Prev: is this theory consistent?
Next: Russel Prawitz Operator, the interesting Case
From: Pentcho Valev on 23 Dec 2009 02:43
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference."

Both authors suffer the same madness. In the end they subconsciously
reject the obvious truth - that the moving observer finds the speed of
the wave to have increased - and save Divine Albert's Divine Theory by
advancing a blatant lie to the effect that the moving observer finds
the wavelength to have decreased. George Orwell calls this
"doublethink":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners
of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is
a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the
best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest
from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the
understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the
less sane."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Monsieur Turtoni on 23 Dec 2009 02:49
"Pentcho" wrote while in the light: (snip)

Get over the light and dig into some black hole stuff and get back to
us if you can!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

> light.

HTHelps.
From: Pentcho Valev on 27 Dec 2009 07:19
Einstein teaching idiocies in 1921:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
"Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
Professor Einstein asked."

Still sane scientists do exist in 1924:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3604224
"Of course an emission theory gives the simplest possible explanation
of aberration and of the Michelson-Morley result."

Complete madness nowadays:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference."

Both authors suffer the same madness. In the end they subconsciously
reject the obvious truth - that the moving observer finds the speed of
the wave to have increased - and save Divine Albert's Divine Theory by
advancing a blatant lie to the effect that the moving observer finds
the wavelength to have decreased. George Orwell calls this
"doublethink":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners
of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is
a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the
best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest
from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the
understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the
less sane."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 2 Jan 2010 05:20
Doublethink again:

http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Luminiferous_aether
"Other than its apparently unusual mechanical properties, the
existence of a medium for light should mean that the velocity of light
would be relative to the medium, so that a moving observer would see
an altered velocity of light, but this was not consistent with later
experiments. More concretely, Maxwell's equations required that all
electromagnetic waves in vacuum propagate at a fixed speed, c."

THE TRUTH is that, for all etherists including Maxwell:

"a moving observer would see an altered velocity of light".

Note the idiotic "More concretely" above, followed by THE LIE (which
is always one leap ahead of THE TRUTH):

"Maxwell's equations required that all electromagnetic waves in vacuum
propagate at a fixed speed, c".

In this particular case of doublethink John Norton finds THE TRUTH
(that the speed of light is variable for a moving observer, both in
Newton's emission theory of light and in Maxwell's ether theory) too
dangerous so he teaches THE LIE, THE WHOLE LIE AND NOTHING BUT THE
LIE:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_Relativity/index.html
John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a
little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow
down relative to us if we chased after it. The light postulate says
no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of
the light signal, that observer will always see the light signal
traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for his
acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of
electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The
theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years
before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating
in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed
of the ripple was a quite definite number: c."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference."

Both authors suffer the same madness. In the end they subconsciously
reject the obvious truth - that the moving observer finds the speed of
the wave to have increased - and save Divine Albert's Divine Theory by
advancing a blatant lie to the effect that the moving observer finds
the wavelength to have decreased. George Orwell calls this
"doublethink":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners
of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is
a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the
best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest
from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the
understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the
less sane."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 3 Jan 2010 06:40
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Crimestop in Einsteiniana: John Norton stops short, as though by
instinct, at the threshold of two dangerous thoughts: (1) The car can
be much longer than the garage and yet be trapped inside if Einstein's
1905 false light postulate were true; (2) The car is not necessarily
able to break and burst through the closed door. So Norton converts
the absurdity (even idiocy) into an example of the glorious
achievements of Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/index.html
John Norton: "Here is how we might try to get a contradiction out of
the relativistic effect of each observer judging the other to have
shrunk. Imagine a car that fits perfectly into a garage. The garage is
a small free standing shed that is just as long as the car. There is a
door at the right and a door at the left of the garage. The car fits
exactly--as long as it is at rest. Now image that we drive the car at
86.6% speed of light through the garage from right to left. The doors
have been opened at the right and the left of the garage to allow
passage of the car. There is a garage attendant, who stands at rest
with respect to the garage. Can the garage attendant close both doors
so that, at least for a few brief moments, the car is fully enclosed
within the garage? According to the garage attendant, there is no
problem achieving this. At 86.6% the speed of light, the car has
shrunk to half of its length at rest. It fits in the garage handily.
The garage attendant can close both doors and trap the car inside.
(...) The car driver and the garage attendant disagree on whether the
car is ever fully enclosed in the garage simply because they disagree
on the time order of two events. (...) Therefore there is no observer
independent fact as to whether the car was ever fully enclosed in the
garage."

Sillier Einsteinians do not see the absurdity (idiocy) and expose it
in all its ugliness. Luckily (for them) the postscientific world does
not give a sh.. about rationality in science:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Doublethink again:

http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Luminiferous_aether
"Other than its apparently unusual mechanical properties, the
existence of a medium for light should mean that the velocity of light
would be relative to the medium, so that a moving observer would see
an altered velocity of light, but this was not consistent with later
experiments. More concretely, Maxwell's equations required that all
electromagnetic waves in vacuum propagate at a fixed speed, c."

THE TRUTH is that, for all etherists including Maxwell:

"a moving observer would see an altered velocity of light".

Note the idiotic "More concretely" above, followed by THE LIE (which
is always one leap ahead of THE TRUTH):

"Maxwell's equations required that all electromagnetic waves in vacuum
propagate at a fixed speed, c".

In this particular case of doublethink John Norton finds THE TRUTH
(that the speed of light is variable for a moving observer, both in
Newton's emission theory of light and in Maxwell's ether theory) too
dangerous so he teaches THE LIE, THE WHOLE LIE AND NOTHING BUT THE
LIE:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_basics/index.html
John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a
little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow
down relative to us if we chased after it. The light postulate says
no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of
the light signal, that observer will always see the light signal
traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for his
acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of
electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The
theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years
before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating
in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed
of the ripple was a quite definite number: c."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference."

Both authors suffer the same madness. In the end they subconsciously
reject the obvious truth - that the moving observer finds the speed of
the wave to have increased - and save Divine Albert's Divine Theory by
advancing a blatant lie to the effect that the moving observer finds
the wavelength to have decreased. George Orwell calls this
"doublethink":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners
of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is
a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the
best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest
from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the
understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the
less sane."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: is this theory consistent?
Next: Russel Prawitz Operator, the interesting Case