Those interested in the logical aspects of science may wish to see
this:

http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 19, 6:28*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Those interested in the logical aspects of science may wish to see
this:

http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf

The texts IN CAPITALS below express TWO FALSE AXIOMS that allowed
Clausius and Einstein to obtain miraculous results and destroy
theoretical science in the end:

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
Rudolf Clausius, 1850: "It is this maximum of work which must be
compared with the heat transferred. When this is done it appears that
there is in fact ground for asserting, with Carnot, that it depends
only on the quantity of the heat transferred and on the temperatures t
and tau of the two bodies A and B, but not on the nature of the
substance by means of which the work is done......If we now suppose
that there are two substances of which the one can produce more work
than the other by the transfer of a given amount of heat, or, what
comes to the same thing, needs to transfer less heat from A to B to
produce a given quantity of work, we may use these two substances
alternately by producing work with one of them in the above process.
At the end of the operations both bodies are in their original
condition; further, the work produced will have exactly
counterbalanced the work done, and therefore, by our former principle,
the quantity of heat can have neither increased nor diminished. The
only change will occur in the distribution of the heat, since more
heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to B, and so on the
whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By repeating these two
processes alternately it would be possible, WITHOUT ANY EXPENDITURE OF
FORCE OR ANY OTHER CHANGE, to transfer as much heat as we please from
a cold to a hot body, and this is not in accord with the other
relations of heat, since it always shows a tendency to equalize
temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder
bodies."

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, 1905: "....light is always propagated in empty space
with a definite velocity c which is INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE OF MOTION
OF THE EMITTING BODY.....From this there ensues the following peculiar
consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks
which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the
clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then
on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the
clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B
by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being
the time occupied in the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent
that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in
any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we
assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its
arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."

Pentcho Valev

Une science honnête ne serait-ce pas la conscience ?
Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme.
Philippus


On 19 fév, 16:28, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Those interested in the logical aspects of science may wish to see
this:

http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 7, 5:37*pm, philippus wrote:
Une science honnête ne serait-ce pas la conscience ?
Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme.
Philippus

On 19 fév, 16:28, Pentcho Valev wrote:



Those interested in the logical aspects of science may wish to see
this:

http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf

Une conscience effective presuppose un esprit qui n'est pas traite par
Big Brother; ce n'est pas toujours le cas:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 7, 6:13*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:37*pm, philippus wrote:

Une science honnête ne serait-ce pas la conscience ?
Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme.
Philippus

On 19 fév, 16:28, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Those interested in the logical aspects of science may wish to see
this:

http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf

Une conscience effective presuppose un esprit qui n'est pas traite par
Big Brother; ce n'est pas toujours le cas:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Il y a d'autres textes convenables permettant de comprendre la
situation des Einsteiniens:

http://agora.qc.ca/mot.nsf/Dossiers/Jesuites
Ignace de Loyola: "Il faut nous attacher à l'Église romaine au point
de tenir pour noir un objet qu'elle nous dit noir, alors même qu'il
serait blanc."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sourc...la-spirex.html
Ignatius of Loyola: "To be right in everything, we ought always to
hold that THE WHITE WHICH I SEE, IS BLACK, if the Hierarchical Church
so decides it...."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:


Les "simplificateurs" que mon ami R. Josh 3-(2+1) le Disciple craint
si irresistiblement

Je ne *crains* pas les *imbéciles* , les *barbares* *destructeurs*
périodiques des civilisations (on en aura vu dans l'Histoire, des chutes
d'empires, de civilisations, et de longs siècles précédant les
"Renaissances").

Cependant, les imbéciles actuels tueront le monde actuel et seront
écrasés dans sa chute...

Ma vie est proche de son terme, je me fiche éperdûment de ce qu'ils vont
provoquer et qui leur retombera sur la tête en tout premier lieu...

C'est vous, Pentcho & Co, qui allez provoquer la mort (ou la survie)
misérable qui sera la vôtre !

RJ

On Mar 10, 12:48 am, "R. Josh iii" wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Les "simplificateurs" que mon ami R. Josh 3-(2+1) le Disciple craint
si irresistiblement

Je ne *crains* pas les *imbéciles* , les *barbares* *destructeurs*
périodiques des civilisations (on en aura vu dans l'Histoire, des chutes
d'empires, de civilisations, et de longs siècles précédant les
"Renaissances").

Cependant, les imbéciles actuels tueront le monde actuel et seront
écrasés dans sa chute...

Ma vie est proche de son terme, je me fiche éperdûment de ce qu'ils vont
provoquer et qui leur retombera sur la tête en tout premier lieu...

C'est vous, Pentcho & Co, qui allez provoquer la mort (ou la survie)
misérable qui sera la vôtre !

Tu dois donner les noms de tous les imbeciles, barbares, destructeurs
etc., mon cher R. Josh 3-(2+1) le Disciple. "Pentcho & Co" n'est pas
suffisant. Par exemple, ton Maitre Jean Eisenstaedt, est-ce qu'il est
un imbecile, barbare, destructeur etc.:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison théorique à ce que la
vitesse de la lumière ne dépende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumière se comporte autrement - quant à sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule matérielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumière ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer à la lumière toute la théorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature à la fin du XVIIIème siècle. Les
résultats sont étonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux.....Pourtant, au
plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en
mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante -
et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé
l'éther."

Il y a aussi des Maitres qui sont plus attentifs que Maitre Jean
Eisenstaedt et que l'on appelle "physiciens iconoclastes" mais toi, tu
dois dire clairement mon cher R. Josh 3-(2+1) le Disciple: est-ce
qu'ils sont des imbeciles, barbares, destructeurs etc. ou est-ce
qu'ils ne le sont pas:

http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/04/14/139429.html
"Plus ardue que ce qui était prévu, la recherche de la théorie du
tout a conduit certains chercheurs à remettre en question
l'exactitude de la théorie d'Einstein. Ces physiciens iconoclastes
émettent l'hypothèse que les fondements mêmes de la physique avec
lesquels on tente d'échafauder cette grande théorie unificatrice
comporteraient peut-être quelques petites failles passées inaperçues
jusqu'à maintenant."

Pentcho Valev