EINSTEINIANA, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, HONESTY
Pentcho Valev
and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory
since its passage has not been captured within modern physical
theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact
that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that
the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a
real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us.
How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is
that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion,
an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the
world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a
lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of
Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully
powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most
perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-
dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other
processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd
sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns
out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are
differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow
captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage
of time."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion
Craig Callender in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Einstein mounted the next
assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity.
According to his special theory of relativity, what events are
happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true
arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two
observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an
event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time
are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who
had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared,
"are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse
in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity, which extends
special relativity to situations where the force of gravity operates.
Gravity distorts time, so that a second's passage here may not mean
the same thing as a second's passage there. Only in rare cases is it
possible to synchronize clocks and have them stay synchronized, even
in principle. You cannot generally think of the world as unfolding,
tick by tick, according to a single time parameter. In extreme
situations, the world might not be carvable into instants of time at
all. It then becomes impossible to say that an event happened before
or after another."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Peter Webb
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8eb54838-a500-4775...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John Norton
> and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
> postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
> could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
> step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?
>
I'm guessing, but I would assume its because they believe the light
postulate to be true.
Which makes me wonder why you are quoting them when you are trying to
establish the exact opposite.
Androcles
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c737daf$0$25358$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
with his Principle of Idiocy.
He said "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".
Einstein's three principles are
1) (Principle of Relativity) or relative motion
2) (Principle of Aether) or light speed relative to "empty space"
3) (Principle of Idiocy) or dickering with time.
Nobody can make all three work together, and only the first one is valid.
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
been found which were contradictory to this principle." -- Einstein. Of
course he doesn't say who these "prominent theoretical physicists" are, he
was lying bastard as well as a bombastic self-serving idiot.
Why are you guessing, Webb?
xxein
xxein: They are still in a cloud. They both don't get it.
Don't start believing what you want to believe. Look for the
objective reality instead of the subjectiveness of the observations
measured by us.
artful
wrote:
> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:4c737daf$0$25358$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> |
> | "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> |news:8eb54838-a500-4775...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> | > Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John Norton
> | > and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
> | > postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
> | > could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
> | > step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?
> | >
> |
> | I'm guessing, but I would assume its because they believe the light
> | postulate to be true.
> |
> | Which makes me wonder why you are quoting them when you are trying to
> | establish the exact opposite.
> |
> Einstein established the light postulate was false immediately after working
> with his Principle of Idiocy.
WRONG .. it has never been proven wrong
> He said "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
> measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".
That's correct and what SR says .. separation velocity.
> Einstein's three principles are
> 1) (Principle of Relativity) or relative motion
> 2) (Principle of Aether) or light speed relative to "empty space"
WRONG .. No aether involved. You are lying by calling it that.
> 3) (Principle of Idiocy) or dickering with time.
Only idiot is you.
> Nobody can make all three work together,
No .. you mean everyone BUT YOU can make all three work together.
You're just bitter because you're such a moron that you can't
understand even basic math and physics. What a sad pathetic little
clown you are.
Pentcho Valev
that the version of the second law of thermodynamics popularly known
as "Entropy always increases", the version that holds, according to
Arthur Eddington, "the suppreme position among the laws of Nature", is
"actually a RED HERRING":
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
JOS UFFINK: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."
What was the world's reaction? There was no reaction at all. Uffink
himself abandoned the issue and is now making less dramatic statements
about laws holding no suppreme position.
This could be regarded as a symptom of a postscientific reality where
a new form of realism has established itself. Realism's classical
question:
Is the theory, law, axiom true?
has imperceptibly become irrelevant. The new realism rhetorically
asks:
Who cares if the theory, law, axiom is true?
and leaves it at that. So philosophers of science (theoreticians in
general) are encouraged to claim anything - the more "heretical" the
claim, the better for one's career (this of course does not mean that
the persecution of true heretics has abated):
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of
Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary
paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed
since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity,
and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys
relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and
physics. There is no other book like this available; hence
philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its
publication."
"UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS
EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE
QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this
picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
uniquely decomposable into space and time."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John Norton
and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
Androcles
"artful" <artf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b4d4c37a-0ddb-4329...@i4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 25, 12:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
wrote:
> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:4c737daf$0$25358$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> |
> | "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> |news:8eb54838-a500-4775...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> | > Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John Norton
> | > and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
> | > postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
> | > could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
> | > step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?
> | >
> |
> | I'm guessing, but I would assume its because they believe the light
> | postulate to be true.
> |
> | Which makes me wonder why you are quoting them when you are trying to
> | establish the exact opposite.
> |
> Einstein established the light postulate was false immediately after
> working
> with his Principle of Idiocy.
WRONG .. it has never been proven wrong
================================
Fuck off, fartful.
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
news:ZvQco.2153$r24.1725@hurricane...
I'm "guessing" because you haven't answered my question, so I have to guess.
Are there any experimental predictions of SR with which you disagree, or do
you believe all the experimental predictions of SR?
As you haven't answered with any experimental predictions of SR with which
you disagree, I am *guessing" that you must agree with all of them.
If you don't, which experimental predictions of SR do you disagree with?
Androcles
Guess away, the answer was given.
|
| Are there any experimental predictions of SR with which you disagree, or
do
| you believe all the experimental predictions of SR?
Yes.
|
| As you haven't answered with any experimental predictions of SR with which
| you disagree, I am *guessing" that you must agree with all of them.
You lying bastard.
| If you don't, which experimental predictions of SR do you disagree with?
Put your head up your arse so as not to read this:
The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would report.
Ok, now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
Martin Brown
>
> "Peter Webb"<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4c74cd1a$0$3035$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
> Put your head up your arse so as not to read this:
> The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would report.
> Ok, now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
Oh dear. The demented Androcles has escaped my killfile somehow :(
Still as foul mouthed as ever I see.
It is worth pointing out that in proximity to the gravitational field of
a gas giant like Saturn the Cassini probe signal propagation times need
to use both SR and GR corrections to get the right answer.
This does *not* invalidate SR in any way. It merely shows that SR is
insufficient for this particular problem. The Cassini probe has been
used for some sensitive tests of GR as reported in the literature.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Androcles
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Cs5do.12580$yr6....@newsfe05.iad...
| On 25/08/2010 09:20, Androcles wrote:
| >
| > "Peter Webb"<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:4c74cd1a$0$3035$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| >
| > | If you don't, which experimental predictions of SR do you disagree
with?
| >
| > Put your head up your arse so as not to read this:
| > The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
report.
| > Ok, now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
|
| Oh dear. The demented Androcles has escaped my killfile somehow :(
| Still as foul mouthed as ever I see.
