Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #384538 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-29 03:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-09 06:56 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 03:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-29 11:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-29 12:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-29 12:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:35 +0300
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 19:53 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 21:10 +0300
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 21:02 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 22:32 +0300
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 21:58 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 12:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-02 21:49 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 16:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-02 23:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 18:21 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-30 05:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 00:41 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 05:17 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-31 06:03 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 07:06 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-31 19:46 +0200
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 12:16 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-31 21:24 +0200
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 18:22 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-31 23:22 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 08:24 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 18:27 +0200
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 13:21 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-03 11:07 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 09:38 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-04 06:52 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-04 12:45 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-05 10:32 +0200
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 11:54 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-05 21:34 +0200
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:19 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-05 07:00 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-05 16:40 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-05 17:43 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-06 08:09 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:19 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:30 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:07 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-06 15:14 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-07 06:11 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 06:15 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-07 07:58 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-08 07:28 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-08 21:07 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-08 21:19 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:40 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-09 17:41 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-09 19:36 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-10 08:06 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 22:24 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-10 07:55 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-12 05:55 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-12 09:51 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-12 10:02 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-13 07:02 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-13 09:41 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-13 10:00 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-13 12:12 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-13 14:03 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-14 13:54 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-14 16:37 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-15 06:23 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-15 16:20 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-13 13:04 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-13 20:09 +0200
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 15:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-04 13:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-02 12:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-02 02:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 04:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 02:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-06-08 09:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-06-09 06:56 -0700
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 03:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics |
| Message-ID | <8d921732-611c-4b89-9b4a-b47ac10600b0@googlegroups.com> |
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has two aspects: 1. Any light moving in a vacuum has the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second, as measured by any observer. 2. If the observer were to hurry towards the light source (his speed changes), he would again measure the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second. The first aspect has been disproved - the speed of light travelling in a vacuum is not a constant: http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html "Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum." http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/ "Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release." http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480 "The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently." http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it "Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg "Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light" The second aspect is even easier to disprove - I will do this in my next posting. Pentcho Valev
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 11:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <574B354C.616E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #384538 |
