In contrast with what mythology says, Einstein's approach differs
considerably from Euclid's approach. Initial hypotheses in Einstein's
theory, in particular Einstein's 1905 light postulate, can only be
applied in an implicit environment composed of already established
true principles of the "old" physics. In the presence of such an
environment the falsehood of the hypothesis does not convert the
theory into something refutable through experiment. Rather, the result
is much worse: the theory becomes an INCONSISTENCY.

Consider a mathematical system where all initial statements are
unambiguous and true, except for the result of the operation 2+2.
There are two hypotheses: 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. One somehow chooses the
false hypothesis 2+2=5 and obtains:

(A) 3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15

(B) 3(2+2) = 6 + 6 = 12

Note that the true conclusion 3(2+2)=12 belongs to the theory
initiated by the false hypothesis 2+2=5 so if an experiment tests this
particular conclusion, the theory (rather, the inconsistency) would
prove deceptively correct.

Since the expeimental verification is unreliable in the case of
inconsistency, REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM remains the only reasonable
procedure leading to a falsification (naturally not used by
Einsteinians). If it had been used, the following case of trapping a
long pole inside a short barn would have led to an immediate
refutation of Einstein's theory:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

If Einsteinians fail to reopen the doors "pretty quickly", the length
L of the pole trapped inside the barn would be:

(A) L = 40 because the trapped pole cannot be longer than the barn.

(B) L = 80 because that is the proper length and the pole is no longer
in motion.

Both conclusions, L=40 and L=80, belong to Einstein's theory.

Pentcho Valev

On May 5, 6:04*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:


Both conclusions, L=40 and L=80, belong to Einstein's theory.


There is this single guy in a small town who has a coffee shop and
naturally each morning serves coffee to those who do not serve
themsleves

(1) If he serves coffee to himself then he he does not serve coffee to
himself

(2) If he does not serve coffee to himself then he serves coffee to
himself

Alternatively:

(1) If the pole fits in the barn then the pole does not fit in the
barn

(2) If the pole does not fit in the barn then the pole fits in the
barn

What's wrong with that? We are talking about 21 century physics. All
antinomies are possible. Thanks to a particular kind of people.

Merde (this is the full translation of the above for the French
groups)

Mike

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
In contrast with what mythology says, Einstein's approach differs
considerably from Euclid's approach. Initial hypotheses in Einstein's
theory, in particular Einstein's 1905 light postulate, can only be
applied in an implicit environment composed of already established
true principles of the "old" physics. In the presence of such an
environment the falsehood of the hypothesis does not convert the
theory into something refutable through experiment. Rather, the result
is much worse: the theory becomes an INCONSISTENCY.

Consider a mathematical system where all initial statements are
unambiguous and true, except for the result of the operation 2+2.
There are two hypotheses: 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. One somehow chooses the
false hypothesis 2+2=5 and obtains:

(A) 3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15

(B) 3(2+2) = 6 + 6 = 12

Note that the true conclusion 3(2+2)=12 belongs to the theory
initiated by the false hypothesis 2+2=5 so if an experiment tests this
particular conclusion, the theory (rather, the inconsistency) would
prove deceptively correct.

Since the expeimental verification is unreliable in the case of
inconsistency, REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM remains the only reasonable
procedure leading to a falsification (naturally not used by
Einsteinians). If it had been used, the following case of trapping a
long pole inside a short barn would have led to an immediate
refutation of Einstein's theory:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

If Einsteinians fail to reopen the doors "pretty quickly", the length
L of the pole trapped inside the barn would be:

(A) L = 40 because the trapped pole cannot be longer than the barn.

(B) L = 80 because that is the proper length and the pole is no longer
in motion.

Both conclusions, L=40 and L=80, belong to Einstein's theory.

Pentcho Valev

------------------------------------

c = (+)300,000kps

c = (-)300,000kps

GLB

On 6 mai, 00:16, Mike wrote:
On May 5, 6:04*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:



Both conclusions, L=40 and L=80, belong to Einstein's theory.

There is this single guy in a small town who has a coffee shop and
naturally each morning serves coffee to those who do not serve
themsleves

(1) If he serves coffee to himself then he he does not serve coffee to
himself

(2) If he does not serve coffee to himself then he serves coffee to
himself

Alternatively:

(1) If the pole fits in the barn then the pole does not fit in the
barn

(2) If the pole does not fit in the barn then the pole fits in the
barn

What's wrong with that? We are talking about 21 century physics. All
antinomies are possible. Thanks to a particular kind of people.

