Thing is, most of the people who advocate relativity do not play fair. You'd think that if they believed relativity was superior, they could afford to be fair about things. The thing is that the claims by anti relativity types about the unfair way the relativity types go about things might be thought of as just "gee, well its just paranoia because of what you are on about". But it does happen. In this section, I hope to illustrate just why it is the case.
However, I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush. The "ethic" of science is openess. Some people relativity advocates on the group are genuine fair minded people who are on the group partly because they want to educate people on the group about relativity, and have a genuine interest in relativity. I'd put George Dishman, Frank Wappler and Steve Carlip in this category. We've dissagreed, but they operate with a sense of fair play.
Many posts have commented on the psychology of the anti-relativist. Well, finally I'm making a comment on the pro-relativists. Some fit into the category above. But most of the remainder fit into two categories. One which sees their posts against anti-relativists as a public service, defending the status quo against against the arrant cranks out there who lower the signal to noise ratio of the newsgroup; and second, people who like to argue, and put people down. The fact that they are pro relativists is merely a means to an end. It means they know who they are trying to put down.
When I've posted in the past, I tried to acknowledge all points which my opponents put - frequently I'd say OK, that's a point. I was trying to maintain a civilised dialogue. However, if you look at the pro-relativity types on s.p.r, note that they frequently cut out much of what the other poster has written, so all that is left is the bit they dissagree with. They NEVER acknowledge any points the anti-relativists make.
As an anti-relativist, this means that when you post in reply, you never know if they've actually agreed that you have a point, and they frequently bring up such material later on.
One particular noxious poster is Jim Carr. I do not question is competence in his field, nor his familiarity with relativity. But I do consider him as an arguer from the bearpit, with no consideration at all for others.
There was a time when Jim Carr was badgering me for formulas. I did not feel that posting formulas was a very productive thing in an ascii newsgroup. And Jim Carr continued to ask for them. Eventually, I did post some, expecting him to analyse them and give some comment. But he ignored them, and stopped posting on the topic. The conclusion is obvious. He was never interested in any formulas I might provide, he only wanted to try to ridicule the fact I had not posted any. After I had posted them, he never acknowledged that I had, and only looked for other things to badger me on.
I made a post to the group on Ritzian theory, and then a few months later Jim Carr said that a detail I'd posted in this original post "only came out" as the result of a then recent discussion.
My gosh, the odds seem loaded against me !
But there are ruder, more obnoxious people than Jim Carr. If you read the group, I ask you to look both at the content and how people are going about what they do.
The pro-relativists do not play fair. Its not just an erratic claim by anti-relativists. Its true.
Next : 11. An experiment to falsify Ritzian theory