Pentcho Valev wrote: > > Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has two aspects: > > 1. Any light moving in a vacuum has the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second, as measured by any observer. > > 2. If the observer were to hurry towards the light source (his speed changes), he would again measure the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second. > > The first aspect has been disproved - the speed of light travelling in a vacuum is not a constant: > > http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html > > > http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/ > "Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release." > > http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480 > "The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently." > > http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it > "Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do." > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg > "Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light" > > The second aspect is even easier to disprove - I will do this in my next posting. > > Pentcho Valev I don't understand what the issue is here... So Albert Einstein lied about the speed of light, so what? He was just changing the facts to fit his theory...how else do you have a perfect theory??? So he lied in his letter to Roosevelt that the Germans were building an atomic bomb.. he had to lie to get his hands on the Uranium he needed to build his own atomic bomb. just changing the facts to fit his theory...how else do you get tons of Uranium??? Of course, Roosevelt thought "Why would we want to kill the Germans, they are doing such a good job killing Jewish people!". The President said, "I'm going to send IBM over there to help them." IBM Hollerith computers ...make them Holler...Holler-caust computers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <574B3EEA.2642@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #384562 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Pentcho Valev wrote: > > > > Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has two aspects: > > > > 1. Any light moving in a vacuum has the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second, as measured by any observer. > > > > 2. If the observer were to hurry towards the light source (his speed changes), he would again measure the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second. > > > > The first aspect has been disproved - the speed of light travelling in a vacuum is not a constant: > > > > http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html > > > > > > http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/ > > "Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release." > > > > http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480 > > "The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently." > > > > http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it > > "Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do." > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg > > "Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light" > > > > The second aspect is even easier to disprove - I will do this in my next posting. > > > > Pentcho Valev > > I don't understand what the issue is here... > So Albert Einstein lied about the speed of light, so what? He > was just changing the facts to fit his theory...how else do > you have a perfect theory??? To put it simply that anyone can understand.... If you can go faster than the speed of sound... you can go faster than the speed of light. And that's that! End of story. Not up for discussion. It's irrefutable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 12:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <574B3F72.527C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #384569 |
I'll go one step further... all of my posts are... irrefutable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 20:35 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20160601203552.4bcc79745975108e4bb1f628@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #384570 |
The Starmaker: > all of my posts are... irrefutable. Your ought to know better than brag about it. Every philosopher and every scientist understands that an irrefutable statement commands no respect because it is based on circular logic and is tauto- logical. Every statement which is not short-cir- cuited upon itself but conveys information about ex- ternal reality is necessarily refutable by external evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 19:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nin7f4$3kf$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #384761 |
Użytkownik "Anton Shepelev" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:20160601203552.4bcc79745975108e4bb1f628@gmail.com... |Every philosopher and every scientist understands |that an irrefutable statement commands no respect |because it is based on circular logic and is tauto- |logical. Unfortunately, every philosopher and every scientist that understands it is wrong. | Every statement which is not short-cir- |cuited upon itself but conveys information about ex- |ternal reality is necessarily refutable by external |evidence: |https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Someone has written something, has to be the truth, eh? Bullshit. Falsification is an illusion. Knowledge is built of tautologies, because it's written in a language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 21:10 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20160601211044.23b46e8470875e8d2657db6c@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #384763 |
Maciej Wozniak: > Anton Shepelev: > > The Starmaker: > > > > > all of my posts are... irrefutable. > > > > Every philosopher and every scientist under- > > stands that an irrefutable statement commands no > > respect because it is based on circular logic > > and is tautological. > > Unfortunately, every philosopher and every scien- > tist that understands it is wrong. Since you did not belabour yourself with providing a rationale, what worth are your words? > > Every statement which is not short-circuited up- > > on itself but conveys information about external > > reality is necessarily refutable by external ev- > > idence: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability > > Someone has written something, has to be the > truth, eh? Bullshit. Does that apply to your own posts? > Falsification is an illusion. How so? > Knowledge is built of tautologies, because it's > written in a language Written language can express other kinds of statment than the tautology. Tautology conveys zero informa- tion and therefore cannot constitute knowledge. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 21:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ninbge$7ih$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #384765 |
Użytkownik "Anton Shepelev" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:20160601211044.23b46e8470875e8d2657db6c@gmail.com... > Falsification is an illusion. |How so? Well, not simply. > Knowledge is built of tautologies, because it's > written in a language |Written language can express other kinds of statment |than the tautology. No, it can't. You looked skin-deeply. |Tautology conveys zero informa- |tion and therefore cannot constitute knowledge. http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/384861/is-mathematics-one-big-tautology Yes, it is. It's complicated, but still it is. And the whole human knowledge is even much bigger tautology. Want a lesson?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 22:32 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20160601223229.f7efe873a695359164de2d78@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #384774 |
