"A rational person either earns an opinion by doing the work necessary to possess a __comprehensive__ view of a topic -- which on science topics is not at all easy and takes many years to struggle towards "
This is how many people think science is done, but it is not done that way at all. There are people who know every little detail in a scientific field, and they invariably get nowhere, and in quite a few cases are actually not very smart. (Ed Witten might be a modern example) But the people who make real progress are often not particularly knowledgeable. Faraday had a terrible math/science background. Planck did not understand quantum physics when he made extremely important advancements in it. Nor did Bohr, although I'm not so sure Bohr 's work actually was that important. Einstein was originally in statistical mechanics, a field far removed from Relativity. He even claimed to be ignorant of the Michaelson Morley experiment at the time he came out with Special Relativity. And he was ignorant of the math needed for General Relativity--a friend told him about it, and taught it to him...(and even then, his early papers indicated he was not good at it). Watson and Crick were not very knowledgeable about the sort of chemistry they used regarding the structure of DNA.
Another misconception is that great scientists write scholarly papers. Einstein gave very few references in his important papers. Likewise for Feynman. And I think Schrodinger too. Not to beat a dead horse, but few if any important papers would have passed modern peer review. "Science" has replaced science with an effete "scholarliness" that makes no progress and gives nobodies the status their fellow nobodies share with them--it is like British society..
Example 1 will work. You just need a very accurate clock.
Example 2 has problems because the difference in ageing rates will be so slight that both babies will be senior citizens at effectively the same time.
I think this shows that although a theory may prove to be technically correct it does not make any difference in any number of practical situations. So maybe we do not need to worry about it.
Other "interesting" facts:
Galileo was into Relativity in 1632 - well before Einstein .
Einstein's Relativity papers were not peer-reviewed.
Einstein's work was based on the assumption that the speed of light (in a given medium) is a constant. If this is not the case then all bets are off.
Edit: Jonathan - Option 3
∫ tan(x) dx= ∫ sin(x) * 1/cos(x) dx
= -cos(x)/cos(x) - ∫ -cos(x)*sin(x)/cos2(x) dx
= -1 + ∫ tan(x) dx
Therefore: ∫ tan(x) dx = - 1 + ∫ tan(x) dx
So: 0 = -1
There are lots of people who cannot see the problem with the maths but they still know the answer is wrong.
No it is not, but this is how a liberal waste our time and money. Make a prediction, claim that your prediction didn't come true either because your efforts, it was worse than you thought, or because your efforts were thwarted by people who aren't smart enough to know the brilliance of your plan.
A strange idea from an alarmist because as an alarmist you've already dismissed logic and disregarded all the logical fallacies as not applicable to agw theory now suddenly you want to try ridiculous straw-man logical fallacies. You do do realise I hope that 1. is in fact a genuine way of checking relativity, of course the clocks need to be synchronised atomic clocks and scientists use a plane instead of a car usually.
I can't speak to your examples. I suppose you are suggesting that they pose strawmen arguments which they claim are evidence but which instead only shows they don't really understand the theory. But I'm not sure if that's your point. If it is, then sure.
A rational person either earns an opinion by doing the work necessary to possess a __comprehensive__ view of a topic -- which on science topics is not at all easy and takes many years to struggle towards -- or else they rely upon the opinions of those who do possess such comprehensive views. There is no third option.
None of the denialists here at Y!A have shown the slightest capability of handling even so little as a single slab model of radiation physics. It's trivial stuff -- 1st year community college work at best. And I finally ponied one up off the cuff just to see if any could so much as turn it into the very simple diff-eq equations needed to express a "model" from the idea. No one could do so. No one of them EVER will do so. They can't.
Galileo wrote in "The Assayer":
? ? ? ? Philosophy is written in this grand book - I mean the universe -
? ? ? ? which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be
? ? ? ? understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language
? ? ? ? and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in
? ? ? ? the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles,
? ? ? ? circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly
? ? ? ? impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one
? ? ? ? is wandering about in a dark labyrinth.
(In his day and in his area of the world, the word "philosophy" meant physics. Just in case anyone wonders.)
Yet they think their opinions are worth something. Or that their opinions about the work of others is worth listening to.
A phrase I made up puts it sharply and in American political terms: "An equal right to an opinion isn't a right to an equal opinion."
EDIT: Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense for some arguments I've seen, yes. Still would love to see any one of them write out the tiny number of diffeqs for the simplest slab model and talk a little about the implications. Won't happen, though. (I'd love it even more if they could grab up Hanson's 1981 model paper and talk about it -- it's simple too but not so simple as the one-slab model, of course.)
Nope. It sounds like the logic of the Alarmists.
Wow are you feeling alright?
If this is how realist's debate and think, I am glad I am on the other side.
Jonathon. Einstein did not discover Relativity with mathematics, he used his mind to visualize it, the mathematics were for order and proof, he was a genius but not that great a mathematician.
Math is a tool, but without creativity and imagination it is of no use.
You left out a lot of variables. You got the basics down, but so does a two year old with a set of building blocks.
But at least Einstein had a theory you could prove or disprove, depending. But with global warming you don't have a valid theory. You even admit that the environment is chaotic in nature. That word 'chotic' is the greenies term, not mine.
Einstein also sat his theory down in writing and admitted when he was wrong.
Your kind of thinking can come from someone who is ethically and intellectually challenged.
Rantings from a desperate cultist. One day you will wake up and realize you were on the wrong side of the argument.
Cr...a very crass appeal to ridicule. You have demonstrated how climate "science" has sacrificed its credibility. No thinking person can take you seriously.
You are a poster child for the 'climate science is an oxymoron' theory.
Someone wants to test Einstein's Theory of Relativity. They do tow tests.
1. They get in the car and they take a clock with them and leave another clock at home. When they return, they compare the clocks.
2. They get in the car and they take a baby with them and leave another baby at home. When they get back, they check to see if the baby they left at home is now a senior citizen.
Does this sound like the sort of tests which denialists use to say that global warming isn't real?
... and that, ladies and gentlemen is all the alarmunists have any more....
For some of them, at least, yeah.