Oh dear, I cleaned out my killfile and forgot to put bigot Brown back in it.
Never mind.
*plonk*
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
So, given that Cassini agrees with the predictions of Relativity, are there
any experimental predictions of Relativity with which you disagree, or are
you in 100% agreement with Relativity's experimental predictions?
Androcles
No, I don't go in for prophecies.
So, given that Cassini fully agrees with Newtonian Mechanics, are
you 100% in agreement with Newtonian Mechanics?
Martin Brown
You cannot educate Androcles. Comparison with two short planks would be
insulting to the planks. He should stick to feline podiatry.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
You have not provided a link which substantiates this "fact".
I, on the other hand, have provided links which state the exact opposite,
that the measurements from Cassini are totally consistent with the
predictions of Relativity.
So unless you can provide some evidence this "fact" of yours is true ...
>
Androcles
So, do you deny that Cassini fully agrees with Newtonian Mechanics,
or are you 100% in agreement with Newtonian Mechanics?
Peter Webb
> | > |
> | > | So, given that Cassini agrees with the predictions of Relativity,
> are
> | > there
> | > | any experimental predictions of Relativity with which you disagree,
> or
> | > are
> | > | you in 100% agreement with Relativity's experimental predictions?
> | >
> | > No, I don't go in for prophecies.
> | > So, given that Cassini fully agrees with Newtonian Mechanics, are
> | > you 100% in agreement with Newtonian Mechanics?
> | So unless you can provide some evidence this "fact" of yours is true ...
>
> So, do you deny that Cassini fully agrees with Newtonian Mechanics,
> or are you 100% in agreement with Newtonian Mechanics?
>
If by "Cassini" you mean the experiments conducted (2003 ?) that further
confirmed the predictions of General Relativity, the answer is "I deny that
Cassini fully agrees with Newtonian Mechanics". That it agrees with the
predictions of GR and not Newtonian dynamics has been widely reported.
BTW, are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with which you
disagree, or are you incomplete agreement with all its experimental
predictions?
Androcles
|
| > | > |
| > | > | So, given that Cassini agrees with the predictions of Relativity,
| > are
| > | > there
| > | > | any experimental predictions of Relativity with which you
disagree,
| > or
| > | > are
| > | > | you in 100% agreement with Relativity's experimental predictions?
| > | >
| > | > No, I don't go in for prophecies.
| > | > So, given that Cassini fully agrees with Newtonian Mechanics, are
| > | > you 100% in agreement with Newtonian Mechanics?
| > | So unless you can provide some evidence this "fact" of yours is true
...
| >
| > So, do you deny that Cassini fully agrees with Newtonian Mechanics,
| > or are you 100% in agreement with Newtonian Mechanics?
| >
|
| If by "Cassini" you mean the experiments conducted (2003 ?) that further
| confirmed the predictions of General Relativity, the answer is "I deny
that
| Cassini fully agrees with Newtonian Mechanics". That it agrees with the
| predictions of GR and not Newtonian dynamics has been widely reported.
What is the difference that you detected?
|
| BTW, are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with which you
| disagree, or are you incomplete agreement with all its experimental
| predictions?
If by "experimental predictions" you mean the experiments conducted
in 1886 that further confirmed Newtonian dynamics, the answer is "I deny
that MMX fully agrees with your weird mysticism. That it agrees with the
predictions of Newtonian dynamics has not been widely reported beyond
the first line of this paper:
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
Here is a similar experiment repeated in 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Here is a similar experiment repeated in 1933:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1935CMWCI.522....1M/0000035.000.htmlBTW, are there any experimental results of real physics with which youagree, or is your head fully shoved up your bigoted arse?
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
I didn't "detect" anything.
I have posted websites which point out that these experiments directly
confirm GR. You claim that they don't, but have posted no websites or links
in support of your position, and when I google the results of the Cassini
experiment all I get is hundreds of pages saying you are wrong.
How about you provide some evidence for your belief that Cassini disproved
GR, when every page I can find says the exact opposite?
>
> |
> | BTW, are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with which you
> | disagree, or are you incomplete agreement with all its experimental
> | predictions?
>
> If by "experimental predictions" you mean the experiments conducted
> in 1886
No. I mean any experimental prediction.
> that further confirmed Newtonian dynamics, the answer is "I deny
> that MMX fully agrees with your weird mysticism. That it agrees with the
> predictions of Newtonian dynamics has not been widely reported beyond
> the first line of this paper:
> http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
> Here is a similar experiment repeated in 2009:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
> Here is a similar experiment repeated in 1933:
> http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1935CMWCI.522....1M/0000035.000.htmlBTW,
> are there any experimental results of real physics with which youagree, or
> is your head fully shoved up your bigoted arse?
It is an experimental prediction of SR that the measured difference of the
speed of light across two perpendicular paths is independent of the inertial
frame in which the experiment is carried out.
Do you believe this experimental prediction of SR?
Pentcho Valev
"The barn and ladder paradox: Person A has a ladder too long to store
in his barn. Person B takes the ladder and runs very fast into the
barn. For A, who is at rest with respect to the ladder, the ladder
will contract, and if the velocity is fast enough, it will fit in the
barn. But to B, who is moving with the ladder, it is the barn that
will contract, making the problem even worse. So, who is correct? Does
the ladder fit in the barn? This problem was considered in the book
Introduction to Electrodynamics by David Griffiths, and the author,
who supports Relativity, claim that both are correct. The ladder both
fit and doesn't fit in the barn. This is obviously against elementary
rules of logic."
Elsewhere Einsteiniana's teachers describe the miracle (a direct
consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate) in more detail:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."
Old realism: Is it true that an arbitrarily long object can be trapped
inside an arbitrarily short container and will remain there "in a
compressed state"?
New realism: Who cares if an arbitrarily long object can be trapped
inside an arbitrarily short container and will remain there "in a
compressed state"?
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Androcles
| How about you provide some evidence for your belief that Cassini disproved
| GR, when every page I can find says the exact opposite?
You can't tell me what GR or SR predicts about Cassini and refuse to discuss
mathematics.
| > | > | > | > | Are there any experimental predictions of SR that you
| > disagree
| > | > with,
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Fuck the predictions, the experimental results are what
| > matters.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Send a signal to Cassini at Saturn and get an image back.
The
| > | > signal
| > | > | > time
| > | > | > | > there differs from the signal time back, in disagreement
with
| > SR
| > | > and
| > | > | > in
| > | > | > | > disagreement with LET.
| > | > | > | >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | That's not an experimental result.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Bullshit, signals are sent to and from Cassini all the time.
| > | > |
| > | > | Perhaps, but you don't use that fact, or any data from any
| > experiments.
| > | >
| > | > JPL uses it all the time and you don't know what a fact is.
| > |
| > | You don't use any of their experimental data.
| > |
| > | In fact, that web page doesn't include any experimental data at all.
| >
| > Of course it does.
|
| No it doesn't.
|
| If you believe it does, quote the bit which references the experimental
| data.
