The difference between initiated relativists (Tom Roberts) and
profanes (Moortel) consists in the ability of the former to apply what
may be called the inconsistency method. Its essence is: you introduce
contradictory couples (p, not-p) and, en revanche, the theory gives
you everything you want. The following quotation provides a
description in terms of formal logic (W.H.Newton-Smith, The
Rationality of Science, Routledge, London, 1999, p. 229):

"A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including
this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories,
our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it
will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple
argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and
suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive
the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it
follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no
matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and
not-p' that not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'.
Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit
everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that
did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which
contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
om...
The difference between initiated relativists (Tom Roberts) and
profanes (Moortel) consists in the ability of the former to apply what
may be called the inconsistency method. Its essence is: you introduce
contradictory couples (p, not-p) and, en revanche, the theory gives
you everything you want. The following quotation provides a
description in terms of formal logic (W.H.Newton-Smith, The
Rationality of Science, Routledge, London, 1999, p. 229):

"A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including
this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories,
our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it
will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple
argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and
suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive
the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it
follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no
matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and
not-p' that not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'.
Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit
everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that
did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which
contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

Pentcho Valev

Challenge: prove Euclidian geometry is inconsistent and pick up your Fields
medal. It is provable that SR is as consistent as Euclidian Geometry. If
you can not then stop posting your drivel.

Bill

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
om...
| The difference between initiated relativists (Tom Roberts) and
| profanes (Moortel) consists in the ability of the former to apply what
| may be called the inconsistency method. Its essence is: you introduce
| contradictory couples (p, not-p) and, en revanche, the theory gives
| you everything you want. The following quotation provides a
| description in terms of formal logic (W.H.Newton-Smith, The
| Rationality of Science, Routledge, London, 1999, p. 229):
|
| "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including
| this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories,
| our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it
| will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple
| argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and
| suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive
| the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it
| follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no
| matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and
| not-p' that not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'.
| Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit
| everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that
| did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which
| contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."
|
| Pentcho Valev

Not much to say about that, really. Stating the obvious can be quite
difficult
at times, but nevertheless it is still obvious.
Androcles.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message om...
The difference between initiated relativists (Tom Roberts) and

sucking imbeciles (Valev) consists in the ability of the latter to accept
the sucking consequences of the sucking logic they use to draw
sucking conclusions from the sucking premises they pull out of their
sucking ignorance:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...gInfinity.html

Dirk Vdm

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message om...
The difference between initiated relativists (Tom Roberts) and
profanes (Moortel) ...

As far as you are concerned there is very little difference
between any of the physicists on this group. Whether
they resort to insults out of pure frustration or demonstrate the
patience of a saint in trying to help you, have shown yourself
completely incapable of learning.

Martin Hogbin

"Bill Hobba" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
om...
[Relativity]
Its essence is: you introduce contradictory couples (p, not-p)
and, en revanche, the theory gives you everything you want.

It is provable that SR is as consistent as Euclidian Geometry.
... stop posting your drivel.

Relativity is only taught in a manner that makes it appear
inconsistent and irrational and relativists prefer it that way. See:
Is a Crystal-clear Theory Preferable to Dogmatic Riddles?

http://groups.google.com/groups?&th=44c85b9c28313e75

Eugene Shubert

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The difference between initiated relativists (Tom Roberts) and
profanes (Moortel) consists in the ability of the former to apply what
may be called the inconsistency method. Its essence is: you introduce
contradictory couples (p, not-p) and, en revanche, the theory gives
you everything you want. The following quotation provides a
description in terms of formal logic (W.H.Newton-Smith, The
Rationality of Science, Routledge, London, 1999, p. 229):

Non of the main line physics theories have a single mathematical
inconsistency. They may well be factually in error but they are not self
contradictory.




"A theory ought to be internally consistent.

Which every single physical theory in use today is.

