Einstein and Popper have established a doctrine that has proved
victorious: you can legitimately obtain any result through thought
experiments but no such result can refute the theory since, for
refutation, only REAL experiments matter. In fact, the doctrine is more
than victorious since, especially for inertial frames, relevant REAL
experiments are difficult even to imagine.

So you are allowed to obtain time dilation in a thought experiment and
the result will even enter textbooks but if in another thought
experiment this time dilation is shown to be contradictory, there will
be no consequences: the first positive result will remain unchallenged
in textbooks.

In fact, ALL the corollaries of the principle of constancy of the speed
of light can be shown to be contradictory for the simple reason that
the principle is false (that is, there is an original contradiction
between the false "c" principle and the true "c+v" principle). See an
example in http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm .

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einstein and Popper have established a doctrine that has proved
victorious: you can legitimately obtain any result through thought
experiments but no such result can refute the theory since, for
refutation, only REAL experiments matter. In fact, the doctrine is more
than victorious since, especially for inertial frames, relevant REAL
experiments are difficult even to imagine.

Do you know of a single -real- experiment that falsifies relativity. If
so, please give us a reference in the refereed literature.

The main virtue of relativity theory is that it leads to empirically
correct predictions. That is the one and only Gold Standard of a
science. How well does it predict. That is all that matters.

Bob Kolker

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein and Popper have established a doctrine that has proved
victorious: you can legitimately obtain any result through thought
experiments but no such result can refute the theory since, for
refutation, only REAL experiments matter. In fact, the doctrine is more
than victorious since, especially for inertial frames, relevant REAL
experiments are difficult even to imagine.

Since the Principle of Inertia is just as idealized as any thought
experiment, it too is under your broad-stroked attack. The inertia
principle can never be tested in a gravity-free region of space
because, as far as we know, there is no such thing. Imagining a free
particle to travel in a straight line forever is a thought experiment
in itself!

Physics is a lot about imagining where no thoughts have gone before.

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
|
| Einstein and Popper have established a doctrine that has proved
| victorious: you can legitimately obtain any result through thought
| experiments but no such result can refute the theory since, for
| refutation, only REAL experiments matter. In fact, the doctrine is
more
| than victorious since, especially for inertial frames, relevant REAL
| experiments are difficult even to imagine.
|
| Do you know of a single -real- experiment that falsifies relativity.

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).

Do you know of a single - real - experiment that falsifies bright green
flying elephants
lay eggs in black holes?

Hey hopeless ineducable psychotic depubescent idiot Kolker are you so
exceedingly stooopid and paranoid that you see your God where He is
not?

You are a clown, Kolker, a stupid, ignorant, illogical troll.
You are part of the river of **** Al Schwartz mentioned.
Stupidity is forever; no hope of educating an imbecile like you.
Go worship Nehemiah Scudder. FOaD.
Androcles.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein and Popper have established a doctrine that has proved
victorious: you can legitimately obtain any result through thought
experiments but no such result can refute the theory since, for
refutation, only REAL experiments matter. In fact, the doctrine is more
than victorious since, especially for inertial frames, relevant REAL
experiments are difficult even to imagine.

So you are allowed to obtain time dilation in a thought experiment and
the result will even enter textbooks but if in another thought
experiment this time dilation is shown to be contradictory, there will
be no consequences: the first positive result will remain unchallenged
in textbooks.

In fact, ALL the corollaries of the principle of constancy of the speed
of light can be shown to be contradictory for the simple reason that
the principle is false (that is, there is an original contradiction
between the false "c" principle and the true "c+v" principle). See an
example in http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm .

Pentcho Valev

Thought experiments are designed to test the internal logical
consistency of a theory. This does not in any way guarantee that the
theory has any bearing on reality.

It is essential that a theory also produce (unique) predictions of what
will be observed in an experiment. Success in this venture is what
increases likelihood that the theory has something to do with reality.

You are under the misapprehension that relativity predicts
contradictory things in thought experiments. It does not, and your
perception is perhaps due to a limited or faulty understanding of the
thought experiments.

You apparently are also ignoring the experimental tests that have been
brought to bear against relativity.

