Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Physics]
|
Prev: l'ns t'grs n brs was Re: Furry Zul problems was Re: Furry was Re:Smellavision was Re: Social Norms was Re: CHIPS was Re: Baby Gazoo
Next: Pentcho Valev INVOLUNTARILY MOVES BOWELS
From: hanson on 7 Jul 2010 18:47 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >- On Jul 4, 1:02 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > >> Addressing Paul Draper, poster colp wrote: >> I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that >> all you have to defend you beliefs are hollow claims. >> >> enter the fray, KW wrote: >> That is an admirable crusade on Mr. colp's part. <applaud> >> >> Eric, addressing colp wrote: >> Ah, the "I dare you to make me understand" gambit. >> >> enter the fray, KW wrote: >> Who gives a fvck about Eric Gisse, a college dropout from >> Fairbanks, Alaska (where?) who [1] is very grotesque in >> physical statue, shallow in aptitude, and virulent in >> engagement? <shrug> >> >> hanson wrote: >> ahahaha... AHAHAHA.. you do take no prisoners, KW, >> don't you.... ahahahaha... But listen KW, not everybody >> is as fortunate like you are, to be a 6'2" Schwarzenegger >> look-alike. So beating like you do in [1] on shortchanged, >> obese Gisse is unnecessary overkill... But thanks for the >> laughs... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson > KW wrote: > Have you bumped into me walking my dog before? [2] > Working for Broadcom or Blizzard? [3] > hanson wrote: [2] in a way, yes. The HRDept. of the Headhunter Div of my org collects all kinds of info... ahahaha.... I though reside, for ~ 20 years now, at our 2 main corporate vacation properties in Rarotonga/Cook Isl. & Princeville, HI. [3] ahahaha... yes, maybe them as being clients of my organization. Our org's com center, thru which all cyber traffic, incl. all non-biz stuff is routed, is at the West coast, in their vicinity. -- Thanks for asking. hanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: colp on 7 Jul 2010 18:53 On Jul 8, 10:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 5:10 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 7, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 12:04 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 7:31 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 3, 6:06 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 2:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 1:06 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 3:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 7:56 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 2:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > <quote> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At best, all you've done is show the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. You've used the statement from COLP's Oversimplified Relativity > > > > > > > > > > > > that moving clocks run slow (which you've said is true even for blue- > > > > > > > > > > > > shifted clocks), and you've used the statement that COLP's > > > > > > > > > > > > Oversimplified Relativity makes no provision whatsoever for a > > > > > > > > > > > > compression of time for a clock turning around. This immediately leads > > > > > > > > > > > > to several paradoxes, and this is ample reason to chuck Colp's > > > > > > > > > > > > Oversimplified Relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > </quote> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The statement that "moving clocks run slow" isn't an > > > > > > > > > > > > oversimplification, it is directly inferred from Einstein's > > > > > > > > > > > > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". > > > > > > > > > > > > It IS an oversimplification. If you've inferred this from his 1905 > > > > > > > > > > > paper, then you've oversimplified. > > > > > > > > > > > No, inferring something from a paper does not constitute an > > > > > > > > > > oversimplification. > > > > > > > > > > It does if it's an oversimplification of what's presented in the > > > > > > > > > paper! > > > > > > > > > It isn't. Claiming that it is without showing why is of no value. > > > > > > > > You aren't owed an education on a newsgroup, despite your taunts to > > > > > > > the contrary. > > > > > > > I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that all you have to > > > > > > defend you beliefs are hollow claims. > > > > > > No, they are fully supportable claims. > > > > > Wrong. The burden of proof is yours. You can't support them because no > > > > such support exists. > > > > I'm sorry, but both sentences are wrong. > > > Wrong again. > > > Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of the proof > > lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies. Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on > > Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. > > 408; 4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411. > > Sorry, but debate-club arm-wrestling stances do not elicit engagement > just because you want it to be so. "debate-club arm-wrestling stance" is about as meaningful as "comic- book description". You disregard the common law just as Einstein's first postulate disregards the laws of nature.
From: whoever on 7 Jul 2010 19:57 "colp" wrote in message news:4cc5dee3-e514-4753-99ff-ecd121f50b20(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 8, 8:05 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >> >I rarely saw a more aggressive criticism against Einstein's >> >theory. :-) >> >> The generalized principle of relativity is not a theory. > >Right. It is an assumption, and the application of that assumption >leads to contradictions. No .. it doesn't. You've never shown one. All you've shown is you do not understand the theories derived from the principle > This is a case of doctrinal annihilation; >i.e. a set of postulates that are collectively inconsistent. They are no. You just don't understand it, and so you therefore declace it to be impossible .. even though you have no evidence to support that calim ..>The relevant postulates are: > >1. There is not preferred frame of reference. >2. Moving clocks run slow. (Paraphrased from Einsteins >"Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") Try again .. they are NOT the postulates of SR >Since we know that moving clocks _do_ run slow, the only logical >conclusion is that a preferred frame of reference exists. Your logic does not apply to SR, because they are NOT the postulates of SR and there is no contradiction in SR. >The assertion that a preferred frame of reference exists is a >philisophical one, and points towards the epistemological schism of >natural philosophy which led to the development of science (i.e. >knowledge of the physical realm) and religion (i.e. beliefs about the >theological realm) as separate disciplines. I notice you STILL ignore my offers to show you the math .. You just do not want to learn .. you simply want to post your lies and convince others of your incorrect position that SR is self-contradictory. You're a fraud. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: J. Clarke on 7 Jul 2010 20:01 On 7/7/2010 5:49 PM, colp wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:05 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >> harald says... >> >>> On Jul 7, 6:02=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > >>>> If you are asking, not about General Relativity, but the General >>>> Principle of Relativity: that isn't a theory of physics, it is >>>> a heuristic, or a philosophical position, or metaphysics. It has >>>> no physical meaning, except to the extent that it guides us in >>>> coming up with better theories of physics. >> >>> I rarely saw a more aggressive criticism against Einstein's >>> theory. :-) >> >> The generalized principle of relativity is not a theory. > > Right. It is an assumption, and the application of that assumption > leads to contradictions. This is a case of doctrinal annihilation; > i.e. a set of postulates that are collectively inconsistent. > > The relevant postulates are: > > 1. There is not preferred frame of reference. > 2. Moving clocks run slow. (Paraphrased from Einsteins > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") > > Since we know that moving clocks _do_ run slow, the only logical > conclusion is that a preferred frame of reference exists. How is that a logical conclusion? > The assertion that a preferred frame of reference exists is a > philisophical one, and points towards the epistemological schism of > natural philosophy which led to the development of science (i.e. > knowledge of the physical realm) and religion (i.e. beliefs about the > theological realm) as separate disciplines. In other words you don't like it that science doesn't let you get away with making up truths to suit your biases.
From: eric gisse on 7 Jul 2010 21:04
colp wrote: [...] > You disregard the common law just as Einstein's first postulate > disregards the laws of nature. The principle of relativity is a cornerstone of classical mechanics, chuckles. |