Discussion:
The False Premise Syndrome in Theoretical Science
(too old to reply)
Pentcho Valev
2005-12-12 07:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Bryan Wallace http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :

"This erection of higher and higher barriers to the comprehension of
scientific affairs is a threat to an essential characteristic of
science, its openness to outside examination and appraisal....Because
of this, modern theoretical physics has become to a large degree,
little more than an elaborate farce....In Galileo's time it was heresy
to claim there was evidence that the Earth went around the Sun, and in
our time it is heresy to argue that there is evidence that the speed of
light in space is not constant for all observers, no matter how fast
they are moving, as predicted by Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905
Special Relativity Theory....Einstein's special relativity theory with
his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is
the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories
together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an
elaborate farce!....I expect that the scientists of the future will
consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the
same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the
Universe moves around it."

The excerpts from the martyr's book suggest that a single false premise
can convert a whole science into a farce. In fact, this syndrome is an
essential feature of theoretical science. The introduction of a false
premise generates artefacts, problems, solutions to the problems etc. -
stuff for the initiated to proliferate and for zombies to learn by
rote. So the premise "Heat is an indestructible substance" and its
corollary, the second law of thermodynamics, are just as important as
Einstein's idiocy:

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev4.htm

Amazingly, classical electrostatics is also based on a false premise:
All forces acting in the system under consideration are conservative
(electrical). See more in

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.htm

Pentcho Valev
d***@hotmail.com
2005-12-12 11:59:38 UTC
Permalink
I'm sorry, but you've presented a false premise.

- Douglas R. Hofstadter
Al Zenner
2005-12-12 13:01:01 UTC
Permalink
"Pentcho Valev" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1134371578.602441.11520
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


snip <his usual unworthy of repetition stuff>

You keep trying to tear down things that work for me. What have
you offered to replace these things, anything that actually works?

If you don't have anything to replace that which you're attempting
to destroy, then you should live in a world which results, a world
without computers, effectively silencing your usenet "voice."

Only a fool bites the hand that feeds them.
Dastardly Fiend
2005-12-12 16:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Zenner
snip <his usual unworthy of repetition stuff>
You keep trying to tear down things that work for me. What have
you offered to replace these things, anything that actually works?
Does this work for you?
Loading Image...
The star blew up twice.

Does this work for you?
http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/every.htm
Every triangle is isosceles.

Does this work for you?
http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html
You need GR to understand the advance of perihelion of Mercury.

There WAS something that actually worked before Einstein. It still does.
Post by Al Zenner
If you don't have anything to replace that which you're attempting
to destroy, then you should live in a world which results, a world
without computers, effectively silencing your usenet "voice."
Only a fool bites the hand that feeds them.
The idiot Einstein had nothing to do with computers or the invention
of the telegraph. What is Valev doing that is so wrong?
What is bad about tearing down a house of cards?
Why do you bite Newton's hand?
Why are you a fool?

Androcles.
Al Zenner
2005-12-13 17:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dastardly Fiend
The idiot Einstein had nothing to do with computers or the invention
of the telegraph.
The telegraph predated Einstein's birth. Morse demonstrated a working
model in 1835. But the idea has nothing to do with determining the
validity of Einstein's work.

Einstein is directly on the discovery path leading to your beloved
modern computer. Semiconductors grew out of an understanding of
quantum mechanics. Of course you could argue that vacuum tube
computers (of a sort) predated the semiconductor ones, but
anyone acquainted with the workings of Univac and its contemporaries
will be quick to explain to you that the similarity between them is
very much like the comparison between the horse & buggy and the
modern automobile.

But the issue is just another red herring anyway, and has nothing to
do with the validity of Einstein's work.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
What is Valev doing that is so wrong?
The question is,what is he doing right?
Post by Dastardly Fiend
What is bad about tearing down a house of cards?
What's bad is your belief that it is a house of cards.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
Why do you bite Newton's hand?
I don't bite it, I invite Newton to follow us into the next better
understanding. Where he was limited in knowledge we have expanded
and improved. As a researcher Newton would certainly appreciate that
advances could be and were made beyond the limitations of his time.
I am also certain that advances will be made beyond our understandings
of nature. I would appreciate being able to come back shortly before
the end of the universe in order to know what humans, and our improved
descendents, discovered and understood. Perhaps I'll meet Newton there.
LOL But you're stuck in Newton's time, never to advance.

You know, the culture collectively known as Pennsylvania Dutch lives
without electricity. That would be a more appropriate life style
considering your mindset of reverting to Newton's time, and as a bonus
we'd be spared your blatherings.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
Why are you a fool?
That's your personal sad sack approximation which is as invalid
as everything else you propound.
Androcles
2005-12-13 23:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Zenner
Post by Dastardly Fiend
The idiot Einstein had nothing to do with computers or the invention
of the telegraph.
The telegraph predated Einstein's birth. Morse demonstrated a working
model in 1835. But the idea has nothing to do with determining the
validity of Einstein's work.
So why was it brought up?
Post by Al Zenner
Einstein is directly on the discovery path leading to your beloved
modern computer.
Bullshit. Einstein objected to QM. "God does not play dice".
Post by Al Zenner
Semiconductors grew out of an understanding of
quantum mechanics.
Of course you could argue that vacuum tube
computers (of a sort) predated the semiconductor ones, but
anyone acquainted with the workings of Univac and its contemporaries
will be quick to explain to you that the similarity between them is
very much like the comparison between the horse & buggy and the
modern automobile.
Which it is.
Post by Al Zenner
But the issue is just another red herring anyway, and has nothing to
do with the validity of Einstein's work.
Then what the fuck did you bring it up for? Fucking red herring!
Post by Al Zenner
Post by Dastardly Fiend
What is Valev doing that is so wrong?
The question is,what is he doing right?
No it isn't. The question remains as I asked it.
What is Valev doing that is so wrong?
Post by Al Zenner
Post by Dastardly Fiend
What is bad about tearing down a house of cards?
What's bad is your belief that it is a house of cards.
Answer the fucking question, cunt.

What is bad about tearing down a house of cards?
Post by Al Zenner
Post by Dastardly Fiend
Why do you bite Newton's hand?
I don't bite it, I invite Newton to follow us into the next better
understanding.
Newton is not going to accept a definition of time contrary to his own.
Why do you snip what YOU wrote, and why do you bite Newton's hand?
Post by Al Zenner
Where he was limited in knowledge we have expanded
and improved.
Of course we have. Then some huckster called Einstein wants to play god
and define time his own way and a phuckwit like you swallows it hook
line and sinker.
Post by Al Zenner
As a researcher Newton would certainly appreciate that
advances could be and were made beyond the limitations of his time.
Yes.
Post by Al Zenner
I am also certain that advances will be made beyond our understandings
of nature.
Really. Okay...
Post by Al Zenner
I would appreciate being able to come back shortly before
the end of the universe in order to know what humans, and our improved
descendents, discovered and understood. Perhaps I'll meet Newton there.
LOL But you're stuck in Newton's time, never to advance.
You are dreaming now. Stick to math, not red herrings.
Post by Al Zenner
You know, the culture collectively known as Pennsylvania Dutch lives
without electricity.
Non sequitur.


That would be a more appropriate life style
Post by Al Zenner
considering your mindset of reverting to Newton's time, and as a bonus
we'd be spared your blatherings.
Non sequitur. You are blathering red herrings again.
Post by Al Zenner
Post by Dastardly Fiend
Why are you a fool?
That's your personal sad sack approximation which is as invalid
as everything else you propound.
Prove, mathematically, what Valev is doing that is so wrong.
Or shut the fuck up.
Androcles.
d***@hotmail.com
2005-12-14 01:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Frog-mice wars are so very interesting.
c***@yahoo.com
2005-12-12 13:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Einstein was an idiot - true in the Dostoyevskian sense - but certainly
no fool. If you actually took the time to understand what he actually
wrote, his logic holds up. The speed of light is constant was not
proven by Einstein, it was proven by MM - he then used that proof as
the basis of an assumption. The very idea of speed is these days based
on the speed of light, in whatever reference frame, and most physics
holds together because of that. The mistake, that the physics paradigm
has made perhaps because of its herd rote learning, is to accept his
axioms <assumptions> as well reasoned logic because his theories have
come from them... He, Einstein, himself seemed to extrapolate some
sort of philosophical truth from his own reasoning, but it is really
epistemological not philosophical. See the debates between Lorentz and
Einstein for a glimmer of the comparative truths... (basis of the
debate can be found in the image at the base of the page at
http://www.chaosfilter.com/page2.htm ) - the fact is that to this day
relativity has stood the test of time, yet no one has yet answered the
question 'why is the speed of light constant'. I would suggest an
answer but what is the point if I don't have the agency. Anyone who
claims Einstein was wrong should be called a crank - he was ever so
careful to not be - it is interpretation/extrapolation of his logic
that leads to socially accepted errors...

I could go on but I won't - my energy is converting to mass sitting
here at my desk travelling at light speed through time...

cfilt
an idiot, not a fool
you are what you wear so wear what you think
http://www.chaosfilter.com
s***@hotmail.com
2005-12-12 14:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Einstein was an idiot - true in the Dostoyevskian sense - but certainly
no fool. If you actually took the time to understand what he actually
wrote, his logic holds up. The speed of light is constant was not
proven by Einstein, it was proven by MM - he then used that proof as
the basis of an assumption. The very idea of speed is these days based
on the speed of light, in whatever reference frame, and most physics
holds together because of that. The mistake, that the physics paradigm
has made perhaps because of its herd rote learning, is to accept his
axioms <assumptions> as well reasoned logic because his theories have
come from them... He, Einstein, himself seemed to extrapolate some
sort of philosophical truth from his own reasoning, but it is really
epistemological not philosophical. See the debates between Lorentz and
Einstein for a glimmer of the comparative truths...
Since when has epistemology been kicked out of philosophy?
Dastardly Fiend
2005-12-12 16:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Einstein was an idiot - true in the Dostoyevskian sense - but certainly
no fool. If you actually took the time to understand what he actually
wrote, his logic holds up. The speed of light is constant was not
proven by Einstein, it was proven by MM - he then used that proof as
the basis of an assumption. The very idea of speed is these days based
on the speed of light, in whatever reference frame, and most physics
holds together because of that. The mistake, that the physics paradigm
has made perhaps because of its herd rote learning, is to accept his
axioms <assumptions> as well reasoned logic because his theories have
come from them...
Oh, so you accept this well reasoned logic:
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.

Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.

Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.

Well reasoned:
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.

This logic is not well reasoned:
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
x = AB
-x = BA,
x + (-x) = 0.
Hence c = 0.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
He, Einstein, himself seemed to extrapolate some
sort of philosophical truth from his own reasoning, but it is really
epistemological not philosophical. See the debates between Lorentz and
Einstein for a glimmer of the comparative truths... (basis of the
debate can be found in the image at the base of the page at
http://www.chaosfilter.com/page2.htm ) - the fact is that to this day
relativity has stood the test of time, yet no one has yet answered the
question 'why is the speed of light constant'.
The speed of light is constant because Einstein defined it to be. He's god.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
I would suggest an
answer but what is the point if I don't have the agency. Anyone who
claims Einstein was wrong should be called a crank - he was ever so
careful to not be - it is interpretation/extrapolation of his logic
that leads to socially accepted errors...
This crank says
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
x = AB
-x = BA,
x + (-x) = 0.
Hence c = 0.

He also says you are totally psychotic, a fucking raving hero-worshipping
lunatic, a dumb cunt, an idiot, an imbecile, a babblemouth, a moron,
a gullible sucker and an illterate fool.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
I could go on but I won't
Good. Shut the fuck up.
Androcles.
u***@hotmail.com
2005-12-12 23:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dastardly Fiend
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Einstein was an idiot - true in the Dostoyevskian sense - but certainly
no fool. If you actually took the time to understand what he actually
wrote, his logic holds up. The speed of light is constant was not
proven by Einstein, it was proven by MM - he then used that proof as
the basis of an assumption. The very idea of speed is these days based
on the speed of light, in whatever reference frame, and most physics
holds together because of that. The mistake, that the physics paradigm
has made perhaps because of its herd rote learning, is to accept his
axioms <assumptions> as well reasoned logic because his theories have
come from them...
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
x = AB
-x = BA,
x + (-x) = 0.
Hence c = 0.
I'm not the mathematician my daughter is, but...
you're saying that the average velocity of two rays of light going in
opposite directions for the same distance in the same media is zero.

What else would it be?
And who would say that the velocity of light is therefore zero?
Post by Dastardly Fiend
Post by c***@yahoo.com
He, Einstein, himself seemed to extrapolate some
sort of philosophical truth from his own reasoning, but it is really
epistemological not philosophical. See the debates between Lorentz and
Einstein for a glimmer of the comparative truths... (basis of the
debate can be found in the image at the base of the page at
http://www.chaosfilter.com/page2.htm ) - the fact is that to this day
relativity has stood the test of time, yet no one has yet answered the
question 'why is the speed of light constant'.
The speed of light is constant because Einstein defined it to be. He's god.
Cites?
Post by Dastardly Fiend
Post by c***@yahoo.com
I would suggest an
answer but what is the point if I don't have the agency. Anyone who
claims Einstein was wrong should be called a crank - he was ever so
careful to not be - it is interpretation/extrapolation of his logic
that leads to socially accepted errors...
This crank says
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
x = AB
-x = BA,
x + (-x) = 0.
Right.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
Hence c = 0.
Um, no. x-x = 0.

The sum of the velocity of those two hypothetical photons is zero;
they're going in opposite directions at the same speed. Why would this
value be assigned to C, which represents the speed of either of these
photons?
Post by Dastardly Fiend
He also says you are totally psychotic, a fucking raving hero-worshipping lunatic,
a dumb cunt,
On a side note, I may know why you don't get any dates.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
an idiot, an imbecile, a babblemouth, a moron,
a gullible sucker and an illterate fool.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
I could go on but I won't
Good. Shut the fuck up.
Androcles.
You might want to explain why two velocities canceling each other out
is a problem for anybody but you. Just curious, but what do *you think
x + (-x) would equal?

Kermit
Androcles
2005-12-13 07:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@hotmail.com
Post by Dastardly Fiend
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Einstein was an idiot - true in the Dostoyevskian sense - but certainly
no fool. If you actually took the time to understand what he actually
wrote, his logic holds up. The speed of light is constant was not
proven by Einstein, it was proven by MM - he then used that proof as
the basis of an assumption. The very idea of speed is these days based
on the speed of light, in whatever reference frame, and most physics
holds together because of that. The mistake, that the physics paradigm
has made perhaps because of its herd rote learning, is to accept his
axioms <assumptions> as well reasoned logic because his theories have
come from them...
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
x = AB
-x = BA,
x + (-x) = 0.
Hence c = 0.
I'm not the mathematician my daughter is, but...
you're saying that the average velocity of two rays of light going in
opposite directions for the same distance in the same media is zero.
What else would it be?
Am I debating with you or your daughter?
Is simple high school algebra too much for you?

Some idiot (***@yahoo.com) wrote
"If you actually took the time to understand what he [Einstein] actually
wrote, his logic holds up. "

I did actually take the time to understand what he actually wrote, his logic
does not hold up.
Post by u***@hotmail.com
And who would say that the velocity of light is therefore zero?
I say it. Newton would say it. Any mathematician worth her salt would say
it.
You don't know, you are not the mathematician your daughter is.
Post by u***@hotmail.com
Post by Dastardly Fiend
Post by c***@yahoo.com
He, Einstein, himself seemed to extrapolate some
sort of philosophical truth from his own reasoning, but it is really
epistemological not philosophical. See the debates between Lorentz and
Einstein for a glimmer of the comparative truths... (basis of the
debate can be found in the image at the base of the page at
http://www.chaosfilter.com/page2.htm ) - the fact is that to this day
relativity has stood the test of time, yet no one has yet answered the
question 'why is the speed of light constant'.
The speed of light is constant because Einstein defined it to be. He's god.
Cites?
Can't you read, moron?
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.

Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.

Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
Post by u***@hotmail.com
Post by Dastardly Fiend
Post by c***@yahoo.com
I would suggest an
answer but what is the point if I don't have the agency. Anyone who
claims Einstein was wrong should be called a crank - he was ever so
careful to not be - it is interpretation/extrapolation of his logic
that leads to socially accepted errors...
This crank says
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
x = AB
-x = BA,
x + (-x) = 0.
Right.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
Hence c = 0.
Um, no. x-x = 0.
Um yes. x-x = 0.
Velocity = distance/time = (x-x)/time = 0/time = 0.
Post by u***@hotmail.com
The sum of the velocity of those two hypothetical photons is zero;
they're going in opposite directions at the same speed.
That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0
Post by u***@hotmail.com
Why would this
value be assigned to C, which represents the speed of either of these
photons?
Because Einstein's logic doesn't hold up.
He was perpetrating a deliberate hoax. You suckers fell for it,
he got away with it all his life.
He outclassed Harry Houdini, who could make himself disappear.
He outclasses David Copperfield, who could make an elephant disappear.
Einstein can make time disappear, right under your nose.
All three use smoke and mirrors, none let on how the trick is done.
They do it to be famous.
The smart individual figures out how the trick is done, idiots think you can
saw a woman in half.
Einstein was a highly successful magician.
P.T. Barnum doesn't hold a candle to Einstein, the greatest huckster in
history.
Post by u***@hotmail.com
Post by Dastardly Fiend
He also says you are totally psychotic, a fucking raving hero-worshipping lunatic,
a dumb cunt,
On a side note, I may know why you don't get any dates.
I'm not looking for dates on usenet, or side notes.
Post by u***@hotmail.com
Post by Dastardly Fiend
an idiot, an imbecile, a babblemouth, a moron,
a gullible sucker and an illterate fool.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
I could go on but I won't
Good. Shut the fuck up.
Androcles.
You might want to explain why two velocities canceling each other out
is a problem for anybody but you. Just curious, but what do *you think
x + (-x) would equal?
Zero, of course, you dumb cunt.
You are not the mathematician your daughter is.

Androcles.
Post by u***@hotmail.com
Kermit
Paul B. Andersen
2005-12-13 22:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dastardly Fiend
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
But a turtle is OK.
Let the distance AB be 1 m.

The turtle leaves A when clock A reads tA = 0 seconds
The turtle arrive at B when clock B reads tB = 10 seconds
The turtle returns and arrive at A when the clock A reads
t'A = 20 seconds.

Clock A and clock B are in sync if:
tB = (t'A - tA)/2
10 seconds = (20 - 0)/2 seconds = 10 seconds

Yep. Our clocks are synced.

The speed of turtle is:
2AB/(t'A - tA) = 2m/(20sec - 0 sec) = 0.1 m/s.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0
Androcles law:
If you go for a walk, you havent moved
at all when you get back.

Well done, Androcles.

Paul
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-12-14 03:00:20 UTC
Permalink
In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
<***@hiadeletethis.no>
wrote
on Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:45:43 +0100
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Dastardly Fiend
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
But a turtle is OK.
Let the distance AB be 1 m.
The turtle leaves A when clock A reads tA = 0 seconds
The turtle arrive at B when clock B reads tB = 10 seconds
The turtle returns and arrive at A when the clock A reads
t'A = 20 seconds.
tB = (t'A - tA)/2
10 seconds = (20 - 0)/2 seconds = 10 seconds
Yep. Our clocks are synced.
2AB/(t'A - tA) = 2m/(20sec - 0 sec) = 0.1 m/s.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0
If you go for a walk, you havent moved
at all when you get back.
Well done, Androcles.
More like extra crispy fried, actually...but that's a detail.
At least this time it's not Norbert, Black Knight, or
Dick Dastardly we're working with here. :-)

To do this properly, of course, the observer C should
be equidistant from the two clocks and one has to assume
light isotropy, because of the time delay between A and
C and between B and C.

Of course, one can attempt to determine anisotropy by
performing the experiment more than once after rotating
it (assuming a sufficiently cooperative terrapin!), which
was probably more or less the notion Michelson and Morley
(and presumably Miller as well) had in mind when designing
and then performing the experiment.

