Prev: beautiful equation
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.1: France finds Macroscopic-Microscopic Duality with Deceleration to Acceleration Transition Analogous to Elliptic Flow of Strong Interaction Collisions and to Compression followed by Relaxation Phase of Collision
From: train on 21 Jun 2010 17:47
On Jun 21, 2:43 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 6:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > k...(a)nventure.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>> Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to
> > >>> accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based
> > >>> on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical
> > >>> experimentation!
> > >> This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm various
> > >> predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics.
>
> > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before
> > > these experiments were conducted.
>
> > That does not matter. This is PHYSICS, not history. And Einstein did know of
> > several experiments that were inconsistent with the then-current notions of aether.
>
> Whether Einstein did or did not know that there were experiments
> that were inconsistant with the then prevailing ideas of ether are
> true or not is not important, because then-current notions of ether
> are of no relevance (i.e., do not apply) to the paradox under
> discussion.
>
>
>
> snip
>
> > Writings in ancient texts are IRRELEVANT. What matters in physics is the
> > correspondence between theory and experiment. Ancient texts have been boiled
> > down to the essential theory underlying them; this is usually necessary in
> > science. Science is the formulation of models of nature, and refining and
> > improving them via experiments; it is NOT the study of ancient texts.
>
> What is important is that while physics is not about history, the
> historical progression of what is considered the truth is crucial in
> the understanding of the Natural universe and the sciences.
>
> 1. The first step to knowledge and the truths is understanding the
>     meanings of the words.
> 2. The truths you can put in words and pictures (and numbers) are
>     not the whole truths.
> 3. To find the truths, you must first verify the ones you have.
>
> Furthermore, the are:
>
> 1 Conditional truths, that are true under some conditions and
>    situations, but not so under other conditions and situations.
> 2. Relative truths that are true from one point of view, but untrue
>     from another.
> 3. Generalized truths that are statistically (mathematically) more
>     probable to be true than not, and/or 'educated guess'.
> 4. The fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon
>     which all the other truths are based, and that are true all the
>     time, underr all conditions, regardless of the point of view.
>
> So a little language (meaning of the words),  history and
> philosophy lesson seems to be in order.
>
> Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the truths, as
> distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandings.
>
> Physics is that branch of science that pursues the true
> knowledge and understandings of the true nature and
> workings of the Natural universe.
>
> In other words; you have mistaken the effect with the cause,
> for theorems and empirical experiments are the means that
> scientists employ to reach the goals of understanding the
> true nature and workings of the universe.
>
> Furthermore. in the sphere of intellectual endeavors, there is
> a category that sits above the sciences. PHILOSOPHY.
>
> Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, reality, and the ultimate
> truths.
> Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and
> theology
> The sciences (all the sciences were bunched into the category
> of physics in the old days) deal with the natural.
> Metaphysics address the unnatural.
> Theology pertains to the super natural.
>
> Therefore the validity of all theories, hypotheses, principles,
> laws, maxims, etc., and even the notion of a truth is dictated
> by the verity of the philosophy upon which these ideas are
> based.
>
> The ancient Greeks formulated many philosophies, e.g., the
> Philosophies of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during
> these very early days, long before even Aristotle, that the
> Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate and guiding
> maxim to follow and obey for almost all human intellectual
> endeavors. The fundamental tenet of this philosophy is:
>
> Since every phenomenon, object, entity, body, thing, EVENT,
> occurrence, etc., exists only in the mind of man (i.e., humans),
> and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does
> not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or
> me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's,
> the human knower's, etc.,) understanding.
>
> So Einstein always incorporated a human observer in all his
> thoughts, gedankens, ideas, etc., and theories.
>
> However, there is one very important point missed by all the
> ancient and modern theorists,
>
> The Philosophy of Idealism that all the notable theorist (e.g.,
> Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Einstein and even Hawking and
> Thorne, with the exception of Galileo Galilei and Issac
> Newton) followed places the human above God and/or
> Nature! Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of
> man cannot be true.
>
> Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism really distorts the
> of concept of reality and what is real and what is not. In
> other words; this philosophy is better suited for the worlds of
> schizophrenia than the realm of rational thinking and logic.
>
> It is this false philosophy that Einstein followed. So the
> universe of SR and GR turned out to be very similar to the
> universe of Ptolemy, except that rather than being a
> geocentric universe, Einstein's is a human being centric
> universe. However, as there is no privileged individual human
> observer, Einstein had to come up with the idea that there is
> no preferred point of view or frame of reference, and on and on
> with more and more gloobidy goop to make SR and GR
> plausible.
>
> All this is much better covered in my copyrighted manuscript
> titled: "The Search for Reality and the Truths."
>
> There is one thing I would like to add at this time. I wish that
> all the contributors of this thread on both camps i.e., for and
> against SR would just light up. Einstein was not an evil man.
> Nor did try to pull a hoax on society. However he did make
> mistakes. His greatest mistake was not the idea commonly
> attributed to him, but it was placing greater credence in, and
> accepting the Philosophies of Idealism and Leibniz over the
> philosophy presented by Isaac Newton in Book 3 of Principia.
>
> D. Y. Kadoshima

