According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments. Being faithful to
the mythology, sycophants neither understand nor care about the logic
used by the initiated in the transition from axioms to final results.
They even don't care about the relevancy of experiments. Sycophants can
only sing dithyrambs containing stanzas of the sort:

The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, oh Albert, oh giant of science,
oh creature divine with an infinite power.

The problem is that, in the postscientific era, the initiated are
logical jugglers able to derive anything from anything. For instance,
the frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, is a corollary of the
equivalence principle and Newton's c+v principle (the speed of light
does depend on the speed of source or observer - see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm }. The Juggler did obtain the
factor for himself in this way but to sycophants he offered the absurd
derivation in Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" (see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev6.htm ).

Experimental verification can only make sense if a prior LOGICAL
verification has comprehensively answered the question "What follows
from what?".

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments. Being faithful to
the mythology, sycophants neither understand nor care about the logic
used by the initiated in the transition from axioms to final results.
They even don't care about the relevancy of experiments. Sycophants can
only sing dithyrambs containing stanzas of the sort:

*Plonk*

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message oups.com...

Experimental verification can only make sense if a prior LOGICAL
verification has comprehensively answered the question "What follows
from what?".

I am afraid not. Nature does what it does; it has no need to
conform to our logic.

Martin Hogbin

Pentcho Valev, idiot from plant pinhead:

According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments.

Well gee. Since physical theories are supposed to be theories
about nature, don't you think that checking with nature would
be a rather obvious requirement? Or, are you planning to come
up with your own theory and send lots of letters through your
attorneys threating nature to conform or be sued for failing to
meet some implied warranty?


Being faithful to
the mythology, sycophants neither understand nor care about the logic
used by the initiated in the transition from axioms to final results.
They even don't care about the relevancy of experiments. Sycophants can
only sing dithyrambs containing stanzas of the sort:



The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, oh Albert, oh giant of science,
oh creature divine with an infinite power.

The problem is that, in the postscientific era, the initiated are
logical jugglers able to derive anything from anything. For instance,
the frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, is a corollary of the
equivalence principle and Newton's c+v principle (the speed of light
does depend on the speed of source or observer - see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm }. The Juggler did obtain the
factor for himself in this way but to sycophants he offered the absurd
derivation in Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" (see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev6.htm ).

Experimental verification can only make sense if a prior LOGICAL
verification has comprehensively answered the question "What follows
from what?".

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" writes:

According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments.

It is not of the nature of scientific theories, that they could be
verified. Theories are adopted (tentatively accepted) if they prove
useful (effective), as in making good predictions. Theories are
later dropped when they are displaced by better (more effective)
theories.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments.
[snip crap]

Falsified through experiments. Theory is otherwise validated by
observation but never proven.

Experimental verification can only make sense if a prior LOGICAL
verification has comprehensively answered the question "What follows
from what?".
[snip more crap]

Theory initiates with postulates. Postulates follow from nothing or
they would not be postulates. Euclid's Fifth (Parallel) postulate
fell in the mid-18th century to Riemann and Bolyai-Lobechevsky. Then
Thurston goosed them all with "The geometry and topology of
three-manifolds," Princeton Math. Dept., 1979.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message oups.com...
According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments. Being faithful to
the mythology, sycophants neither understand nor care about the logic
used by the initiated in the transition from axioms to final results.
They even don't care about the relevancy of experiments. Sycophants can
only sing dithyrambs containing stanzas of the sort:

The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, oh Albert, oh giant of science,
oh creature divine with an infinite power.

The problem is that, in the postscientific era, the initiated are
logical jugglers able to derive anything from anything. For instance,
the frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, is a corollary of the
equivalence principle and Newton's c+v principle (the speed of light
does depend on the speed of source or observer - see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm }. The Juggler did obtain the
factor for himself in this way but to sycophants he offered the absurd
derivation in Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" (see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev6.htm ).

Experimental verification can only make sense if a prior LOGICAL
verification has comprehensively answered the question "What follows
from what?".

Pentcho Valev


The poem is cute and I will attest from my own attempts to
research the issue that the "redshift backpedal" is a well
documented effect.

