FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
EINSTEIN'S SIN
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4 [54 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
tdp1001@gmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:20 am    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Quote:
In article <130720062245162280%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM>, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> writes:
In article <H1ztg.32$45.1783@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:

Well, that's a big claim. The competition for the title of Usenet's
Top Idiot is intense, with lots of prime candidates in the running.
True, androcles may appear in the lead right now, but that's partly
because some of his top competitors appear to be taking a break. The
race is far from over.

Indeed. Unlike most sporting events (World Cup/Olympics etc) this is
one event that just keeps on delivering ;-)

Well, freak shows were popular since antiquity, so there is a
distinguished tradition behind this event.

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:%kztg.34$45.1747@news.uchicago.edu...
Quote:
In article <130720062245162280%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM>,
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> writes:
In article <H1ztg.32$45.1783@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:

Well, that's a big claim. The competition for the title of Usenet's
Top Idiot is intense, with lots of prime candidates in the running.
True, androcles may appear in the lead right now, but that's partly
because some of his top competitors appear to be taking a break. The
race is far from over.

Indeed. Unlike most sporting events (World Cup/Olympics etc) this is
one event that just keeps on delivering ;-)

Well, freak shows were popular since antiquity, so there is a
distinguished tradition behind this event.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Mati Meron makes a good point!

The General Relativity "Freak Show"
that wastes an emormous amount of time, money and minds
on such diversions as worm holes, time travel, rubber spaces and times,

gravitons, etc. is very "popular".

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Don't waste your mind.
Stay away from the "Freak Shows".

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:01 am    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153000267.655795.91180@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152979402.597806.137150@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1152893632.575024.35560@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > | > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > |
| > | > ... Mathematics has theorems,
| > | > not theories. Perhaps I should explain that to you, but I expect you
| > | > do some homework for yourself.
| > |
| > | Then what about group theory, matrix theory, ring theory, field
theory,
| > | or the theory of complex and real numbers? So, yeah, go right ahead
and
| > | explain it to us.
| >
| > Which one? Whose? There is no such animal as "group theory".
|
| Do a Google search on "group theory".

I have you explanation. You snipped. I cannot debate wth a bigot who
insists on keeping his head up his arse so that he doesn't have to see it.
Now I snip you.
*plonk*


Androcles
Back to top
Edward Green
science forum addict


Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:49 am    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

Quote:
In article <130720062153376336%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM>, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> writes:
In article <8MadnTxYqPtVFivZRVnysw@pipex.net>, T Wake
Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Seriously, we [tinw] are all agreed that the likes of [Hammond] are just
insane, but Androcles takes it to a new level.

I plonked him ages ago. There's idiots, then there's bigoted idiots,
then there's Androcles - on a level of stupidity unparalled.

Well, that's a big claim. The competition for the title of Usenet's
Top Idiot is intense, with lots of prime candidates in the running.
True, androcles may appear in the lead right now, but that's partly
because some of his top competitors appear to be taking a break. The
race is far from over.

Smile
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:16 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

"Helmut Wabnig" <...._.--_.-_-..._-._.._--.@.-_---_-._*_.-_-> wrote in
message news:14oib29837j3ocgbbc1a8napvdvpkr7oo2@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:55:56 +0100, T Wake
Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:



Androcles shows his sharp wit and excellent debating skills. He makes me
proud to be British.

Saucerer has no clue about relativity,
therefore he makes you proud to be British?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm - obviously it doesn't carry across
well over text.

As Androcles has neither a sharp wit, nor any form of debating skills
(resorting to insults and abuse at every possible junction) I had thought
the tone would have been obvious.

Sorry for not making it clearer.
Back to top
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:06 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1153000267.655795.91180@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Sorcerer wrote:
surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152979402.597806.137150@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152893632.575024.35560@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|
| > ... Mathematics has theorems,
| > not theories. Perhaps I should explain that to you, but I expect you
| > do some homework for yourself.
|
| Then what about group theory, matrix theory, ring theory, field theory,
| or the theory of complex and real numbers? So, yeah, go right ahead and
| explain it to us.

Which one? Whose? There is no such animal as "group theory".

Do a Google search on "group theory".

