Very carefully indeed. At the conference

http://quantum.leeds.ac.uk/~sonwm/fop07/

philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
difficult. He has just discovered that "the idea that influences
propagate at most as fast as light" can be violated:

http://quantum.leeds.ac.uk/~viv/FoP0...utterfield.pdf

Philosophers' main task will be to find the best language to present
the violation. Philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge has already
discovered this form of presentation:

http://talks.cam.ac.uk/talk/index/5570 : Jeremy Butterfield
"Reconsidering Relativistic Causality": "I discuss the idea of
relativistic causality, i.e. the requirement that causal processes
(signals) can propagate only within the light-cone. After briefly
locating this requirement in the philosophy of causation, my main aim
is to draw philosophers' attention to the fact that it is subtle, and
even problematic, in contemporary physics. For there are scenarios in
which it fails."

Other presentations may be offered and a poll in the relativity cult
will finally determine the best one. In any event, the world should
continue to sing "Divine Einstein" enthusiastically:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message oups.com...
Very carefully indeed. At the conference

http://quantum.leeds.ac.uk/~sonwm/fop07/

philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult

.... that, like every armchair physics philosopher, he is
not hindered by the slightest knowledge of physics?

It seems that Pentcho Valev ignores the difference
between physicists and philosophers, just like Pentcho
Valev persistently ignores the differences between
- coordinate time and proper time,
- invariance and constancy,
- special relativity and general relativity,
- teachers and hypnotists,
- laymen and zombies,
- a person being right and a theory being right,
- students and imbeciles,
- bad science and bad engineering,
- bad engineering and bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it,
- physics and linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- everyday concepts and scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- local and global,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion

Dirk Vdm

On Mar 10, 12:27 am, "Pentcho Valev" wrote:

philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
difficult.

Pentcho,

There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly. The
change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.

Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
required to derive everything known experimentally about special
relativity.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

"Shubee" wrote in message ups.com...
On Mar 10, 12:27 am, "Pentcho Valev" wrote:

philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
difficult.

Pentcho,

There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly.

.... and if we don't mind your being a mathematician with not the
slightest idea about physics, Eugene Shubert :-)

The
change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.

Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
required to derive everything known experimentally about special
relativity.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Everything Important, http://www.everythingimportant.org/
like
| The Everlasting Gospel
| The revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long
| ages past, is of infinite importance.
|
| High Ranking Revelation
| Revelation of inestimable value from the Old and New Testaments,
| especially the testimony of Jesus.
|
| Midrange Controversy
| This forum is for instruction on subjects of lesser importance:
| The nature of the Godhead, the human nature of Christ, spiritual
| gifts etc.

Dirk Vdm

On Mar 10, 9:10 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 12:27 am, "Pentcho Valev" wrote:

philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
difficult.

Pentcho,

There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly.

... and if we don't mind your being a mathematician with not the
slightest idea about physics, Eugene Shubert :-)

The
change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.

Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
required to derive everything known experimentally about special
relativity.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Everything Important,http://www.everythingimportant.org/
like
| The Everlasting Gospel
| The revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long
| ages past, is of infinite importance.
|
| High Ranking Revelation
| Revelation of inestimable value from the Old and New Testaments,
| especially the testimony of Jesus.
|
| Midrange Controversy
| This forum is for instruction on subjects of lesser importance:
| The nature of the Godhead, the human nature of Christ, spiritual
| gifts etc.

Dirk Vdm

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf speaks for
itself. Quote something from there that you find difficult to
understand.

"Shubee" wrote in message oups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:10 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 12:27 am, "Pentcho Valev" wrote:

philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
difficult.

Pentcho,

There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly.

... and if we don't mind your being a mathematician with not the
slightest idea about physics, Eugene Shubert :-)

The
change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.

Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
required to derive everything known experimentally about special
relativity.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Everything Important,http://www.everythingimportant.org/
like
| The Everlasting Gospel
| The revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long
| ages past, is of infinite importance.
|
| High Ranking Revelation
| Revelation of inestimable value from the Old and New Testaments,
| especially the testimony of Jesus.
|
| Midrange Controversy
| This forum is for instruction on subjects of lesser importance:
| The nature of the Godhead, the human nature of Christ, spiritual
| gifts etc.

Dirk Vdm

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf speaks for
itself. Quote something from there that you find difficult to
understand.

Imbecile.
That piece of junk has been debunked since half a decade.

Dirk Vdm

On Mar 10, 9:45 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:10 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 12:27 am, "Pentcho Valev" wrote:

philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
difficult.

Pentcho,

There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly.

... and if we don't mind your being a mathematician with not the
slightest idea about physics, Eugene Shubert :-)

The
change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.

Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
required to derive everything known experimentally about special
relativity.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Everything Important,http://www.everythingimportant.org/
like
| The Everlasting Gospel
| The revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long
| ages past, is of infinite importance.
|
| High Ranking Revelation
| Revelation of inestimable value from the Old and New Testaments,
| especially the testimony of Jesus.
|
| Midrange Controversy
| This forum is for instruction on subjects of lesser importance:
| The nature of the Godhead, the human nature of Christ, spiritual
| gifts etc.

