Shrug


"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:r8Tgf.1812$Y%5.476@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> John Kennaugh wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> I am not trying to "explain" source independence, Kennaugh was.
>>
>> The question was why did Einstein assume source independence when
>> formulating SR
>
> That is a silly question, and one that cannot possibly have a definitive
> answer. Do you intend to hold a seance?
>
> IMHO Einstein did what any sensible person would do in presenting a new
> approach to well-known physics:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Your opinion is as worthless as Einstein's, Roberts. <shrug>
Why the hell would anyone need a new approach to well-known physics?

When asked if New York stops at this train, Galileo replied "Yes".

Einstein said "As has already been shown to the first order
of small quantities (by Galileo, but the secret to creativity
is knowing how to hide your sources so we won't mention him)
the same laws of mechanics will be valid for all frames of reference
for which the equations of electrodynamics and optics hold good.
We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter
be called the "Principle of Relativity" so that it looks as if I
discovered it) to the status of a postulate, because everything
should be as simple as possible but not simpler and imagination
is more important than knowledge and if we knew what it was
we were doing, it would not be called research, would it and
as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality and God
doesn't play craps, poker or roullette and he may be subtle,
but he isn't plain mean and I never think of the future, it comes
soon enough and what really interests me is whether God had any choice
in the creation of the world and if you are out to describe the truth,
leave elegance to the tailor and a table, a chair, a bowl of fruit
and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy and it would be
possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no
sense and common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen and God does not care about our mathematical difficulties; he
integrates empirically and the whole of science is nothing more
than a refinement of everyday thinking and do not worry about
your difficulties in Mathematics, I can assure you mine are still
greater and two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the the universe"



> make his argument as transparent
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Smoke and mirrors!

> as possible TO HIS READERS.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Oriel36" <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:273f8e06.0207281123.57d80819@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
> Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more
> precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from
> others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary
> system.''


"What is this?
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the *** you produce later on?
*** that you expect someone will bother reading? " -- Dork Van de moortel,
one of Einstein's educated readers.




> Remember who his readers were: educated physicists of his day (1905).

"Intelligent" does not equal "educated". Sagnac pissed all over him.<shrug>

> And in his day, symmetry groups and such were not part of physics in any
> formal way (though they were "in the air" as Poincare' and Einstein show).
> I think he phrased his postulates as he did because phrased that way they
> would be acceptable to his readers -- yes, "source independence" would be
> interpreted as "appropriate for waves in the ether" by most of his
> readers. So what?

So its a lie, that's what.<shrug>
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months). <shrug>


>
> As has been discussed many times around here, a modern derivation of the
> symmetries of SR looks VERY different from Einstein's 1905 paper.


Again:
> so what? -- The theory known as SR is really a collection of theorems, and
> they have many derivations. <shrug>

Theorems are built on postulates. <shrug>

[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of a
turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Theorem: Nothing can go faster than a turtle. <shrug>

Theorem: You are a phuckwit, Roberts. <shrug>

>
>> As far as I am concerned he never hid the fact that he believed in some
>> sort of ether.
>
> Then you haven't read much of his writings (even though your eyes may have
> traversed images of them). Nor have you understood the basis of SR or GR.
> <shrug>

Theorem: You don't know what definition is, Roberts. <shrug>


>>> In contrast, I know that geometrical properties like this are not
>>> amenable to "explanation".
>>> For Euclidean geometry: What "explanation" would you accept for the fact
>>> that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points? What
>>> "explanation" would you accept for the fact that all right angles are
>>> congruent? Etc....
>>
>> In order to accept that argument you have to believe it is a case of
>> serendipity. [...]
>
> Nonsense. All one needs to accept is that geometry is subject to
> experiment and observation, just like other aspects of physical theories.

Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months). <shrug>



> Minkowski spacetime (locally) leads to a MUCH better and more complete
> description of our world than does Euclidean geometry. <shrug>


Theorem: Nothing can go faster than a turtle. <shrug>
Theorem: You are a phuckwit, Roberts. <shrug>
Androcles <shrug>


.

Quantcast