I will if you quote the bit where it agrees with Special Relativity.
Are there any experimental predictions of sheep herding with which ewe
disagree?
|
|
| > We establish by definition that Einstein got his knickers in a twist
when
| > he said "we establish by definition that the "time" required by a ray to
| > travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A"
| > and claimed
| > 1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] = tau(x',0,0, t+
| > x'/(c-v))
| > Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
| >
| > All you need do is plug in some numbers, using Earth for A and Saturn
for
| > B,
| > and calculate the times and the "time".
| > v is 0.0001c, the Earth approaches and recedes from Saturn at that
speed.
| > Time to Saturn = AB/1.0001c
| > Time back to Earth = BA/0.9999c
| > That's all the data you need.
| > Ask Cassini the time.
| >
|
| Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with which you
| disagree?
|
Yes.
Are there any experimental predictions of sheep herding with which ewe
disagree?
| >
| >
| > | > How far is it from Earth to Earth and how long does it take to get
| > there?
| > | > How far is it from Cassini to Cassini and how long does it take to
get
| > | > there?
| > | > How far is it from Mars to Mars and how long does it take to get
| > there?
| > | >
| > |
| > | Why are you asking me?
| >
| > Because you are the stupid cunt with your head up your arse, whinging
and
| > moaning about how right the stupid prick Einstein was when he wasn't.
Why
| > are you arguing with mathematics?
| >
| > | Who cares?
| >
| > You tell me, you are the stupid cunt arguing Einstein's case. Why don't
| > you
| > fuck off?
| >
|
| 1. You introduced the subject of the distance to Cassini. I couldn't see
the
| relevance. Stiil can't
Are there any experimental predictions of sheep herding with which ewe
disagree?
|
| 2. Dunno, I might. If there are no experimental predictions of SR with
which
| you disagree, I guess you accept its true.
Are there any experimental predictions of sheep herding with which ewe
disagree?
|
| > | Why don't you Google it?
| >
| > I can calculate it. You are too stupid to, so why don't YOU Google it,
you
| > fucking moron?
| >
|
| Because I am not interested in the distance to Cassini. It is a complete
| irrelevancy that you brought up, for no apparent reason whatsoever.
|
Speed of light is a prediction of sheep herding.
Are there any experimental predictions of sheep herding with which ewe
disagree?
Peter Webb
you disagree, or do you believe all its experimental predictions to be
correct?
Androcles
| Ummm ...
Err..
Pentcho Valev
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
OLD REALISM: Is it true that, initially, the Michelson-Morley
experiment confirmed the variability of the speed of light with the
speed of the emitter predicted by Newton's emission theory of light,
and refuted the invariability (Einstein's 1905 light postulate)?
NEW REALISM: Who cares if, initially, the Michelson-Morley experiment
confirmed the variability of the speed of light with the speed of the
emitter predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted
the invariability (Einstein's 1905 light postulate)? "Later writers"
changed the world so nowadays the Michelson-Morley experiment
gloriously confirms the invariability of the speed of light
(Einstein's 1905 light postulate) and refutes the variability of the
speed of light with the speed of the emitter predicted by Newton's
emission theory of light.
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
The question I asked - which you snipped - is:
"Ummm ... so are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with which
you disagree, or do you believe all its experimental predictions to be
correct?"
Its funny you won't answer this question.
Is it because you don't know what you believe?
Androcles
|
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
| news:CQudo.60176$Pa3.3690@hurricane...
| >
| > "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:4c767225$0$3033$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| > | Ummm ...
| >
| > Err..
| >
| >
|
| The question I asked - which you snipped - is:
|
| "Ummm ...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ummm
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
1.. Umm
2.. Emme
3.. um
4.. amu
5.. emu
6.. Yuma
7.. Om'
8.. yummy
9.. Umea
10.. Hume
11.. AMA
12.. ami
13.. amo
14.. emo
15.. IMO
16.. ammo
17.. Emmy
18.. homme
19.. AmE
20.. hum
The answer I gave - which you snipped - is:
Peter Webb
"Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with which
you disagree, or do you believe all its experimental predictions to be
correct?"
> The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
> report.
> Ok, now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
>
So you are saying that don't agree with experimental predictions of
Relativity regarding the frequency shift of its microwave transmissions due
to gravity?
But the experimental predictions of Relativity were confirmed as true by
that experiment, as about a million websites clearly state:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18268 and
http://www.universetoday.com/8919/cassini-confirms-general-relativity/ and
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/abs/nature01997.html and
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28947 and ....
Therefore, if you predicted something different to what Relativity does, you
were clearly wrong.
HTH
Martin Brown
Just use your killfile. You cannot hope to win with a Netkook.
Androcles is beyond all hope of ever understanding relativity.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Peter Webb
Huh?
I'm thrashing him. He's been reduced to spewing invective, which is the
green slime which comes out of slugs when they are dieing.
> Androcles is beyond all hope of ever understanding relativity.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
He believes if not understands. He's just a troll.
Androcles
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dieing
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
1.. deign
2.. dinge
3.. doing
4.. Deng
5.. ding
6.. diene
7.. dingo
8.. dingy
9.. edging
10.. dien
11.. dealing
12.. dengue
13.. deni
14.. dine
15.. dingle
16.. De Long
17.. edge in
18.. Deane
19.. tie in
20.. tie-in
An illiterate cretin such as you, Webb, hasn't any chance of thrashing me.
If you can't read and write simple English you certainly can't understand
algebra.
Androcles
| My question (which you snipped, again):
|
| "Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with which
| you disagree, or do you believe all its experimental predictions to be
| correct?"
|
|
| > The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
| > report.
| > Ok, now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
| >
|
| So you are saying that don't agree with experimental predictions of
| Relativity regarding the frequency shift of its microwave transmissions
due
| to gravity?
I am saying
The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
report. Now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
HTH, you illiterate imbecile.
|
| But the experimental predictions of Relativity were confirmed as true by
| that experiment, as about a million websites clearly state:
|
| http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18268 and
| http://www.universetoday.com/8919/cassini-confirms-general-relativity/ and
| http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/abs/nature01997.html and
| http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28947 and ....
|
| Therefore, if you predicted something different to what Relativity does,
you
| were clearly wrong.
|
| HTH.
Since relativity makes two contradictory prophecies, it will always be wrong
about one of them. But then, you don't have a clue what relativity
foretells.
