Author 
Message 
Sorcerer1 science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:09 am Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152423178.346305.285140@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
 The experiment of MichelsonMorley should have led to two competing
 interpretations:
Whoa... it has. "Should have" doesn't apply and we can't rewrite history,
only record it. There are precedents for Einstein's sin:
"This is the story of a scientific crime. I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Ptolemy developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship. "  Sir Isaac Newton.
"This is the story of a scientific crime. I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Einstein developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship. "  Androcles. ( I refer to the
advance of perihelion of Mercury in particular)
Valev, you continue to slag off Einstein almost daily and are becoming
stuck in a rut, spinning your wheels and going nowhere, contributing
nothing further to the benefit of physics.
Move ON, man. There is more to life than griping. If you are not going
to produce a web page of your own, you could at least refer to some
pages with a positive point of view such as
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
or even my own:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RR_C7/RelativityRevealed.htm
Criticise ME. I could use some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism to IMPROVE
what I've produced. Make some positive suggestions instead of always
being so negative. Einstein's crap isn't going to go away overnight, and
you'll get no kudos from being a one man army. I give credit where it is
due:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/Wilson.htm
I've seen nothing so far to give you credit for.
(No need for comment on the remainder, which I've read and adds nothing new)
Androcles
 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model
 of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c is
 the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative
 speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is
 simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction
 etc.) can be introduced.

 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the relative
 speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time
 dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory  without them the
 falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would be
 obvious.

 The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second
 was adopted. That was the beginning of a wrong science of course but by
 no means a sin. The sin started when Einstein implicitly introduced the
 true c'=c+v interpretation, thereby obtaining correct results (e.g. the
 frequency shift factor), and conserved the false principle of constancy
 of the speed of light plus appended miracles, thereby destroying the
 rationality of generations of scientists.

 In 1911 Einstein showed that in a gravitational field the speed of
 light is variable and advanced the formula

 c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

 where V is the gravitational potential. One can apply the equivalence
 principle as shown in

 http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.24

 Note that V=gh=cv. Substitute this in Einstein's formula and you obtain
 c'=c+v.

 Pentcho Valev
 

Back to top 


Szczepan Bialek science forum beginner
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 4

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:21 am Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



"Pentcho Valev" <> wrote:
Quote:  The experiment of MichelsonMorley should have led to two competing
interpretations:
1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model
of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c is
the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative
speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is
simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction
etc.) can be introduced.
2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the relative
speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time
dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory  without them the
falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would be
obvious.
The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second
was adopted.

And what do you think about the Steven Rodo's interpretation:
"AethroKinematics uncovers the fundamental misconception that the Earth
moves relative to the Aether and reinstates Descartes' original theory that
the Earth and the planets are carried within the gigantic Aethervortex of
the Sun.
Since there is no relative motion between the Earth and Aether, the
MichelsonMorley experiments cannot show anything but 'Nullresults'. The
measured speed of light on Earth must be the same in all directions. 
Thus, the relativistic postulates and their mathematical machinery is
superfluous and wrong....."
Steve 

Back to top 


Sorcerer1 science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:e8qhos$eoh$1@news.isp.telenergo.pl...

 "Pentcho Valev" <> wrote:
 > The experiment of MichelsonMorley should have led to two competing
 > interpretations:
 >
 > 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model
 > of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c is
 > the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative
 > speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is
 > simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction
 > etc.) can be introduced.
 >
 > 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the relative
 > speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time
 > dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory  without them the
 > falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would be
 > obvious.
 >
 > The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second
 > was adopted.

 And what do you think about the Steven Rodo's interpretation:
 "AethroKinematics uncovers the fundamental misconception that the Earth
 moves relative to the Aether and reinstates Descartes' original theory
that
 the Earth and the planets are carried within the gigantic Aethervortex of
 the Sun.
 Since there is no relative motion between the Earth and Aether, the
 MichelsonMorley experiments cannot show anything but 'Nullresults'. The
 measured speed of light on Earth must be the same in all directions. 
 Thus, the relativistic postulates and their mathematical machinery is
 superfluous and wrong....."