Maciej Wozniak: > Anton Shepelev: > > Maciej Wozniak: > > > > > Falsification is an illusion. > > > > How so? > > Well, not simply. So you can't explain yourself? > > > Knowledge is built of tautologies, because > > > it's written in a language. > > > > Written language can express other kinds of > > statment than the tautology. > > No, it can't. You looked skin-deeply. Since you do not provide any evidence or reasoning behind your statements I should say that your eyes are closed altogether. > > Tautology conveys zero information and therefore > > cannot constitute knowledge. > > http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/384861/is- > mathematics-one-big-tautology Did you read that? The top three answers explain why it is not a tautology, and I might add that math gives us new positive knowledge generally expressed in the form of refutable statements. Only refutable statements can be proven true or false, and math does it all the time. And I meant statements about the material world (physics) rather than about abstractions (mathemat- ics). > Yes, it is. It's complicated, but still it is. > And the whole human knowledge is even much bigger > tautology. Why do you think so? > Want a lesson? No, because I don't regard you as a teacher. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 21:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nineoo$aos$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #384775 |
Użytkownik "Anton Shepelev" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:20160601223229.f7efe873a695359164de2d78@gmail.com... Maciej Wozniak: > Anton Shepelev: > > Maciej Wozniak: > > > > > Falsification is an illusion. > > > > How so? > > Well, not simply. |So you can't explain yourself? As you're not going to listen, I can't. Isn't it obvious? > > No, it can't. You looked skin-deeply. |Since you do not provide any evidence or reasoning |behind your statements I should say that your eyes |are closed altogether. You're free to say whatever you want. > > Tautology conveys zero information and therefore > > cannot constitute knowledge. > > http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/384861/is- > mathematics-one-big-tautology |Did you read that? The top three answers explain |why it is not a tautology, and I might add that math But they don't explain why the question, do they? |gives us new positive knowledge generally expressed |in the form of refutable statements. Only refutable |statements can be proven true or false, and math |does it all the time. If they're false, they can't be tautologies; obvious. But if they are true, how does it happen? There is no reality in math. Just words, phrases and the rest of language. So the truth of a mathematical statement must be determined by - language itself. And that means a tautology. Complicated, and, of course, as you're not going to listen, explaining it to you is probably a waste of time. > Yes, it is. It's complicated, but still it is. > And the whole human knowledge is even much bigger > tautology. |Why do you think so? Because I know some basics about neural networks and, by both my studies and my job I've learned the ways information affects hardware.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 12:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8753aab0-484b-4e21-85f2-e590b33d1e4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384765 |
On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:10:18 AM UTC-7, Anton Shepelev wrote: > Maciej Wozniak: > > Anton Shepelev: > > > The Starmaker: > > > > > > > all of my posts are... irrefutable. > > > > > > Every philosopher and every scientist under- > > > stands that an irrefutable statement commands no > > > respect because it is based on circular logic > > > and is tautological. > > > > Unfortunately, every philosopher and every scien- > > tist that understands it is wrong. > > Since you did not belabour yourself with providing a > rationale, what worth are your words? > > > > Every statement which is not short-circuited up- > > > on itself but conveys information about external > > > reality is necessarily refutable by external ev- > > > idence: > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability > > > > Someone has written something, has to be the > > truth, eh? Bullshit. > > Does that apply to your own posts? > > > Falsification is an illusion. > > How so? > > > Knowledge is built of tautologies, because it's > > written in a language > > Written language can express other kinds of statment > than the tautology. Tautology conveys zero informa- > tion and therefore cannot constitute knowledge. > > -- > () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail > /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived] Anton, you'll find out soon that Maciej does not provide any arguments. He just makes silly claims, never offering any support for them beyond vague references to "models" and "language", none of it is ever defined. "Models" and "language" seem to be something he studied once and now, in the standard crank fashion, he simply assumes that what he knows happens to be all that one ever needs to know. One of his claims is that all physicists in the world for the last 100 years are "idiots". To prove this, he types in a small paragraph of 5-10 lines or so. As all other kooks on this NG, without exception (ever, meaning, since this NG's inception in the 1990s) he never answered any simple technical test question. When proved wrong, he yells obscenities. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 21:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <niq2l6$tqf$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #384861 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:8753aab0-484b-4e21-85f2-e590b33d1e4a@googlegroups.com... |Anton, you'll find out soon that Maciej does not provide any arguments. |He just makes silly claims, never offering any support for them beyond |vague references to "models" and "language", none of it is ever defined. |"Models" and "language" seem to be something he studied once and now, |in the standard crank fashion, he simply assumes that what he knows happens |to be all that one ever needs to know. |One of his claims is that all physicists in the world for the last 100 |years are "idiots". To prove this, he types in a small paragraph of 5-10 |lines or so. |As all other kooks on this NG, without exception (ever, meaning, since this |NG's inception in the 1990s) he never answered any simple technical test |question. When proved wrong, he yells obscenities. Anton, you'll find out soon that does not provide any arguments. He just makes silly claims, never offering any support for them beyond vague references to "metric" and "lspacetime", none of it is ever defined. "metric" and "spacetime" seem to be something he studied once and now, in the standard crank fashion, he simply assumes that what he knows happens to be all that one ever needs to know. One of his claims is that anyone who criticize him is stupid. To prove this, he types in a small paragraph of 5-10 lines or so. As all other kooks on this NG, without exception (ever, meaning, since this NG's inception in the 1990s) he never answered any simple technical test question. When proved wrong, he screams "irrfelevant".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 16:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba4b58f8-3898-4788-8c98-c5420622203c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384864 |