That could be true, after all its a tool for understanding the
universe, especially a home -made tool...it`s all philosophy after all.
From: Androcles on 21 Jun 2010 18:26

"train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a62deaad-0ec7-4689-a0da-0a3a77c6dc9f(a)k25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 21, 2:43 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 6:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > k...(a)nventure.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>> Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to
> > >>> accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based
> > >>> on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical
> > >>> experimentation!
> > >> This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm
> > >> various
> > >> predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics.
>
> > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before
> > > these experiments were conducted.
>
> > That does not matter. This is PHYSICS, not history. And Einstein did
> > know of
> > several experiments that were inconsistent with the then-current notions
> > of aether.
>
> Whether Einstein did or did not know that there were experiments
> that were inconsistant with the then prevailing ideas of ether are
> true or not is not important, because then-current notions of ether
> are of no relevance (i.e., do not apply) to the paradox under
> discussion.
>
>
>
> snip
>
> > Writings in ancient texts are IRRELEVANT. What matters in physics is the
> > correspondence between theory and experiment. Ancient texts have been
> > boiled
> > down to the essential theory underlying them; this is usually necessary
> > in
> > science. Science is the formulation of models of nature, and refining
> > and
> > improving them via experiments; it is NOT the study of ancient texts.
>
> What is important is that while physics is not about history, the
> historical progression of what is considered the truth is crucial in
> the understanding of the Natural universe and the sciences.
>
> 1. The first step to knowledge and the truths is understanding the
> meanings of the words.
> 2. The truths you can put in words and pictures (and numbers) are
> not the whole truths.
> 3. To find the truths, you must first verify the ones you have.
>
> Furthermore, the are:
>
> 1 Conditional truths, that are true under some conditions and
> situations, but not so under other conditions and situations.
> 2. Relative truths that are true from one point of view, but untrue
> from another.
> 3. Generalized truths that are statistically (mathematically) more
> probable to be true than not, and/or 'educated guess'.
> 4. The fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon
> which all the other truths are based, and that are true all the
> time, underr all conditions, regardless of the point of view.
>
> So a little language (meaning of the words), history and
> philosophy lesson seems to be in order.
>
> Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the truths, as
> distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandings.
>
> Physics is that branch of science that pursues the true
> knowledge and understandings of the true nature and
> workings of the Natural universe.
>
> In other words; you have mistaken the effect with the cause,
> for theorems and empirical experiments are the means that
> scientists employ to reach the goals of understanding the
> true nature and workings of the universe.
>
> Furthermore. in the sphere of intellectual endeavors, there is
> a category that sits above the sciences. PHILOSOPHY.
>
> Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, reality, and the ultimate
> truths.
> Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and
> theology
> The sciences (all the sciences were bunched into the category
> of physics in the old days) deal with the natural.
> Metaphysics address the unnatural.
> Theology pertains to the super natural.
>
> Therefore the validity of all theories, hypotheses, principles,
> laws, maxims, etc., and even the notion of a truth is dictated
> by the verity of the philosophy upon which these ideas are
> based.
>
> The ancient Greeks formulated many philosophies, e.g., the
> Philosophies of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during
> these very early days, long before even Aristotle, that the
> Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate and guiding
> maxim to follow and obey for almost all human intellectual
> endeavors. The fundamental tenet of this philosophy is:
>
> Since every phenomenon, object, entity, body, thing, EVENT,
> occurrence, etc., exists only in the mind of man (i.e., humans),
> and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does
> not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or
> me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's,
> the human knower's, etc.,) understanding.
>
> So Einstein always incorporated a human observer in all his
> thoughts, gedankens, ideas, etc., and theories.
>
> However, there is one very important point missed by all the
> ancient and modern theorists,
>
> The Philosophy of Idealism that all the notable theorist (e.g.,
> Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Einstein and even Hawking and
> Thorne, with the exception of Galileo Galilei and Issac
> Newton) followed places the human above God and/or
> Nature! Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of
> man cannot be true.
>
> Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism really distorts the
> of concept of reality and what is real and what is not. In
> other words; this philosophy is better suited for the worlds of
> schizophrenia than the realm of rational thinking and logic.
>
> It is this false philosophy that Einstein followed. So the
> universe of SR and GR turned out to be very similar to the
> universe of Ptolemy, except that rather than being a
> geocentric universe, Einstein's is a human being centric
> universe. However, as there is no privileged individual human
> observer, Einstein had to come up with the idea that there is
> no preferred point of view or frame of reference, and on and on
> with more and more gloobidy goop to make SR and GR
> plausible.
>
> All this is much better covered in my copyrighted manuscript
> titled: "The Search for Reality and the Truths."
>
> There is one thing I would like to add at this time. I wish that
> all the contributors of this thread on both camps i.e., for and
> against SR would just light up. Einstein was not an evil man.
> Nor did try to pull a hoax on society. However he did make
> mistakes. His greatest mistake was not the idea commonly
> attributed to him, but it was placing greater credence in, and
> accepting the Philosophies of Idealism and Leibniz over the
> philosophy presented by Isaac Newton in Book 3 of Principia.
>
> D. Y. Kadoshima

