Karl Popper: "...we can argue that it would be a highly improbable
coincidence if a theory like Einstein's could correctly predict very
precise measurements not predicted by its predecessors unless there is
'some truth' in it."

Popper should have verified the internal logic of Einstein's theory. If
the theory is an INCONSISTENCY, it CAN produce correct predictions.
Initially Einstein introduced a false premise (the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source), then deduced miracles
(time dilation, length contraction etc.) from it and accordingly became
a miracle-producing divinity but eventually reintroduced the true
premise (the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
source) and obtained correct predictions (e.g. the frequency shift
factor). The inconsistency is much more dangerous than an ordinary
wrong theory since it irreversibly destroys rationality in science. See
more in

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...steins_th.html

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Karl Popper: "...we can argue that it would be a highly improbable
coincidence if a theory like Einstein's could correctly predict very
precise measurements not predicted by its predecessors unless there is
'some truth' in it."

Popper should have verified the internal logic of Einstein's theory.

He wouldn't have wasted his time - many have proven it consistent.

If
the theory is an INCONSISTENCY, it CAN produce correct predictions.
Initially Einstein introduced a false premise (the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source),

Funny how that false premise has been experimentally validated many many
times.

Bill

then deduced miracles
(time dilation, length contraction etc.) from it and accordingly became
a miracle-producing divinity but eventually reintroduced the true
premise (the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
source) and obtained correct predictions (e.g. the frequency shift
factor). The inconsistency is much more dangerous than an ordinary
wrong theory since it irreversibly destroys rationality in science. See
more in

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...steins_th.html

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Karl Popper: "...we can argue that it would be a highly improbable
coincidence if a theory like Einstein's could correctly predict very
precise measurements not predicted by its predecessors unless there is
'some truth' in it."

Popper should have verified the internal logic of Einstein's theory. If
the theory is an INCONSISTENCY, it CAN produce correct predictions.
Initially Einstein introduced a false premise (the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source), then deduced miracles
(time dilation, length contraction etc.) from it and accordingly became
a miracle-producing divinity but eventually reintroduced the true
premise (the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
source) and obtained correct predictions (e.g. the frequency shift
factor). The inconsistency is much more dangerous than an ordinary
wrong theory since it irreversibly destroys rationality in science. See
more in

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...steins_th.html

Pentcho Valev

I'll give you one thing upon further reflection, you might just be half
right...but only half right. If you are, there are two velocities to the
speed of light rather than one. One that is dependent upon the speed of the
source propagator, therefore inconstant, and at the same time one that is
independent of the speed of the source propagator and dependent upon the
Universal Horizon, therefore always constant. And there being two rather
than one might be the why of the existence of 'wavelength'...and beyond that
'frequency'. At the same time it would have other possible implications as
well.

GLB

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Karl Popper: "...we can argue that it would be a highly improbable
coincidence if a theory like Einstein's could correctly predict very
precise measurements not predicted by its predecessors unless there is
'some truth' in it."

Yep, and Popper was a smart guy.
You seem to think 'producing/predicting 1 good result' equals acceptance of
a theory. Popper never claimed such a thing.

He merely pointed out that a theory that succesfully predicts
new/unexplained results is doing a good job, and deserves futher
investigation. He never claimed one good result does the job.

Did you actually read any Popper?



Popper should have verified the internal logic of Einstein's theory. If
the theory is an INCONSISTENCY, it CAN produce correct predictions.

indeed.

An example:
My new theory: "You don't think 1+1 equals 3 because it is raining over here
(Rotterdam/Netherlands)".

That theory sucks, but the prediction is correct.


Initially Einstein introduced a false premise (the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source), then deduced miracles
(time dilation, length contraction etc.) from it and accordingly became
a miracle-producing divinity but eventually reintroduced the true
premise (the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
source) and obtained correct predictions (e.g. the frequency shift
factor).

???
The frequency shift you observe when looking at fast moving objects does not
indicate the speed of light changed...
Am I missing something?


Regards,
Erwin Moller

The inconsistency is much more dangerous than an ordinary
wrong theory since it irreversibly destroys rationality in science. See
more in

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm

http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...steins_th.html

Pentcho Valev

Erwin Moller wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

Karl Popper: "...we can argue that it would be a highly improbable
coincidence if a theory like Einstein's could correctly predict very
precise measurements not predicted by its predecessors unless there is
'some truth' in it."

Yep, and Popper was a smart guy.
You seem to think 'producing/predicting 1 good result' equals acceptance of
a theory. Popper never claimed such a thing.

He merely pointed out that a theory that succesfully predicts
new/unexplained results is doing a good job, and deserves futher
investigation. He never claimed one good result does the job.

Did you actually read any Popper?



