Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408527 > unrolled thread

MMX violates the second postulate

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:57 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:06 +1100
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 00:11 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:14 +1100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 01:13 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:53 +0100
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:39 -0600
              Re: MMX violates the second postulate Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-11 23:37 +0100
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 01:53 -0800
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 11:22 +0100
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 11:48 +0100
                    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 16:30 -0800
                      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:49 +0100
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-12 23:25 -0800
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-13 12:58 +0000
                      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:52 +0100
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 00:18 -0800
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-13 04:03 -0800
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-12 08:45 -0600
                    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 16:14 -0800
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 08:19 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:09 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:19 +0100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:31 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:27 +0100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:36 +1100
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:49 +0100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 01:16 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:58 +0100
              Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 02:13 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 21:38 +1100
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:13 +0100
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:30 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:32 +1100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:41 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 20:00 +1100
              Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 01:13 -0800
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 21:39 +1100
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 03:09 -0800
                    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 22:25 +1100
                      Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 03:57 -0800
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 23:53 +1100
                          Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 05:38 -0800
                            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-10 10:52 +1100
                              Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 23:29 -0800
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:17 -0500
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-11 10:20 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:09 +0100
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:37 -0600
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 08:16 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:07 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:11 -0800
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 01:46 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#409065

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:53:52 AM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> Why do you think it is acceptable that MMX should be considered a valid experiment by SR considering that Michelson's c+v adds up to 300030000m/sec. Einstein was very clear in his addition of velocities hypothesis that this is not possible and the max is 300000000m/sec.

Because the theory of MMX has been switched to SR after Einstein published OEMB, cretin. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408592

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 1:13:49 AM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:14:56 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 9/02/2017 7:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:06:37 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >> On 9/02/2017 6:57 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >>> MMX violates the second postulate
> > >>>
> > >>> According to Michelson the speed of light depends on the motion of
> > >>> the target. If light is sent in the direction of motion the speed is
> > >>> c-v, if against the direction of motion it is c+v and only if sent
> > >>> perpendicular to the motion it is c.
> > >>
> > >> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
> > >> science works. The results he actually got were consistent with the
> > >> postulate.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Einstein's 2nd postulate declares the speed of light is constant at
> > >>> 300000000m/sec. Michelson's c+v at 3000030000m/sec violates this
> > >>> postulate and MMX does not fit into the agenda of SR.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> What I cannot fathom is what kind of defect of reasoning leads you to
> > >> keep posting this stuff.
> > >>
> > >> Sylvia.
> > >
> > > c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max. Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking.
> > >
> > 
> > But not one's ever detected c+v. Yes, the way people thought light would 
> > behave would have violated the requirement that light travel at a 
> > constant velocity, but that requirement wasn't known then. It turned out 
> > that they were mistaken about the behaviour of light.
> > 
> > Why do you have a problem with this?
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> No problem with this. But when Einstein said the max speed of light is 300000000m/sec MMX should have been disowned. 

Cretin,

The theoretical foundation of MMX has been contradicted, not the experiment itself. Imbecile.



>Instead SR accepted it as a valid experiment even though it violated his cherished maxim.

Imbecile,

An experiment cannot and does not "violate" a postulate. What you need to accept is that YOU are a cretin. This is  a provable fact. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408534

Dne 09/02/2017 v 09:11 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

> c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max. Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking.

300000000m/sec is breaking the law.

Ideas can routinely break any law of nature.
It does not mean experiments will follow them.

Thinking the lack of knowledge and understanding of physics and math
leads you to superior conclusions is not even breathtaking.
It is rather a symptom.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408538

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:19:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
 
> Thinking the lack of knowledge and understanding of physics and math

Speaking about math - it's always good to remind that
your idiot guru has rejected its oldest, very important
part on his mad crusade against common sense prejudices.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408536

Dne 09/02/2017 v 09:11 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> 
> c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max. Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking.
> 
c + v leads to c via v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1.v2/c^2 )

When an electron approaching you at v = 0.9999 c
emits photon toward you,
the photon does not approach you at 1.9999 c, but just c.

When you approach the electron at v = 0.9999 c
and it emits a photon toward you,
the photon does not approach you at 1.9999 c, but just c.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408540

On 9/02/2017 7:27 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 09/02/2017 v 09:11 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>
>> c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max. Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking.
>>
> c + v leads to c via v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1.v2/c^2 )
>

Someone's bound to try to show that that leads to a contradiction by 
algebraic manipulation.

Best to talk about c combined with v, or c composed with v, leads to c.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408551

On 02/09/2017 09:36 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 9/02/2017 7:27 PM, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 09/02/2017 v 09:11 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>>
>>> c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max.
>>> Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking.
>>>
>> c + v leads to c via v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1.v2/c^2 )
>>
>
> Someone's bound to try to show that that leads to a contradiction by
> algebraic manipulation.
>
> Best to talk about c combined with v, or c composed with v, leads to c.