Therefore, if you predicted something the same as relativity does, you
are clearly wrong and always will be, you stupid fuck.
HTH, you ignorant moron.
Androcles
| My question (which you snipped, again):
|
| "Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with which
| you disagree, or do you believe all its experimental predictions to be
| correct?"
|
|
| > The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
| > report.
| > Ok, now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
| >
|
| So you are saying that don't agree with experimental predictions of
| Relativity regarding the frequency shift of its microwave transmissions
due
| to gravity?
I am saying
The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
report. Now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
HTH, you illiterate imbecile.
|
| But the experimental predictions of Relativity were confirmed as true by
| that experiment, as about a million websites clearly state:
|
| http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18268 and
| http://www.universetoday.com/8919/cassini-confirms-general-relativity/ and
| http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/abs/nature01997.html and
| http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28947 and ....
|
| Therefore, if you predicted something different to what Relativity does,
you
| were clearly wrong.
|
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
>
> "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4c777a29$0$1903$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> | My question (which you snipped, again):
> |
> | "Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with which
> | you disagree, or do you believe all its experimental predictions to be
> | correct?"
> |
> |
> | > The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
> | > report.
> | > Ok, now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
> | >
> |
> | So you are saying that don't agree with experimental predictions of
> | Relativity regarding the frequency shift of its microwave transmissions
> due
> | to gravity?
>
> I am saying
> The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
> report. Now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
The time Cassini reports does not differ from the time predicted by
Relativity, as a million websites confirm.
So I guess you are just making things up?
Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity that you disagree with?
Or do you think that all its experimental predictions are correct?
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
>
> "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4c777a29$0$1903$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> | My question (which you snipped, again):
> |
> | "Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with which
> | you disagree, or do you believe all its experimental predictions to be
> | correct?"
> |
> |
> | > The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
> | > report.
> | > Ok, now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
> | >
> |
> | So you are saying that don't agree with experimental predictions of
> | Relativity regarding the frequency shift of its microwave transmissions
> due
> | to gravity?
>
> I am saying
> The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
> report. Now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
> HTH, you illiterate imbecile.
Do you agree with the experimental predictions of Relativity regarding the
frequency shift of the Cassini transmissions ?
Its a pretty simple question.
Androcles
|
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
| news:v3Odo.114623$NG7.80458@hurricane...
| >
| > "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:4c777a29$0$1903$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| > | My question (which you snipped, again):
| > |
| > | "Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with which
| > | you disagree, or do you believe all its experimental predictions to be
| > | correct?"
| > |
| > |
| > | > The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
| > | > report.
| > | > Ok, now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
| > | >
| > |
| > | So you are saying that don't agree with experimental predictions of
| > | Relativity regarding the frequency shift of its microwave
transmissions
| > due
| > | to gravity?
| >
| > I am saying
| > The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
| > report. Now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid fuck.
|
| The time Cassini reports does not differ from the time predicted by
| Relativity, as a million websites confirm.
|
| So I guess you are just making things up?
You are not only a fool for guessing, you are a fucking liar too.
|
| Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity that you disagree
with?
| Or do you think that all its experimental predictions are correct?
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/saturntourdates/saturntime/
"The first signal arrived at Earth one hour and 14 minutes later at 01:30
Ground UTC on Oct. 27."
Relativity predicts:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" --§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
"It seems that Light is propagated in time, spending in its passage from
the sun to us about seven Minutes of time:" -- DEFIN. II of Opticks Or,
A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of
Light - Sir Isaac Newton.
Newton was a little bit off in his accuracy, he relied on Ole Roemer's
evaluation of light's speed and that poor guy had a wrong estimate for
Jupiter's distance.
Are you playing the part, physically, of being fuckin' insane?
Or do you guess you are raving mad?
Hint: It was a rhetorical question, I don't need to guess.
Case closed.
Androcles
What does relativity predict the frequency shift of the Cassini
transmissions should be?
Its a pretty simple question that you can't answer because you are raving
mad and can
only guess.
|
Peter Webb
Relativity.
So you would be foolish to not believe this experimental prediction of
Relativity, seeing as how it has already been confirmed experimentally.
So are there any experimental predictions of Relativity which you think are
incorrect, or do you think they are all correct?
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
I asked you if there any experimental predictions of Relativity which you
think are incorrect.
You couldn't possibly think the experimental predictions of Relativity
concerning Cassini are wrong, if you don't even know what they are.
Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity which believe are
wrong, or do you think they are all correct?
Androcles
Androcles
Predicted infinite speed of light is incorrect. You are insane. Case closed.
Peter Webb
> | I asked you if there any experimental predictions of Relativity which
> you
> | think are incorrect.
>
> Predicted infinite speed of light is incorrect. You are insane. Case
> closed.
>
Relativity does not predict an infinite speed of light.
So, I guess you believe all the experimental predictions of Relativity are
correct? Or are there any you believe are incorrect?
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
Not an experimental prediction of Relativity.
Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity you believe to be
incorrect?
Androcles
|> |
| > | I asked you if there any experimental predictions of Relativity which
| > you
| > | think are incorrect.
| >
| > Predicted infinite speed of light is incorrect. You are insane. Case
| > closed.
| >
|
| Relativity does not predict an infinite speed of light.
So now you blaspheme the prophecy of your tin god. <shrug>
You are totally psychotic - seek help.
Case closed.
Androcles
|
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
| news:SX4eo.79987$Pa3.33725@hurricane...
| >
| > "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:4c789e8e$0$25486$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| > | So it appears that the results of the Cassini mission were as
predicted
| > by
| > | Relativity.
| > |
| > | So you would be foolish to not believe this experimental prediction of
| > | Relativity, seeing as how it has already been confirmed
experimentally.
| > |
| > | So are there any experimental predictions of Relativity which you
think
| > are
| > | incorrect, or do you think they are all correct?
| > |
| > Predicted infinite speed of light is incorrect. You are insane. Case
| > closed.
| >
|
| Not an experimental prediction of Relativity.
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
Just confirming. There are no experimental predictions of Relativity that
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
So, there aren't any experimental predictions of Relativity that you believe
incorrect?
Androcles
Game over, Webb.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" --§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
You are reduced to lying in your pathetic attempt to "thrash" me.
Having joined the Relativity Taliban your role as a suicide bomber has been
successful, you managed to blow yourself.
Androcles
Game over, Webb.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" --§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
You are reduced to lying in your pathetic attempt to "thrash" me.
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
So, instead, I will ask a different question.
Why won't you tell us "Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity
which you believe to be incorrect?" ?
I think you won't tell us because you can't think of any. Which basically
demonstrated you believe Relativity to be correct, even if you don't
understand it.