PD

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Einstein and Popper have established a doctrine that has proved
victorious: you can legitimately obtain any result through thought
experiments

You can not obtain any result you like if done correctly.

but no such result can refute the theory since, for
refutation, only REAL experiments matter. In fact, the doctrine is more
than victorious since, especially for inertial frames, relevant REAL
experiments are difficult even to imagine.

So are points with position and no size. Understand the process of
abstraction and you may get somewhere.


So you are allowed to obtain time dilation in a thought experiment and
the result will even enter textbooks but if in another thought
experiment this time dilation is shown to be contradictory, there will
be no consequences: the first positive result will remain unchallenged
in textbooks.

In fact, ALL the corollaries of the principle of constancy of the speed
of light can be shown to be contradictory for the simple reason that
the principle is false (that is, there is an original contradiction
between the false "c" principle and the true "c+v" principle). See an
example in http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm .

SR is well known to be as consistent as real analysis or Euclidian geometry.

Bill


Pentcho Valev

In article ,
Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
|
| Einstein and Popper have established a doctrine that has proved
| victorious: you can legitimately obtain any result through thought
| experiments but no such result can refute the theory since, for
| refutation, only REAL experiments matter. In fact, the doctrine is
more
| than victorious since, especially for inertial frames, relevant REAL
| experiments are difficult even to imagine.
|
| Do you know of a single -real- experiment that falsifies relativity.

Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif

Oooooh, a variable star. What's the problem exactly?

Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

So, this guy seems to think the current explanation of variable stars
is lacking and provides a different one. I'm unclear why the current
explanation is lacking, why his is better, and what this has to do
with relativity in the first place.

The link to Velikovsky on the front page does not give me confidence
that he isn't a fruitloop.

(Or stars explode twice in three months).

Variable. Stars. Not. Nova.

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einstein and Popper have established a doctrine that has proved
victorious: you can legitimately obtain any result through thought
experiments but no such result can refute the theory since, for
refutation, only REAL experiments matter. In fact, the doctrine is more
than victorious since, especially for inertial frames, relevant REAL
experiments are difficult even to imagine.

Do you know of a single -real- experiment that falsifies relativity. If
so, please give us a reference in the refereed literature.

Relativity predicts the motion of the stars. In the outer edge of the
galaxy, its predictions are wrong.

General relativity has been falsified by those observations.

There are multiple efforts to patch it back together so those
predictions work.

But GR as it exists today has been falsified.


The main virtue of relativity theory is that it leads to empirically
correct predictions.

If you ignore the predictions where it fails, sure.


That is the one and only Gold Standard of a
science. How well does it predict. That is all that matters.

And the lesson here is: relativity does not make correct predictions
all the time.

In article .com, "MobyDikc" writes:
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einstein and Popper have established a doctrine that has proved
victorious: you can legitimately obtain any result through thought
experiments but no such result can refute the theory since, for
refutation, only REAL experiments matter. In fact, the doctrine is more
than victorious since, especially for inertial frames, relevant REAL
experiments are difficult even to imagine.

Do you know of a single -real- experiment that falsifies relativity. If
so, please give us a reference in the refereed literature.

Relativity predicts the motion of the stars. In the outer edge of the
galaxy, its predictions are wrong.

You're already wrong, and it doesn't matter in the least whether
you're talking about relativity or classical physics in the above.

Predictions from a theory are based on:

1) The theory itself.
2) Input data.

For example, even using Newtonian mechanics, in order to predict the
motion of a given planet in the Solar system, you need (in addition to
newton's laws of motion and Newton's law of gravity) good input data
ragarding locations and masses of all the other planets (not to
mention the Sun, of course). Failing this, you get wrong predictions,
and this has nothing to do with the correctness (or lack of) of the
theory.

Since the data regarding mass distributions in galaxies is rather
sketchy, there is no sufficient information to decide whether this
illustrates a problem with the theory or not.

General relativity has been falsified by those observations.

You can repeat this till you're blue in the face and the statement is
still incorrect.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

MobyDikc wrote:

[snip]

I see you have turned completely to the crank side.