Objective Truth vs. Personal Opinion

[quincy]

Here is another link, this to the New York Assembly: http://nyassembly.gov

If you lack funds and cannot seem to draw attention to the important "one line addition to legislation" any other way, try contacting the media. The media entertains all sorts of stories.

 

[Taxing Matters]

...but I just don't want to divert the conversation into discussing it, which will be inevitable."

That's your choice, of course. But if it would generate that much discussion I'm inclined to believe that the addition of this one sentence is not nearly as simple as you suggest — that in fact a lot of opinion is indeed involved rather than simply reflecting some uncontroverted truth.

 

[quincy]

I think this matter probably been discussed past the point of usefulness.

There is little that can be provided in the way of advice or direction other than what already has been provided when we have no real idea what the issue is.

 

[trwthlark]

That's your choice, of course. But if it would generate that much discussion I'm inclined to believe that the addition of this one sentence is not nearly as simple as you suggest — that in fact a lot of opinion is indeed involved rather than simply reflecting some uncontroverted truth.

OK, let me try it, then.

The sentence which needs to be included in the US Congress legislation is the following:

``No science project which is a candidate for public funding, should contain Lorentz transformations in any way, shape or form."

The easiest way to see that Lorentz transformations lead to absurdities and therefore projects based on these transformations do not deserve taxpayer money, is to observe that the second set of equations in https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#SECTION21 IS AFFECTED after the application of the Lorentz transformations -- the second set of equations in question contains velocity v while the first set of equations in https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#SECTION21 does not contain velocity v.

On the other hand, the first postulate, the very founding definition, the discovery by Galileo 300 years prior, seen in https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#SECTION12 , on the contrary, commands that these two equations ARE NOT AFFECTED under these conditions.

I want it established in writing through the mediation I already mentioned in the OP and/or hearings in the US Congress that the above is a fact, an unequivocal objective truth, and is not just my personal opinion.

The above may seem like a small thing but its resolution will save billions ill-spent dollars to the American taxpayer.

 

[quincy]

Thank you for providing the basis for your questions.

I hope you have the educational and professional credentials to support your claim.

Speak to your Congressman.

 

[trwthlark]

Speak to your Congressman.

Good suggestion but I've already tried it to no avail. Not only is my Congressman not dealing with science but his policy in not to meet with individual constituents. An email to him didn't help either.

 

[trwthlark]

I hope you have the educational and professional credentials to support your claim.

Undoubtedly. I have the highest qualifications and, as you can see, my argument is unequivocal. Think about it, the fact that I'm ready to appear before the US Congress shows how serious I am about this matter.

 

[quincy]

Well ... you have our suggestions.

If you cannot interest anyone in helping you, I am afraid the legislation will proceed without your one-sentence addition.

By the way, if you sent your email after discussion last night, remember this is a weekend and other things are currently occupying the minds of our Congress members. You should not expect a speedy response.

Good luck.

 

[trwthlark]

If you cannot interest anyone in helping you, I am afraid the legislation will proceed without your one-sentence addition.

This, of course, is the easy way out. However, this is not my personal problem and it is unseemly regarding the public interest if this is let go. If significant issues such as this are left unattended it is a sure recipe for disaster. I don't know about you but I don't want my taxpayer dollar going to waste.

 

[quincy]

This, of course, is the easy way out. However, this is not my personal problem and it is unseemly regarding the public interest if this is let go. If significant issues such as this are left unattended it is a sure recipe for disaster. I don't know about you but I don't want my taxpayer dollar going to waste.

Haha. Taxpayer dollars are ALWAYS being wasted. But it is nice to think the money will be spent wisely (on things like military parades, trips to golf courses and redecorating offices ).

Seriously, you have been given areas to explore. You can start exploring now.

 

[trwthlark]

Haha. Taxpayer dollars are ALWAYS being wasted. But it is nice to think the money will be spent wisely (on things like military parades, trips to golf courses and redecorating offices ).

Maybe true but we should do what we can to improve the situation, don't you think?

 

[quincy]

Maybe true but we should do what we can to improve the situation, don't you think?

Enough drops of water in a bucket can fill the bucket so, sure, do what you can with your drop of water.

Good luck.

 

[Taxing Matters]

OK, let me try it, then.

The sentence which needs to be included in the US Congress legislation is the following:

``No science project which is a candidate for public funding, should contain Lorentz transformations in any way, shape or form."

I have two comments on that. First, if you use the word "should" that leaves discretion to the agency funding research whether to fund a project that includes a Lorentz transformation. Moreover, the sentence you seek to use would prohibit the submission of research projects that contain Lorentz transformations, not bar funding of such projects. If what you want is a prohibition of public funding of such research, you want it to read something like this: "No agency of the United States shall fund research that contains Lorentz transformations in any way, shape or form."

Second, it appears that Lorentz transformations do not always result in absurdities and thus a complete bar on funding such research may in fact bar funding for research that could be valuable. If it were in fact completely discredited no one would pursue research using it and certainly the government would not fund it if these transformations were completely discredited and useless.

As an aside, I have to wonder just how much research is actually funded that contains these transformations. My guess is that it is not a lot. This is not an issue that would garner much interest among the vast majority of Americans which means getting the kind of support it may take to get Congress to bar funding that specific research is going to be difficult.