Demonstrate by purely logical means the -internal- inconsistency of any
currently used physical theory. No fair proposing counter theories
either. If a theory is inconsistent, it is inconsistent independent of
the quality of other theories. Produce a contradiction or hush up.

Bob Kolker

Eugene Shubert wrote:


Relativity is only taught in a manner that makes it appear
inconsistent and irrational and relativists prefer it that way. See:
Is a Crystal-clear Theory Preferable to Dogmatic Riddles?

Nonsense. See Bondi's presentation of Special Relativity. It is clear
and requires no more than high-school math. It's only difficulty is that
it runs up against our Newtonian intuitions we acquire between the ages
of 6 and 16.

Bob Kolker

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
...


Eugene Shubert wrote:


Relativity is only taught in a manner that makes it appear
inconsistent and irrational and relativists prefer it that way. See:
Is a Crystal-clear Theory Preferable to Dogmatic Riddles?

Nonsense. See Bondi's presentation of Special Relativity. It is clear
and requires no more than high-school math. It's only difficulty is that
it runs up against our Newtonian intuitions we acquire between the ages
of 6 and 16.

Spot on Bob, spot on.

Thanks
Bill

(Pentcho Valev) wrote in message . com...

The difference between initiated relativists (Tom Roberts) and
profanes (Moortel) consists in the ability of the former to apply what
may be called the inconsistency method. Its essence is: you introduce
contradictory couples (p, not-p) and, en revanche, the theory gives
you everything you want.

I think an elabotation is needed. Profanes are unimportant but the
method of the initiated deserves a lot of attention. They are ready to
abandon Einstein on condition that their leading positions are
guaranteed. Note a few illustrations below. Profanes' thoughts are
given just for the sake of contrast.

PROFANES:
Challenge: prove Euclidian geometry is inconsistent and pick up your
Fields medal. It is provable that SR is as consistent as Euclidian
Geometry. If
you can not then stop posting your drivel.

sucking imbeciles (Valev) consists in the ability of the latter to
accept the sucking consequences of the sucking logic they use to draw
sucking conclusions from the sucking premises they pull out of their
sucking ignorance:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...gInfinity.html

As far as you are concerned there is very little difference between
any of the physicists on this group. Whether they resort to insults
out of pure frustration or demonstrate the patience of a saint in
trying to help you, have shown yourself completely incapable of
learning.

Non of the main line physics theories have a single mathematical
inconsistency. They may well be factually in error but they are not
self contradictory.

INITIATED:
As I keep stressing: in an accelerated system (like a rotating disk),
geometry is INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS. You can get whatever answer you want
by defining differently what you mean by "circumference of the
rotating disk".

In GR, SR holds _LOCALLY_ -- that is, in a small enough region
enclosing any given point in spacetime SR holds to arbitrarily-good
accuracy (the higher accuracy required, the smaller the region, in
general). A direct consequence of this is that in GR the speed of
light is LOCALLY c, but over non-local distances it need not be c (and
indeed it's easy to find situations where a long-distance measurement
obtains values other than c).

As the observer in S measures the rod belonging to S' short, he may
also decide to catch it by projecting, simultaneously in S, two
barriers just in front and behind the rod. The distance between the
barriers in S is shorter than the length of the rod in S' but catching
must be successful - otherwise it would be a lie that the observer in
S measures the rod short. On the other hand, catching cannot be
successful for obvious reasons. The conclusion is that it is a lie
that the observer in S measures the rod short.
That is too ambiguous -- the rod crashes into the barriers, and you
have no way of understanding details. Let me modify it for clarity:
In frame S, construct two doors in advance of the moving rod, set
apart by the length of the rod measured in S; start with the front
door closed and the rear door open. Just as the rod would crash into
the closed front door, close the rear door and open the front door,
simultaneously in S. This can only happen without either door smashing
the rod if the rod "really has "its "contracted length" in frame S.
The rod sails through without crashing into either door; at any time
in S one of the doors is closed.

Pentcho Valev