Of course, I could be wrong. So why don't you enlighten us. Why don't you
answer this simple question?
Inertial
news:4c791967$0$25362$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>Of course, I could be wrong. So why don't you enlighten us. Why don't you
>answer this simple question?
Because Androcles is a clueless dishonest coward .. that's why. I would
have thought that was obvious. Anyone who shows they know what they're
talking about and exposes his lies gets plonked by him because he is too
much of a liar and coward to deal with the truth. I'm surprised you've
lasted so long .. I guess he thinks there is still some entertainment value
in what he sees as playing with you. Androcles isn't worth your time.
He's another worthless moron who would benefit the world most by committing
suicide .. if it wasn't for the fact that he is so insignificant, the
benefit would not be noticed.
Androcles
Having joined the Relativity Taliban and your role playing the part,
physically,
of a suicide bomber has been successful, you managed to blow yourself.
You are a proven liar, Webb. No more brownie points for you.
Androcles
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4c791f5b$0$11107$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| news:4c791967$0$25362$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| >Of course, I could be wrong. So why don't you enlighten us. Why don't you
| >answer this simple question?
Fuck off, moron.
Androcles
Inertial
>Fuck off, moron.
BAHAHAHA. That's the best Androcles can come up with. He's threatened by
me and knows he can't argue against logic.
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
Peter Webb
to be incorrect, or do you believe all of its experimental predictions are
true?
Androcles
Re: EINSTEINIANA, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, HONESTY
Androcles
| So, are there any experimental predictions of Relativity which you believe
| to be incorrect, or do you believe all of its experimental predictions are
| true?
|
Re: EINSTEINIANA, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, HONESTY
Game over, pathetic Webb.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" --§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
You are reduced to lying in your pathetic attempt to "thrash" me.
Re: EINSTEINIANA, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, HONESTY
Having joined the Relativity Taliban and your role playing the part,
physically, of a suicide bomber has been successful, you managed
to blow yourself.
Re: EINSTEINIANA, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, HONESTY
You are a proven liar, Webb. No more brownie points for you.
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
Peter Webb
So, are there any experimental predictions of Relativity which you believe
Androcles
"Fuck off, you stupid cunt".
To please you I will.
Fuck off, you stupid cunt.
Androcles
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
No, what I want you to say is whether there any experimental predictions of
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
No, what I want you to say is whether there any experimental predictions of
Androcles
Androcles
Fuck off, you stupid LYING cunt.
Peter Webb
> | > You are a proven liar, Webb. All you really want me to say is
> | > "Fuck off, you stupid cunt".
> | > To please you I will.
> | > Fuck off, you stupid cunt.
> | >
> |
> | No, what I want you to say is whether there any experimental predictions
> of
> | Relativity which you believe to be incorrect, or do you believe all of
> its
> | experimental predictions are true?
>
> Fuck off, you stupid LYING cunt.
>
So you believe all the experimental predictions of Relativity are correct?
If not, which ones do you believe to be false?
Peter Webb
> | > believe
> | > | to be incorrect, or do you believe all of its experimental
> predictions
> | > are
> | > | true?
> | > |
> | > You are a proven liar, Webb. All you really want me to say is
> | > "Fuck off, you stupid cunt".
> | > To please you I will.
> | > Fuck off, you stupid cunt.
> | >
> | >
> |
> | No, what I want you to say is whether there any experimental predictions
> of
> | Relativity which you believe to be incorrect, or do you believe all of
> its
> | experimental predictions are true?
> |
> Fuck off, you stupid LYING cunt.
>
>
So you believe all the experimental predictions of Relativity are correct?
Androcles
No. Fuck off, you stupid insane LYING cunt.
Androcles
| If not, which ones do you believe to be false?
All of them.
Mitchell Jones
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Ummm ... so are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with which
> you disagree, or do you believe all its experimental predictions to be
> correct?
***{If by "relativity" you refer, correctly, to Einstein's
non-mathematical, natural language interpretive framework--the ocean of
howling nonsense about "curved space," "time dilation," "length
contraction," "universal speed limits," and all the rest--the answer is
that relativity makes no specific quantitative predictions that are
capable of being tested.
If, on the other hand, you refer to the predictive, quantifiable
implications of the equations used by Einstein, the answer is that those
predictions still match up very well even with data points accumulated
in modern times. Those equations, however, are merely descriptions of
experimental results stated in mathematical form, and virtually all of
them were discovered, not by Einstein, but by his predecessors.
Bottom line: Einstein and his fanatical followers have no divine right
to those equations, nor any monopoly privilege related to their
interpretation. They are the intellectual property of all of us, and
anyone who thinks he can make sense out of them--something Einstein
utterly failed to do--is fully entitled to make the attempt. Likewise,
anyone who thinks he can shoot such an effort down is free to attempt to
do so.
--Mitchell Jones}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
Because if there aren't any experimental predictions of Relativity which you
believe to be incorrect, then I guess you haven't got anything new or
interesting to say on the subject ...
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
Because if there aren't any experimental predictions of Relativity which you
believe to be incorrect, then I guess you haven't got anything new or
interesting to say on the subject ... which does make me wonder why you go
on so much about it.
So, are there any experimental predictions of Relativity which you believe
to be incorrect?
Peter Webb
"Mitchell Jones" <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message
news:mjones-2234E4....@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <4c767225$0$3033$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Ummm ... so are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with
>> which
>> you disagree, or do you believe all its experimental predictions to be
>> correct?
>
> ***{If by "relativity" you refer, correctly, to Einstein's
> non-mathematical, natural language interpretive framework--the ocean of
> howling nonsense about "curved space," "time dilation," "length
> contraction," "universal speed limits," and all the rest--the answer is
> that relativity makes no specific quantitative predictions that are
> capable of being tested.
>
This is true of any physical theory. If you take out the mathematics, then
you can't make quantative predictions.
Take the mathematics out of Newton's theory of gravitation and it makes no
specific quantative predictions that are capable of testing. Tak the
mathematics out of astronomy, and it makes no testable quantative
predictions.
Etc.
All you have stated is a tautology: take the mathematics out of something,
and you can no longer make quantative predictions. Welcome to the fact that
quantative predictions require mathematical formulae.
> If, on the other hand, you refer to the predictive, quantifiable
> implications of the equations used by Einstein, the answer is that those
> predictions still match up very well even with data points accumulated
> in modern times. Those equations, however, are merely descriptions of
> experimental results stated in mathematical form, and virtually all of
> them were discovered, not by Einstein, but by his predecessors.
>
This is crap.
Who developed any single equation of GR prior to Einstein?