Smile
Ask him to do a Google search on:
Boolean algebra:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORPersistence.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html
integrals:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Integral.html
geometry:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FullyAware.html
transformations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroTransform.html
calculations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FALSE.html
groups:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroGroups.html
logs:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html
vectors:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
limits:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Limit.html
equations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
square roots:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GoodTeachers.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TwoTurds.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Humour.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
partial differential equations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff4.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotFxy.html

Dirk Vdm
Back to top
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:04 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

"Helmut Wabnig" <...._.--_.-_-..._-._.._--.@.-_---_-._*_.-_-> wrote in message news:14oib29837j3ocgbbc1a8napvdvpkr7oo2@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:55:56 +0100, T Wake
Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:



Androcles shows his sharp wit and excellent debating skills. He makes me
proud to be British.

Saucerer has no clue about relativity,
therefore he makes you proud to be British?

Yes, that puzzled me as well.
One can't be more British than Parker, can one?

Dirk Vdm
Back to top
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:51 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152979402.597806.137150@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152893632.575024.35560@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|
| > ... Mathematics has theorems,
| > not theories. Perhaps I should explain that to you, but I expect you
| > do some homework for yourself.
|
| Then what about group theory, matrix theory, ring theory, field theory,
| or the theory of complex and real numbers? So, yeah, go right ahead and
| explain it to us.

Which one? Whose? There is no such animal as "group theory".

Do a Google search on "group theory". I didn't make this up,
mathematicians did. Perhaps they reasoned it by using this definition
of theory or something close to it:
"a supposition or system of ideas explaining something, especially one
based on general principles independent on the particular things to be
explained" (Oxford Canadian Dictionary). The axioms of the theory
constitute the general principles on which deductions are made.

There is also set theory, tensor theory, and number theory. Look 'em up
in Google if you don't believe me.

Quote:
| Experiment cannot
| distinguish between the interpretations of empirically equivalent
| theories. And 2) this is a relativity NG, not an Einstein NG. This NG
| is not for ad hominem arguments.

You should tell that to the majority of its contributors, including
surrealistic-dream.

Einstein's personal life is not the content of the theory of
relativity.
Back to top
Helmut Wabnig
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 171

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:41 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:55:56 +0100, T Wake
<Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


Quote:

Androcles shows his sharp wit and excellent debating skills. He makes me
proud to be British.

Saucerer has no clue about relativity,
therefore he makes you proud to be British?


w.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:04 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152979402.597806.137150@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152893632.575024.35560@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|
| > ... Mathematics has theorems,
| > not theories. Perhaps I should explain that to you, but I expect you
| > do some homework for yourself.
|
| Then what about group theory, matrix theory, ring theory, field theory,
| or the theory of complex and real numbers? So, yeah, go right ahead and
| explain it to us.

Which one? Whose? There is no such animal as "group theory".
There are sets and operators between members of that set that form
members of the same set, but there is no "theory", that is definition of a
group
with its 4 axioms. Or perhaps you call definitions "theories". I do not.


Speaking of which, the cuckoo transformations are not a group, time is not a
vector. It has no additive inverse.


|
| > Einstein was a fucking LIAR and Pentcho is justified in castigating him
| > publicly, along with his shithead disciples.
|
| Except 1) Valev missed the mark this time.

No he did not, he scored a bullseye.


| Experiment cannot
| distinguish between the interpretations of empirically equivalent
| theories. And 2) this is a relativity NG, not an Einstein NG. This NG
| is not for ad hominem arguments.

You should tell that to the majority of its contributors, including
surrealistic-dream.
The term "relativity" specifically refers to the blunders of Einstein.
If I mean Galilean relativity then I say that, otherwise the majority
refer to relativity as Einstein's relativity.
Experiment distinguishes between a stick in water appearing bent
and light being bent, that is why the experiment is conducted. so you
are fucking WRONG.
Androcles.
Back to top
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:03 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152893632.575024.35560@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message

... Mathematics has theorems,
not theories. Perhaps I should explain that to you, but I expect you
do some homework for yourself.

Then what about group theory, matrix theory, ring theory, field theory,
or the theory of complex and real numbers? So, yeah, go right ahead and
explain it to us.