 Steve
"The measured speed of light on Earth must be the same in all directions."
It seemeth impossible for it to be, for if I walk away from a candle set by
the wall and you walk toward the same candle, we then have some motion
between us. If we then divide that motion equally between us, and impart it
to the candle such that it appeareth to be at rest upon the floor upon which
we walk, how then doth the light divide it's motion between us, that we may
both observe it to be the same?
And if I place another candle on the other side of us beside the opposing
wall, such that it is at rest with respect to the first candle, how then
shall I determine the light I approach and the light I recede from, that
they be of equal motion to me?
And yet one more candle, be it placed between us in the room, at centre,
that we may both recede from it and still determine that the motion of light
from all candles be the same?
I am but a simple man, and sorely perplexed by these deliberations, for it
is truly astounding that these assertions be true. Explain this wondrous
concept any sensible way you can, but gently, for it shall surely confound
me and cause my head to ache.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
Androcles. 

Back to top 


Szczepan Bialek science forum beginner
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 4

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:38 pm Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>wrote in message
news:sj8sg.71318$7Z6.59396@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Quote: 
"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:e8qhos$eoh$1@news.isp.telenergo.pl...

 "Pentcho Valev" <> wrote:
 > The experiment of MichelsonMorley should have led to two competing
 > interpretations:

 > 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model
 > of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c
is
 > the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the
relative
 > speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is
 > simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction
 > etc.) can be introduced.

 > 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the
relative
 > speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles
(time
 > dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory  without them the
 > falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would be
 > obvious.

 > The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second
 > was adopted.

 And what do you think about the Steven Rodo's interpretation:
 "AethroKinematics uncovers the fundamental misconception that the Earth
 moves relative to the Aether and reinstates Descartes' original theory
that
 the Earth and the planets are carried within the gigantic Aethervortex
of
 the Sun.
 Since there is no relative motion between the Earth and Aether, the
 MichelsonMorley experiments cannot show anything but 'Nullresults'.
The
 measured speed of light on Earth must be the same in all directions. 
 Thus, the relativistic postulates and their mathematical machinery is
 superfluous and wrong....."

 Steve
"The measured speed of light on Earth must be the same in all directions."

"All directions" in above means: the directions in MM apparatus. I suppose
that Mr Rode knows the MichelsonGale experiment.
Quote: 
It seemeth impossible for it to be, for if I walk away from a candle set
by
the wall and you walk toward the same candle, we then have some motion
between us. If we then divide that motion equally between us, and impart
it
to the candle such that it appeareth to be at rest upon the floor upon
which
we walk, how then doth the light divide it's motion between us, that we
may
both observe it to be the same?
And if I place another candle on the other side of us beside the opposing
wall, such that it is at rest with respect to the first candle, how then
shall I determine the light I approach and the light I recede from, that
they be of equal motion to me?
And yet one more candle, be it placed between us in the room, at centre,
that we may both recede from it and still determine that the motion of
light
from all candles be the same?
I am but a simple man, and sorely perplexed by these deliberations, for it
is truly astounding that these assertions be true. Explain this wondrous
concept any sensible way you can, but gently, for it shall surely confound
me and cause my head to ache.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
Androcles.

According to me theory that the Earth and the planets are carried within
the gigantic Aethervortex of the Sun is the only sensible interpretation
of the MM and MG (G=Gale) experiments.
Steve


Back to top 


Phineas T Puddleduck science forum Guru
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



On 9/7/06 21:38, in article e8rpdh$mg3$1@news.isp.telenergo.pl, "Szczepan
Bia³ek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote:
Quote:  According to me theory that the Earth and the planets are carried within
the gigantic Aethervortex of the Sun is the only sensible interpretation
of the MM and MG (G=Gale) experiments.
Steve

Then its wrong.

Relf's Law? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in your
formulas.²
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
Why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE
SCIENCE". Pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

Back to top 


T Wake science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:e8rpdh$mg3$1@news.isp.telenergo.pl...
Quote: 
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>wrote in message
news:sj8sg.71318$7Z6.59396@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:e8qhos$eoh$1@news.isp.telenergo.pl...

 "Pentcho Valev" <> wrote:
 > The experiment of MichelsonMorley should have led to two competing
 > interpretations:

 > 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model
 > of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c
is
 > the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the
relative
 > speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is
 > simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction
 > etc.) can be introduced.

 > 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the
relative
 > speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles
(time
 > dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory  without them the
 > falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would
be
 > obvious.

 > The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the
second
 > was adopted.