It is true that the average velocity of the light beam is
0 in this experiment -- but it took an interesting journey
to get there. :-) And since we know that it hit point B,
we have the measurements:

t_A
t_B
t'_A

We can of course do the gedankenexperiment one more time, getting

t'_B
t"_A

then check that t'_B - t_B = t'_A - t_A = t"_A - t'_A.
That way, not only can one check to see if the clocks are
in sync, but one can also determine the corrective factor
if they're not.

There appear to be some practical difficulties with
this, mostly because it's hard to tell the laser beam
when to stop. An easier method might be to simply count
the waves between A and B when one gets the light into a
"wave lock" -- this is probably easier with microwaves --
and then measure the frequency and the distance between A
and B, and calculate

c = (AB * f / n)

where AB is the distance, f is the frequency, and n is the
number of wavelengths. (Note that n can be a multiple
of 1/2.)

I don't think there's much difficulty in proving that light
travels at a speed faster than 0. :-)
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Paul
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Androcles
2005-12-14 07:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Dastardly Fiend
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
But a turtle is OK.
Let the distance AB be 1 m.
The turtle leaves A when clock A reads tA = 0 seconds
The turtle arrive at B when clock B reads tB = 10 seconds
The turtle returns and arrive at A when the clock A reads
t'A = 20 seconds.
tB = (t'A - tA)/2
10 seconds = (20 - 0)/2 seconds = 10 seconds
Yep. Our clocks are synced.
2AB/(t'A - tA) = 2m/(20sec - 0 sec) = 0.1 m/s.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0
If you go for a walk, you havent moved
at all when you get back.
Well done, Androcles.
Thank you.

Since we now agree that Einstein's "reasoning" applies equally to light as
it does to turtles, we are compelled to conclude (those of us that are
logical, that is)
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of a
turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle, the velocity of turtles is infinite.

Androcles and empirical evidence has now proven your brain cannot go faster
than a turtle's and your deliberations are meaningless.

So we agree. Don't forget my honorary degree from Agder College for proving
the assistant professor there was an illiterate, innumerate, arrogant,
illogical tusselad
who has now seen the light of day, "But a turtle is OK".

Androcles.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Paul
jesper pedersen
2005-12-14 11:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Dastardly Fiend
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
But a turtle is OK.
Let the distance AB be 1 m.
The turtle leaves A when clock A reads tA = 0 seconds
The turtle arrive at B when clock B reads tB = 10 seconds
The turtle returns and arrive at A when the clock A reads
t'A = 20 seconds.
tB = (t'A - tA)/2
10 seconds = (20 - 0)/2 seconds = 10 seconds
Yep. Our clocks are synced.
2AB/(t'A - tA) = 2m/(20sec - 0 sec) = 0.1 m/s.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0
If you go for a walk, you havent moved
at all when you get back.
Well done, Androcles.
Thank you.
Since we now agree that Einstein's "reasoning" applies equally to light as
it does to turtles, we are compelled to conclude (those of us that are
logical, that is)
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle, the velocity of turtles is infinite.
Androcles and empirical evidence has now proven your brain cannot go
faster than a turtle's and your deliberations are meaningless.
So we agree. Don't forget my honorary degree from Agder College for proving
the assistant professor there was an illiterate, innumerate, arrogant,
illogical tusselad
who has now seen the light of day, "But a turtle is OK".
Androcles.
Except there is no experimental evidence supporting that the velocity of a
turtle is the upper limit of any velocity. A theory is only valid if it
supports experimental data. And so far, relativity has not been proven
wrong. Try using GPS without relativistic corrections.

- Jesper
Sue...
2005-12-14 12:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by jesper pedersen
Post by Androcles
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Dastardly Fiend
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
But a turtle is OK.
Let the distance AB be 1 m.
The turtle leaves A when clock A reads tA = 0 seconds
The turtle arrive at B when clock B reads tB = 10 seconds
The turtle returns and arrive at A when the clock A reads
t'A = 20 seconds.
tB = (t'A - tA)/2
10 seconds = (20 - 0)/2 seconds = 10 seconds
Yep. Our clocks are synced.
2AB/(t'A - tA) = 2m/(20sec - 0 sec) = 0.1 m/s.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0
If you go for a walk, you havent moved
at all when you get back.
Well done, Androcles.
Thank you.
Since we now agree that Einstein's "reasoning" applies equally to light as
it does to turtles, we are compelled to conclude (those of us that are
logical, that is)
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle, the velocity of turtles is infinite.
Androcles and empirical evidence has now proven your brain cannot go
faster than a turtle's and your deliberations are meaningless.
So we agree. Don't forget my honorary degree from Agder College for proving
the assistant professor there was an illiterate, innumerate, arrogant,
illogical tusselad
who has now seen the light of day, "But a turtle is OK".
Androcles.
Except there is no experimental evidence supporting that the velocity of a
turtle is the upper limit of any velocity. A theory is only valid if it
supports experimental data. And so far, relativity has not been proven
wrong.
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>

It works great!
Sagnac, Doppler and Newton all predate Einstein.
<< In Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is a
conservative field and total energy is conserved. Using the
above equations for the Keplerian orbit, one can show that the
total energy per unit mass of the satellite is... >>
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html


Sue...
Post by jesper pedersen
- Jesper
Randy Poe
2005-12-14 15:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
It does? Can you tell me where there is a GPS working without
relativistic corrections?
Post by Sue...
Sagnac, Doppler and Newton all predate Einstein.
Which of those had a GPS system?

- Randy
Sue...
2005-12-14 15:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
It does? Can you tell me where there is a GPS working without
relativistic corrections?
Particle accelerators require relativistic corrections.
Nothing moves that fast in the GPS.

Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Sagnac, Doppler and Newton all predate Einstein.
Which of those had a GPS system?
- Randy
Randy Poe
2005-12-14 15:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
It does? Can you tell me where there is a GPS working without
relativistic corrections?
Particle accelerators require relativistic corrections.
Nothing moves that fast in the GPS.
The relativistic corrections are large in particle accelerations.

The relativistic corrections are very small in GPS, on the
order of a few parts in 10^12. But the timing accuracy of GPS
is less than that, on the order of a few parts in 10^14. So the
corrections are needed to achieve the desired accuracy.

But that didn't answer the question. You said that GPS works
great without the corrections, implying that there exists or
existed a system with the same navigational and timing accuracy
but without the corrections. Where and when?

Or when you said "GPS works great [without the corrections]"
did you really mean "There has never been a functioning GPS
without the corrections so therefore any statement about how
GPS is seen to work without the corrections is just something
I made up."

- Randy
Sue...
2005-12-14 15:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
It does? Can you tell me where there is a GPS working without
relativistic corrections?
Particle accelerators require relativistic corrections.
Nothing moves that fast in the GPS.
The relativistic corrections are large in particle accelerations.
Do they correct for Sagnac, altitude or doppler in accelerators?
Post by Randy Poe
The relativistic corrections are very small in GPS, on the
order of a few parts in 10^12. But the timing accuracy of GPS
is less than that, on the order of a few parts in 10^14. So the
corrections are needed to achieve the desired accuracy.
But that didn't answer the question. You said that GPS works
great without the corrections,
I said RELATIVISTIC corrections.

Sue...

implying that there exists or
Post by Randy Poe
existed a system with the same navigational and timing accuracy
but without the corrections. Where and when?
Or when you said "GPS works great [without the corrections]"
did you really mean "There has never been a functioning GPS
without the corrections so therefore any statement about how
GPS is seen to work without the corrections is just something
I made up."
- Randy
Randy Poe
2005-12-14 16:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
The relativistic corrections are large in particle accelerations.
Do they correct for Sagnac, altitude or doppler in accelerators?
What would those corrections look like?

Doppler, certainly. Doppler effect is predicted by relativity. Hence
particle lifetimes are time-dilated when the particles are in motion.

But what do you mean by a Sagnac or altitude correction in an
accelerator? Correction of what? For what effect?
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
The relativistic corrections are very small in GPS, on the
order of a few parts in 10^12. But the timing accuracy of GPS
is less than that, on the order of a few parts in 10^14. So the
corrections are needed to achieve the desired accuracy.
But that didn't answer the question. You said that GPS works
great without the corrections,
I said RELATIVISTIC corrections.
Yes. Implying that you know of a case of GPS working great
without the relativistic corrections. Can you cite when and where
this GPS experiment took place?

- Randy
Sue...
2005-12-14 16:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
The relativistic corrections are large in particle accelerations.
Do they correct for Sagnac, altitude or doppler in accelerators?
What would those corrections look like?
You are the one claiming they are relativistic corrections.
Post by Randy Poe
Doppler, certainly. Doppler effect is predicted by relativity. Hence
particle lifetimes are time-dilated when the particles are in motion.
But what do you mean by a Sagnac or altitude correction in an
accelerator? Correction of what? For what effect?
It is your claim... not mine.
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
The relativistic corrections are very small in GPS, on the
order of a few parts in 10^12. But the timing accuracy of GPS
is less than that, on the order of a few parts in 10^14. So the
corrections are needed to achieve the desired accuracy.
But that didn't answer the question. You said that GPS works
great without the corrections,
I said RELATIVISTIC corrections.
Yes. Implying that you know of a case of GPS working great
without the relativistic corrections. Can you cite when and where
this GPS experiment took place?
Calling something a relativistic correction does not make it so.
The case is clear for particle accelerators where the particles are
moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

I can show relativity has a role in my television antenna
but the picture on the screen is not proof that one form
of Maxwell's equations is superior to another.

Relativity is not necessary to compute the energy a
cesium atom looses to earths gravity,
(Ashby cites Newton in this regard)
It is not necessary to compute the doppler or
sagnac effect.
IOW we haven't invented lettuce, carrots and tomatos
just by calling our grocery cart a salad.

Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
- Randy
Randy Poe
2005-12-14 17:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
The relativistic corrections are large in particle accelerations.
Do they correct for Sagnac, altitude or doppler in accelerators?
What would those corrections look like?
You are the one claiming they are relativistic corrections.
I did? Where?
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
But what do you mean by a Sagnac or altitude correction in an
accelerator? Correction of what? For what effect?
It is your claim... not mine.
Where did I claim there's a Sagnac or altitude correction in
particle accelerators?
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
But that didn't answer the question. You said that GPS works
great without the corrections,
I said RELATIVISTIC corrections.
Yes. Implying that you know of a case of GPS working great
without the relativistic corrections. Can you cite when and where
this GPS experiment took place?
Calling something a relativistic correction does not make it so.
I call it a relativistic correction because relativity predicts that
a correction of 38 usec per day should be made, and a correction
of 38 usec per day is made. Also because that correction was made
because relativity theorists said it should be made and for no other
reason. There weren't other theorists or designers claiming that such
a correction should be necessary.

So what do you want to call a correction predicted by relativity
and made because of relativity calculations? Why isn't "relativistic
correction" a good name for that?
Post by Sue...
The case is clear for particle accelerators where the particles are
moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
Which case is that? What case is clear? Can you be specific?
Post by Sue...
I can show relativity has a role in my television antenna
but the picture on the screen is not proof that one form
of Maxwell's equations is superior to another.
Relativity is not necessary to compute the energy a
cesium atom looses to earths gravity,
Can you back that statement up? For instance, can you show
me the non-relativistic equation that predicts the effect of
gravitational field on hyperfine transition frequency of Cesium,
or point me to someone who calculates the 38 usec/day
correction with a non-relativistic calculation?

- Randy
Sue...
2005-12-14 18:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
The relativistic corrections are large in particle accelerations.
Do they correct for Sagnac, altitude or doppler in accelerators?
What would those corrections look like?
You are the one claiming they are relativistic corrections.
I did? Where?
My mistake
/============
18. Randy Poe
Dec 14, 10:20 am show options
Post by Randy Poe
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
It does? Can you tell me where there is a GPS working without
relativistic corrections?
\============

You seemed to be defending the position.
Post by Randy Poe
Sagnac, Doppler and Newton all predate Einstein.
Which of those had a GPS system?

- Randy
========
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
But what do you mean by a Sagnac or altitude correction in an
accelerator? Correction of what? For what effect?
It is your claim... not mine.
Where did I claim there's a Sagnac or altitude correction in
particle accelerators?
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
But that didn't answer the question. You said that GPS works
great without the corrections,
I said RELATIVISTIC corrections.
Yes. Implying that you know of a case of GPS working great
without the relativistic corrections. Can you cite when and where
this GPS experiment took place?
Calling something a relativistic correction does not make it so.
I call it a relativistic correction because relativity predicts that
a correction of 38 usec per day should be made, and a correction
of 38 usec per day is made. Also because that correction was made
because relativity theorists said it should be made and for no other
reason. There weren't other theorists or designers claiming that such
a correction should be necessary.
You mean the theorists 'gave' no other reason. The relation
between altitude and clock behavior was nothing new.
Post by Randy Poe
So what do you want to call a correction predicted by relativity
and made because of relativity calculations? Why isn't "relativistic
correction" a good name for that?
1. It is motivated by advocates who could have used other means.

2. It misstates and thereby would disprove the near-field (local)
predicitons of special relativity for Maxwell's equations.

If you predict an effect is near-field then claim a far-field phenomena
as proof it destroys your case.
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
The case is clear for particle accelerators where the particles are
moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
Which case is that? What case is clear? Can you be specific?
When charges have a relative motion a signifcant fraction of c
the resultant Coulomb forces make them prefer to change their
identity. Muons live longer, electrons live shorter.
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
I can show relativity has a role in my television antenna
but the picture on the screen is not proof that one form
of Maxwell's equations is superior to another.
Relativity is not necessary to compute the energy a
cesium atom looses to earths gravity,
Can you back that statement up?
For instance, can you show
me the non-relativistic equation that predicts the effect of
gravitational field on hyperfine transition frequency of Cesium,
or point me to someone who calculates the 38 usec/day
correction with a non-relativistic calculation?
Ashby cite Newton and shows the calculation.
Visit the URL

<< In Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is a conservative
field and total energy is conserved. Using the above equations for the
Keplerian orbit, one can show that the total energy per unit mass of
the satellite is>>

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html

You can use own judgment whether his calculations represent
something classically impossible due to particles that are
behaving non-classically and must be tranformed to another gauge.


Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
- Randy
Randy Poe
2005-12-14 19:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
The relativistic corrections are large in particle accelerations.
Do they correct for Sagnac, altitude or doppler in accelerators?
What would those corrections look like?
You are the one claiming they are relativistic corrections.
I did? Where?
My mistake
/============
18. Randy Poe
Dec 14, 10:20 am show options
Post by Randy Poe
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
It does? Can you tell me where there is a GPS working without
relativistic corrections?
\============
You seemed to be defending the position.
Which position? Perhaps I am, but you seem unwilling to
state ANY position explicitly, instead throwing out vague
references and keywords.

Can you state what "the position" is in a complete sentence?
Then I can tell you whether I'm defending it or not.
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Sagnac, Doppler and Newton all predate Einstein.
And Doppler effect is observable, so if GR is a correct theory
it better predict Doppler effect.

Which, of course, it does. It also predicts that the amount
of the Doppler correction is slightly different from the classical
prediction, and that there is a doppler shift even in the
case of transverse motion.
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
But what do you mean by a Sagnac or altitude correction in an
accelerator? Correction of what? For what effect?
It is your claim... not mine.
Where did I claim there's a Sagnac or altitude correction in
particle accelerators?
Again I'll ask you to state what my claim is. I didn't use
the word "altitude" or "Sagnac" so I have no idea what you're
referring to.
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Calling something a relativistic correction does not make it so.
I call it a relativistic correction because relativity predicts that
a correction of 38 usec per day should be made, and a correction
of 38 usec per day is made. Also because that correction was made
because relativity theorists said it should be made and for no other
reason. There weren't other theorists or designers claiming that such
a correction should be necessary.
You mean the theorists 'gave' no other reason. The relation
between altitude and clock behavior was nothing new.
Really? For atomic clocks? Can you justify that statement?
I claim that there is no theory outside GR which predicts
an "altitude effect" on atomic clocks. They aren't pendulum
clocks you know. Pendulum clocks wouldn't work at all
in free fall.
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
So what do you want to call a correction predicted by relativity
and made because of relativity calculations? Why isn't "relativistic
correction" a good name for that?
1. It is motivated by advocates who could have used other means.
So you keep saying, but I haven't seen you produce those
other means.
Post by Sue...
2. It misstates and thereby would disprove the near-field (local)
predicitons of special relativity for Maxwell's equations.
Don't know what you mean there. This makes the third or
fourth claim in this post for which you have no citation
whatsoever.
Post by Sue...
If you predict an effect is near-field then claim a far-field phenomena
as proof it destroys your case.
Explain?
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
The case is clear for particle accelerators where the particles are
moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
Which case is that? What case is clear? Can you be specific?
When charges have a relative motion a signifcant fraction of c
the resultant Coulomb forces make them prefer to change their
identity. Muons live longer, electrons live shorter.
What are the "resultant Coulomb forces" that depend on
velocity?

What is your reference for high-energy electrons living
for a shorter time than low-energy electrons? What do
you think the lifetime of an electron is?
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Relativity is not necessary to compute the energy a
cesium atom looses to earths gravity,
Can you back that statement up?
For instance, can you show
me the non-relativistic equation that predicts the effect of
gravitational field on hyperfine transition frequency of Cesium,
or point me to someone who calculates the 38 usec/day
correction with a non-relativistic calculation?
Ashby cite Newton and shows the calculation.
Visit the URL
<< In Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is a conservative
field and total energy is conserved. Using the above equations for the
Keplerian orbit, one can show that the total energy per unit mass of
the satellite is>>
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html
You're aware that this is a calculation using general
relativity, right? He's using a Newtonian argument to figure
out what to put into equation (28). Take a look at equation
(28), about which he says
"The relativistic effect on the clock, given in Eq. (27), is thus
corrected by Eq. (28)."

Trace the calculation back and you'll see that the starting
point is Eq. (12): "an approximate solution of Einstein's field
equations
in isotropic coordinates"

That hardly qualifies as a non-relativistic calculation.
Post by Sue...
You can use own judgment whether his calculations represent
something classically impossible due to particles that are
behaving non-classically and must be tranformed to another gauge.
The ENTIRE CALCULATION begins with general relativity
and works out the specific effects for GPS. Equation 28 is the
relation between two different time-coordinates. Do you think
there's a non-relativistic theory of time-dilation?