> Bottom line: Einstein and his fanatical followers have no divine right
> to those equations, nor any monopoly privilege related to their
> interpretation. They are the intellectual property of all of us,
Of course. Einstein doesn't "own" Relativity, any more than Planck or
Heisenberg own QM. Whatever would make you think otherwise?
> and
> anyone who thinks he can make sense out of them--something Einstein
> utterly failed to do--
Einstein did a superb job of explaining and "making sense" of the theory of
Relativity he developed. I suspect your problem is that you don't understand
it, and so for some peculiar reason you are blaming Einstein.
Which books of Einstein's have you actually read?
> is fully entitled to make the attempt. Likewise,
> anyone who thinks he can shoot such an effort down is free to attempt to
> do so.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
So, do you believe that all of the experimental predictions of Relativity
are correct, or are there some that you believe incorrect?
Mitchell Jones
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Mitchell Jones" <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message
> news:mjones-2234E4....@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
> > In article <4c767225$0$3033$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> > "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Ummm ... so are there any experimental predictions of Relativity with
> >> which
> >> you disagree, or do you believe all its experimental predictions to be
> >> correct?
> >
> > ***{If by "relativity" you refer, correctly, to Einstein's
> > non-mathematical, natural language interpretive framework--the ocean of
> > howling nonsense about "curved space," "time dilation," "length
> > contraction," "universal speed limits," and all the rest--the answer is
> > that relativity makes no specific quantitative predictions that are
> > capable of being tested.
> >
>
> This is true of any physical theory. If you take out the mathematics, then
> you can't make quantative predictions.
***{As an aside, it should be noted that the above is not really true:
every valid statement of mathematics can be expressed in natural
language terms. Mathematical statements are a sort of shorthand that
speeds up writing and thinking, by removing non-essential symbols and
using abbreviated forms for the terms that remain. ("Two plus two equals
four" is a natural language statement, whereas "2 + 2 = 4" is a
mathematical statement of the same idea.)
That, of course, is irrelevant to the point I was getting at, which is
simply that we must distinguish between mathematical descriptions of
experimental results, and the verbal responses that physicists give when
we ask them what those mathematical descriptions mean. The reason we
must make such a distinction is that there is no necessary connection
between the two things
A physical equation, if it has been properly designed, will provide us
with a method of predicting experimental results without having to do
additional experiments. There is an enormous inherent efficiency in
doing a few experiments, identifying the mathematical pattern to which
the results conform, and thereafter relying on an equation rather than
continuously re-doing the experiment every time the inputs change.
Note, however, that if you ask a mathematical physicist why an equation
is true, or what it means, or what it tells us about the nature of
reality, he may or may not confine himself to what he really knows. If
he is disinclined to engage in metaphysical speculation, he will launch
into a discussion of the experiments which underlie the equation, how
they were designed, the measured data points that resulted, etc. But if
he is interested in metaphysics (or "natural philosophy," or whatever
you prefer to call it) and feels he has something worthwhile to
contribute in that regard, or if he is simply motivated to "suck up" by
parroting the philosophy of the powers that be, he may bring forth
verbal effusions that have nothing to do with experimental results and
which may have little to do with truth or reality.
That's the point: Einsteins's metaphysical speculations regarding
"curved space," "time dilation," "length contraction," "universal speed
limits," and all the rest--the so called "theory of relativity"--are in
no sense a required implication of the experimental results. What we
know is that the equations he used captured the pattern of the
experimental data available at the time and allowed accurate
interpolations between those data points and good nearby extrapolations,
and that those equations still work well in both regards today. What the
metaphysical implications of that state of affairs may be, however,
remains open to interpretation, and in that regard the "theory of
relativity" suffers from far too many conceptual and logical problems to
be taken seriously.
In summary, the equations Einstein used still work pretty well, but they
have nothing to do with the "theory of relativity;" and the "theory of
relativity" is so shot through with contradictions and absurdities that
it is, always has been, and always will be, repellent to any person
whose mind is anchored in the real world--which means: to anyone who is
in the habit of adjusting his opinions to fit the facts.
Bottom line: the ongoing hundred-year war between proponents of the
"theory of relativity" and people who are attempting to make sense out
of the world, including infantile flame wars such the the present one
between you and Androcles, will continue until the relativists shut up
and go away, or until people who see with their own eyes and think with
their own brains have been rounded up and executed, whichever comes
first.
And, of course, if the latter outcome is what occurs--which looks
increasingly likely--this civilization will collapse shortly thereafter.
The reason: men who are capable of believing that two plus two equals
five, as per George Orwell's novel "1984," are not what it takes to keep
a technological civilization going. Sucking up by saying what
authoritarian assholes want to hear will not keep the lights on, utopian
delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> Take the mathematics out of Newton's theory of gravitation and it makes no
> specific quantative predictions that are capable of testing. Tak the
> mathematics out of astronomy, and it makes no testable quantative
> predictions.
>
> Etc.
>
> All you have stated is a tautology: take the mathematics out of something,
> and you can no longer make quantative predictions. Welcome to the fact that
> quantative predictions require mathematical formulae.
>
>
> > If, on the other hand, you refer to the predictive, quantifiable
> > implications of the equations used by Einstein, the answer is that those
> > predictions still match up very well even with data points accumulated
> > in modern times. Those equations, however, are merely descriptions of
> > experimental results stated in mathematical form, and virtually all of
> > them were discovered, not by Einstein, but by his predecessors.
> >
>
> This is crap.
***{You can't trust the system, Peter. The culture in which we are all
immersed lies to us. Result: those who have unshakeable faith in the
system are guaranteed to be led astray, because when they hear dissident
views, they will not even spend 5 minutes doing web searches to check
them out. --MJ}***
> Who developed any single equation of GR prior to Einstein?
***{Do some web searches. Read about the work of David Hilbert, Olinto
de Pretto, Jules Poincare, Hendrick Lorentz, and many, many others. I
think you will be very surprised at what you find. --MJ}***
> > Bottom line: Einstein and his fanatical followers have no divine right
> > to those equations, nor any monopoly privilege related to their
> > interpretation. They are the intellectual property of all of us,
>
> Of course. Einstein doesn't "own" Relativity, any more than Planck or
> Heisenberg own QM. Whatever would make you think otherwise?
***{You are missing the point, which, as explained above, was that we
must distinguish between the equations preferred by Einstein (and mostly
originated by others, as you will discover if you actually investigate
the matter), and the "theory of relativity," which is irrationalist
metaphysics being smuggled into naive minds, riding on the backs of
those equations. --MJ}***
[snip]
Androcles
Only a fool could fail to see that (which is what Webb is, of course).
Peter Webb
Yes.