I must admit you are correct here. Yes in the 21st century
"theoretical science" CAN be characterized in this way. This type of
science was initially created by Rudolf Clausius but then Divine
Albert contributed considerably:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made
a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in
the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present
state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime
example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of
crowds' (ibid. p. 8) ...Clausius' verbal statement of the second law
makes no sense...All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition; a century
of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean... Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers... and seven times has it blanked
and gravelled me... I cannot explain what I cannot understand....This
summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see
irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is
it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of
Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of
Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was
right in her verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as
expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a RED
HERRING."

http://www.aapps.org/archive/bulleti..._5_p2p3%7F.pdf
John Barrow: "Einstein as Icon. How Einstein Became the
Personification of Physics. Einstein restored faith in the
unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done
something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody
could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for
a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the
mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly
impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they
cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to
observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that
appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal
of the mysterious."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

In contrast with what mythology says, Einstein's approach differs
considerably from Euclid's approach. Initial hypotheses in Einstein's
theory, in particular Einstein's 1905 light postulate, can only be
applied in an implicit environment composed of already established
true principles of the "old" physics. In the presence of such an
environment the falsehood of the hypothesis does not convert the
theory into something refutable through experiment. Rather, the result
is much worse: the theory becomes an INCONSISTENCY.

We locally measure light speed in vacuum.
We get c.

We locally measure light speed in vacuum.
We expect c+v.
We get c.

We locally measure light speed in vacuum.
We expect c-v.
We get c.

We locally measure light speed in vacuum.
We expect c.
We get c.

Pentcho Valev: "The World is Inconsitent!"

Dirk Vdm

On May 7, 11:07*am, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...
On May 6, 8:30 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-





SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in message



In contrast with what mythology says, Einstein's approach differs
considerably from Euclid's approach. Initial hypotheses in Einstein's
theory, in particular Einstein's 1905 light postulate, can only be
applied in an implicit environment composed of already established
true principles of the "old" physics. In the presence of such an
environment the falsehood of the hypothesis does not convert the
theory into something refutable through experiment. Rather, the result
is much worse: the theory becomes an INCONSISTENCY.

We locally measure light speed in vacuum.
We get c.

We locally measure light speed in vacuum.
We expect c+v.
We get c.

We locally measure light speed in vacuum.
We expect c-v.
We get c.

We locally measure light speed in vacuum.
We expect c.
We get c.

Pentcho Valev: "The World is Inconsitent!"

Dirk Vdm

When did you measure the speed of light locally Moortel Moortel? Did
you measure it non-locally? Is the speed of light variable non-
locally? If it is, how can it be constant locally? Perhaps Einstein's
1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light are EQUIVALENT? Are they Moortel Moortel?
Nowdays your criminal masters are masochistically interested in the
emission theory:

http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conf.../cprogram.html
Saturday, June 14, 2008. 9:00 - 10:10 John D. Norton (Department of
History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh) - Room H
767http://www.spacetimecenter.org/conferences/2008/Norton.pdf

Pentcho Valev

* Measure it "non-locally"? Does it have any dimension "non-locally," Valev?

Pound and Rebka measured the frequency of falling light to be:

f' = f(1 + gh/c^2)

In this way they indirectly mesured the SPEED of falling light, in
accordance with the textbook formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

True, the textbook formula gives two possibilities:

1. Pound nd Rebka measured the speed of light to be VARIABLE, in
accorance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2).

2. Pound and Rebka measured the speed of light to be constant, in
accodance with the equation c'=c.

Judging from what your masters teach, Pound and Rebka mesured the
speed of light to be VARIABLE:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...of_light..html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In
the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation
is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense..."

Pentcho Valev

On May 6, 12:04*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
In contrast with what mythology says, Einstein's approach differs
considerably from Euclid's approach. Initial hypotheses in Einstein's
theory, in particular Einstein's 1905 light postulate, can only be
applied in an implicit environment composed of already established
true principles of the "old" physics. In the presence of such an
environment *the falsehood of the hypothesis does not convert the
theory into something refutable through experiment. Rather, the result
is much worse: the theory becomes an INCONSISTENCY.

Consider a mathematical system where all initial statements are
unambiguous and true, except for the result of the operation 2+2.
There are two hypotheses: 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. One somehow chooses the
false hypothesis 2+2=5 and obtains:

(A) 3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15

(B) 3(2+2) = 6 + 6 = 12

Note that the true conclusion 3(2+2)=12 belongs to the theory
initiated by the false hypothesis 2+2=5 so if an experiment tests this
particular conclusion, the theory (rather, the inconsistency) would
prove deceptively correct.