However...
I am not at all convinced by your statement
the speed of light does depend on the speed of source or observer
In you page:
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm

=
I am familar with a few of the ambiguites with Maxwell/Lorentz/Einstiein
propagation which you describe. But the issues which seem to offer logical
opening for your statement are easily resolved by crosschecking with
Weber's equations or with some difficulty doing the analysis in a gauge
that properly accounts for radiation.


VII. GAUGE FUNCTION AND POTENTIALS FOR THE VELOCITY GAUGE
The Lorenz gauge and the Coulomb gauge are in some sense the extremes in behavior of
the scalar potential. In the one the effects of a source point propagate with the speed c; in the
other the propagation is at infinite speed. But there is no reason for a restriction to such limiting
cases. We define the velocity gauge ( v-gauge for short and actually a class of gauges) to be one in
which the speed of propagation for the scalar potential is v, an arbitrary speed relative to c.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

The permittiviity and permebility of a region is established by the
charges in the region and they compement one another for a wide range
of density variations. The only thing a coupled EM structure can do to
alter the path it uses is move the matter along the path.

If you want ballistic propagation, you have to move some
matter.

Sue...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments.


[snip emotions]

Corroborated that is, not verified. Big, big differece. No theory about
nature workings in this world can be proven. Try and someone can just
introduce an auxiliary hypothesis that will knock out your proof
worthless.

Before you claim understanding of what you refer to as "postscientific"
era, read classics like that:

"In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the
phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was
that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive forces of
bodies, and the laws of motion and gravitation, were discovered...."
Newton, Principia.

Do you know how many times in the history people thought they had a
correct theory about some phenomenon and someone came around with an
experiment that falsified it?

Let me remind you that geocentric model of the planet system (Eudoxous)
survived over heliocentric counterproposal (Aristarxos of Samos)
because there was no dynamic explanation of the latter. Then, Newton
came along and offered a dynamic explanation in favor of the
heliocentric Copernican world enough to make geocentrics bite their
tail. Suddenly, a pattent attorney came up with speical relativity that
challenged directly the Copernican system. From a purely kinematic
relativistic point of view, geocentric and heliocentric systems are
indistinguishable. The question is: Does matter/energy make spacetime
curve and in turn does curved spacetime tell matter how to move? Or
this is only a model that fairly accurately describes what happens?

Can you prove that postscientist?, either way, model or physical law?
Or learn to shut up.

Mike


Pentcho Valev

Bilge wrote:
Pentcho Valev, idiot from plant pinhead:

According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments.

Well gee. Since physical theories are supposed to be theories
about nature, don't you think that checking with nature would
be a rather obvious requirement? Or, are you planning to come
up with your own theory and send lots of letters through your
attorneys threating nature to conform or be sued for failing to
meet some implied warranty?

what if the nature cheat us by means
of observations, the man still have a
point

if the theory fails making 10 predictions
but succes repeatly 2 specific predictions,
then the theory is good enuff, huh?



Being faithful to
the mythology, sycophants neither understand nor care about the logic
used by the initiated in the transition from axioms to final results.
They even don't care about the relevancy of experiments. Sycophants can
only sing dithyrambs containing stanzas of the sort:



The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, oh Albert, oh giant of science,
oh creature divine with an infinite power.

The problem is that, in the postscientific era, the initiated are
logical jugglers able to derive anything from anything. For instance,
the frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, is a corollary of the
equivalence principle and Newton's c+v principle (the speed of light
does depend on the speed of source or observer - see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm }. The Juggler did obtain the
factor for himself in this way but to sycophants he offered the absurd
derivation in Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" (see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev6.htm ).

Experimental verification can only make sense if a prior LOGICAL
verification has comprehensively answered the question "What follows
from what?".

Pentcho Valev

From a purely kinematic
relativistic point of view, geocentric and heliocentric systems are
indistinguishable.

That is not the case. Acceleration is absolute. Strictly speaking we
should say that clocks run slower if you accelerate and decelerate,
since you cannot compare clocks except by reference to a double
journey.

Anyway the stars show parallax. Titus Brahne if I recall propsed just
this theory. The Sun revolved round the Earth, but all the planets
revolved round the Sun.