On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 12:49:59 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:8753aab0-484b-4e21-85f2-e590b33d1e4a@googlegroups.com... > > |Anton, you'll find out soon that Maciej does not provide any arguments. > |He just makes silly claims, never offering any support for them beyond > |vague references to "models" and "language", none of it is ever defined. > |"Models" and "language" seem to be something he studied once and now, > |in the standard crank fashion, he simply assumes that what he knows happens > |to be all that one ever needs to know. > > |One of his claims is that all physicists in the world for the last 100 > |years are "idiots". To prove this, he types in a small paragraph of 5-10 > |lines or so. > > |As all other kooks on this NG, without exception (ever, meaning, since this > |NG's inception in the 1990s) he never answered any simple technical test > |question. When proved wrong, he yells obscenities. > > > Anton, you'll find out soon that does not provide any arguments. > He just makes silly claims, never offering any support for them beyond > vague references to "metric" and "lspacetime", none of it is ever defined. Unfortunately, it's very easy for me to prove you a liar. Next time be careful. Also, it would boost your standing here if you stopped copying the words I write, and composed instead something original. As far as me "never offering any support" for my arguments, here is a sample I posted on this NG within last year or so: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRQ2ctaXA4aTVId28 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRM1JOWkNkOTR2aW8 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRR1Vsa2VockNFdEE https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRenpBdmlFUVVpY3c https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRRl9OdVk2Y1R1NjQ https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2N1X7SgQnLRV1otWnE2T2F6aEk ...not to mention standard ASCII posts. > "metric" and "spacetime" seem to be something he studied once and now, > in the standard crank fashion, he simply assumes that what he knows happens > to be all that one ever needs to know. The difference between us is that I post about relativity and I studied it. You OTOH post negative, invective-laden comments about relativity without having studied it (the reason I know this is because you cannot answer simple technical questions). > One of his claims is that anyone who criticize him is stupid. > To prove this, he types in a small paragraph of 5-10 > lines or so. Again, you are merely copying my words. And I'm simply calling stupid a person like you, because: (1) you don't know the subject you criticise, (2) you use infantile manner of expressing yourself. > As all other kooks on this NG, without exception (ever, meaning, since this > NG's inception in the 1990s) he never answered any simple technical test > question. When proved wrong, he screams "irrfelevant". Again, copying my words verbatim. I find it flattering but what you have to say about relativity remains irrelevant and mostly gobbledygook simply because you don't understand it. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 23:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e71eb406-3655-4ada-b877-15c739cc7698@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384878 |
W dniu piątek, 3 czerwca 2016 01:39:48 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 12:49:59 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:8753aab0-484b-4e21-85f2-e590b33d1e4a@googlegroups.com... > > > > |Anton, you'll find out soon that Maciej does not provide any arguments. > > |He just makes silly claims, never offering any support for them beyond > > |vague references to "models" and "language", none of it is ever defined. > > |"Models" and "language" seem to be something he studied once and now, > > |in the standard crank fashion, he simply assumes that what he knows happens > > |to be all that one ever needs to know. > > > > |One of his claims is that all physicists in the world for the last 100 > > |years are "idiots". To prove this, he types in a small paragraph of 5-10 > > |lines or so. > > > > |As all other kooks on this NG, without exception (ever, meaning, since this > > |NG's inception in the 1990s) he never answered any simple technical test > > |question. When proved wrong, he yells obscenities. > > > > > > Anton, you'll find out soon that does not provide any arguments. > > He just makes silly claims, never offering any support for them beyond > > vague references to "metric" and "lspacetime", none of it is ever defined. > > Unfortunately, it's very easy for me to prove you a liar. Next time be > careful. Unfortunately, it's samely easy to me to prove you're a liar. I've done it already many times. > The difference between us is that I post about relativity and I studied it. No, the difference is not here - I also studied post about it and studied it. Difference is in many points, for instance, I post about models and I studied them, and you post about them knowing nothing. > You OTOH post negative, invective-laden comments about relativity without > having studied it (the reason I know this is because you cannot answer > simple technical questions). Unfortunately, your moronic deliberations whether imagined ants can cross an imagined singularity or not have nothing in common with technic. Technical question, poor idiot, is, for instance: let's take two real events, like batle of Waterloo and battlee of Gaugamela. How are you going to measure your moronic interval between them? Of course, you can't answer this simple technical question, can you? And I'm simply calling stupid > a person like you, because: > > (1) you don't know the subject you criticise, > (2) you use infantile manner of expressing yourself. And I'm simply calling you poor idiot, because: (1)you don't know the subject you criticise, (2)you use pthetic, puffed manner of expressing yourself And for about hundred other reasons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4dd86194-b91b-4a98-a26f-dab1a7f96642@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384885 |