 And what do you think about the Steven Rodo's interpretation:
 "AethroKinematics uncovers the fundamental misconception that the
Earth
 moves relative to the Aether and reinstates Descartes' original theory
that
 the Earth and the planets are carried within the gigantic Aethervortex
of
 the Sun.
 Since there is no relative motion between the Earth and Aether, the
 MichelsonMorley experiments cannot show anything but 'Nullresults'.
The
 measured speed of light on Earth must be the same in all directions. 
 Thus, the relativistic postulates and their mathematical machinery is
 superfluous and wrong....."

 Steve
"The measured speed of light on Earth must be the same in all
directions."
"All directions" in above means: the directions in MM apparatus. I
suppose that Mr Rode knows the MichelsonGale experiment.
It seemeth impossible for it to be, for if I walk away from a candle set
by
the wall and you walk toward the same candle, we then have some motion
between us. If we then divide that motion equally between us, and impart
it
to the candle such that it appeareth to be at rest upon the floor upon
which
we walk, how then doth the light divide it's motion between us, that we
may
both observe it to be the same?
And if I place another candle on the other side of us beside the opposing
wall, such that it is at rest with respect to the first candle, how then
shall I determine the light I approach and the light I recede from, that
they be of equal motion to me?
And yet one more candle, be it placed between us in the room, at centre,
that we may both recede from it and still determine that the motion of
light
from all candles be the same?
I am but a simple man, and sorely perplexed by these deliberations, for
it
is truly astounding that these assertions be true. Explain this wondrous
concept any sensible way you can, but gently, for it shall surely
confound
me and cause my head to ache.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
Androcles.
According to me theory that the Earth and the planets are carried
within the gigantic Aethervortex of the Sun is the only sensible
interpretation of the MM and MG (G=Gale) experiments.
Steve

kookfite. 

Back to top 


Sorcerer1 science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:05 am Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:e8rpdh$mg3$1@news.isp.telenergo.pl...

 "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>wrote in message
 news:sj8sg.71318$7Z6.59396@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
 >
 > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
 > news:e8qhos$eoh$1@news.isp.telenergo.pl...
 > 
 >  "Pentcho Valev" <> wrote:
 >  > The experiment of MichelsonMorley should have led to two competing
 >  > interpretations:
 >  >
 >  > 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle
model
 >  > of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c
 > is
 >  > the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the
 > relative
 >  > speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is
 >  > simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction
 >  > etc.) can be introduced.
 >  >
 >  > 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the
 > relative
 >  > speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles
 > (time
 >  > dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory  without them the
 >  > falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would
be
 >  > obvious.
 >  >
 >  > The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the
second
 >  > was adopted.
 > 
 >  And what do you think about the Steven Rodo's interpretation:
 >  "AethroKinematics uncovers the fundamental misconception that the
Earth
 >  moves relative to the Aether and reinstates Descartes' original theory
 > that
 >  the Earth and the planets are carried within the gigantic
Aethervortex
 > of
 >  the Sun.
 >  Since there is no relative motion between the Earth and Aether, the
 >  MichelsonMorley experiments cannot show anything but 'Nullresults'.
 > The
 >  measured speed of light on Earth must be the same in all
directions. 
 >  Thus, the relativistic postulates and their mathematical machinery is
 >  superfluous and wrong....."
 > 
 >  Steve
 >
 > "The measured speed of light on Earth must be the same in all
directions."

 "All directions" in above means: the directions in MM apparatus. I
suppose
 that Mr Rode knows the MichelsonGale experiment.

 >
 > It seemeth impossible for it to be, for if I walk away from a candle set
 > by
 > the wall and you walk toward the same candle, we then have some motion
 > between us. If we then divide that motion equally between us, and impart
 > it
 > to the candle such that it appeareth to be at rest upon the floor upon
 > which
 > we walk, how then doth the light divide it's motion between us, that we
 > may
 > both observe it to be the same?
 >
 > And if I place another candle on the other side of us beside the
opposing
 > wall, such that it is at rest with respect to the first candle, how then
 > shall I determine the light I approach and the light I recede from, that
 > they be of equal motion to me?
 > And yet one more candle, be it placed between us in the room, at centre,
 > that we may both recede from it and still determine that the motion of
 > light
 > from all candles be the same?
 >
 > I am but a simple man, and sorely perplexed by these deliberations, for
it
 > is truly astounding that these assertions be true. Explain this wondrous
 > concept any sensible way you can, but gently, for it shall surely
confound
 > me and cause my head to ache.
 > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
 > Androcles.

