[Gary Boldwater]

Here's an interesting website for Objectivists and those who wonder about the apparent "unintuitiveness" of Special Relativity Theory:

http://home.earthlink.net/~marklin/index.html

Apparently, according to Objectivists (and this has not been refuted or disclaim by ANY Objectivist organization)SRT is incompatible to Objectivism. Or if the current theories of SRT are real then Objectivism is incompatible with reality(?).
I'd love to see any of the "Objectivist scientists" on this forum refute the claims made on the said website by either logical or scientific method.
It would seem that a Ocham's razor would leave only the Objectivist view.
(Note: I personally agree with the Objectivist view but do not agree with the rigid ether)
Have fun, play fair.

[PatrickHenry]

Apparently, according to Objectivists (and this has not been refuted or disclaim by ANY Objectivist organization)SRT is incompatible to Objectivism.

You gave me that link before, and here's what I said:

It's from a Texas chapter of an Objectivist study group, not from the Ayn Rand Institute. Anyway, I read only the introduction, and I encountered this:

When I have finished, I think you will be convinced (especially those advanced enough to follow the math) that the theory of relativity is not consistent with Objectivism, while the Lorentz ether theory is, and you will understand what the theory of relativity actually means.

I don't have the time to study the entire thing. I consider myself an Objectivist, and I'm familiar with special relativity (although I've never studied the general theory). I've never been aware of any contradictions between Objectivism and special relativity. Indeed, Einstein demonstrated that the universe is objectively real, and verifiably so, notwithstanding the various observations of different observers in different frames of reference.

I read just a bit more. In the first chapter (after the intro) the author says: At current levels of understanding in physics there is no known way to construct immutable clocks or rulers, but their existence, at least in principle, must be assumed if the concepts of length or time are to have any meaning. Here the author betrays his lack of understanding of special relativity. Perhaps if I read further he would clear things up, but at this point I'm giving up on the guy. Relativity isn't for everyone.

[Physicist]

Apparently, according to Objectivists (and this has not been refuted or disclaim by ANY Objectivist organization)SRT is incompatible to Objectivism. Or if the current theories of SRT are real then Objectivism is incompatible with reality(?).

Neither. Objectivism is perfectly compatible with SR and QM, and if an Objectivist claims otherwise, it proves only his own failure to adhere to the epistemology.

The universe is the way it is, and not how we might wish it to be.

I'd love to see any of the "Objectivist scientists" on this forum refute the claims made on the said website by either logical or scientific method.

He doesn't dispute the formalism, just the interpretation. I think his interpretation is lame, however. He simply postulates by fiat that rulers shrink and clocks slow down, and then insists that rulers and clocks don't "really" measure space and time, anyway. Nowhere does he say why, philosophically, I should expect the stub-your-toe physical reality of differently-aged twins. Nowhere does he describe a physical mechanism for atomic decays to occur at a slower rate. You can handwave away time dilation as a mere problem of perception all you want, but at the end of the day you are left with the reality these stone cold phenomena.