> That's the point: Einsteins's metaphysical speculations regarding
> "curved space," "time dilation," "length contraction," "universal speed
> limits," and all the rest--the so called "theory of relativity"--are in
> no sense a required implication of the experimental results.
Bullshit. The "universal speed limit" and time dilation are verified and
directly observed in experiments every day. Length contraction is not far
behind - if you accept that energy is conserved, it follows directly from
experiment. These are not metaphysical in any sense; they are clear
predictions of Relativity that can be and verified experimentally.
> What we
> know is that the equations he used captured the pattern of the
> experimental data available at the time and allowed accurate
> interpolations between those data points and good nearby extrapolations,
> and that those equations still work well in both regards today.
They work. Nothing to do with interpolation.
> What the
> metaphysical implications of that state of affairs may be, however,
> remains open to interpretation, and in that regard the "theory of
> relativity" suffers from far too many conceptual and logical problems to
> be taken seriously.
>
No. You may have a conceptual problem with it, but that's probably because
you don't understand the mathematics. It has no logical problems.
> In summary, the equations Einstein used still work pretty well, but they
> have nothing to do with the "theory of relativity;"
No. The theory of Relativity *is* the collection of mathematical formulas.
> and the "theory of
> relativity" is so shot through with contradictions and absurdities
No.
> that
> it is, always has been, and always will be, repellent to any person
> whose mind is anchored in the real world--which means: to anyone who is
> in the habit of adjusting his opinions to fit the facts.
>
You are trying to fit the facts to your opinion. Here is a fact: SR is
rouinely verified experimentally every day in dozens of particle
acclelerators around the world that accelerate particles to close to light
speed. Now, your opinions have to be consistent with that fact.
> Bottom line: the ongoing hundred-year war between proponents of the
> "theory of relativity" and people who are attempting to make sense out
> of the world, including infantile flame wars such the the present one
> between you and Androcles, will continue until the relativists shut up
> and go away, or until people who see with their own eyes and think with
> their own brains have been rounded up and executed, whichever comes
> first.
"Relativists"?
I suppose you call people who believe the earth is basically a sphere
"spheroidists"
>
> And, of course, if the latter outcome is what occurs--which looks
> increasingly likely--this civilization will collapse shortly thereafter.
> The reason: men who are capable of believing that two plus two equals
> five, as per George Orwell's novel "1984," are not what it takes to keep
> a technological civilization going. Sucking up by saying what
> authoritarian assholes want to hear will not keep the lights on, utopian
> delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
Hmm. Paranoid schiphrenic?
Androcles
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
1.. runnel
2.. roundly
3.. roundel
4.. Rangeley
5.. rondel
6.. roundelay
7.. lonely
8.. Romney
verified experimentally every day in dozens of particle
| acclelerators
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
< no suggestions>
| around the world that accelerate particles to close to light
| speed. Now, your opinions have to be consistent with that fact.
|
|
| > Bottom line: the ongoing hundred-year war between proponents of the
| > "theory of relativity" and people who are attempting to make sense out
| > of the world, including infantile flame wars such the the present one
| > between you and Androcles, will continue until the relativists shut up
| > and go away, or until people who see with their own eyes and think with
| > their own brains have been rounded up and executed, whichever comes
| > first.
|
| "Relativists"?
|
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativist
Definition of RELATIVISM
1
a : a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind
and the conditions of knowing b : a view that ethical truths depend on the
individuals and groups holding them
2
: relativity
- rel·a·tiv·ist noun
First Known Use of RELATIVISM
1865
| I suppose you call people who believe the earth is basically a sphere
| "spheroidists"
|
That would be paranoid schizophrene such as yourself.
|
| >
| > And, of course, if the latter outcome is what occurs--which looks
| > increasingly likely--this civilization will collapse shortly thereafter.
| > The reason: men who are capable of believing that two plus two equals
| > five, as per George Orwell's novel "1984," are not what it takes to keep
| > a technological civilization going. Sucking up by saying what
| > authoritarian assholes want to hear will not keep the lights on, utopian
| > delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.
| >
|
| Hmm. Paranoid schiphrenic?
|
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
1.. schizophrenia
2.. schizophrene
Being an illiterate you cannot read algebra, Webb, which is why you have to
rely on blind faith for your mysticism fix, you psychotic bastard. Why don't
you tell us what the formula is for length "contraction"?
Hint: 2 = 1/0.5
Martin Brown
>
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
> news:RSieo.26208$TI2.2120@hurricane...
>>
>> "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4c79aff7$0$25360$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> | So, are there any experimental predictions of Relativity which you
>> believe
>> | to be incorrect, or do you believe all of its experimental
>> predictions are
>> | true?
You are arguing with a third rate netkook and making no progress.
>>
>> Re: EINSTEINIANA, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, HONESTY
>>
>> Game over, pathetic Webb.
>>
>> "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
>> infinitely great velocity" --§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
>> Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
>> -- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
>>
>> You are reduced to lying in your pathetic attempt to "thrash" me.
And you are reduced to quoting Einstein out of context in a pathetic
attempt to bolster your own untenable position. Relativity both special
and general are amongst the most fully verified and validated of modern
physical theories. Only delusional nutters dispute this obvious fact.
Einstein was trying in this paper to explain that there was no
possibility to travel faster than the speed of light. His phrasing is
imperfect as it allows your wilful misinterpretation to be made.
Remember that prior to Einstein it was generally believed that there was
no upper bound on the speed of moving objects with E= 1/2mv^2. We now
know that no matter how much kinetic energy you give to particles in a
synchrotron they never quite reach the speed of light, c.
>>
>> Re: EINSTEINIANA, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, HONESTY
>>
>> Having joined the Relativity Taliban and your role playing the part,
>> physically, of a suicide bomber has been successful, you managed
>> to blow yourself.
>>
>> Re: EINSTEINIANA, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, HONESTY
>>
>> You are a proven liar, Webb. No more brownie points for you.
Look in the mirror netkook.
>
> So, are there any experimental predictions of Relativity which you
> believe to be incorrect, or do you believe all of its experimental
> predictions are true?
He will just parrot the same phrases again and again. You are wasting
your time. He cannot be educated and will never understand relativity.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Mitchell Jones
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
***{Open your mind to other possibilities.
A gravitationally entrained aether, carried along by the Earth as it
moves around its orbit, would have been at rest relative to Michelson's
laboratory. Result: the supposed proof of the constancy of the speed of
light falls apart, as Michelson himself believed. [See his biography,
Master of Light, written by his daughter, to verify this.]