 According to me theory that the Earth and the planets are carried
within
 the gigantic Aethervortex of the Sun is the only sensible interpretation
 of the MM and MG (G=Gale) experiments.
 Steve
Lots of crackpots have pet theories. Yours will not be listened to, and you
are not sensible. You may convince a fellow crackpot, try it on Ken Seto.
You were unable to answer my question, I have no more time for you, you are
a shithead. *plonk*
Androcles. 

Back to top 


yt56erd science forum Guru
Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:06 am Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



Sorcerer wrote:
Quote: 
Lots of crackpots have pet theories. Yours will not be listened to, and you
are not sensible. You may convince a fellow crackpot, try it on Ken Seto.
You were unable to answer my question, I have no more time for you, you are
a shithead. *plonk*
Androcles.

you are a fucking retard. how can you accuse anyone else of being an
idiot. do you still jerk off thinking about uncle albert? 

Back to top 


Szczepan Bialek science forum beginner
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 4

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:23 am Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



"Cranks Reply" <yt56erd@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:  Sorcerer wrote:
Lots of crackpots have pet theories. Yours will not be listened to, and
you
are not sensible. You may convince a fellow crackpot, try it on Ken Seto.
You were unable to answer my question, I have no more time for you, you
are
a shithead. *plonk*
Androcles.
you are a fucking retard. how can you accuse anyone else of being an
idiot. do you still jerk off thinking about uncle albert?
It is not my theory. It is the Descartes theory adopted (or modified) by 
Steven Rode. I am only looking for contradictions or links to discussion
about "the theory that the Earth and the planets are carried within the
gigantic Aethervortex of the Sun is the only sensible interpretation of
the MM and MG (G=Gale) experiments"
Now I know Sorcerer opinion  rather radical. Can anybody help?
Steve 

Back to top 


Szczepan Bialek science forum beginner
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 4

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:39 am Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



I have made mistake: the name is Rado not Rode. Sorry.
U¿ytkownik "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:e8td97$sd8$1@news.isp.telenergo.pl...
Quote: 
"Cranks Reply" <yt56erd@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
Lots of crackpots have pet theories. Yours will not be listened to, and
you
are not sensible. You may convince a fellow crackpot, try it on Ken
Seto.
You were unable to answer my question, I have no more time for you, you
are
a shithead. *plonk*
Androcles.
you are a fucking retard. how can you accuse anyone else of being an
idiot. do you still jerk off thinking about uncle albert?
It is not my theory. It is the Descartes theory adopted (or modified) by
Steven Rode. I am only looking for contradictions or links to discussion
about "the theory that the Earth and the planets are carried within the
gigantic Aethervortex of the Sun is the only sensible interpretation of
the MM and MG (G=Gale) experiments"
Now I know Sorcerer opinion  rather radical. Can anybody help?
Steve



Back to top 


surrealisticdream@hotmai science forum Guru
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



Pentcho Valev wrote:
Quote:  The experiment of MichelsonMorley should have led to two competing
interpretations:
1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model
of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c is
the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative
speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is
simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction
etc.) can be introduced.
2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the relative
speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time
dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory  without them the
falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would be
obvious.
The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second
was adopted.

How can any theoretical interpretation be proved true of false?
Interpretations are subjective. 

Back to top 


Phineas T Puddleduck science forum Guru
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:08 pm Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



On 10/7/06 15:06, in article
1152540364.268874.30770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
"surrealisticdream@hotmail.com" <surrealisticdream@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:  The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second
was adopted.
How can any theoretical interpretation be proved true of false?
Interpretations are subjective.

Mr Valev is a prime example of a failure of the Bulgarian education system.
His history of railing against science is well known. Thermodynamics was
originally his prime focus, now he has a complex on Einstein.

Relf's Law? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity  Einstein's general relativity  is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

Back to top 


Sorcerer1 science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:03 pm Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



<surrealisticdream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152540364.268874.30770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

 Pentcho Valev wrote:
 > The experiment of MichelsonMorley should have led to two competing
 > interpretations:
 >
 > 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model
 > of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c is
 > the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative
 > speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is
 > simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction
 > etc.) can be introduced.
 >
 > 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the relative
 > speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time
 > dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory  without them the
 > falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would be
 > obvious.
 >
 > The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second
 > was adopted.

