Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 4 [54 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
Pentcho Valev
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 380

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:32 am    Post subject: EINSTEIN'S SIN

The experiment of Michelson-Morley 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. 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.2-4

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

Pentcho Valev
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

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 Michelson-Morley 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:
"Aethro-Kinematics 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 Aether-vortex of
the Sun.
Since there is no relative motion between the Earth and Aether, the
Michelson-Morley experiments cannot show anything but 'Null-results'. 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
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" wrote in message news:e8qhos\$eoh\$1@news.isp.telenergo.pl... | | "Pentcho Valev" <> wrote: | > The experiment of Michelson-Morley 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: | "Aethro-Kinematics 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 Aether-vortex of | the Sun. | Since there is no relative motion between the Earth and Aether, the | Michelson-Morley experiments cannot show anything but 'Null-results'. 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.
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" wrote in message news:e8qhos\$eoh\$1@news.isp.telenergo.pl... | | "Pentcho Valev" <> wrote: | > The experiment of Michelson-Morley 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: | "Aethro-Kinematics 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 Aether-vortex of | the Sun. | Since there is no relative motion between the Earth and Aether, the | Michelson-Morley experiments cannot show anything but 'Null-results'. 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 Michelson-Gale 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 Aether-vortex of the Sun is the only sensible interpretation
of the MM and MG (G=Gale) experiments.
Steve

 Quote:
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 Aether-vortex 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.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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" wrote in message news:sj8sg.71318\$7Z6.59396@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk... "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message news:e8qhos\$eoh\$1@news.isp.telenergo.pl... | | "Pentcho Valev" <> wrote: | > The experiment of Michelson-Morley 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: | "Aethro-Kinematics 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 Aether-vortex of | the Sun. | Since there is no relative motion between the Earth and Aether, the | Michelson-Morley experiments cannot show anything but 'Null-results'. 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 Michelson-Gale 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 Aether-vortex of the Sun is the only sensible interpretation of the MM and MG (G=Gale) experiments. Steve

kookfite.
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 Michelson-Morley 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:
| > | "Aethro-Kinematics 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
Aether-vortex
| > of
| > | the Sun.
| > | Since there is no relative motion between the Earth and Aether, the
| > | Michelson-Morley experiments cannot show anything but 'Null-results'.
| > 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 Michelson-Gale 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 Aether-vortex 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
Androcles.
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?
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 Aether-vortex 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
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" 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 Aether-vortex 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
surrealistic-dream@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 Michelson-Morley 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.
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
"surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com" <surrealistic-dream@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
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

 Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:03 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN wrote in message news:1152540364.268874.30770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... | | Pentcho Valev wrote: | > The experiment of Michelson-Morley 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" 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, self-righteous bastard and a fool. Androcles.
surrealistic-dream@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: surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1152540364.268874.30770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... | | Pentcho Valev wrote: | > The experiment of Michelson-Morley 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

 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" 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, self-righteous 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.

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 4 [54 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, 4 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:33 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misl... mluttgens@wanadoo.fr Relativity 64 Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:46 pm SI EINSTEIN AVAIT CHOISI C'=C+V Pentcho Valev Relativity 5 Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:07 am Caltech and Princeton University Press Release Tenth Volu... baalke@earthlink.net Relativity 1 Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:25 pm