein didn't understand his own equations. If he wants to believe that, fine. It doesn't change the fact that Ricker's relativity is mathematically the same as Einstein's relativity.

And it is not “crying conspiracy” a person ‘cries’ tears and ‘accuses’ conspiracy.

It is an American usage of "cry". It refers to Aesop's "The Boy who Cried Wolf".

What accusation of conspiracy are you referring to?

The one about Cincirob's trip to FermiLab.

Relativists are to dunderheaded to be able to conspire to organize a conspiracy.

That is a meaningless political mud-sling. And since you're picking on my English, I should add that you spelled "too" wrong.

I do not object to Relativity, I reject Relativity. There is no law against dunderheadedness.

There is no law against a meaningless accusation. I was talking about logic, not law.

From any other what?

Reference frame, duh? But then I wouldn't expect you to understand something you "reject".

How dunderheaded is that statement; ‘We can feel time passing but we can’t measure it!!!’

We cannot measure anything that indicates one rate of passage of time as being more or less correct than another.

You write as poorly as Cincirob reads; ‘we’ new-agers should be proud of what?

Proud of your ability to see a picture larger than math. Einstein may not have intended it to be such, but relativity is an important step on the way to understanding "the universe and our place in it" (or whatever the current PC phrase for that is). But if you reject the math, you'll never find whatever philosophy may be beyond it.

I endure the passage of time Collin, my clock tells me what time it is and it is a machine.

Your clock measures only the time coordinate of its own rest frame. The difference between time coordinates in everyday life is so small it doesn't matter. But it matters in things like high-energy physics and astronomy.

The song “Devine Albert” is a product of Relativists, check this out;

I checked it. It is a product of Poets and Musicians.

As to “zombies”, it means, (among other things) apathetic, or completely unresponsive person, which, is an opinion

A very willfully ignorant opinion. Relativity is one of the most responded-to, analysed, debated, reformulated, and extended-upon subjects in all of modern math and physics.

and ‘dunderhead’ means, a stupid person.

Relativity is very complicated math. Perhaps incomplete, perhaps difficult to understand, but what do you mean "stupid"? What's stupid is using phrases like "length contraction" and "time dilation" out of context, as if these are separate effects, even though the maths make it obvious that space and time coordinates are mixed.

“...[T]ypical of deceivers?” I don’t know, you seem better qualified to answer that question than I.

I say what I mean. You play games with my words.

Re: Collin, Ricker's Folly August 3 2008, 11:23 PM

I say what I mean. You play games with my words.

Listen Collin, or should I say, read Collin, you did not have much of a point to begin with and in this last post of yours you have resorted to flat-out lies. I have better things to do than quibble over your poor syntax so I will leave you to your musings.

From several questions last time down to none this time, when you realize I'm not buying your Einstein-bashing claptrap.

Bob S: "Listen Collin, or should I say, read Collin, you did not have much of a point to begin with and in this last post of yours you have resorted to flat-out lies. I have better things to do than quibble over your poor syntax so I will leave you to your musings."

cinci: Having trouble with the English language again, eh Bob?

The paper shows the correct procedure for solving the Lever paradox problem. It agrees with the soluton of the Lever Paradox problem given by Hsio Bai Ai. This agreement shows the solution given in my paper is correct. The accepted solution in textbooks uses a procedure which asserts, according to Einstein's papers of 1905 and 1907 and 1910, that there is a length contraction effect predicted by relativity. The analysis in my paper shows that the prediction is false and that the correct solution is not in agreement with this particular claim of relativity theory. Hence the theory is false since it derives this false formula as a mathematical prediction of the theory. A theory is refuted and shown to be false when its predictions are shown to be false. There is nothing more needed to be proved. The theory of relativity as given in Einstein's papers is refuted and shown to be false because it leads to false mathematical conclusions. QED

Collin: "If Ricker found a textbook that describes relativity wrong, I'm not surprised. Relativity is very complicated, and textbooks are written by people, who make mistakes. Despite what some philosophers claim, a textbook is not a holy book. If it has formulas that fail mathematical rigor, the formulas are wrong."

Jose: The understanding of relativity of space and time is quite simple, if one does not allow the intrusion of garbled logic to intrude. Using symbols to explain ideas is a hoax when the definitions of those symbols is changed covertly in the middle of the discussion. Formulas can pass "mathematical rigor" and still fail the test of reality, as does Onestone's.