Dirk Vdm

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...cial.pdfspeaks for
itself. Quote something from there that you find difficult to
understand.

Imbecile.
That piece of junk has been debunked since half a decade.

Dirk Vdm

Idiot. The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 is dated January 27,
2007. The old paper at that URL, declared by a Nobel Laureate to be
"posed in a language that is too technical and demanding" has been
updated so that what professional physicists could not understand
before can now be easily understood by high school students.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1100

"Shubee" wrote in message ups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:45 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:10 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 12:27 am, "Pentcho Valev" wrote:

philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
difficult.

Pentcho,

There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly.

... and if we don't mind your being a mathematician with not the
slightest idea about physics, Eugene Shubert :-)

The
change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.

Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
required to derive everything known experimentally about special
relativity.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Everything Important,http://www.everythingimportant.org/
like
| The Everlasting Gospel
| The revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long
| ages past, is of infinite importance.
|
| High Ranking Revelation
| Revelation of inestimable value from the Old and New Testaments,
| especially the testimony of Jesus.
|
| Midrange Controversy
| This forum is for instruction on subjects of lesser importance:
| The nature of the Godhead, the human nature of Christ, spiritual
| gifts etc.

Dirk Vdm

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...cial.pdfspeaks for
itself. Quote something from there that you find difficult to
understand.

Imbecile.
That piece of junk has been debunked since half a decade.

Dirk Vdm

Idiot. The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 is dated January 27,
2007. The old paper at that URL, declared by a Nobel Laureate to be
"posed in a language that is too technical and demanding" has been
updated so that what professional physicists could not understand
before can now be easily understood by high school students.

You always underestimated the average high school
students' ability to recognize utter junk for what it is.
Careful with that axe, Eugene.

Dirk Vdm

On Mar 10, 10:30 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:45 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:10 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 12:27 am, "Pentcho Valev" wrote:

philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
difficult.

Pentcho,

There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly.

... and if we don't mind your being a mathematician with not the
slightest idea about physics, Eugene Shubert :-)

The
change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.

Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
required to derive everything known experimentally about special
relativity.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Everything Important,http://www.everythingimportant.org/
like
| The Everlasting Gospel
| The revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long
| ages past, is of infinite importance.
|
| High Ranking Revelation
| Revelation of inestimable value from the Old and New Testaments,
| especially the testimony of Jesus.
|
| Midrange Controversy
| This forum is for instruction on subjects of lesser importance:
| The nature of the Godhead, the human nature of Christ, spiritual
| gifts etc.

Dirk Vdm

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...l.pdfspeaksfor
itself. Quote something from there that you find difficult to
understand.

Imbecile.
That piece of junk has been debunked since half a decade.

Dirk Vdm

Idiot. The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 is dated January 27,
2007. The old paper at that URL, declared by a Nobel Laureate to be
"posed in a language that is too technical and demanding" has been
updated so that what professional physicists could not understand
before can now be easily understood by high school students.

You always underestimated the average high school
students' ability to recognize utter junk for what it is.
Careful with that axe, Eugene.

Dirk Vdm

Let's just agree that the Nobel Laureate thought that the 2005 version
of http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf was too
difficult to understand and that you have no grasp on the meaning of
the current edition.

Be careful with that mental retardation Dirk.

"Shubee" wrote in message ups.com...
On Mar 10, 10:30 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:45 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:10 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 12:27 am, "Pentcho Valev" wrote:

philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
difficult.

Pentcho,

There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly.

... and if we don't mind your being a mathematician with not the
slightest idea about physics, Eugene Shubert :-)

The
change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.

Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
required to derive everything known experimentally about special
relativity.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Everything Important,http://www.everythingimportant.org/
like
| The Everlasting Gospel
| The revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long
| ages past, is of infinite importance.
|
| High Ranking Revelation
| Revelation of inestimable value from the Old and New Testaments,
| especially the testimony of Jesus.
|
| Midrange Controversy
| This forum is for instruction on subjects of lesser importance:
| The nature of the Godhead, the human nature of Christ, spiritual
| gifts etc.

Dirk Vdm

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...l.pdfspeaksfor
itself. Quote something from there that you find difficult to
understand.

Imbecile.
That piece of junk has been debunked since half a decade.

Dirk Vdm

Idiot. The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 is dated January 27,
2007. The old paper at that URL, declared by a Nobel Laureate to be
"posed in a language that is too technical and demanding" has been
updated so that what professional physicists could not understand
before can now be easily understood by high school students.

You always underestimated the average high school
students' ability to recognize utter junk for what it is.
Careful with that axe, Eugene.

Dirk Vdm

Let's just agree that the Nobel Laureate thought that the 2005 version
of http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf was too
difficult to understand and that you have no grasp on the meaning of
the current edition.

The Nobel Laureate was forced to be polite and diplomatic.
On this forum we're not forced to be polite or diplomatic, imbecile.
Take your junk and try to sell it in sci.physics.foundations. See
how long it takes before they throw you out - again.

Dirk Vdm