Re: SR consistency is crap.
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/23/04
- Next message: johnlawrencereed: "johnreed take 6"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- In reply to: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Reply: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:44:26 GMT
"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.
>
>> >> 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 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?
> 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.
>
>> 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.
- Next message: johnlawrencereed: "johnreed take 6"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- In reply to: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Reply: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
