Leaderboard

Your post is rather long, so I will just pick out this one sentence: "So I would say, you can't be a good scientist if you take things as absolutes" And I go further and say that you cannot be a scientist at all if you take things as absolutes, and I don't know any actual scientists who do this. I have worked with many scientists throughout my years with the NOAA and they all operate on the principle of following the preponderance of evidence, as I wrote in my earlier posts. I think the OP's question has been fully answered now by multiple people, multiple times but it seems to me he is w

I am sooo glad to see you back! This forum has been badly in need of a good dose of sanity.

Alright,I gave this a stab. Here's what I have so far; https://www.dropbox.com/s/p4msczv4028rd8i/Kinematic Solution To The Ehrenfest Paradox.pdf?dl=0 I'm failing on the "concise" part a bit, although more than half of the length is extra discussion. I feel like this whole thing could be explained in one page, but then I look at all the silly solution suggestions out there in published papers, and my confidence to the "one-page approach" being enough vanishes... I just don't know which detail is the one everyone keep missing here when they insist on paradoxical solutions 🤷‍♂️ Anyway

This nothing but conspiracy bollocks. NASA is telling the truth in this case, the former idea is based on the idea the earth would flip upside down to flip the magnetic field. We now know this is improbable to say the least..

A scientist saying something, if it is their field, and they have gone through pere review, should be taken seriously but others are and will continue to check his work to make sure the theory hold up under all conditions. There are scientific assertions or theories that it is difficult to see how they could be refuted, heliocentric theory will not be over turned, evolutionary theory, cell theory, disease theory, and many others are so finely known that no one thinks they will ever be overturned, maybe refined, but that would be tiny changes at best. I to tend to be rather abrupt bu

I am saying they require things that might work out mathematically but the reality of things like negative mass is unknown and there is little reason to think they exist. In science everything is subject to new information coming in, science is a self correcting process, it becomes ever more precise but will never, by design, reach a 100% conclusion. This "design" is what allows science to be self correcting and moves it closer and closer towards reality.