On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 11:33:04 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 3 czerwca 2016 01:39:48 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 12:49:59 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:8753aab0-484b-4e21-85f2-e590b33d1e4a@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > |Anton, you'll find out soon that Maciej does not provide any arguments. > > > |He just makes silly claims, never offering any support for them beyond > > > |vague references to "models" and "language", none of it is ever defined. > > > |"Models" and "language" seem to be something he studied once and now, > > > |in the standard crank fashion, he simply assumes that what he knows happens > > > |to be all that one ever needs to know. > > > > > > |One of his claims is that all physicists in the world for the last 100 > > > |years are "idiots". To prove this, he types in a small paragraph of 5-10 > > > |lines or so. > > > > > > |As all other kooks on this NG, without exception (ever, meaning, since this > > > |NG's inception in the 1990s) he never answered any simple technical test > > > |question. When proved wrong, he yells obscenities. > > > > > > > > > Anton, you'll find out soon that does not provide any arguments. > > > He just makes silly claims, never offering any support for them beyond > > > vague references to "metric" and "lspacetime", none of it is ever defined. > > > > Unfortunately, it's very easy for me to prove you a liar. Next time be > > careful. > > Unfortunately, it's samely easy to me to prove you're a liar. > I've done it already many times. As everything you write, it's just a string of words with nothing backing it up. I posted the proof of my claim. > > The difference between us is that I post about relativity and I studied it. > > No, the difference is not here - I also studied post about it and > studied it. Again, just talk. You cannot answer simple questions e.g. regarding 2D surface curvature, yet you post relativity "criticisms" full of expletives. As always, no justifications for any of it. > Difference is in many points, for instance, I post about models > and I studied them, and you post about them knowing nothing. That's all you ever said on that subject: "I studied models". One could equally well say "I studied logic" or "I studied Finnish". You have to post an actual argument using those "models" of yours. > > You OTOH post negative, invective-laden comments about relativity without > > having studied it (the reason I know this is because you cannot answer > > simple technical questions). > > Unfortunately, your moronic deliberations whether > imagined ants can cross an imagined singularity or > not have nothing in common with technic. This is a ludicrous statement. I'll remind the readers what triggered Maciej's amazing remark: I once asked a question (a simple technical question for another reader) which basically amounted to: is a certain surface equal to the entire xy-plane OR is it the xy-plane with the y-axis removed? And I added: in other words, could a 2D ant in that surface walk from the point (1,0) to (-1,0)? > Technical question, poor idiot, is, for instance: > let's take two real events, like batle of Waterloo > and battlee of Gaugamela. How are you going to measure > your moronic interval between them? > Of course, you can't answer this simple technical > question, can you? Irrelevant. We are talking about your ignorance of a subject you write diatribes against. > And I'm simply calling stupid > > a person like you, because: > > > > (1) you don't know the subject you criticise, > > (2) you use infantile manner of expressing yourself. > > And I'm simply calling you poor idiot, because: > (1)you don't know the subject you criticise, Again, a string of words with no meaning. I've just posted some links proving the opposite. > (2)you use pthetic, puffed manner of expressing > yourself > And for about hundred other reasons. I'm only "puffed" the same way Bach would be "puffed" when talking about music. (Calm down, I'm not comparing myself to Bach, it's just an analogy. The point is I'm simply stating some facts and I am unfortunately powerless to change the impression such statements create in your feeble mind, namely that I'm trying to sound "puffed".) I'm done with this thread as it's again reduced to my providing evidence, and you immediately going on about as if it never existed. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 18:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nisaq1$43p$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #384902 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:4dd86194-b91b-4a98-a26f-dab1a7f96642@googlegroups.com... > > Unfortunately, it's samely easy to me to prove you're a liar. > I've done it already many times. |As everything you write, it's just a string of words with nothing backing it up. In opposition of everything you write, which is string of WORDS!!! Backed up with screams "not even wtong!!!" and "irrelevant!!!" > > The difference between us is that I post about relativity and I studied > > it. > > No, the difference is not here - I also studied post about it and > studied it. |Again, just talk. You cannot answer simple questions e.g. regarding 2D surface curvature, |yet you post relativity "criticisms" full of expletives. As always, no justifications for any of it. Irrelevant. It's just a string of words. You cannot answer simple question e.g. regarding measurement of your moronic interval, yet you post peans for your moronic Shit, full of expletives. As always, no justifications for any of it. > > You OTOH post negative, invective-laden comments about relativity > > without > > having studied it (the reason I know this is because you cannot answer > > simple technical questions). > > Unfortunately, your moronic deliberations whether > imagined ants can cross an imagined singularity or > not have nothing in common with technic. |This is a ludicrous statement. I'll remind the readers what triggered Maciej's amazing remark: |I once asked a question Irrelevant. We are talking about your ignorance of a subject you write peans for. > (2)you use pthetic, puffed manner of expressing > yourself > And for about hundred other reasons. |I'm only "puffed" the same way Bach would be "puffed" when talking about music. Again, a string of words with no meaning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 05:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <afcb2de6-612a-4624-b9d4-0878a6caf9d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384538 |