Similarly, a gravitationally entrained aether would, like the
atmosphere, be under higher and higher pressure as one goes deeper and
deeper into a gravity well, leading to increasing compression, rising
density, and growing resistance to motion. Movement in a high-g field,
in short, would be analogous to movement in molasses: everything,
including clocks, would move more slowly.
And so it goes, with all the other silliness inherent to Einstein's
non-mathematical, natural-language metaphysical speculations. Like a
rotting corpse, the flesh falls off the bones of "relativity" as soon as
you touch it.
To be very clear, let me stress that the above comments are NOT
indicative of a willingness on my part to continue interacting with you
on this subject. I have put up hundreds of posts on these topics in the
last 20 years, for the most part responding to people who argued far
more cogently and with far more civility (the two things go together)
than you, and I have no interest in joining you in a hog wallow to go
through the whole rat's nest of irrationalist nonsense all over again.
If the above comments pique your interest, therefore, I would suggest
that you pull up some of my old posts. And if not, not.
It makes no difference to me either way.
--Mitchell Jones}***
Androcles
the pig will eat the pearls of wisdom, shit them out undigested, then
eat them again, ad infinitum. Oops... sorry if I offended your delicate
sensibilities by saying "shit", but I don't believe "faeces" is a verb and
"defecate" is more than four letters, making it difficult for Webb to
comprehend.
Peter Webb
which you believe to be incorrect?
Peter Webb
Androcles
| So, just to confirm, there are no experimental predictions of Relativity
| which you believe to be incorrect?
Unconfirmed.
So, just to confirm, you are a worthless fuckwit?
Androcles
| So, just to confirm, there are no experimental predictions of Relativity
| which you believe to be incorrect?
Unconfirmed.
So, just to confirm, you are a worthless idiotic fuckwit?
Thomas Heger
> Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John Norton
> and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
> postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
> could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
> step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?
>
The light postulate is correct, but it's for LIGHT (!).
Not every connection or influence could be called light. In a
spacetime-diagram light refers to the diagonals, where timelike
intervals equal spacelike intervals.
What would happen to connections faster than c?
That would build horizontal connections (if time axis is vertical).
that would 'be back once started' or connect without a delay.
This somehow resembles static fields, that seem to connect without delay.
So lets guess, these fields are connections like light, but the faster
part and of course stronger connections, but not reaching so far.
Since a diagram is abstract description of reality, how does that
reality look like?
A circle in a 3d-spacetime diagram is actually a sphere and the timeline
denotes the flow of causality for a specific state, that moves along its
worldline.
That is a picture of a vibrating sphere, that is connected to its
neighborhood in space.
If we would not follow that state, but move away from it, we would steer
our ship away from that 'time-domain' and measure a different time,
because what was formerly stable (that state) is now moving. That is a
new timeline in an angle to the former, that is our own, but a different
one. If we would now move as fast, that the former timeline builds an
angle of 45°, we would recede with c and turn to former state into
light, but moving away, hence can't see it any more, what makes it
vanish in a black hole.
Relativity tells us, that we can't distinguish movement from rest in
empty space. so we had to consider, that with movement, we would see a
valid universe. but we would see a different one, since the former has
vanished in a black hole.
So, as Minkowski said, there is an infinite number of spaces, each
equipped with a unique timeline, where the speed of light is a constant.
But what is not constant, that is what we regard as light and -more
dramatic-, what we regard as objects. This is somehow a very strange
consequence, that we could turn stable states (=objects) into light by
moving. This had to be true and possible, because otherwise relativity
would be false. This is why I think, the particle concept is actually
wrong and had to replace it by a system I call 'structured spacetime',
where spacetime functions a background and a state is build out of
anti-symmetric multiplicative connections of the 'elements' of this
background.
These connections could be imagined as double-headed arrows, that allow
'bifurcation' and reconnection and different lines a stable state could
follow.
(Sorry, but this is kind of difficult subject and hard to explain, but
in case someone is interested, here is my 'book' about this model:
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
TH
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
So which experimental predictions of Relativity do you believe to be
incorrect?
Androcles
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
Which experimental predictions do you disagree with?
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
Funny how you won't even state what you believe. Not espousing your crackpot
views now, are you?
Androcles
Androcles
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
No, its your turn.
If you don't even know what you believe concerning Relativity, why are you
shooting your mouth off on this subject all the time? I mean, you come
across as somebody with a strong opinion, but when asked about that opinion,
you don't appear to have one.
How about this one. You have heard about the twins "paradox", no doubt. Do
you believe that Relativity's experimental predictions of differential
ageing in the twins paradox are correct or not?
Pretty simple question, its only about what you believe, so ....
Androcles
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
Ummm ... so you don't even have an opinion on whether Relativity makes
correct predictions?
Why are you always going on about it, if you don't even have an opinion on
whether it is correct?
Androcles
Inertial
>"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:4c7f374f$0$3031$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>|
>| If you don't even know what you believe concerning Relativity, why are
>you
>| shooting your mouth off on this subject all the time? I mean, you come
>| across as somebody with a strong opinion, but when asked about that
>opinion,
>| you don't appear to have one.
>|
>| How about this one. You have heard about the twins "paradox", no doubt.
>Do
>| you believe that Relativity's experimental predictions of differential
>| ageing in the twins paradox are correct or not?
>|
>| Pretty simple question, its only about what you believe, so ....
>|
>So, just to confirm, you are a worthless idiotic fuckwit?
There you go, Peter ... Androcles demonstrates that he is nothing but a
heckling troll and does not have an actual opinion of his own on anything.
Though his replies to Porat twere brillig.
Androcles
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4c7f4983$0$11098$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Peter Webb
> | > | you believe that Relativity's experimental predictions of
> differential
> | > | ageing in the twins paradox are correct or not?
> | > |
> | > | Pretty simple question, its only about what you believe, so ....
> | > |
> | > So, just to confirm, you are a worthless idiotic fuckwit?
> | >
> |
> | Ummm ... so you don't even have an opinion on whether Relativity makes
> | correct predictions?
> |
> | Why are you always going on about it, if you don't even have an opinion
> on
> | whether it is correct?
> |
> So, just to confirm, you are a worthless idiotic fuckwit?
>
So why are you always shooting your mouth off about Relativity when you
can't answer the simplest questions about it?
Inertial
news:4c7f4f62$0$25486$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>So why are you always shooting your mouth off about Relativity when you
>can't answer the simplest questions about it?
Because he's a troll. He does have a wicked and cruel (and sometimes even
clever) sense of humour on occasion .. so he has at least one redeeming
quality. But mostly he's just a troll who is almost completely ignorant
about maths. logic, and physics. It doesn't take most people long to work
that out, although sometimes he gets some poor fool who will try to 'learn'
from him .. I guess that's what he lives for, taking gullible fools for a
ride.