Sure.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408548

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:27:25 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 09/02/2017 v 09:11 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> > 
> > c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max. Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking.
> > 
> c + v leads to c via v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1.v2/c^2 )
> 
> When an electron approaching you at v = 0.9999 c
> emits photon toward you,
> the photon does not approach you at 1.9999 c, but just c.
> 
> When you approach the electron at v = 0.9999 c
> and it emits a photon toward you,
> the photon does not approach you at 1.9999 c, but just c.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> 
> A wise man guards words he says,
> as they say about him more,
> than he says about the subject.

According to Einstein Michelson's c+v equals 300000000m/sec and cannot be used to perform a valid experiment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408553

On 02/09/2017 10:16 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:27:25 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 09/02/2017 v 09:11 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>>
>>> c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max. Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking.
>>>
>> c + v leads to c via v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1.v2/c^2 )
>>
>> When an electron approaching you at v = 0.9999 c
>> emits photon toward you,
>> the photon does not approach you at 1.9999 c, but just c.
>>
>> When you approach the electron at v = 0.9999 c
>> and it emits a photon toward you,
>> the photon does not approach you at 1.9999 c, but just c.
>>

> According to Einstein Michelson's c+v equals 300000000m/sec and cannot be used to perform a valid experiment.

You may think so while you do not understand SR yet.

The huge evidence set since 1887 disagrees with your conclusions.

As it is experimentally confirmed velocities are not additive,
adding 2 velocities related to speeds c and v
produces a velocity related to speed c.

BTW, if you do not want to use c,
then stop using a wrong c value.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408555

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 10:58:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> As it is experimentally confirmed velocities are not additive,

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.
It's nothing but your imagination.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408557

On 9/02/2017 8:16 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:27:25 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 09/02/2017 v 09:11 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>>
>>> c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max. Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking.
>>>
>> c + v leads to c via v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1.v2/c^2 )
>>
>> When an electron approaching you at v = 0.9999 c
>> emits photon toward you,
>> the photon does not approach you at 1.9999 c, but just c.
>>
>> When you approach the electron at v = 0.9999 c
>> and it emits a photon toward you,
>> the photon does not approach you at 1.9999 c, but just c.
>>
>> --
>> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
>>
>> A wise man guards words he says,
>> as they say about him more,
>> than he says about the subject.
>
> According to Einstein Michelson's c+v equals 300000000m/sec and cannot be used to perform a valid experiment.
>

One can construct an apparatus, and examine its behaviour.

Whatever the motivation for building an apparatus, once it is built, it 
exists, and will do something, whether that something is what its 
builder expected of it, or not.

In the case of Michelson–Morley, that apparatus created observable 
fringes, which did not move even when the apparatus was rotated, and 
regardless of the position of the apparatus in space as the Earth moved 
in its orbit.

A theory is required that describes that behaviour, and relativity does 
it very well.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408532

Dne 09/02/2017 v 09:06 Sylvia Else napsal(a):

> What I cannot fathom is what kind of defect of reasoning leads you to
> keep posting this stuff.
> 

I afraid, the defects in his reasoning are subject independent.

He has troubles to get right
even such a simple topic like levers and pulleys,
mechanical machines from ancient era.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408537

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:06:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
 
> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how 
> science works. 

No, lady; I'm afraid You're totally incompetent
in the subject "how science works".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408539

On 9/02/2017 7:30 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:06:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>
>> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
>> science works.
>
> No, lady; I'm afraid You're totally incompetent
> in the subject "how science works".
>

How do you think science works?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408541

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:32:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 9/02/2017 7:30 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:06:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> >
> >> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
> >> science works.
> >
> > No, lady; I'm afraid You're totally incompetent
> > in the subject "how science works".
> >
> 
> How do you think science works?

It's a big, complicated subject. Much bigger and much more
complicated than any subject Your physics ever dealt with.
It's appropriately difficult, full of traps, and totally 
nonmathematical.
It's not for You.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408542

On 9/02/2017 7:41 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:32:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>> On 9/02/2017 7:30 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:06:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>>>
>>>> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
>>>> science works.
>>>
>>> No, lady; I'm afraid You're totally incompetent
>>> in the subject "how science works".
>>>
>>
>> How do you think science works?
>
> It's a big, complicated subject. Much bigger and much more
> complicated than any subject Your physics ever dealt with.
> It's appropriately difficult, full of traps, and totally
> nonmathematical.
> It's not for You.
>

So, as I thought, you don't actually know.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408545

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 10:00:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 9/02/2017 7:41 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:32:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> >> On 9/02/2017 7:30 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:06:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> >>>
> >>>> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
> >>>> science works.
> >>>
> >>> No, lady; I'm afraid You're totally incompetent
> >>> in the subject "how science works".
> >>>
> >>
> >> How do you think science works?
> >
> > It's a big, complicated subject. Much bigger and much more
> > complicated than any subject Your physics ever dealt with.
> > It's appropriately difficult, full of traps, and totally
> > nonmathematical.
> > It's not for You.
> >
> 
> So, as I thought, you don't actually know.