That could be true, after all its a tool for understanding the
universe, especially a home -made tool...it`s all philosophy after all.
=================================================
Kadoshima doesn't have a monopoly on either evil or stupidity.
Whales are mammals, whales have no legs.
We establish by definition that all mammals have no legs. Stupid or a hoax?

We establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. --
Einstein
It does if A is at rest relative to B.

If A and B move together in the empty space universal absolute inertial
frame of reference stationary system of coordinates yada yada yada that is
not preferred but the speed of light is c in that empty space, then the time
of light one-way A to B is t = x'/(c-v) and from B to A is t = x'/(c+v).
Stupid or a hoax?

If Einstein wasn't a huxter then he was stupid, if he wasn't stupid
he was a huxter.

But Einstein goes on and claims
1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] = tau(x',0,0, t+
x'/(c-v))
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

Having put his nonsense in the form of algebra he knowingly gave it
fake credence; therefore he was not stupid, he was evil. His followers
are stupid.

It has nothing to do with philosophy, its a con. Kodashima is babbling.



From: kado on 22 Jun 2010 05:39
On Jun 21, 4:04 am, "sci.math" <marty.musa...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2:43 am, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 6:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > k...(a)nventure.com wrote:
> > > > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >>> Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to
> > > >>> accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based
> > > >>> on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical
> > > >>> experimentation!
> > > >> This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm various
> > > >> predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics.
>
> > > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before
> > > > these experiments were conducted.
>
> > > That does not matter. This is PHYSICS, not history. And Einstein did know of
> > > several experiments that were inconsistent with the then-current notions of aether.
>
> > Whether Einstein did or did not know that there were experiments
> > that were inconsistant with the then prevailing ideas of ether are
> > true or not is not important, because then-current notions of ether
> > are of no relevance (i.e., do not apply) to the paradox under
> > discussion.
>
> > snip
>
> > > Writings in ancient texts are IRRELEVANT. What matters in physics is the
> > > correspondence between theory and experiment. Ancient texts have been boiled
> > > down to the essential theory underlying them; this is usually necessary in
> > > science. Science is the formulation of models of nature, and refining and
> > > improving them via experiments; it is NOT the study of ancient texts.
>
> > What is important is that while physics is not about history, the
> > historical progression of what is considered the truth is crucial in
> > the understanding of the Natural universe and the sciences.
>
> > 1. The first step to knowledge and the truths is understanding the
> >     meanings of the words.
> > 2. The truths you can put in words and pictures (and numbers) are
> >     not the whole truths.
> > 3. To find the truths, you must first verify the ones you have.
>
> > Furthermore, the are:
>
> > 1 Conditional truths, that are true under some conditions and
> >    situations, but not so under other conditions and situations.
> > 2. Relative truths that are true from one point of view, but untrue
> >     from another.
> > 3. Generalized truths that are statistically (mathematically) more
> >     probable to be true than not, and/or 'educated guess'.
> > 4. The fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon
> >     which all the other truths are based, and that are true all the
> >     time, underr all conditions, regardless of the point of view.
>
> > So a little language (meaning of the words),  history and
> > philosophy lesson seems to be in order.
>
> > Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the truths, as
> > distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandings.
>
> > Physics is that branch of science that pursues the true
> > knowledge and understandings of the true nature and
> > workings of the Natural universe.
>
> > In other words; you have mistaken the effect with the cause,
> > for theorems and empirical experiments are the means that
> > scientists employ to reach the goals of understanding the
> > true nature and workings of the universe.
>
> > Furthermore. in the sphere of intellectual endeavors, there is
> > a category that sits above the sciences. PHILOSOPHY.
>
> > Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, reality, and the ultimate
> > truths.
> > Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and
> > theology
> > The sciences (all the sciences were bunched into the category
