It appears that there will be no valid rebuttal of the logical
refutation that I offered a few days ago.

So far as I can tell, every response to what I called "the logical
refutation" of SR on the thread of that title committed the same
error, which was described in advance in the initial post in the
paragraph at the end introduced by the word "COMMENT." Given that the
refutation is of the form "If P, Q; not Q; therefore not P," with Q
standing for the bipartite proposition extracted from the Wikipedia
article regarding two crashes, one in Australia, the other in America,
which one party considers simultaneous, and the other not, so far
every rebuttal has attacked the second premise, "not Q," by attempting
to attach distinguishing prepositional phrases to the two parts of Q,
the contradictory statements about the simultaneity of the car
crashes, hoping thereby saving the two statements from contradiction.

Note, however, that *Q (or other examples like it) is what is given*
by Einstein and his defenders as the paradox entailed by relativity,
and *in that form,* not Q' (that is, Q modified). Q is what is given
by the Wikipedia article on SR. When we change Q by interjecting
prepositional phrases to distinguish its otherwise contradictory
parts, the two incompatible statements about the simultaneity of the
car crashes, we do indeed save them from contradiction, but then we
are not defending SR, the theory which entails Q; to the contrary, we
are showing its falsehood, since Q cannot be saved without
emendation.

What is required, then, for a defense of SR is a rebuttal showing that
Q, the proposition that the two car crashes are on the one hand
simultaneous and on the other hand not simultaneous, is not
contradictory *as is.* Any statement may be saved from contradiction
if we are permitted to alter it, but then what is saved is not the
statement in question, but the altered statement.

If Einstein's defenders can save only Q', and not Q, it would seem the
entire edifice of modern physics is built on sand. On the other hand,
a universe of possibilities open up, inviting us to the extraordinary
task of fathoming gravity and the peculiar behavior of light without
the crutch of logical absurdity -- a crutch never knowingly employed
by our predecessors, and which we, too, must learn to do without.

G Harnett

On Dec 27, 8:56 am, "
wrote:

http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif

On Dec 27, 9:56*am, "
wrote:

What next?

You will rant about how ignorant you are, how you refuse to comment on-
group or even on-thread, and you will please go away?

David A. Smith

"dlzc" wrote in message
...
On Dec 27, 9:56 am, "
wrote:

What next?


This is, Smiffy.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm





: You will rant about how ignorant you are, how you refuse to comment on-
: group or even on-thread, and you will please go away?


Why don't YOU go away, Smiffy?
You are ignorant, rude, useless, refuse to answer sensibly and
constantly whine about your precious "charter", and you appear
to be a ****ing queer too, "Dear" Smiffy.
Are you a poofter, Smiffy? An arse bandit? Eh?

after the logical refutation: what next?

******************

You see if emergent phenomena make your "logical refutation"
inadequate.

Hello Androcles:

On Dec 27, 10:48*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"dlzc" wrote in message

...
On Dec 27, 9:56 am, "
wrote:

: What next?

This is, Smiffy.
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm

: You will rant about how ignorant you are, how you
: refuse to comment on-group or even on-thread, and
: you will please go away?

Why don't YOU go away, Smiffy?
You are ignorant, rude, useless, refuse to answer
sensibly and constantly whine about your precious
"charter", and you appear to be a ****ing queer
too, "Dear" Smiffy. Are you a poofter, Smiffy? An
arse bandit? Eh?

Coming from you, Androcles, this is high praise. Thank you very much.

David A. Smith

"dlzc" wrote in message
...
Hello Androcles:

On Dec 27, 10:48 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"dlzc" wrote in message

...
On Dec 27, 9:56 am, "
wrote:

: What next?

This is, Smiffy.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm

: You will rant about how ignorant you are, how you
: refuse to comment on-group or even on-thread, and
: you will please go away?

Why don't YOU go away, Smiffy?
You are ignorant, rude, useless, refuse to answer
sensibly and constantly whine about your precious
"charter", and you appear to be a ****ing queer
too, "Dear" Smiffy. Are you a poofter, Smiffy? An
arse bandit? Eh?

: Coming from you, Androcles, this is high praise. Thank you very much.

You don't know praise from a question, Smiffy.
Are you queer, Smiffy, or just peculiar?
You certainly don't discuss physics or mathematics in any logical
manner with the gentleman and he hasn't been rude to you personally,
even though he's upset your crank religion.
I'll do it for him. You are a hypocritical disgusting arsehole, Smiffy.