 How can any theoretical interpretation be proved true of false?
Standard methods of proof, of course. It is often easy to prove a conjecture
false, the commonest is the counterexample. In many cases it is unnecessary,
the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If you say the sky is blue, I
would
have the burden of disproving it if I disagreed. If you say the sky is
green,
you have the burden. Neither one of us can prove the colour of the sky to a
blind person.
 Interpretations are subjective.
So is colour. That doesn't imply that one cannot prove the sky is blue,
the exception being as I stated. One assumes when discussing proof
that the prover and provee have all their faculties. The proof is simple,
but it does require the provee to take an active part in the proof and
actually
look up. If he fails to do that you cannot prove the sky is blue to him, but
that
is then willful ignorance and obstinacy on the part of the provee who
refuses
to accept proof. There are none so blind as those that will not see.
For example, Tom Roberts has openly stated that
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant."
That is obstinacy and willful ignorance. It is impossible to prove anything
to Tom Roberts, but it cuts ways. Tom Roberts cannot now prove anything
to anybody. He may as well go home and forget about it, because he would
only be contradicting himself in anything he said forthwith. He's shot
himself
in the foot.
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:P4Hqg.60105$Lm5.3167@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com.
The Google record is there. He's now wounded forever by his careless
statement.
There is a huge difference between "It is" and "I believe it, therefore it
is", and that
difference is what science is alll about. Subjectivity must be eliminated
and replaced
by objectivity. Alas, it is human to be subjective and people are easily
swayed
by clever politicians.
Sticks bend when we put them in water. Proof: We can see they do.
Light bends at a water/air interface. Sticks do not bend, that is absurd.
What do we do, trust our logic or trust our eyes?
I for one will never trust a single word Roberts may say. I never did, but
now I have complete proof of his stupidity. Once I was as sceptic, now
I'm a provee. Roberts has convinced me of his stupidity. Proven it, even.
Moreover, Roberts is the kind of guy that will not renounce his utterances,
say "Oops, sorry, I was drunk when I wrote that!" He'll carry on, because
it is his nature to be an arrogant, selfrighteous bastard and a fool.
Androcles. 

Back to top 


surrealisticdream@hotmai science forum Guru
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:47 pm Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:  surrealisticdream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152540364.268874.30770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

 Pentcho Valev wrote:
 > The experiment of MichelsonMorley should have led to two competing
 > interpretations:

 > 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model
 > of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c is
 > the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative
 > speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is
 > simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction
 > etc.) can be introduced.

 > 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the relative
 > speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time
 > dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory  without them the
 > falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would be
 > obvious.

 > The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second
 > was adopted.

 How can any theoretical interpretation be proved true of false?
Standard methods of proof, of course.

Provide a real example of how to falsify a theoretical interpretation
relative to some other theoretical interpretation, which is what Valev
claimed is possible.
In other words, assume that there are two theories, A and B, that have
the same physical content (make the same experimental predictions), but
are different interpretations of the underlying physical causality and
ontology. Assuming that both A and B work, show that A is the "true"
interpretation, and B is the "false" interpretation.
BTW, should both A and B not work, I don't know what could be said
about their interpretations.
Quote:  It is often easy to prove a conjecture
false, the commonest is the counterexample. In many cases it is unnecessary,
the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If you say the sky is blue, I
would
have the burden of disproving it if I disagreed. If you say the sky is
green,
you have the burden.

In science, arguments like this are not settled by individuals making
eyeball inspections. They are settled by technicians using instruments
that measure frequencies of light (not quite objective, but
intersubjective).
Quote:  Neither one of us can prove the colour of the sky to a
blind person.

Scientific fact is whatever the majority of experts in a given field of
study says it is. There is no other way.
Quote: 
 Interpretations are subjective.
So is colour. That doesn't imply that one cannot prove the sky is blue,
the exception being as I stated. One assumes when discussing proof
that the prover and provee have all their faculties. The proof is simple,
but it does require the provee to take an active part in the proof and
actually
look up. If he fails to do that you cannot prove the sky is blue to him, but
that
is then willful ignorance and obstinacy on the part of the provee who
refuses
to accept proof. There are none so blind as those that will not see.
For example, Tom Roberts has openly stated that
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant."
That is obstinacy and willful ignorance. It is impossible to prove anything
to Tom Roberts, but it cuts ways. Tom Roberts cannot now prove anything
to anybody. He may as well go home and forget about it, because he would
only be contradicting himself in anything he said forthwith. He's shot
himself
in the foot.
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:P4Hqg.60105$Lm5.3167@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com.
The Google record is there. He's now wounded forever by his careless
statement.
There is a huge difference between "It is" and "I believe it, therefore it
is", and that
difference is what science is alll about. Subjectivity must be eliminated
and replaced
by objectivity. Alas, it is human to be subjective and people are easily
swayed
by clever politicians.
Sticks bend when we put them in water. Proof: We can see they do.
Light bends at a water/air interface. Sticks do not bend, that is absurd.
What do we do, trust our logic or trust our eyes?