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has two closely related aspects: 1. Any light travelling in a vacuum has the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second, as measured by any observer. 2. If the observer were to hurry towards the light source (his speed changes), he would again measure the same speed of the incoming light, c = 299,792 kilometers per second. As I have already shown in my previous posting, the first aspect has been disproved by experiments. Below the Albert Einstein Institute inadvertently refutes the second aspect by showing that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer (receiver): http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver) http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [end of quotation] Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver (which has started moving towards the light source) is greater than their speed relative to the source. The second aspect is false. Actually any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect disproves, explicitly or implicitly, the second aspect - the speed of light relative to the observer does vary with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE "Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0Q6-xt-Xs "Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php "vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html "Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ." Pentcho Valev
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 00:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <beec924b-7985-4eac-ba0f-a48e0f44fab6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384600 |
Clever Einsteinians resort to downright doublethink when they have to explain why Einstein stated that the speed of light was independent of the speed of the observer (perhaps the most idiotic statement in the history of science). According to John Norton, Einstein saw the reason for the stated independence in Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. On the other hand, the same John Norton teaches that Maxwell's electromagnetic theory had predicted that the speed of light did depend on the speed of the observer: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_principles/index.html John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow down relative to us if we chase after it. The light postulate says no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of the light signal, that observer will always find the light signal to be traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for Einstein's acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of the ripple was a quite definite number: c." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer." Einstein knew that "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer" was an idiotic statement: http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." Actually everybody knows that the statement "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer" is idiotic but physics students undergo brainwashing and then the statement becomes absolute truth for them: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morely experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding." Pentcho Valev
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 05:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <f8a7e8d0-d668-460a-88c8-552ce9e3aefe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384631 |
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:41:48 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote: > > Clever Einsteinians resort to downright doublethink when they have to > explain why Einstein stated that the speed of light was independent of > the speed of the observer (perhaps the most idiotic statement in the > history of science). Actually, claiming light speed changes with the speed of the source/observer when REAL MEASUREMENTS demonstrate that it doesn't is the most idiotic thing in the history of the world. > According to John Norton, Einstein saw the reason for the stated > independence in Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. Not only Norton, but Einstein himself in the first paragraph of his paper: "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." and in the second paragraph: "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest." > On the other hand, the same John Norton teaches that Maxwell's > electromagnetic theory had predicted that the speed of light did depend > on the speed of the observer: > > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_principles/index.html > John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a little > harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow down relative > to us if we chase after it. The light postulate says no. No matter how fast > an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of the light signal, that > observer will always find the light signal to be traveling at the same > speed, c. The principal reason for Einstein's acceptance of the light > postulate was his lengthy study of electrodynamics, the theory of electric > and magnetic fields. The theory was the most advanced physics of the time. > Some 50 years before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple > propagating in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that > the speed of the ripple was a quite definite number: c." > > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf > John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen > in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer." Pentcho takes his "proofs" out of context -- again! Norton was referring to an ETHER-based Maxwell's theory. > Einstein knew that "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the > observer" was an idiotic statement: > > http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm > John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the > speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if > that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that > he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point > of despair." "seems to be nonsense" does not equal "nonsense" -- the only nonsense here is coming from Pentcho's nonsensical mind. > Actually everybody knows that the statement "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer" is idiotic Everybody? Actually, only kooks like Pentcho keep insisting on this bizarre baloney that is refuted by all valid experiments. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 06:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <65116dc4-86b5-43da-8d73-77f19d551983@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384643 |
W dniu wtorek, 31 maja 2016 14:17:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > Actually, claiming light speed changes with the speed of the source/observer > when REAL MEASUREMENTS demonstrate that it doesn't is the most idiotic > thing in the history of the world. Real measurements imagined by relativistic moron, only. Real measurement made for real prove, that time at GPS (as defined by your poor idiot guru) is galilean with the precision of an acceptable error, and the idiocy above can't survive it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web