- Randy
Sue...
2005-12-14 19:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
The relativistic corrections are large in particle accelerations.
Do they correct for Sagnac, altitude or doppler in accelerators?
What would those corrections look like?
You are the one claiming they are relativistic corrections.
I did? Where?
My mistake
/============
18. Randy Poe
Dec 14, 10:20 am show options
Post by Randy Poe
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
It does? Can you tell me where there is a GPS working without
relativistic corrections?
\============
You seemed to be defending the position.
Which position? Perhaps I am, but you seem unwilling to
state ANY position explicitly, instead throwing out vague
references and keywords.
Can you state what "the position" is in a complete sentence?
Then I can tell you whether I'm defending it or not.
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Sagnac, Doppler and Newton all predate Einstein.
And Doppler effect is observable, so if GR is a correct theory
it better predict Doppler effect.
Which, of course, it does. It also predicts that the amount
of the Doppler correction is slightly different from the classical
prediction, and that there is a doppler shift even in the
case of transverse motion.
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
But what do you mean by a Sagnac or altitude correction in an
accelerator? Correction of what? For what effect?
It is your claim... not mine.
Where did I claim there's a Sagnac or altitude correction in
particle accelerators?
Again I'll ask you to state what my claim is. I didn't use
the word "altitude" or "Sagnac" so I have no idea what you're
referring to.
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Calling something a relativistic correction does not make it so.
I call it a relativistic correction because relativity predicts that
a correction of 38 usec per day should be made, and a correction
of 38 usec per day is made. Also because that correction was made
because relativity theorists said it should be made and for no other
reason. There weren't other theorists or designers claiming that such
a correction should be necessary.
You mean the theorists 'gave' no other reason. The relation
between altitude and clock behavior was nothing new.
Really? For atomic clocks? Can you justify that statement?
I claim that there is no theory outside GR which predicts
an "altitude effect" on atomic clocks. They aren't pendulum
clocks you know. Pendulum clocks wouldn't work at all
in free fall.
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
So what do you want to call a correction predicted by relativity
and made because of relativity calculations? Why isn't "relativistic
correction" a good name for that?
1. It is motivated by advocates who could have used other means.
So you keep saying, but I haven't seen you produce those
other means.
Post by Sue...
2. It misstates and thereby would disprove the near-field (local)
predicitons of special relativity for Maxwell's equations.
Don't know what you mean there. This makes the third or
fourth claim in this post for which you have no citation
whatsoever.
Post by Sue...
If you predict an effect is near-field then claim a far-field phenomena
as proof it destroys your case.
Explain?
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
The case is clear for particle accelerators where the particles are
moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
Which case is that? What case is clear? Can you be specific?
When charges have a relative motion a signifcant fraction of c
the resultant Coulomb forces make them prefer to change their
identity. Muons live longer, electrons live shorter.
What are the "resultant Coulomb forces" that depend on
velocity?
What is your reference for high-energy electrons living
for a shorter time than low-energy electrons? What do
you think the lifetime of an electron is?
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Relativity is not necessary to compute the energy a
cesium atom looses to earths gravity,
Can you back that statement up?
For instance, can you show
me the non-relativistic equation that predicts the effect of
gravitational field on hyperfine transition frequency of Cesium,
or point me to someone who calculates the 38 usec/day
correction with a non-relativistic calculation?
Ashby cite Newton and shows the calculation.
Visit the URL
<< In Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is a conservative
field and total energy is conserved. Using the above equations for the
Keplerian orbit, one can show that the total energy per unit mass of
the satellite is>>
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html
You're aware that this is a calculation using general
relativity, right? He's using a Newtonian argument to figure
out what to put into equation (28). Take a look at equation
(28), about which he says
"The relativistic effect on the clock, given in Eq. (27), is thus
corrected by Eq. (28)."
Trace the calculation back and you'll see that the starting
point is Eq. (12): "an approximate solution of Einstein's field
equations
in isotropic coordinates"
That hardly qualifies as a non-relativistic calculation.
Post by Sue...
You can use own judgment whether his calculations represent
something classically impossible due to particles that are
behaving non-classically and must be tranformed to another gauge.
The ENTIRE CALCULATION begins with general relativity
and works out the specific effects for GPS. Equation 28 is the
relation between two different time-coordinates. Do you think
there's a non-relativistic theory of time-dilation?
I think you'll find "time dilation" in the near-field of Maxwell's
equations and between Kip Thorne's ears.

Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
- Randy
hanson
2005-12-14 17:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Doppler, certainly. Doppler effect is predicted by relativity. Hence
particle lifetimes are time-dilated when the particles are in motion.
Sue....
IOW we haven't invented lettuce, carrots and tomatos
just by calling our grocery cart a salad.
[hanson]
He'll never see that theories are nothing but stories... hahaha.
You will get thru to him with as little success as will an Islamer
see the pov of a Zionishit or the latter will accept the notions of
the former... .... but in Randy's situation we have an additional
element that stems from his einsteinian dependency syndrome:
He, like his idol Albert, fiddles and writes poetry... imprinted
in his name: Poe, the Poet trying to write Poetry and a randy
and rancid kind to boot, especially when it comes to algebra...
and that is leaving out about half the burden that Randy carries
around..... ahahaha.... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, guys.
ahahaha... ahahanson
Androcles
2005-12-14 18:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
The relativistic corrections are large in particle accelerations.
Do they correct for Sagnac, altitude or doppler in accelerators?
What would those corrections look like?
Doppler, certainly. Doppler effect is predicted by relativity. Hence
particle lifetimes are time-dilated when the particles are in motion.
But what do you mean by a Sagnac or altitude correction in an
accelerator? Correction of what? For what effect?
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
The relativistic corrections are very small in GPS, on the
order of a few parts in 10^12. But the timing accuracy of GPS
is less than that, on the order of a few parts in 10^14. So the
corrections are needed to achieve the desired accuracy.
But that didn't answer the question. You said that GPS works
great without the corrections,
I said RELATIVISTIC corrections.
Yes. Implying that you know of a case of GPS working great
without the relativistic corrections. Can you cite when and where
this GPS experiment took place?
Oh, for Gawd's sake. About 2009 years ago, Bay't L'Chaim.
Androcles.
Sue...
2005-12-14 16:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
It does? Can you tell me where there is a GPS working without
relativistic corrections?
Particle accelerators require relativistic corrections.
Nothing moves that fast in the GPS.
The relativistic corrections are large in particle accelerations.
The relativistic corrections are very small in GPS, on the
order of a few parts in 10^12. But the timing accuracy of GPS
is less than that, on the order of a few parts in 10^14. So the
corrections are needed to achieve the desired accuracy.
But that didn't answer the question. You said that GPS works
great without the corrections, implying that there exists or
existed a system with the same navigational and timing accuracy
but without the corrections. Where and when?
Or when you said "GPS works great [without the corrections]"
did you really mean "There has never been a functioning GPS
without the corrections so therefore any statement about how
GPS is seen to work without the corrections is just something
I made up."
- Randy
Word-scrabble aside,
No clocksmith worth his winding stems expects the SUMO
to match the altitude effect of cesium and rubidum.
That will mean Pound Snider correctly titled their paper
about nuclear resonance and it will mean LPI is a
problem for some theorists... particularly those that
claim some proof of 'graviational redshift' in the GPS.

http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/parcs.htm
http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/Intro.html

Sue...
Androcles
2005-12-14 18:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
It does? Can you tell me where there is a GPS working without
relativistic corrections?
Particle accelerators require relativistic corrections.
Nothing moves that fast in the GPS.
The relativistic corrections are large in particle accelerations.
The relativistic corrections are very small in GPS, on the
order of a few parts in 10^12. But the timing accuracy of GPS
is less than that, on the order of a few parts in 10^14. So the
corrections are needed to achieve the desired accuracy.
But that didn't answer the question. You said that GPS works
great without the corrections, implying that there exists or
existed a system with the same navigational and timing accuracy
but without the corrections. Where and when?
Or when you said "GPS works great [without the corrections]"
did you really mean "There has never been a functioning GPS
without the corrections so therefore any statement about how
GPS is seen to work without the corrections is just something
I made up."
- Randy
Don't be silly, Randy. People were navigating by the stars 2000 years ago.
Haven't you heard of the Star of Bethlehem and the three clever bastards
toting gold, frankincense and myrrh? They targeted a flea right
down to a mangy dog or something. Or was it a dog in manger?
Dang, and it's Xmas...

Androcles.
Randy Poe
2005-12-14 19:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
Post by Randy Poe
Or when you said "GPS works great [without the corrections]"
did you really mean "There has never been a functioning GPS
without the corrections so therefore any statement about how
GPS is seen to work without the corrections is just something
I made up."
Don't be silly, Randy. People were navigating by the stars 2000 years ago.
So it is your contention that you can achieve geolocation
to a couple of meters accuracy and time synchronization to
nanosecond accuracy by navigating with the stars? That
the GPS system provides no additional capability that
was not present 2000 years ago?

Are you aware of the "longitude problem"? Sailors on
the open sea couldn't even tell what LONGITUDE they were
at a few hundred years ago, let alone 2000 years
ago.

- Randy
Sue...
2005-12-14 19:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Androcles
Post by Randy Poe
Or when you said "GPS works great [without the corrections]"
did you really mean "There has never been a functioning GPS
without the corrections so therefore any statement about how
GPS is seen to work without the corrections is just something
I made up."
Don't be silly, Randy. People were navigating by the stars 2000 years ago.
So it is your contention that you can achieve geolocation
to a couple of meters accuracy and time synchronization to
nanosecond accuracy by navigating with the stars? That
the GPS system provides no additional capability that
was not present 2000 years ago?
Are you aware of the "longitude problem"? Sailors on
the open sea couldn't even tell what LONGITUDE they were
at a few hundred years ago, let alone 2000 years
ago.
Ahh the Harrison twins! They couln't agree how many
orbits Jupiter's moons made so Napoleon sold Louisiana
to Mayor Bloomberg before the Dutch boy (Lorenz)
called Newton a dike because of his hair was long from
staying at home.

Yeah... we know that story.

Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
- Randy
Androcles
2005-12-14 22:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Androcles
Post by Randy Poe
Or when you said "GPS works great [without the corrections]"
did you really mean "There has never been a functioning GPS
without the corrections so therefore any statement about how
GPS is seen to work without the corrections is just something
I made up."
Don't be silly, Randy. People were navigating by the stars 2000 years ago.
So it is your contention that you can achieve geolocation
to a couple of meters accuracy and time synchronization to
nanosecond accuracy by navigating with the stars? That
the GPS system provides no additional capability that
was not present 2000 years ago?
Are you aware of the "longitude problem"? Sailors on
the open sea couldn't even tell what LONGITUDE they were
at a few hundred years ago, let alone 2000 years
ago.
Ahh the Harrison twins! They couln't agree how many
orbits Jupiter's moons made so Napoleon sold Louisiana
to Mayor Bloomberg before the Dutch boy (Lorenz)
called Newton a dike because of his hair was long from
staying at home.
Yeah... we know that story.
It's amazing how the Phoenician twins Castor and Pollux made it to
South America and back... Castor is now a friendly ghost. He took
over from his cousin Casper.
Post by Sue...
Sue...
Androcles
2005-12-14 21:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Androcles
Post by Randy Poe
Or when you said "GPS works great [without the corrections]"
did you really mean "There has never been a functioning GPS
without the corrections so therefore any statement about how
GPS is seen to work without the corrections is just something
I made up."
Don't be silly, Randy. People were navigating by the stars 2000 years ago.
So it is your contention that you can achieve geolocation
to a couple of meters accuracy and time synchronization to
nanosecond accuracy by navigating with the stars? That
the GPS system provides no additional capability that
was not present 2000 years ago?
I answered your question, idiot, mainly for Sue's benefit.
Until you can answer some of mine that's all you get.