Hello Androcles:

On Dec 27, 1:56*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"dlzc" wrote in message

...
Hello Androcles:

On Dec 27, 10:48 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: You will rant about how ignorant you are, how you
: refuse to comment on-group or even on-thread, and
: you will please go away?

Why don't YOU go away, Smiffy?
You are ignorant, rude, useless, refuse to answer
sensibly and constantly whine about your precious
"charter", and you appear to be a ****ing queer
too, "Dear" Smiffy. *Are you a poofter, Smiffy? An
arse bandit? Eh?

: Coming from you, Androcles, this is high praise.
:*Thank you very much.

You don't know praise from a question, Smiffy.
Are you queer, Smiffy, or just peculiar?
You certainly don't discuss physics or mathematics in
any logical manner with the gentleman and he hasn't
been rude to you personally, even though he's upset
your crank religion. I'll do it for him. You are a
hypocritical disgusting arsehole, Smiffy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_t...istency_proofs
... his assertions were trivally disproven, as they are inconsistent
in even 2D Euclidiean space. If you are interested in the layout of
such a challenge, I can certainly provide it.

But I realize that you are only interested in sniping... so keep on
keeping on.

David A. Smith

wrote in message
...
It appears that there will be no valid rebuttal of the logical
refutation that I offered a few days ago.

I have no doubt it appears that way to you. In fact a number of refutations
were given - you however obviously did not understand them.


So far as I can tell,

Then what you can tell is wrong

every response to what I called "the logical
refutation" of SR on the thread of that title committed the same
error, which was described in advance in the initial post in the
paragraph at the end introduced by the word "COMMENT." Given that the
refutation is of the form "If P, Q; not Q; therefore not P," with Q
standing for the bipartite proposition extracted from the Wikipedia
article regarding two crashes, one in Australia, the other in America,
which one party considers simultaneous, and the other not, so far
every rebuttal has attacked the second premise, "not Q," by attempting
to attach distinguishing prepositional phrases to the two parts of Q,
the contradictory statements about the simultaneity of the car
crashes, hoping thereby saving the two statements from contradiction.

Your tortured reasoning was exposed by a number of posters eg Tom Roberts:

'That is not a LOGICAL contradiction. Here's an analogy: in a high-rise
building the health club is on the 20th floor. A person on the 30th floor
says "the health club is below me" and a person on the 10th floor says "the
health club is above me". Hence it may truly be said that the health club
is both above and below. This is NOT a "violation of the principle of
non-contradiction", because different people can have different points of
view that do not LOGICALLY contradict each other. The same applies to your
argument -- it does NOT display any contradiction in relativity, it is just
a VERY poorly worded "argument" (omitting the context of the two supposedly
contradictory statements).'

The fact you can't see what is so obvious to virtually everyone else does
not validate your position.

Bill


Note, however, that *Q (or other examples like it) is what is given*
by Einstein and his defenders as the paradox entailed by relativity,
and *in that form,* not Q' (that is, Q modified). Q is what is given
by the Wikipedia article on SR. When we change Q by interjecting
prepositional phrases to distinguish its otherwise contradictory
parts, the two incompatible statements about the simultaneity of the
car crashes, we do indeed save them from contradiction, but then we
are not defending SR, the theory which entails Q; to the contrary, we
are showing its falsehood, since Q cannot be saved without
emendation.

What is required, then, for a defense of SR is a rebuttal showing that
Q, the proposition that the two car crashes are on the one hand
simultaneous and on the other hand not simultaneous, is not
contradictory *as is.* Any statement may be saved from contradiction
if we are permitted to alter it, but then what is saved is not the
statement in question, but the altered statement.

If Einstein's defenders can save only Q', and not Q, it would seem the
entire edifice of modern physics is built on sand. On the other hand,
a universe of possibilities open up, inviting us to the extraordinary
task of fathoming gravity and the peculiar behavior of light without
the crutch of logical absurdity -- a crutch never knowingly employed
by our predecessors, and which we, too, must learn to do without.

G Harnett

wrote in message
...
It appears that there will be no valid rebuttal of the logical
refutation that I offered a few days ago.

[snip a load of waffle]

Can you please post your so-called argument more briefly and clearly .. you
waffle on too much.