:)
Lady, You've studied physics. You specialize in muons, light,
electromagnetism, this sort of things.
I've studied computer science. I've studied, how information
works. 
You have no basics. Really and simply. But, of course, You're 
free to  believe  You're the wisest and the smartest (just 
after Your  high gurus, of course).  After all, arrogance of 
those like You  is an important part of  - how science REALLY 
works.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408558

On 9/02/2017 8:13 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 10:00:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>> On 9/02/2017 7:41 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:32:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>>>> On 9/02/2017 7:30 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:06:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
>>>>>> science works.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, lady; I'm afraid You're totally incompetent
>>>>> in the subject "how science works".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you think science works?
>>>
>>> It's a big, complicated subject. Much bigger and much more
>>> complicated than any subject Your physics ever dealt with.
>>> It's appropriately difficult, full of traps, and totally
>>> nonmathematical.
>>> It's not for You.
>>>
>>
>> So, as I thought, you don't actually know.
>
> :)
> Lady, You've studied physics. You specialize in muons, light,
> electromagnetism, this sort of things.
> I've studied computer science. I've studied, how information
> works.
> You have no basics. Really and simply. But, of course, You're
> free to  believe  You're the wisest and the smartest (just
> after Your  high gurus, of course).  After all, arrogance of
> those like You  is an important part of  - how science REALLY
> works.
>

Ah, so studying computer science gives one an insight into how physics 
works, does it?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408559

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 11:39:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 9/02/2017 8:13 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 10:00:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> >> On 9/02/2017 7:41 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:32:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> >>>> On 9/02/2017 7:30 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:06:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
> >>>>>> science works.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, lady; I'm afraid You're totally incompetent
> >>>>> in the subject "how science works".
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> How do you think science works?
> >>>
> >>> It's a big, complicated subject. Much bigger and much more
> >>> complicated than any subject Your physics ever dealt with.
> >>> It's appropriately difficult, full of traps, and totally
> >>> nonmathematical.
> >>> It's not for You.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So, as I thought, you don't actually know.
> >
> > :)
> > Lady, You've studied physics. You specialize in muons, light,
> > electromagnetism, this sort of things.
> > I've studied computer science. I've studied, how information
> > works.
> > You have no basics. Really and simply. But, of course, You're
> > free to  believe  You're the wisest and the smartest (just
> > after Your  high gurus, of course).  After all, arrogance of
> > those like You  is an important part of  - how science REALLY
> > works.
> >
> 
> Ah, so studying computer science gives one an insight into how physics 
> works, does it?

Yes. You know, physics is a special case of information,
and a physicist's brain is a special case of hardware.

You're free to believe, however, that physics is a
kind of magical art and simply can't be a special case 
of anything, and the way brain interacts with it can
be only comprehendable after years of studying the 
metric of black holes. 
Why not? People believed stranger things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408561

On 9/02/2017 10:09 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 11:39:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>> On 9/02/2017 8:13 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 10:00:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>>>> On 9/02/2017 7:41 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:32:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>>>>>> On 9/02/2017 7:30 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:06:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
>>>>>>>> science works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, lady; I'm afraid You're totally incompetent
>>>>>>> in the subject "how science works".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you think science works?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a big, complicated subject. Much bigger and much more
>>>>> complicated than any subject Your physics ever dealt with.
>>>>> It's appropriately difficult, full of traps, and totally
>>>>> nonmathematical.
>>>>> It's not for You.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, as I thought, you don't actually know.
>>>
>>> :)
>>> Lady, You've studied physics. You specialize in muons, light,
>>> electromagnetism, this sort of things.
>>> I've studied computer science. I've studied, how information
>>> works.
>>> You have no basics. Really and simply. But, of course, You're
>>> free to  believe  You're the wisest and the smartest (just
>>> after Your  high gurus, of course).  After all, arrogance of
>>> those like You  is an important part of  - how science REALLY
>>> works.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, so studying computer science gives one an insight into how physics
>> works, does it?
>
> Yes. You know, physics is a special case of information,
> and a physicist's brain is a special case of hardware.

Well, that's fortunate, because physics is an interest of mine, but my 
profession is that of software engineer, and I hold a degree in Computer 
Science from Manchester University, UK.

Now that that's established, what were you saying about my 
qualifications to say how science is done?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web