Re: Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 3:45:57 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

BertieTaylor: Thanks. Yes, the prestige mills called universities sell
what is considered prestigious even when it is ridiculous, as relativity
is. When I confront the relativists with such logical criticisms, they
cannot grapple with them and respond in any way other than ad hominem
attacks on me.
>
 I am reminded of an article I once read in Skeptical Inquirer by the
highly reputed scientist Massimo Pigliucci, who I admire for his
stoicism books. It is called "What's so bad about Ad Hoc Hypotheses?"
and is a reply to an article by a person wanting to dismiss the very
concept of ad hoc. That is, "On Ad Hoc Hypotheses*"
Author(s): J. Christopher Hunt
Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol. 79, No. 1 (January 2012), pp. 1-14.
>
Length contraction and time dilation were immediately recognized as very
ad hoc after they were proposed after the MME in 1987. This kept most
scientists before Einstein from asserting them as literal realities.
Pigliucci maintains the concept is quite valid. I suggest it be
steel-manned, not as "making things up" but as thinking of exceptions to
the rules (really new sub-rules) that may or may not be confirmed.
However, in the case of these concepts in relativity, they are both ad
hoc and reification fallacy, making them pure nonsense.

Absolutely. No self-respecting scientist can support the extraordinary
nonsense of relativity. Unfortunately it still rules. What could be more
shameful.