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

Groups > sci.physics > #581530 > unrolled thread

Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#581530 — Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics

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] | [next] | [standalone]

#581539

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]

#581541

I'll go one step further...

all of my posts are... irrefutable.

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

#582176

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]

#582180

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]

#582185

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]

#582197

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]

#582200

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]

#582201

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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web