[Phys-L] Re: Two ways of refuting Einstein

[Ken Caviness <caviness@SOUTHERN.EDU>]

There are different types of frustration, different causes.  There is the
frustration of seeing this nutcase repeatedly diss Einstein, a
Nobel-prizewinning genius-caliber scientist, over and over again, the
frustration of not being able to respond because that's just "feeding the
troll", the frustration of thinking that visitors or new members in this
forum may come to believe the ridiculous assertions simply because they are
not challenged, and because certain quotes are given to bolster the claims.

What is the answer?

We could ask the list owner to remove this individual's subscription to the
list.  But that seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of scientific
enquiry, even if, admittedly, science is not much advanced by these posts.

In my opinion, if one person (perhaps a different person each time, to ease
the burden) would give a 5-minute rebuttal of each new Einstein flame,
everyone would immediately see that the assertions are not left
unchallenged, and we could then allow each new thread to die.  At that point
I would strongly argue that no good is done by continuing the "discussion",
since the instigator clearly doesn't read the responses anyway.  (I speak
from experience, having rebutted several past diatribes, and then noticing
that further messages did not even begin to address my points.)

One quick fix is a canned response with a URL given.  There was one posted
here last year which exposed fallacies in Pentcho Valev's postings on
thermodynamics.  If no-one beats me to it, I propose to create a similar
page about Mr. Valev's statements regarding relativity.  I think I've kept
enough of them to be able to give an assortment of his statements and
rebuttals that have appeared in this forum.  I will start in approximately 2
weeks, after I've graded semester exams.  :-)  In any case all these are in
the archives, but there would appear to me to be some value in distilling
out a sample.

Any future postings by Mr. Valev could then take up exactly the amount of
our time that they deserve:  one person hits "Reply", cuts & pastes in the
URL, and hits send.  Those like Moses Fayngold who have a filter set to
delete "Pentcho Valev" could merely extend their filter to delete the canned
response messages, too.  Newcomers would be able to read the background
material at their leisure, oldtimers would add filters or simply hit delete.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Ken Caviness
Physics @ Southern

Southern Adventist University
Collegedale, TN 37315

-----Original Message-----
From: Forum for Physics Educators [mailto:PHYS-L@list1.ucc.nau.edu] On
Behalf Of Joseph Bellina
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:07 PM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: Two ways of refuting Einstein

Pardon the flame, but I am very frustrated.  I put that nutnick Valev's
name in my filter system so I wouldn't have to look at the junk, and now
other folks are responding to it as if it is creditable, and I'm getting
it again.
Please ignor him.

thanks

Fayngold, Moses wrote:

> First, any claims at changing one of the relativity postulates as of now
are only tentative assumptions. They are based on possible interpretations
of a very small observational effect.
> Second, no serious scientist (Einstein included) has ever claimed that any
scientific statement no matter how general is the ultimate truth. This is
what distinguishes science from religion. Einstein himself made attempts to
go beyond his own theory to reach more general description of all known
interactions.
> Third, even if the above mentioned effect is confirmed not to be an
artefact, and the corresponding changes of the current theory appear to be
unavoidable, they will only indicate the limits of its applicability. They
will not cancel relativity in the domain where it has been confirmed beyond
any doubts, just as relativity has not cancel Newtonian mechanics within
domains v << c.
> Moses Fayngold
> Department of Physics, NJIT
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Forum for Physics Educators [mailto:PHYS-L@list1.ucc.nau.edu]On
> Behalf Of Pentcho Valev
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:56 AM
> To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
> Subject: Two ways of refuting Einstein
>
>
>
>
> Two ways of refuting Einstein. A prudent one:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1456590,00.html
>
> and a less prudent:
>
> http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev6.htm
>
> Pentcho Valev

--
Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
574-284-4662, 4968
Saint Mary's College
Dept. of Chemistry and Physics
Notre Dame, IN, 46556
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l