tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33443486.post7566051226833697108..comments2024-01-03T11:30:17.738+00:00Comments on the observers hunch: They're Back - 6 - The One In Which DdH Links To More Obvious Errors In ADMark Norrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03011121623808201560noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33443486.post-35787942460880716292007-04-05T15:53:00.000+01:002007-04-05T15:53:00.000+01:00Indeed, AD is more comprehensive than most crank t...Indeed, AD is more comprehensive than most crank theories, its just it is entirely based on a false premise. Although there are several tack-ons to the theory, an explanation for gravity being one, it has nothing to do with AD itself, it was only added because relativity can explain gravity but AD cannot. The fact that it has been shown not to work for over a century doesn't phase them.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't even matter to the ADiots that every single experiment ever performed disproves it. They think its conceptually simpler than SR so must be right. So the reason experiments keep proving them wrong, even simple ones to do with the motion of everyday objects, is just evidence of some vast conspiracy to them. Its very sad.Mark Norrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03011121623808201560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33443486.post-83741041195733136932007-04-05T15:17:00.000+01:002007-04-05T15:17:00.000+01:00From the AD Maxwell page: "From the moment AD disc...From the AD Maxwell page: "From the moment AD discards two frames in relative motion, the concept of "invariance" becomes meaningless."<BR/>It seems to me that many thing become meaningless or irrelevant once you discards two frames. Half the objections to AD are brushed off with that.<BR/><BR/>I don't know much about the inner workings of AD, but it seems that they have constructed a coherent structure, starting from Carezani's work; and once you accept the starting axioms, everything kind of makes sense (within the AD framework), and so it becomes difficult to accept that the starting axioms are false (we see the same thing in many young sciences).Marc André Bélangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607956905634811512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33443486.post-62458027636105490502007-04-05T14:19:00.000+01:002007-04-05T14:19:00.000+01:00Good point, I should check posts I make late at ni...Good point, I should check posts I make late at night more thoroughly.<BR/><BR/>Post fixed with an erratum.Mark Norrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03011121623808201560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33443486.post-60576494611982913232007-04-05T13:47:00.000+01:002007-04-05T13:47:00.000+01:00"for any value of Z other than 1 or 0" wouldn't th..."for any value of Z other than 1 or 0" wouldn't the result of the equations be totally different if Z=0 (infinity for SR and 0 AD)? (okay, I admit, I'm nitpicking ;-)Marc André Bélangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607956905634811512noreply@blogger.com