Re: SR consistency is crap.

From: J.E. (troubled6man_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/25/04 

Date: 24 Nov 2004 16:01:05 -0800

"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message news:<uXPod.64641$Y7.23166@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> "J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:39d6e584.0411231326.4e20363@posting.google.com...
> > "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> > news:<S0qod.19720$08.8184@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> >> "J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:39d6e584.0411220801.3dac524d@posting.google.com...
> >> > "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:<RV9od.39407$z3.3390@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> >> >> "J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:39d6e584.0411211127.47518189@posting.google.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Did you READ my entire post Eleaticus, the part Androcles didn't
> >> >> > respond to because he'd lose (like he usually does)?
> >> >>
> >> >> As a matter of fact, yes.
> >> >
> >> > I mentioned that the modern theory is an assert that the patterns
> >> > in a
> >> > certain branch of set theory match the patterns in certain physical
> >> > *observations*.
> >> >
> >> >> Indeed, I also have put aside most of your recent posts till I am
> >> >> not
> >> >> burdened with other matters. Your manner is very much appreciated
> >> >> in
> >> >> this
> >> >> quarter.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you, I hope it doesn't turn out that I am busy when you
> >> > finally
> >> > have time.
> >> >
> >> >> BTW, have you actually read any of morontill forever's stuff?
> >> >> Would
> >> >> you say
> >> >> he contributes ANYTHING besides animus?
> >> >
> >> > I don't know anyone by the name morontill, sorry that I coudn't be
> >> > of
> >> > help.
> >>
> >> That's moortel, the bitterest idiot of the newsgroup. Like you, he
> >> doesn't
> >> understand physics.
> >
> > Make up your mind, does Mootel understand physics, or is he like me,
> > he can't be both.
>
> I have made up my mind. You don't understand physics and neither
> does Dinky van de Torquemada. You are both idiots. Pretty soon you'll
> be as full of animus as he is, as eleaticus will soon observe.

Interesting. So if someone refutes you, your response is to pretend
that they have no credibility. Wow, the lurkers must think you are a
God!

> >> >> Innyhoo, in short, as best as I can remember, my response to this
> >> >> article
> >> >> would have become something along this line:
> >> >>
> >> >> SR is supposed to be physics, a theory about the physical. Hence,
> >> >> its
> >> >> basic
> >> >> effects must be physical or it is complete nonsense.
> >> >
> >> > You lost me. To avoid being a useless tautology like "what we a
> >> > observe is what we observe" or "we will observe what we will
> >> > observe",
> >> > a theory must start with something known or knowable and assert
> >> > that
> >> > nature follows the same patterns.
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >> Yes, you are right, actually.
> >> So where does SR begin with something known or knowable?
> >
> > Set theory, you knew that too, why do you play dumb?
>
> Well, I do draw a slight distinction between Venn diagrams, Boolean
> Algebra and Linear Algebra, although I accept the real numbers
> are a set.

You agree the reals are a set? How about 4? (By which I mean {{},
{{}}
{{},{{}}}, {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}.) How about the set of functions from
4 to R? Give be something to start with Androcles. Can I use the
axiom of separation on sets with the same cardinality as R?

> > You start with
> > the known, set theory, and then claim that the universe behaves LIKE
> > certain structures in set theory.
>
> Good grief, no. Ever heard of the Russell's Barber Paradox?
> In a certain village, all men are clean shaven and those that
> are not shaved by the barber shave themselves.
> If he shaves himself, then he is not shaved by the barber.
> If he does not shave himself, then he is shaved by the barber.
> Who shaves the barber?

There are many possibilities that can be ascribed to that scenario.
(1) The barber is a woman (2) There is no such village

You didn't prove the existence of such a village OR such a barber, and
you know it. You think the lurkers are impressed with your
non-sequitors, I doubt it?
 
> > But set theory seems to be too
> > advanced for you Androcles, try the basketball example first. When
> > you can count basketballs, then you will be ready for the next step.
>
> I know a hell of lot more set theory than you ever will, you flaming
> moron.

That's something I really really doubt Androcles. I mean, I don't
know you, but the things you say and knowledge of set theory just
don't go together. Maybe you *know* set theory the same way you
*know* SR, that I'd believe.
 
> >> Certainly you do NOT know "light is always propagated in empty space
> >> with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of
> >> motion
> >> of the emitting body" and neither did Einstein. All the evidence
> >> points
> >> to the velocity of light being dependent on the velocity of the
> >> source.
> >> It takes aether to make it independent, just as it takes air for
> >> sound
> >> to
> >> be source independent. Even then the velocity of sound is dependent
> >> on the velocity of the observer, relative to the observer.
> >> That's why Doppler's equation is
> >> f' = f ( m+u)/(m+v).
> >
> > Speed is not observable,
>
> LOL!
> Ok, moron, tell that to the cop! (or in Britain, to the magistrate when
> the cop produces a picture of two images of your car taken 0.5 seconds
> apart with 5 feet apart road markers and a radar readout.)
> I'm done with you, "speed is not observable".
> Androcles.

I can discuss two events, one being a camera seeing my car and a
clock, and another one being a camera seeing my car and a clock a
different time. That's the level I will discuss things with you at,
and that's THE SAME as in court. It is YOU that are trying to dicuss
UNobservables. Have you explained the basketball example? The
"financial twin paradox" example? Those are BOTH based on your
precious Newtonian theory Androcles, can you not handle it?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... Give be something to start with Androcles. ... >> the known, set theory, and then claim that the universe behaves LIKE ... Ever heard of the Russell's Barber Paradox? ... > If he does not shave himself, then he is shaved by the barber. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Dividing by Zero and Axiomatic Set Theory
    ... infinity - but doing so is generally viewed by mathematicians as ... reality, abstracted from it, which is chosen by mathematicians to serve ... the barber is an adult male. ... a well-behaved portion of naive set theory was ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... > the known, set theory, and then claim that the universe behaves LIKE ... Ever heard of the Russell's Barber Paradox? ... >> to the velocity of light being dependent on the velocity of the ... >> on the velocity of the observer, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... > the known, set theory, and then claim that the universe behaves LIKE ... Ever heard of the Russell's Barber Paradox? ... >> to the velocity of light being dependent on the velocity of the ... >> on the velocity of the observer, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... > the known, set theory, and then claim that the universe behaves LIKE ... Ever heard of the Russell's Barber Paradox? ... >> to the velocity of light being dependent on the velocity of the ... >> on the velocity of the observer, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast