Objective Truth vs. Personal Opinion

[quincy]

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.

Nice post, TM.

Here are two additional links to Senate and House Committees on Science, where his legislative concerns might be best addressed:

https://science.house.gov

https://www.congress.gov/committee/senate-commerce-science-and-transportation/sscm00

Perhaps he can find someone there who will welcome his opinion on Lorentz transformations.

 

[sticky wicket]

Nice post, TM.

Here are two additional links to Senate and House Committees on Science, where his legislative concerns might be best addressed:

https://science.house.gov

https://www.congress.gov/committee/senate-commerce-science-and-transportation/sscm00

Perhaps he can find someone there who will welcome his opinion on Lorentz transformations.

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.

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.

Do you mean that because research is being pursued and the government is funding it, that these transformations are not discredited and are
useful?

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.

How is it that something which is absurd at all can ever result in anything not absurd and valuable?

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.

It is not a good idea to make a guess like that. Remove Lorentz transformations and there will be no more cosmology, black holes, big bang,
Higgs Boson, gravitational waves. Remove Lorentz transformations and many Nobel Prizes lose ground for awarding them.
I hope you understand that once Lorentz transformations are shown to be absurd, anything further based on them will also be absurd and useless.

The OP asked not to get technical. However, if we are to discuss the legal matter, we can not avoid the general understanding of the need to reject
absurdity altogether when searching for the truth and distinguishing it from personal opinion.

 

[TimStudiesLaw]

The OP can go to change.org and petition his congressman to propose the addition to the legislation.

 

[quincy]

I believe links were provided earlier. I honestly don't know why this thread was reopened for comments.