> > of physics in the old days) deal with the natural.
> > Metaphysics address the unnatural.
> > Theology pertains to the super natural.
>
> > Therefore the validity of all theories, hypotheses, principles,
> > laws, maxims, etc., and even the notion of a truth is dictated
> > by the verity of the philosophy upon which these ideas are
> > based.
>
> > The ancient Greeks formulated many philosophies, e.g., the
> > Philosophies of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during
> > these very early days, long before even Aristotle, that the
> > Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate and guiding
> > maxim to follow and obey for almost all human intellectual
> > endeavors. The fundamental tenet of this philosophy is:
>
> > Since every phenomenon, object, entity, body, thing, EVENT,
> > occurrence, etc., exists only in the mind of man (i.e., humans),
> > and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does
> > not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or
> > me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's,
> > the human knower's, etc.,) understanding.
>
> > So Einstein always incorporated a human observer in all his
> > thoughts, gedankens, ideas, etc., and theories.
>
> > However, there is one very important point missed by all the
> > ancient and modern theorists,
>
> > The Philosophy of Idealism that all the notable theorist (e.g.,
> > Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Einstein and even Hawking and
> > Thorne, with the exception of Galileo Galilei and Issac
> > Newton) followed places the human above God and/or
> > Nature! Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of
> > man cannot be true.
>
> > Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism really distorts the
> > of concept of reality and what is real and what is not. In
> > other words; this philosophy is better suited for the worlds of
> > schizophrenia than the realm of rational thinking and logic.
>
> > It is this false philosophy that Einstein followed. So the
> > universe of SR and GR turned out to be very similar to the
> > universe of Ptolemy, except that rather than being a
> > geocentric universe, Einstein's is a human being centric
> > universe. However, as there is no privileged individual human
> > observer, Einstein had to come up with the idea that there is
> > no preferred point of view or frame of reference, and on and on
> > with more and more gloobidy goop to make SR and GR
> > plausible.
>
> > All this is much better covered in my copyrighted manuscript
> > titled: "The Search for Reality and the Truths."
>
> > There is one thing I would like to add at this time. I wish that
> > all the contributors of this thread on both camps i.e., for and
> > against SR would just light up. Einstein was not an evil man.
> > Nor did try to pull a hoax on society. However he did make
> > mistakes. His greatest mistake was not the idea commonly
> > attributed to him, but it was placing greater credence in, and
> > accepting the Philosophies of Idealism and Leibniz over the
> > philosophy presented by Isaac Newton in Book 3 of Principia.
>
> > D. Y. Kadoshima
>
> Dear D. Y. Kadoshim:
>
> If what you say is true then these two websites I have linked to are
> twins:
>
> http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-...http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-...
>
> Because learning is symmetric, but why do my columns not line up
> perfectly?

snip

> Who is keeping the knowledge out of place? Is it Google?
>

Just because mathematics is symmetrical, this does not equate
to learning or knowledge, the software of computer programs,
or time is symmetrical.

D.Y.K.

From: kado on 24 Jun 2010 00:17
On Jun 21, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>snip
> Whales are mammals, whales have no legs.
> We establish by definition that all mammals have no legs. Stupid or a hoax?
>
Androcles doesn't know how a mammal is definied?

Or maybe what I post zipped right over his head.

D.Y.K.

From: Michael Moroney on 24 Jun 2010 15:10
"kado(a)nventure.com" <kado(a)nventure.com> writes:

>On Jun 21, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>> Whales are mammals, whales have no legs.
>> We establish by definition that all mammals have no legs. Stupid or a hoax?
>>
>Androcles doesn't know how a mammal is definied?

>Or maybe what I post zipped right over his head.

Never mind "Androcles" (John Parker), he's a senile old fart who has a
(bad) obsession with Einstein, and he doesn't really understand relativity
anyway.

(space below is reserved for Parker to curse and cuss at me for pointing
this out)







First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: beautiful equation
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.1: France finds Macroscopic-Microscopic Duality with Deceleration to Acceleration Transition Analogous to Elliptic Flow of Strong Interaction Collisions and to Compression followed by Relaxation Phase of Collision