Quote:
Einstein was a fucking LIAR and Pentcho is justified in castigating him
publicly, along with his shithead disciples.

Except 1) Valev missed the mark this time. Experiment cannot
distinguish between the interpretations of empirically equivalent
theories. And 2) this is a relativity NG, not an Einstein NG. This NG
is not for ad hominem arguments.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:43 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152893632.575024.35560@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152805783.031103.80940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1152725008.002112.247640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| >
| >
| > You snipped. Why?
|
| It's obvious why.
|
Is it? You snipped Pentcho's words and you didn't change the title.
What it obvious is that you lost your argument. Snipping is a sure
indication of bigotry.




|
| > | > |
| > | > | Your reply makes me think that you disagree with Valev's claim .
| > | >
| > | > I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4.
| > |
| > | That's not a theory. It's just a statement.
| >
| >
| > Grrr.... Learn to read, I am very precise in what I say.
| > I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4.
| > I did not say that was a theory, I said 2+2 = 4 *IN* one of the
theories.
| >
| > Theory A is a theory. Do we understand yet?
| >
| > I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should
| > explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting
| > my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it.
|
| No, you are not very precise in what you say. You presented two
| statements, which you claimed came from two different theories, but you
| failed to tell us which theories of mathematics they came from.

I don't need to, it isn't necessary to the discussion of Pentcho's words
that you snipped. I don't have to describe a car down to every last nut and
bolt for you to know what a car is, and I don't have to tell you what a
theory
is.
Theory A is a theory, you argumentative troll. Mathematics has theorems,
not theories. Perhaps I should explain that to you, but I expect you
do some homework for yourself. Theorems are proven by the mathematician
to whom they belong to the satisfaction of all mathematicians who can debate
truthfully and logically. Here are three theorems from Googling.
Fermat's Last Theorem It is worth noting that at this stage it remained to
prove Fermat's Last Theorem for odd primes n only. For if there were
integers x, y, z with xn + yn = zn ...
www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/
history/HistTopics/Fermat's_last_theorem.html - 31k - Cached - Similar pages


The four colour theorem The Four Colour Theorem returned to being the Four
Colour Conjecture in 1890. Percy John Heawood, a lecturer at Durham England,
published a paper called Map ...
www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/
HistTopics/The_four_colour_theorem.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages


Pythagorean Theorem Pythagoras' Theorem. 64 proofs of the Pythagorean
theorem.
www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml - 121k - 12 Jul 2006 -
Cached - Similar pages



Einstein's theory of relativity is a mishmash of persuasive rhetoric
with inconsistencies, not a theorem at all, his definition of c
is 2AB/(t'A-tA), thus light travels from A to A in time t'A-tA in
relativity.
That is fucking drivel. No physicist, let alone mathematician, would utter
such a ridiculous definition or put his name to it.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif

Einstein was a fucking LIAR and Pentcho is justified in castigating him
publicly, along with his shithead disciples.

| I
| pointed that out to you, but you got confused about it.

You snipped, you cunt.


| So, what are
| those theories? The theory of integers maybe? Or the theory of the real
| numbers? Furthermore, I fail to see

That's your problem. Your tiny mind cannot chew gum and cross the road
at the same time, you'd fail to see the truck bearing down on you.


| what relationship your posited
| analogy has to Valev's claim that one can decide the better
| interpretation of two theories of the same physical content. The reason
| these details are important is because (I presume) your were trying to
| set up an analogy for some purpose.


You can presume all you want, boy. Mathematicians do not presume.

|
| But I also don't see

That's right. You don't see, so you blindly go around leading the blind,
hoping they are as stupid as you. All this argument is about me setting
up an analogy to teach you, but you don't want to see, you'd rather waste
time on trivialities. That's what trolls do.
It's not fault you have your head up your arse and can only see your own
s**t, I'm trying to pull it out for you.
My turn to snip.
[snip what you don't see and fail to see] (unread).
Androcles.
Back to top
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:13 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152805783.031103.80940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152725008.002112.247640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
|


You snipped. Why?

It's obvious why.