Since the expeimental verification is unreliable in the case of
inconsistency, REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM remains the only reasonable
procedure leading to a falsification (naturally not used by
Einsteinians). If it had been used, the following case of trapping a
long pole inside a short barn would have led to an immediate
refutation of Einstein's theory:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

If Einsteinians fail to reopen the doors "pretty quickly", the length
L of the pole trapped inside the barn would be:

(A) L = 40 because the trapped pole cannot be longer than the barn.

(B) L = 80 because that is the proper length and the pole is no longer
in motion.

Both conclusions, L=40 and L=80, belong to Einstein's theory.

Perhaps physicists would have managed to get rid of Einstein's first
inconsistency (special relativity) but then Divine Albert saw the
danger and superimposed a second inconsistency (general relativity):

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Quantum
theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have
appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of
relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the
laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the
speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the
source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory
are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary
relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not
absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF
INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG
within two years of publishing it."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

That is, in general relativity Einstein's 1905 false light postulate
and its true antithesis (the speed of light is variable and obeys both
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and the equivalent equation c'=c
+v) coexist. Physicists had to give up and start singing "Divine
Einstein". The world of science became "Einstein zombie world".

Pentcho Valev

On May 6, 12:04*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
In contrast with what mythology says, Einstein's approach differs
considerably from Euclid's approach. Initial hypotheses in Einstein's
theory, in particular Einstein's 1905 light postulate, can only be
applied in an implicit environment composed of already established
true principles of the "old" physics. In the presence of such an
environment *the falsehood of the hypothesis does not convert the
theory into something refutable through experiment. Rather, the result
is much worse: the theory becomes an INCONSISTENCY.

Consider a mathematical system where all initial statements are
unambiguous and true, except for the result of the operation 2+2.
There are two hypotheses: 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. One somehow chooses the
false hypothesis 2+2=5 and obtains:

(A) 3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15

(B) 3(2+2) = 6 + 6 = 12

Note that the true conclusion 3(2+2)=12 belongs to the theory
initiated by the false hypothesis 2+2=5 so if an experiment tests this
particular conclusion, the theory (rather, the inconsistency) would
prove deceptively correct.

Since the expeimental verification is unreliable in the case of
inconsistency, REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM remains the only reasonable
procedure leading to a falsification (naturally not used by
Einsteinians). If it had been used, the following case of trapping a
long pole inside a short barn would have led to an immediate
refutation of Einstein's theory:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

If Einsteinians fail to reopen the doors "pretty quickly", the length
L of the pole trapped inside the barn would be:

(A) L = 40 because the trapped pole cannot be longer than the barn.

(B) L = 80 because that is the proper length and the pole is no longer
in motion.

Both conclusions, L=40 and L=80, belong to Einstein's theory.

Herbert Dingle's desperate fight against Divine Albert's
inconsistency:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/02/...s_special.html
"Herbert Dingle (1890 – 1978) was an English astronomer and President
of the Royal Astronomical Society. He was a member of the British
government eclipse expeditions of 1927 and 1932; and became Professor
of Natural Philosophy, Imperial College in 1938, Professor of History
and Philosophy of Science, University College London in 1946–1955 and
President of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1951–1953. Appointed
Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science in 1955, he
died in 1978. Originally a supporter of Einstein's work on the theory
of relativity and an author of the textbook Relativity for All (1922),
Dingle came to doubt its foundations after reading an account of the
so-called twin paradox. According to this, a clock that moves relative
to another will appear to run more slowly as judged by the stationary
clock and inversely. Dingle claimed that Einstein's results were
inconsistent with those worked out using a "commonsense" method."

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V15N2MCC.pdf
"Professor Herbert Dingle was a long-time critic of the special theory
of relativity, who believed for many years that the theory was self-
contradictory. Although he was unsuccessful in persuading the
scientific world of the inconsistency of the theory, his questions and
arguments were not satisfactorily answered during his life. Now,
thirty years after his death, the subject is of historical interest.
This paper examines two main problems that have contributed to the
confusion that still surrounds this issue. The first problem is the
fact that some scientists answered Dingle’s Question, which is
explicitly about the special theory, by invoking the general theory.
It is argued that, if there is a valid answer to Dingle’s Question, it
would have been valid if the same question had been asked in1905
before the general theory appeared. The second problem is that many
scientists have claimed that Dingle’s thesis has been refuted by
experiment, although experimental results cannot disprove the
existence of an internal contradiction. An answer to Dingle’s Question
is still wanting."

Pentcho Valev