Given a certain set of observations, it the relevant theory we give out
personal credence to that we use to interpret the physical data.
Theories "explain" what's going on. It is both their strength and
weakness. In physics, we can never know if an explanation is true.
Quote:  I for one will never trust a single word Roberts may say. I never did, but
now I have complete proof of his stupidity. Once I was as sceptic, now
I'm a provee. Roberts has convinced me of his stupidity. Proven it, even.
Moreover, Roberts is the kind of guy that will not renounce his utterances,
say "Oops, sorry, I was drunk when I wrote that!" He'll carry on, because
it is his nature to be an arrogant, selfrighteous bastard and a fool.

This subthread is not about Tom Roberts. It's about Valev claiming that
a theoretical interpretation can be claimed to be true or false. 

Back to top 


Sorcerer1 science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject:
Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN



<surrealisticdream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152636469.735679.220670@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
 Sorcerer wrote:
 > <surrealisticdream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
 > news:1152540364.268874.30770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
 > 
 >  Pentcho Valev wrote:
 >  > The experiment of MichelsonMorley should have led to two competing
 >  > interpretations:
 >  >
 >  > 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle
model
 >  > of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c
is
 >  > the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the
relative
 >  > speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is
 >  > simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction
 >  > etc.) can be introduced.
 >  >
 >  > 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the
relative
 >  > speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles
(time
 >  > dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory  without them the
 >  > falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would
be
 >  > obvious.
 >  >
 >  > The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the
second
 >  > was adopted.
 > 
 >  How can any theoretical interpretation be proved true of false?
 >
 > Standard methods of proof, of course.

 Provide a real example of how to falsify a theoretical interpretation
 relative to some other theoretical interpretation, which is what Valev
 claimed is possible.

 In other words, assume that there are two theories, A and B, that have
 the same physical content (make the same experimental predictions), but
 are different interpretations of the underlying physical causality and
 ontology. Assuming that both A and B work, show that A is the "true"
 interpretation, and B is the "false" interpretation.
What you ask for is embedded here.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
The classic example is the Ptolemaic geocentric theory versus the Copernican
heliocentric theory. Both make accurate predictions of eclipses and
juxtaposition
of planets. You'll not "prove" Ptolemy wrong, but you'll spend a lifetime on
the mathematics to be accurate. After all, a "theory" is a mathematical
model
of a system and one can use either. The simpler is the better. "Proof" in
this
case is "preference", as opposed to rigorous mathematical proof.
Thus OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder (proof beyond reasonable doubt
in criminal court) but was made to pay (proof by a preponderance of the
evidence
in civil court). One jury was not convinced he killed, the other was.
Mathematicians are rigorous and chastise themselves if they cannot prove
their theorems, and the judges are other mathematicians. It is a game to
them
with rigid rules that must be adhered to. In theoretical physics the rules
are
more relaxed. Thus Einstein "convinced" many but did not prove to the
satisfaction of a mathematician, he wasn't one. He lacked the rigour and
was satisfied with himself, having used mathematical jargon.
Pentcho raises MMX as a case in point. Here it is:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/MMXwind.gif
That's what you have. Work it out. The supposed aether is blowing by.
Why doesn't it affect the light which is "waving" in the aether?
The simple answer is that light is not waving in the aether.
Einstein's theory fails by Ockham's razor. Now you could show
that if a real air wind blew by, it would show up a shift. Trouble
is a wind worth 500 tornadoes would be needed, so a different method
has to be found. That was done in 1913 by Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Sagnac is used today as a gyroscope. It is useful. After 100 years
nobody has found a use for Einstein, except to bullshit and say
"I'm so clever, I understand Einstein. Hire me and pay me a lot of money."
Now the world is getting tired of it, so only governments hire these people,
and even they have cancelled the Supercollider, the research is getting
nowhere.

