Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:23 pm, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 16, 10:56 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Apr 16, 3:39 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:25 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Some day all those hymns and even Einstein criminal cult will be
forgotten and Gollum's song will remain the only actual song in the
postscientific world:
Have you ever considered trying to advance your position without
saying things like "Einstein criminal cult"?
All in all, people are just people, and they believe in right and
wrong, and they're trying to do what's right.
Just because we disagree on what is right and wrong, doesn't mean
these people are criminal.
PS, if relativity is wrong, then what is right?
Saying "relativity is wrong" may be misleading because Einstein's
relativity contains both wrong and true statements. However saying
"Einstein's 1905 light postulate is wrong" is by no means misleading.
This wrong postulate's antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light, is right:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...Norton.pdfJohn
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
The author spends a long time saying he disagrees with Einstein
but has no answers any more than Valev does.


True.

In my first response to Valev, I asked him:

"PS, if relativity is wrong, then what is right?"

That's essential, and unanswered.


I agree.
Bad decision. The MM experiment does not give a null result if
emission theory works. Not to mention that GPS does not work.


"Walter Ritz’s emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also
consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether,
more intuitive and paradox-free. This became known as the Second
Postulate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

Simple ballistic theory is not compatible with the MM experimental
results. If the light goes at c+v in one direction and c-v
in the other, the average velocity is not c. The Lorentz factor
comes in when you do the algebra.
You can try to get around this by having tortured modifications
of Maxwell etc but those give wrong answers to other measurements.

Ballistic theory would put GPS in a world of hurt since the
timings would be all off.

On Apr 16, 1:43 pm, Enes wrote:
On 16 Kwi, 20:14, Michael Helland wrote:
[...]

In my first response to Valev, I asked him:

"PS, if relativity is wrong, then what is right?"

That's essential, and unanswered.

Relativity may be wrong and right as perspective.

Wrong -because reality is unrelativity,
right as illusion of reality.

I agree.

Another way to put it (to avoid using "illusion" with a negative
connotation) is:

As per Newton's definitions in the Principia, space and time have dual
natures: absolute and relative.

Relative reality/nature (where relative space and relative time and
relative matter reside) adheres to relativity.

Absolute reality/nature (where absolute space and absolute time and
absolute matter reside) does not.

Relative reality is a production of the mind, which resides in
absolute reality.

That is the basic Rationalist position that both Newton and Einstein
start from.

In any case, Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, is a temporary,
transitionary truth.

On Apr 16, 1:52 pm, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:23 pm, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 16, 10:56 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Apr 16, 3:39 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:25 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Some day all those hymns and even Einstein criminal cult will be
forgotten and Gollum's song will remain the only actual song in the
postscientific world:
Have you ever considered trying to advance your position without
saying things like "Einstein criminal cult"?
All in all, people are just people, and they believe in right and
wrong, and they're trying to do what's right.
Just because we disagree on what is right and wrong, doesn't mean
these people are criminal.
PS, if relativity is wrong, then what is right?
Saying "relativity is wrong" may be misleading because Einstein's
relativity contains both wrong and true statements. However saying
"Einstein's 1905 light postulate is wrong" is by no means misleading.
This wrong postulate's antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light, is right:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...Norton.pdfJohn
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
The author spends a long time saying he disagrees with Einstein
but has no answers any more than Valev does.

True.

In my first response to Valev, I asked him:

"PS, if relativity is wrong, then what is right?"

That's essential, and unanswered.

I agree.
Bad decision. The MM experiment does not give a null result if
emission theory works. Not to mention that GPS does not work.

"Walter Ritz’s emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also
consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether,
more intuitive and paradox-free. This became known as the Second
Postulate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

Simple ballistic theory is not compatible with the MM experimental
results.


I was talking about Ritz's theory from 1908, which was compatible with
the null result.

That's encyclopedic knowledge, though not very common knowledge.

Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 16, 1:43 pm, Enes wrote:
On 16 Kwi, 20:14, Michael Helland wrote:
[...]

In my first response to Valev, I asked him:
"PS, if relativity is wrong, then what is right?"
That's essential, and unanswered.
Relativity may be wrong and right as perspective.

Wrong -because reality is unrelativity,
right as illusion of reality.

I agree.

Another way to put it (to avoid using "illusion" with a negative
connotation) is:

As per Newton's definitions in the Principia, space and time have dual
natures: absolute and relative.

Relative reality/nature (where relative space and relative time and
relative matter reside) adheres to relativity.

Absolute reality/nature (where absolute space and absolute time and
absolute matter reside) does not.

Relative reality is a production of the mind, which resides in
absolute reality.

That is the basic Rationalist position that both Newton and Einstein
start from.

In any case, Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, is a temporary,
transitionary truth.
This is where philosophers get it wrong when they try to do physics.
Newton is still perfectly fine in its domain of applicability.
Relativity is perfectly fine in its domain of applicability.
The point is to find the limits of those domains. For normal
everyday scale event, Newton works well enough.
Newton and Relativity are models of the world.

On Apr 16, 2:57 pm, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 16, 1:43 pm, Enes wrote:
On 16 Kwi, 20:14, Michael Helland wrote:
[...]

In my first response to Valev, I asked him:
"PS, if relativity is wrong, then what is right?"
That's essential, and unanswered.
Relativity may be wrong and right as perspective.

Wrong -because reality is unrelativity,
right as illusion of reality.

I agree.

Another way to put it (to avoid using "illusion" with a negative
connotation) is:

As per Newton's definitions in the Principia, space and time have dual
natures: absolute and relative.

Relative reality/nature (where relative space and relative time and
relative matter reside) adheres to relativity.

Absolute reality/nature (where absolute space and absolute time and
absolute matter reside) does not.

Relative reality is a production of the mind, which resides in
absolute reality.

That is the basic Rationalist position that both Newton and Einstein
start from.

In any case, Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, is a temporary,
transitionary truth.

This is where philosophers get it wrong when they try to do physics.
Newton is still perfectly fine in its domain of applicability.
Relativity is perfectly fine in its domain of applicability.
The point is to find the limits of those domains. For normal
everyday scale event, Newton works well enough.
Newton and Relativity are models of the world.


I agree with all that you said.

Not sure where the point of contention is.

Are you taking an issue with my use of the word "true"?

As I said, truth, as it relates to science, is transitionary and
temporary.

Basically it means "hasn't been falsified yet".

Assuming that relativity is "true" in a more eternal and absolute
context would be a problem.

But I was trying to be clear that truth in science is used only in a
relative and uncertain way.

On 16 Kwi, 21:57, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
[...]
This is where philosophers get it wrong when they try to do physics.

Is it better when physics try to do philosophy ?


Newton is still perfectly fine in its domain of applicability.
Relativity is perfectly fine in its domain *of applicability.

Have You got a parrot ?


The point is to find the limits of those domains. *For normal
everyday scale event, Newton works well enough.
Newton and Relativity are models of the world.

And what about micro world ? Is it behind the world ?
Are Newton and Einstein good enough ?


IMO:
We must return to Copernicus discovery and make deep penetration,
intelectual (this time !)

On 16 Kwi, 20:55, Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 16, 1:43 pm, Enes wrote:

On 16 Kwi, 20:14, Michael Helland wrote:
[...]

In my first response to Valev, I asked him:

"PS, if relativity is wrong, then what is right?"

That's essential, and unanswered.

Relativity may be wrong and right as perspective.

Wrong -because reality is unrelativity,
right as *illusion of reality.

I agree.

Another way to put it (to avoid using "illusion" with a negative
connotation) is:

As per Newton's definitions in the Principia, space and time have dual
natures: absolute and relative.

Relative reality/nature (where relative space and relative time and
relative matter reside) adheres to relativity.

Absolute reality/nature (where absolute space and absolute time and
absolute matter reside) does not.

Relative reality is a production of the mind, which resides in
absolute reality.

That is the basic Rationalist position that both Newton and Einstein
start from.



In any case, Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, is a temporary,
transitionary truth.

In any case may be, that the time is something like illusion conencted
with move.
We have confusion and entanglement of notions, units, etc. This is the
reason that physical constants must be use.