Quote:
| > |
| > | Your reply makes me think that you disagree with Valev's claim .
|
| > I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4.
|
| That's not a theory. It's just a statement.


Grrr.... Learn to read, I am very precise in what I say.
I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4.
I did not say that was a theory, I said 2+2 = 4 *IN* one of the theories.

Theory A is a theory. Do we understand yet?

I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should
explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting
my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it.

No, you are not very precise in what you say. You presented two
statements, which you claimed came from two different theories, but you
failed to tell us which theories of mathematics they came from. I
pointed that out to you, but you got confused about it. So, what are
those theories? The theory of integers maybe? Or the theory of the real
numbers? Furthermore, I fail to see what relationship your posited
analogy has to Valev's claim that one can decide the better
interpretation of two theories of the same physical content. The reason
these details are important is because (I presume) your were trying to
set up an analogy for some purpose.

But I also don't see the point of your analogy unless the two theories
have the same mathematical content. You could arrange that, say, by
taking the rationals in fractional form and the rationals in decimal
form. But what would that buy you, anyway?

The entire point being that, in relation to the point I made vis-s-vis
Valev's claim, two theories in physics having the same physical (or
empirical) content but employing different ontologies and different
causalities have by definition different "interpretations," but the
"correct" interpretation between them cannot be decided on the basis of
experiment because it is experiment that they already must agree on to
be called "theories of the same physical content" in the first place,
since both theories are either aided or harmed by the outcome of every
relevant experiment made on them.

OK, I'll just say it: It is obviously impossible to use experiment to
decide the better of two different (i.e., have different
interpretations) but physically equivalent theories on the basis of
experiment. Valev was wrong in his assumption. If one is to make such a
preference between two or more such interpretations, one should be
honest to admit that that choice is completely arbitrary from the
empirical viewpoint. That's my point.
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:55 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

In <yHOtg.315716$8W1.305307@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, sent to sci.physics
on Friday 14 July 2006 16:25, Sorcerer (Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a) had
a brainstorm and wrote:

Quote:

"Peter Christensen" <PeCh@MailAPS.org> wrote in message
news:1152831221.892068.197180@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152812878.123340.145770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I
should
| > | > explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit
wasting
| > | > my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it.
| > | > And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available.
| > |
| > |
| > | Mind your manners, Androcles.
|
| > f*** off, cunt. Go talk to Hammond, he's more your mentality.
| > Androcles.
|
| Concerning mental level, try to look at your own postings mr. Sorcerer.
| You would find a very special low level...
|
| I really won't argue about it, because I'm not here in
| sci.physics.relativity just to argue with morons...
|
| PC
If you don't wish to argue, only pontificate, then you can f*** off, too,
you ignorant cunt.
Androcles.

Androcles shows his sharp wit and excellent debating skills. He makes me
proud to be British.

--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:25 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

"Peter Christensen" <PeCh@MailAPS.org> wrote in message
news:1152830655.200913.19100@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| You are right, the speed of light is always measured to be c. (+/- 3.6
fps relative to the source.)

http://oisc.net/Speed_of_Light.htm


Androcles.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:25 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

"Peter Christensen" <PeCh@MailAPS.org> wrote in message
news:1152831221.892068.197180@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152812878.123340.145770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I
should
| > | > explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit
wasting
| > | > my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it.
| > | > And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Mind your manners, Androcles.
| >
| > f*** off, cunt. Go talk to Hammond, he's more your mentality.
| > Androcles.
|
| Concerning mental level, try to look at your own postings mr. Sorcerer.
| You would find a very special low level...
|
| I really won't argue about it, because I'm not here in
| sci.physics.relativity just to argue with morons...
|
| PC
If you don't wish to argue, only pontificate, then you can f*** off, too,
you ignorant cunt.
Androcles.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4 [54 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, 4 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:17 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misl... mluttgens@wanadoo.fr Relativity 64 Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:46 pm
No new posts SI EINSTEIN AVAIT CHOISI C'=C+V Pentcho Valev Relativity 5 Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:07 am
No new posts Caltech and Princeton University Press Release Tenth Volu... baalke@earthlink.net Relativity 1 Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:25 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0505s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0039s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]