You snipped. Likewise, I'm sure. Now fuck off, you dishonest lying cheat.

Androcles.
Androcles
2005-12-14 17:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
It does? Can you tell me where there is a GPS working without
relativistic corrections?
Post by Sue...
Sagnac, Doppler and Newton all predate Einstein.
Which of those had a GPS system?
Hmmm... Sagnac and Doppler. Newton helped invent it with his work on
pendula.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Longitude2.html

Latitude was much easier. A minor matter of sighting Polaris, y'know.

Androcles.
jesper pedersen
2005-12-14 16:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by jesper pedersen
Post by Androcles
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Dastardly Fiend
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
But a turtle is OK.
Let the distance AB be 1 m.
The turtle leaves A when clock A reads tA = 0 seconds
The turtle arrive at B when clock B reads tB = 10 seconds
The turtle returns and arrive at A when the clock A reads
t'A = 20 seconds.
tB = (t'A - tA)/2
10 seconds = (20 - 0)/2 seconds = 10 seconds
Yep. Our clocks are synced.
2AB/(t'A - tA) = 2m/(20sec - 0 sec) = 0.1 m/s.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0
If you go for a walk, you havent moved
at all when you get back.
Well done, Androcles.
Thank you.
Since we now agree that Einstein's "reasoning" applies equally to light as
it does to turtles, we are compelled to conclude (those of us that are
logical, that is)
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle, the velocity of turtles is infinite.
Androcles and empirical evidence has now proven your brain cannot go
faster than a turtle's and your deliberations are meaningless.
So we agree. Don't forget my honorary degree from Agder College for proving
the assistant professor there was an illiterate, innumerate, arrogant,
illogical tusselad
who has now seen the light of day, "But a turtle is OK".
Androcles.
Except there is no experimental evidence supporting that the velocity of a
turtle is the upper limit of any velocity. A theory is only valid if it
supports experimental data. And so far, relativity has not been proven
wrong.
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
Sagnac, Doppler and Newton all predate Einstein.
<< In Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is a
conservative field and total energy is conserved. Using the
above equations for the Keplerian orbit, one can show that the
total energy per unit mass of the satellite is... >>
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html
Sue...
No, it doesn't. Without relativistic corrections (both special and general)
the GPS would fail terribly due to an accumulating error of about 10
kilometers each day.

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

/ Jesper P
Sue...
2005-12-14 17:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by jesper pedersen
Post by Sue...
Post by jesper pedersen
Post by Androcles
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Dastardly Fiend
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
But a turtle is OK.
Let the distance AB be 1 m.
The turtle leaves A when clock A reads tA = 0 seconds
The turtle arrive at B when clock B reads tB = 10 seconds
The turtle returns and arrive at A when the clock A reads
t'A = 20 seconds.
tB = (t'A - tA)/2
10 seconds = (20 - 0)/2 seconds = 10 seconds
Yep. Our clocks are synced.
2AB/(t'A - tA) = 2m/(20sec - 0 sec) = 0.1 m/s.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0
If you go for a walk, you havent moved
at all when you get back.
Well done, Androcles.
Thank you.
Since we now agree that Einstein's "reasoning" applies equally to light as
it does to turtles, we are compelled to conclude (those of us that are
logical, that is)
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle, the velocity of turtles is infinite.
Androcles and empirical evidence has now proven your brain cannot go
faster than a turtle's and your deliberations are meaningless.
So we agree. Don't forget my honorary degree from Agder College for proving
the assistant professor there was an illiterate, innumerate, arrogant,
illogical tusselad
who has now seen the light of day, "But a turtle is OK".
Androcles.
Except there is no experimental evidence supporting that the velocity of a
turtle is the upper limit of any velocity. A theory is only valid if it
supports experimental data. And so far, relativity has not been proven
wrong.
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
Sagnac, Doppler and Newton all predate Einstein.
<< In Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is a
conservative field and total energy is conserved. Using the
above equations for the Keplerian orbit, one can show that the
total energy per unit mass of the satellite is... >>
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html
Sue...
No, it doesn't. Without relativistic corrections (both special and general)
the GPS would fail terribly due to an accumulating error of about 10
kilometers each day.
<< Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the
satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7
microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time
dilation effect of their relative motion. >>
Ya want to show us that?
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps.html

Sue...
Post by jesper pedersen
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
/ Jesper P
Randy Poe
2005-12-14 17:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
<< Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the
satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7
microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time
dilation effect of their relative motion. >>
Ya want to show us that?
Special relativity says that there is a time dilation
effect of gamma = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). For v << c, this is
very close to (1 - v^2/2c^2).

GPS satellites are in circular orbits at 20200 km altitude, or
about 26580 km from the center of earth. The orbital
speed is given by

GMm/R^2 = mv^2/R

v^2 = GM/R = (6.673E-11)(5.974E24)/(2.658E7)

v = 3873 m/sec

v^2/2c^2 = (3873^2/2*3e8^2) = 8.333E-11

So SR predicts a time change of 8.333E-11, which works
out to 7.2 microseconds out of 86400 seconds (one day).

- Randy
brian a m stuckless
2005-12-14 21:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
<< Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks
on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by
about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking
rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.
Ya want to show us that?
Special relativity says that there is a time dilation
effect of gamma = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). For v << c, this is
very close to (1 - v^2/2c^2).
GPS satellites are in circular orbits at 20200 km altitude,
or about 26580 km from the center of earth. The orbital
speed is given by > -=-
G*M1*m1 / R^2 = (n - 1)*m1*v1^2 / R
Where: >
v1^2 = G*M1 / (n - 1)*R = (6.673E-11)*(5.974E24) / 2.658E7
And, where: >
v1 = 3873 -> meter / sec
Then: >
v1^2 / 2*c^2 = (3873^2 / 2*c^2) = 8.333E-11
Note, particularly:
v1^2 (3873)^2 (R*g1) | GPS ambient density vVLO^2 |
-- -- = -- -- -- = -- --- = |(-- -- -- - -- -- -- ) + (------)|
2*c^2 2*c^2 2*c^2 | vVLO ambient density 2*c^2 |

So, this GUESS iSS RATiO of 8.333E-11 which, adhocly, works..
Post by Randy Poe
out to 7.2 microseconds out of 86400 seconds (one day).
Cosmic relief:
The "False Premise" is.. GR "predicts" (within 7 micro-seconds)
EARth's ROTATiON ..and in an EARth-centered frame-of-reference.

CLEARLY, the "EARth" clock OUGHT BE in a Very Low Orbit (a VLO)
for your arithmetic to *REALLY* "work out", as per the equation.
[ The FACT that the EARth clock is sitting *ON* EARth and NOT in
a VLO (so-as the arithmetic works) is REASON for DAiLY reSETs. ]

Other GP Systems can avoid these so-claimed GR "predictions".!!

Show us exactly HOW you factored in EARth DAY's 86400 sec.!!

Go-go Google GROUP SEARCH < My BiGGER bang > ..idiot.!!

Brian A M Stuckless
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
<> >><> >><> >><> >><> ^
- Randy
Re: The False Premise Syndrome in Theoretical Science
< sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,
sci.skeptic,sci.philosophy.tech >.
jesper pedersen
2005-12-14 21:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Sue...
<< Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the
satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7
microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time
dilation effect of their relative motion. >>
Ya want to show us that?
Special relativity says that there is a time dilation
effect of gamma = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). For v << c, this is
very close to (1 - v^2/2c^2).
GPS satellites are in circular orbits at 20200 km altitude, or
about 26580 km from the center of earth. The orbital
speed is given by
GMm/R^2 = mv^2/R
v^2 = GM/R = (6.673E-11)(5.974E24)/(2.658E7)
v = 3873 m/sec
v^2/2c^2 = (3873^2/2*3e8^2) = 8.333E-11
So SR predicts a time change of 8.333E-11, which works
out to 7.2 microseconds out of 86400 seconds (one day).
- Randy
Thanks for sparing me the effort of writing down the exact equations. Odd
how the burden of proof is not on the people who question a theory that has
yet to be disproven.

/ Jesper P
Androcles
2005-12-14 17:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by jesper pedersen
Post by Androcles
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Dastardly Fiend
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
But a turtle is OK.
Let the distance AB be 1 m.
The turtle leaves A when clock A reads tA = 0 seconds
The turtle arrive at B when clock B reads tB = 10 seconds
The turtle returns and arrive at A when the clock A reads
t'A = 20 seconds.
tB = (t'A - tA)/2
10 seconds = (20 - 0)/2 seconds = 10 seconds
Yep. Our clocks are synced.
2AB/(t'A - tA) = 2m/(20sec - 0 sec) = 0.1 m/s.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0
If you go for a walk, you havent moved
at all when you get back.
Well done, Androcles.
Thank you.
Since we now agree that Einstein's "reasoning" applies equally to light as
it does to turtles, we are compelled to conclude (those of us that are
logical, that is)
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle, the velocity of turtles is infinite.
Androcles and empirical evidence has now proven your brain cannot go
faster than a turtle's and your deliberations are meaningless.
So we agree. Don't forget my honorary degree from Agder College for proving
the assistant professor there was an illiterate, innumerate, arrogant,
illogical tusselad
who has now seen the light of day, "But a turtle is OK".
Androcles.
Except there is no experimental evidence supporting that the velocity of a
turtle is the upper limit of any velocity. A theory is only valid if it
supports experimental data. And so far, relativity has not been proven
wrong.
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
Sagnac, Doppler and Newton all predate Einstein.
<< In Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is a
conservative field and total energy is conserved. Using the
above equations for the Keplerian orbit, one can show that the
total energy per unit mass of the satellite is... >>
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html
Sue...
Thank you, Sue. I could not have said it better myself.
Paul B. Andersen
2005-12-14 22:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
<< Try using GPS without relativistic corrections. >>
It works great!
It has been tried without the relativistic correction.
It didn't work.
Post by Sue...
Sagnac, Doppler and Newton all predate Einstein.
<< In Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is a
conservative field and total energy is conserved. Using the
above equations for the Keplerian orbit, one can show that the
total energy per unit mass of the satellite is... >>
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html
Quite.
Thanks for informing us about the relativistic effects on
the satellite clocks. The GPS works because the designers
built a correction for those effects into the satellites.