 BTW, should both A and B not work, I don't know what could be said
 about their interpretations.
If neither work they are both quickly rejected. That's simple.
Look carefully at this. A clock has to have two second hands and
the time between them has to be averaged to make Einstein's "theory"
work, and then the train and the camel must never reunite to compare
clocks.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm

 > It is often easy to prove a conjecture
 > false, the commonest is the counterexample. In many cases it is
unnecessary,
 > the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If you say the sky is blue, I
 > would
 > have the burden of disproving it if I disagreed. If you say the sky is
 > green,
 > you have the burden.

 In science, arguments like this are not settled by individuals making
 eyeball inspections. They are settled by technicians using instruments
 that measure frequencies of light (not quite objective, but
 intersubjective).
Ok, then, prove the sky is green. <shrug> I'm still calling it blue, no
matter
what you say (and take that filter off the spectrometer). What you've just
said
is exactly what Pentcho is complaining about. You want to be highly paid,
use expensive equipment and all to prove the sky wasn't green after all.
I'm not kidding either. Gravity probes are out there, looking for gravity
waves
because some idiot thinks there might be some.
That's not science. Science is observation, investigation and explanation.
IN THAT ORDER. What you call "science" has it backwards. You are looking
for black holes and gravity waves because someone theorized they exist.
You may as well theorize the sky should be green then ask for funding to
find out why it isn't. The government doesn't care, it only taxpayers money.
Write a paper nobody will read except some bored student to add to
his PH.D. thesis and show he added to the sum of human "knowledge."

 >Neither one of us can prove the colour of the sky to a
 > blind person.

 Scientific fact is whatever the majority of experts in a given field of
 study says it is. There is no other way.
Nonsense. Discoveries are made by individuals, whether the world
agrees or not. By your reckoning, Galileo should have been hung,
drawn and quartered for heresy because all the experts disagreed
with his findings. The "experts" refuse to look at the work of genius,
they are invariably jealous, a very human emotion.

 >
 >
 >  Interpretations are subjective.
 >
 > So is colour. That doesn't imply that one cannot prove the sky is blue,
 > the exception being as I stated. One assumes when discussing proof
 > that the prover and provee have all their faculties. The proof is
simple,
 > but it does require the provee to take an active part in the proof and
 > actually
 > look up. If he fails to do that you cannot prove the sky is blue to him,
but
 > that
 > is then willful ignorance and obstinacy on the part of the provee who
 > refuses
 > to accept proof. There are none so blind as those that will not see.
 >
 > For example, Tom Roberts has openly stated that
 > "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant."
 > That is obstinacy and willful ignorance. It is impossible to prove
anything
 > to Tom Roberts, but it cuts ways. Tom Roberts cannot now prove anything
 > to anybody. He may as well go home and forget about it, because he would
 > only be contradicting himself in anything he said forthwith. He's shot
 > himself
 > in the foot.
 > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
 > news:P4Hqg.60105$Lm5.3167@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com.
 > The Google record is there. He's now wounded forever by his careless
 > statement.
 >
 > There is a huge difference between "It is" and "I believe it, therefore
it
 > is", and that
 > difference is what science is alll about. Subjectivity must be
eliminated
 > and replaced
 > by objectivity. Alas, it is human to be subjective and people are easily
 > swayed
 > by clever politicians.
 >
 > Sticks bend when we put them in water. Proof: We can see they do.
 > Light bends at a water/air interface. Sticks do not bend, that is
absurd.
 > What do we do, trust our logic or trust our eyes?

 Given a certain set of observations, it the relevant theory we give out
 personal credence to that we use to interpret the physical data.
 Theories "explain" what's going on. It is both their strength and
 weakness. In physics, we can never know if an explanation is true.
That was true before Einstein and Maxwell. Not any more. People go
looking for what is not there, athough it is good thing Michelson looked
and found the aether wasn't there or we'd still have that crap today
and no ring laser gyroscopes.

 > I for one will never trust a single word Roberts may say. I never did,
but
 > now I have complete proof of his stupidity. Once I was as sceptic, now
 > I'm a provee. Roberts has convinced me of his stupidity. Proven it,
even.
 > Moreover, Roberts is the kind of guy that will not renounce his
utterances,
 > say "Oops, sorry, I was drunk when I wrote that!" He'll carry on,
because
 > it is his nature to be an arrogant, selfrighteous bastard and a fool.

 This subthread is not about Tom Roberts. It's about Valev claiming that
 a theoretical interpretation can be claimed to be true or false.
And you've been answered, with examples. Einstein's crap is false.
Androcles. 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:29 pm  All times are GMT