Popper should have verified the internal logic of Einstein's theory. If
the theory is an INCONSISTENCY, it CAN produce correct predictions.

indeed.

An example:
My new theory: "You don't think 1+1 equals 3 because it is raining over here
(Rotterdam/Netherlands)".

That theory sucks, but the prediction is correct.


Initially Einstein introduced a false premise (the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source), then deduced miracles
(time dilation, length contraction etc.) from it and accordingly became
a miracle-producing divinity but eventually reintroduced the true
premise (the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
source) and obtained correct predictions (e.g. the frequency shift
factor).

???
The frequency shift you observe when looking at fast moving objects does not
indicate the speed of light changed...
Am I missing something?


Regards,
Erwin Moller


Erwin, you are dealing with one of the largest cretinoid trolls,
"Pancho Valdez" posts his **** on a daily basis all over the internet
(on many other websites). Not worth reading his ****, let alone
answering it.

G. L. Bradford wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Karl Popper: "...we can argue that it would be a highly improbable
coincidence if a theory like Einstein's could correctly predict very
precise measurements not predicted by its predecessors unless there is
'some truth' in it."

Popper should have verified the internal logic of Einstein's theory. If
the theory is an INCONSISTENCY, it CAN produce correct predictions.
Initially Einstein introduced a false premise (the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source), then deduced miracles
(time dilation, length contraction etc.) from it and accordingly became
a miracle-producing divinity but eventually reintroduced the true
premise (the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
source) and obtained correct predictions (e.g. the frequency shift
factor). The inconsistency is much more dangerous than an ordinary
wrong theory since it irreversibly destroys rationality in science. See
more in

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...steins_th.html

Pentcho Valev

I'll give you one thing upon further reflection, you might just be half
right...but only half right. If you are, there are two velocities to the
speed of light rather than one. One that is dependent upon the speed of the
source propagator, therefore inconstant, and at the same time one that is
independent of the speed of the source propagator and dependent upon the
Universal Horizon, therefore always constant. And there being two rather
than one might be the why of the existence of 'wavelength'...and beyond that
'frequency'. At the same time it would have other possible implications as
well.

GLB

The only velocities physicists are accountable to are those of direct
measurement.

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Karl Popper: "...we can argue that it would be a highly improbable
coincidence if a theory like Einstein's could correctly predict very
precise measurements not predicted by its predecessors unless there is
'some truth' in it."

Popper should have verified the internal logic of Einstein's theory.

He wouldn't have wasted his time - many have proven it consistent.

If
the theory is an INCONSISTENCY, it CAN produce correct predictions.
Initially Einstein introduced a false premise (the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source),

Funny how that false premise has been experimentally validated many many
times.

Well, even you hero *Einstein* knew it was funny though,
and *univented* it, and the Y2K Clinton Gore idiots
can never to remember. Since it's based on relativistic
and the Comsological CONSTANT, which doesn't EXIST.

Which is his famous quote comes from;
Common sense is everything you learn before the
age of five, and stupid is everything you learn
playing with dice.








Bill

then deduced miracles
(time dilation, length contraction etc.) from it and accordingly became
a miracle-producing divinity but eventually reintroduced the true
premise (the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
source) and obtained correct predictions (e.g. the frequency shift
factor). The inconsistency is much more dangerous than an ordinary
wrong theory since it irreversibly destroys rationality in science. See
more in

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...steins_th.html

Pentcho Valev

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 06:44:39 +0000, Bill Hobba wrote:


"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Karl Popper: "...we can argue that it would be a highly improbable
coincidence if a theory like Einstein's could correctly predict very
precise measurements not predicted by its predecessors unless there is
'some truth' in it."

Popper should have verified the internal logic of Einstein's theory.

He wouldn't have wasted his time - many have proven it consistent.

No one has proven the theory consistent with observation, although most
observations are consistent with the theory. (A subtle point.) The best
we can do is prove that the theory has no glaring errors or
inconsistencies within itself. There are also issues regarding integrating
the theory with other theories such as quantum mechanics.

So far, GR and QM work well within their realms but they have yet to merge.


If
the theory is an INCONSISTENCY, it CAN produce correct predictions.
Initially Einstein introduced a false premise (the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source),

Funny how that false premise has been experimentally validated many many
times.

At least within error. But there are other effects of the theory that are
not only validated but *assumed* -- for instance, LHC postulates that
protons cannot go faster than light, even though they have many times the
energy necessary to do so, given Newtonian theory.

Presumably these postulates are derived from older accelerators. :-)


Bill


[rest snipped]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

[...]

So far, GR and QM work well within their realms but they have yet to merge.


"... that fiery marriage which has yet to be consummated."

-- John Wheeler --

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com