Paul
Paul B. Andersen
2005-12-14 11:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Dastardly Fiend
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
But a turtle is OK.
Let the distance AB be 1 m.
The turtle leaves A when clock A reads tA = 0 seconds
The turtle arrive at B when clock B reads tB = 10 seconds
The turtle returns and arrive at A when the clock A reads
t'A = 20 seconds.
tB = (t'A - tA)/2
10 seconds = (20 - 0)/2 seconds = 10 seconds
Yep. Our clocks are synced.
2AB/(t'A - tA) = 2m/(20sec - 0 sec) = 0.1 m/s.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0
If you go for a walk, you havent moved
at all when you get back.
Well done, Androcles.
Thank you.
Since we now agree that Einstein's "reasoning" applies equally to light as
it does to turtles,
Of course it does.
According to Einstein as well as Newton, it doesn't matter
what is moving between A and B as long as it is moving with
a constant, isotropic speed in the rest frame of A and B.
Einstein and Newton agree that
clock A and clock B are in sync if: tB = (t'A - tA)/2
and they agree that
the speed of the turtle is: 2AB/(t'A - tA)
Post by Androcles
we are compelled to conclude (those of us that are
logical, that is)
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of a
turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle, the velocity of turtles is infinite.
I note with interest that this is your logical conclusion
drawn from Newton's definition of simultaneity.

Well done.
Post by Androcles
Androcles and empirical evidence has now proven your brain cannot go faster
than a turtle's and your deliberations are meaningless.
So we agree. Don't forget my honorary degree from Agder College for proving
the assistant professor there was an illiterate, innumerate, arrogant,
illogical tusselad
who has now seen the light of day, "But a turtle is OK".
Androcles.
Here is the Diploma:

D I P L O M A

given to Androcles

for repeatedly having made Paul B. Andersen look like a fool
by uttering statements like:

"Nothing can go faster than a turtle, the velocity of turtles is infinite."

"That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0"

Congratulations.

Paul
Androcles
2005-12-14 17:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Androcles
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Dastardly Fiend
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
But a turtle is OK.
Let the distance AB be 1 m.
The turtle leaves A when clock A reads tA = 0 seconds
The turtle arrive at B when clock B reads tB = 10 seconds
The turtle returns and arrive at A when the clock A reads
t'A = 20 seconds.
tB = (t'A - tA)/2
10 seconds = (20 - 0)/2 seconds = 10 seconds
Yep. Our clocks are synced.
2AB/(t'A - tA) = 2m/(20sec - 0 sec) = 0.1 m/s.
Post by Dastardly Fiend
That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0
If you go for a walk, you havent moved
at all when you get back.
Well done, Androcles.
Thank you.
Since we now agree that Einstein's "reasoning" applies equally to light
as it does to turtles,
Of course it does.
Then we agree. How nice. It's been a long time since we did that.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
According to Einstein as well as Newton, it doesn't matter
what is moving between A and B as long as it is moving with
a constant, isotropic speed in the rest frame of A and B.
Can't agree there, Einstein made no requirement for isotropy in his
definition, or even of homogeneity.
It doesn't matter if the turtle stops at every stop sign along the way,
the "time" adjusts to account for it.
There is nothing about a rest frame in the definition either.
There can't be, because Einstein calculates the speed of the turtle
is the same in ALL frames of reference for which the laws of
electrodynamics and optics hold good.
Now we know that the law of the speed of light holds good in
all frames of reference, so the law of the speed of turtles must hold
good also.
Didn't you know that, tusselad?
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Einstein and Newton agree that
clock A and clock B are in sync if: tB = (t'A - tA)/2
No, no, Einstein and Newton agree that the turtle moves relatively
to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system,
with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t.
Newton would never agree to œ(tau0 + tau2) = tau1.
He'll only agree to œ(t0 + t2)/2 = t1.
I know, because he told me. Newton said:
"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature,
flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name
is called duration".

Newton would shove that œ up the anal oriface of Einstein's gluteus maximus
where it belongs, tusselad, and then eat Einstein for breakfast and burp the
gases.
He'd say ( t1+t0)/(t2-t0) * (tau0 + tau2)/2 = tau1. Ask him, you'll see.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
and they agree that
the speed of the turtle is: 2AB/(t'A - tA)
No, no, tusselad. Newton would never agree to v-c = v+c.

Why, that would make
(v-c) = (-d + delta_d)/(tB-tA) = (d + delta_d)/(t'A-tB) = (v+c).

Newton would never tolerate different distances in the same time,
unless |v+c)| <> |v-c|, tusselad.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Androcles
we are compelled to conclude (those of us that are logical, that is)
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle, the velocity of turtles is infinite.
I note with interest that this is your logical conclusion
drawn from Newton's definition of simultaneity.
No no, tusselad. You haven't understood Newton at all.
The conclusion I drew was from Einstein's genius, tusselad.


Newton's definition of simultaneity is contained in
"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature,
flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another
name is called duration".

"Without relation to anything external" means "independent", tusselad, and
certainly independent of the speed of turtles.
You didn't know that, did you?
But then how could you, being an incompetent illogical nuisance troll?
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Well done.
Thank you, tusselad. Always nice to be congratulated on proving you
are so very very wrong.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Androcles
Androcles and empirical evidence has now proven your brain cannot go
faster than a turtle's and your deliberations are meaningless.
So we agree. Don't forget my honorary degree from Agder College for proving
the assistant professor there was an illiterate, innumerate, arrogant,
illogical tusselad
who has now seen the light of day, "But a turtle is OK".
Androcles.
D I P L O M A
given to Androcles
for repeatedly having made Paul B. Andersen look like a fool
"Nothing can go faster than a turtle, the velocity of turtles is infinite."
"That is two velocities then, not one, isn't it?
So AB/(tB-tA) = c and (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0"
Err.. you forget to to add "c and -c" for the two velocities, tusselad, and
that the laws of mechanics hold good of all frames of reference for which
the laws of electrodynamics and optics hold good. I call that my
"Principle of Equivalence". I know speed and velocity confuse you,
and I wouldn't want it to be unclear to those whom I proudly show
my diploma from Agder College to. I'm sure the omission is minor and
apparent to all, but I do think it relevant.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Congratulations.
Thank you, tusselad. When is the ceremony? Can I wear my cap
and gown?

Androcles.
Steamboat
2005-12-12 14:33:15 UTC
Permalink
On 11 Dec 2005 23:12:58 -0800, "Pentcho Valev"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bryan Wallace
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :

"This erection of higher and higher barriers to
the comprehension of
scientific affairs is a threat to an essential
characteristic of
science, its openness to outside examination and
appraisal....Because
of this, modern theoretical physics has become to
a large degree,
little more than an elaborate farce....In
Galileo's time it was heresy
to claim there was evidence that the Earth went
around the Sun, and in
our time it is heresy to argue that there is
evidence that the speed of
light in space is not constant for all observers,
no matter how fast
they are moving, as predicted by Prof. Albert
Einstein's sacred 1905
Special Relativity Theory....Einstein's special
relativity theory with
his second postulate that the speed of light in
space is constant is
the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern
physics theories
together. Shatter this postulate, and modern
physics becomes an
elaborate farce!....I expect that the scientists
of the future will
consider the dominant abstract physics theories of
our time in much the
same light as we now consider the Medieval
theories of how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth
stands still and the
Universe moves around it."

The excerpts from the martyr's book suggest that a
single false premise
can convert a whole science into a farce. In fact,
this syndrome is an
essential feature of theoretical science. The
introduction of a false
premise generates artefacts, problems, solutions
to the problems etc. -
stuff for the initiated to proliferate and for
zombies to learn by
rote. So the premise "Heat is an indestructible
substance" and its
corollary, the second law of thermodynamics, are
just as important as
Einstein's idiocy:

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev4.htm

Amazingly, classical electrostatics is also based
on a false premise:
All forces acting in the system under
consideration are conservative
(electrical). See more in

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.htm

Pentcho Valev


Pure fantasy. Surely you can find something more
realistic to read. Like Harry Potter.

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what
to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon."
#
Norbert
2005-12-12 16:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steamboat
Pure fantasy. Surely you can find something more
realistic to read. Like Harry Potter.
"Hagrid had Norbert packed and ready in a large crate.
'He's got lots o' rats an' some brandy fer the journey',
said Hagrid in a muffled voice. 'An' I packed his teddy
bear in case he gets lonely'.
From inside the crate came ripping noises that sounded to
Harry as though teddy was having his head torn off."
--J.K. Rowling, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone."

You are in my crate, Steamboat teddy. Hagrid Valev put me here.
Get out fast.
Norbert.
s***@hotmail.com
2005-12-12 17:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
"This erection of higher and higher barriers to the comprehension of
scientific affairs is a threat to an essential characteristic of
science,
So, what exactly are these "higher and higher barriers to the
comprehension of scientific affairs"?
Post by Pentcho Valev
its openness to outside examination and appraisal....
Since we really don't know specifically what the author is referring
to, it's impossible to appreciate how "openness to outside examination
and appraisal" has been harmed. Where does this guy get this made up
imperative for "outside examination," anyway? The only outside
examination I think is needed for science is from epistemology and
ethics.
Post by Pentcho Valev
Because
of this, modern theoretical physics has become to a large degree,
little more than an elaborate farce....
This is a total non sequitur. It's like saying that the Olympics is a
farce because the average person finds it ever more difficult to attain
the athletic feats performed by the best athletes on earth. Whether or
not you think the Olympics is a farce, it is not a farce for such a
stupid justification. Quite the contrary, physics is doing quite well,
thank you, ever since it dumped the luminiferous ether and the entire
Mechanical Program. If you want to participate in examination of modern
science, just take the time to learn modern science. No one is stopping
you. It wouldn't hurt to learn some epistemology either!
Post by Pentcho Valev
In Galileo's time it was heresy
to claim there was evidence that the Earth went around the Sun, and in
our time it is heresy to argue that there is evidence that the speed of
light in space is not constant for all observers, no matter how fast
they are moving, as predicted by Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905
Special Relativity Theory
There's nothing any more sacred about 1905 SR to relativists than there
is about ether to etherists. It is not heresy to debunk the Light
Principle. Though it is crankism to debunk it without some compelling
evidence that it is wrong. What cranks want to be able to do, is to
debunk it without presenting REAL experimental evidence that something
is actually wrong.

This is the very old debate between rationalism/realism and
instrumentalism. The rationalist believes that the human mind, by use
of innate ideas, can apprehend absolute truth about the real world we
live in, but he accepts this dogma on faith. The instrumentalist,
thinking along empiricist lines, believes that a supposed "absolute
truth apprehended by the human mind" is never provable, and thus is a
false goal for science, a self-delusion. Instead, the scientific
instrumentalist looks for practical solutions to theory building. He
accepts that scientific measurements and scientific knowledge are both
theory laden and conventional. So, he looks for theories that work. He
treats them as pure instruments of thought to accomplish a purely
practical goal of inventing theories that work.

Rationalism was a reactionary movement against the medieval religious
dogma that claimed a monopoly on truth. The religious dogma was that
truth is obtained by divine revelation. The rationalist believed that
truth is apprehened by the rational mind by intuiting true theories
from empirical data. The empiricists denied that dogma. But rationalism
also preached a monopoly of truth. The hard-core religious dogmatist
typically had little interest in science per se. However, the Catholic
church did take some interest in it for who knows why. It rested its
scholasticism on the dogmas of Ptolemy, for one.

The instrumentalist was an outgrowth of pragmatism and a reactionary
against both rationalism and realism epistemology. Questions worth
asking must be pragmatic in nature. One must have some way of verifying
an answer to commit to the question, or even to claim that the question
is meaningful. In the restricted area of science, they held scientific
questions to be pragmatic. Science is about the invention of theories
that work, not about truth in some metaphysical sense, as that would be
unverifiable. Scientific theories do not prove to us anything about
deep reality any more than religion proves to us about a real god or
any supposed "real thing" transcendent to direct human observation.
Leave that to the metaphysicists and the persons of faith. Liberal
scientific instrumentalists care very little about what goes into a
scientific theory, and everything about what comes out of them that can
be tested empirically.

Good scientific theories have first self-consistency, and second, good
agreement between their predictions and their measurements, and third,
have economical founding postulates (logical economy or Ockam's Razor).
Less important but still useful measures of good theories are that they
should be fruitful for gaining new knowledge, and that they should be
harmonious with other theories (fit into some broad-based formal point
of view or unifying paradigm).
Post by Pentcho Valev
....Einstein's special relativity theory with
his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is
the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories
together.
Does he really think it is possible that modern physics could go on for
100 years based on a blatantly false central principle? Yes, he
obviously does. The fallacy of that is that modern physics is not just
pie-in-the-sky theory, it is also tested in practice in the real world
technology dependent on that theory. How can any false "linchpin"
generate a hundred years of success? That's at face value
counter-intuitive. But this is never explained to us. I wonder why.

Let's do some Bayesian analysis here: Consider an abstract system S
based on central principles {P_i}. We ask what the probability is that
S is successful, yet P_1, say, of the central principles is false.
Answer: Pretty damn small indeed!
Post by Pentcho Valev
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an
elaborate farce!....I expect that the scientists of the future will
consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the
same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the
Universe moves around it."
For "abstract" translate "non-mechanical." The complainer promotes the
Ghost of the Mechanical Program, which rears its ugly head once again
from its crypt, where it should rest in peace. Well, if the complainers
want to erect a new mechanical theory of everything, let them try. But
success at this endeavour is their only justification. As they say: The
proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Norbert
2005-12-12 17:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Pentcho Valev
"This erection of higher and higher barriers to the comprehension of
scientific affairs is a threat to an essential characteristic of
science,
So, what exactly are these "higher and higher barriers to the
comprehension of scientific affairs"?
A hard-on trying to burst a condom to wilfully misunderstand contraception.
"A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need
to be happy." --Albert Einstein.
A good rubout might help.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Pentcho Valev
its openness to outside examination and appraisal....
Since we really don't know specifically what the author is referring
to, it's impossible to appreciate how "openness to outside examination
and appraisal" has been harmed.
Give it some "openness to outside examination and appraisal", then.
"If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the
tailor."--Albert Einstein.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Where does this guy get this made up
imperative for "outside examination," anyway?
Oh, ok.. Keep it to yourself instead. Shut the fuck up instead.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
The only outside
examination I think is needed for science is from epistemology and
ethics.
You claim to think that, do you? What evidence do you offer that
you actually do think?
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Pentcho Valev
Because
of this, modern theoretical physics has become to a large degree,
little more than an elaborate farce....
This is a total non sequitur.
Doubletalk. Ok, I've seen enough of it. You've made your point.
Now fuck off.
Norbert.
jem
2005-12-13 13:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Pentcho Valev
"This erection of higher and higher barriers to the comprehension of
scientific affairs is a threat to an essential characteristic of
science,
So, what exactly are these "higher and higher barriers to the
comprehension of scientific affairs"?
Post by Pentcho Valev
its openness to outside examination and appraisal....
Since we really don't know specifically what the author is referring
to, it's impossible to appreciate how "openness to outside examination
and appraisal" has been harmed. Where does this guy get this made up
imperative for "outside examination," anyway? The only outside
examination I think is needed for science is from epistemology and
ethics.
Post by Pentcho Valev
Because
of this, modern theoretical physics has become to a large degree,
little more than an elaborate farce....
This is a total non sequitur. It's like saying that the Olympics is a
farce because the average person finds it ever more difficult to attain
the athletic feats performed by the best athletes on earth. Whether or
not you think the Olympics is a farce, it is not a farce for such a
stupid justification. Quite the contrary, physics is doing quite well,
thank you, ever since it dumped the luminiferous ether and the entire
Mechanical Program. If you want to participate in examination of modern
science, just take the time to learn modern science. No one is stopping
you. It wouldn't hurt to learn some epistemology either!
Post by Pentcho Valev
In Galileo's time it was heresy
to claim there was evidence that the Earth went around the Sun, and in
our time it is heresy to argue that there is evidence that the speed of
light in space is not constant for all observers, no matter how fast
they are moving, as predicted by Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905
Special Relativity Theory
There's nothing any more sacred about 1905 SR to relativists than there
is about ether to etherists. It is not heresy to debunk the Light
Principle. Though it is crankism to debunk it without some compelling
evidence that it is wrong. What cranks want to be able to do, is to
debunk it without presenting REAL experimental evidence that something
is actually wrong.
This is the very old debate between rationalism/realism and
instrumentalism. The rationalist believes that the human mind, by use
of innate ideas, can apprehend absolute truth about the real world we
live in, but he accepts this dogma on faith. The instrumentalist,
thinking along empiricist lines, believes that a supposed "absolute
truth apprehended by the human mind" is never provable, and thus is a
false goal for science, a self-delusion. Instead, the scientific
instrumentalist looks for practical solutions to theory building. He
accepts that scientific measurements and scientific knowledge are both
theory laden and conventional. So, he looks for theories that work. He
treats them as pure instruments of thought to accomplish a purely
practical goal of inventing theories that work.
Rationalism was a reactionary movement against the medieval religious
dogma that claimed a monopoly on truth. The religious dogma was that
truth is obtained by divine revelation. The rationalist believed that
truth is apprehened by the rational mind by intuiting true theories
from empirical data. The empiricists denied that dogma. But rationalism
also preached a monopoly of truth. The hard-core religious dogmatist
typically had little interest in science per se. However, the Catholic
church did take some interest in it for who knows why. It rested its
scholasticism on the dogmas of Ptolemy, for one.
The instrumentalist was an outgrowth of pragmatism and a reactionary
against both rationalism and realism epistemology. Questions worth
asking must be pragmatic in nature. One must have some way of verifying
an answer to commit to the question, or even to claim that the question
is meaningful. In the restricted area of science, they held scientific
questions to be pragmatic. Science is about the invention of theories
that work, not about truth in some metaphysical sense, as that would be
unverifiable. Scientific theories do not prove to us anything about
deep reality any more than religion proves to us about a real god or
any supposed "real thing" transcendent to direct human observation.
Leave that to the metaphysicists and the persons of faith. Liberal
scientific instrumentalists care very little about what goes into a
scientific theory, and everything about what comes out of them that can
be tested empirically.
Good scientific theories have first self-consistency, and second, good
agreement between their predictions and their measurements, and third,
have economical founding postulates (logical economy or Ockam's Razor).
Less important but still useful measures of good theories are that they
should be fruitful for gaining new knowledge, and that they should be
harmonious with other theories (fit into some broad-based formal point
of view or unifying paradigm).
Post by Pentcho Valev
....Einstein's special relativity theory with
his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is
the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories
together.
Does he really think it is possible that modern physics could go on for
100 years based on a blatantly false central principle? Yes, he
obviously does. The fallacy of that is that modern physics is not just
pie-in-the-sky theory, it is also tested in practice in the real world
technology dependent on that theory. How can any false "linchpin"
generate a hundred years of success? That's at face value
counter-intuitive. But this is never explained to us. I wonder why.
Let's do some Bayesian analysis here: Consider an abstract system S
based on central principles {P_i}. We ask what the probability is that
S is successful, yet P_1, say, of the central principles is false.
Answer: Pretty damn small indeed!
Post by Pentcho Valev
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an
elaborate farce!....I expect that the scientists of the future will
consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the
same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the
Universe moves around it."
For "abstract" translate "non-mechanical." The complainer promotes the
Ghost of the Mechanical Program, which rears its ugly head once again
from its crypt, where it should rest in peace. Well, if the complainers
want to erect a new mechanical theory of everything, let them try. But
success at this endeavour is their only justification. As they say: The
proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Nice post, SD.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...