The Force of Dead Science

Science > Physics > The Force of Dead Science

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Pentcho Valev"
Date:	04 Mar 2006 03:27:12 AM
Object:	The Force of Dead Science

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.
A theory deduced (or deducible) from a false premise is dead science.
All its results are false. If jugglers have somehow managed to
introduce true results, close inspection would show they are
corollaries of the negation of the false premise.
Einstein's theory of relativity was deduced from Einstein's false
second postulate stating that the speed of light is independent of the
speed of the light source or observer (principle of constancy of the
speed of light). All its results are false. True results introduced by
Einstein or other jugglers are corollaries of Newton's principle of
VARIABILITY of speed of light. Einstein's theory is dead science.
Thermodynamics was deduced from the false premise stating that heat
cannot be converted into work. All its results are false. True results
introduced by thermodynamics jugglers are incompatible with the false
premise and close inspection shows they do not belong to
thermodynamics.
The state of death makes relativity and thermodynamics strong. Up until
recently Einstein was much stronger than Newton. This is changing
however:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3880
Pentcho Valev
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 04:52:51 AM

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1141464432.719152.121330@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

Current list of differences ignored by Pentcho Valev:
- 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,
- 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
.

User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=D0=AFelf?="
Title: Religious people just aren't sober enough.	04 Mar 2006 11:00:17 PM

Hi Pentcho_Valev, Drunk on religion, no doubt, You imagined:
Einstein's theory of relativity was deduced from Einstein's false
second postulate stating that the speed of light is independent of the
speed of the light source or observer,
principle of constancy of the speed of light.

It's called the Principle_of_Relativity,
and it states that _All_ the laws of physics,
-- including the speed of light in a virtual vacuum --,
are _Observed_ to be, -- Locally --, the same everwhere.
Who, other than a drunk like you,
could possibly refute so much empirical data ?
Imagine a triangle where the side opposite
is a function of how fast the cosmic ray, for example, is traveling.
Moving near the speed of light, black body radiation from the nucleus,
-- a standard clock --, would take that much longer to reach us.
That is to say, we _Observe_ that it's standard clock is ticking slower.
Locally, of course, it's clock ticks at the same rate was it would here.
Because the time dialtion at a given gravitational potentional
is a function of special relativity and the escape velocity,
it seems reasonable to me that we are, in fact, moving that fast ourselves,
but in a cyclical fashion... and in more dimensions.
So... time is _Observed_ to be local, parochial. Best theory says that
time is, intrinsically, the fourth _Spatial_ dimension.
It's only unknowns, so_called randomness, that makes it seem otherwise.
Drunk on religion, you feed on unknowns,
hating the certainty of your own eventual death... your dissipation.
All is, you are, confined as much temporally as spatially.
And that, of course, is what bothers you and so many others here.
It's a topic more adult, more sober, than you can handle.
Religious people just aren't sober enough.
I'm God's prisoner, and God to my prisoners.
What's worse, for drunks like you,
is that Entorpy is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, a.k.a. cosmic time.

Counting light ticks of super cooled masers are how we define time.
Why did I mention black body radiation ? Because the rest is noise.
Atomic clocks are super cooled for a reason, you know.
Lasers/Masers/Atom_Lasers are Bose_Einstein condensates... very cold.
At the picosecond level,
ambient heat and the lack of a true vacuum introduce _Huge_ errors.
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Entropy says:
The SI unit of entropy is J/K ( joule per kelvin ),
which is the same unit as heat capacity.
So... entropy goes to infinity at absolute zero,
-- e.g. at a virtual vacuum --,
and it approches zero when the temperature is infinite,
-- e.g. at a virtual singularity, such as the start of the big bang --.
But there never was such a start because
entropy is, most probably, an intrinsic property of all Mass_Energy,
the universe has just _Always_ been dissipating.
Should you ever find the strength to sober up, ha ha... ponder this:

_ I'm God's prisoner, and God to my prisoners.
_ All meaning is local, here and now, the rest is inane.
.

User: "Hexenmeister"
Title: Re: Religious people just aren't sober enough.	05 Mar 2006 03:19:01 AM

Hi Jeff_?elf, Drunk on stupidity, no doubt, You imagined:
Einstein's theory of relativity was deduced from Einstein's false
second postulate stating that the speed of light is independent of the
speed of the light source or observer,
principle of constancy of the speed of light.
You further imagined
"It's called the Principle_of_Relativity,
and it states that _All_ the laws of physics,
-- including the speed of light in a virtual vacuum --,
are _Observed_ to be, -- Locally --, the same ever[Y]where."
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
Who, other than a drunk like you, could possibly refute so much
empirical data ?
Should you ever find the strength to sober up, ha ha... ponder this:
You are a lying incompetent moron, aren't you?
Androcles.
.

User: "Lloyd Parker"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 07:45:35 AM

In article <1141464432.719152.121330@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

Technically, they are the UNdead. And zombies are the LIVING dead.

A theory deduced (or deducible) from a false premise is dead science.

Suppose it gets possessed by a demon and becomes UNdead? Immortal?

All its results are false. If jugglers have somehow managed to
introduce true results, close inspection would show they are
corollaries of the negation of the false premise.

Einstein's theory of relativity was deduced from Einstein's false
second postulate

Lie.

stating that the speed of light is independent of the
speed of the light source or observer (principle of constancy of the
speed of light). All its results are false.

Lie.

True results introduced by
Einstein or other jugglers are corollaries of Newton's principle of
VARIABILITY of speed of light. Einstein's theory is dead science.

Do you know what a dead head is?

Thermodynamics was deduced from the false premise stating that heat
cannot be converted into work.

Geez, you really are an idiot first class.

All its results are false. True results
introduced by thermodynamics jugglers are incompatible with the false
premise and close inspection shows they do not belong to
thermodynamics.

The state of death makes relativity and thermodynamics strong. Up until
recently Einstein was much stronger than Newton. This is changing
however:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3880

Pentcho Valev

User: "Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 06:39:07 AM

Pancho Villa wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say.

Frankenstein is more like dead science. The monster was created by
(undisclosed) scietific methods.

Einstein's theory of relativity was deduced from Einstein's false
second postulate stating that the speed of light is independent of the
speed of the light source or observer (principle of constancy of the
speed of light).

The speed of light IS independent of the observer. I don't guess, I
KNOW. Believe me, many's the time I've chased after a photon and, try
as I might, it NEVER reduced it's speed one jot, the bugger.
.

User: "SCW"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 07:11:26 AM

Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket wrote:

Pancho Villa wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say.

Frankenstein is more like dead science. The monster was created by
(undisclosed) scietific methods.

The speed of light IS independent of the observer. I don't guess, I
KNOW. Believe me, many's the time I've chased after a photon and, try
as I might, it NEVER reduced it's speed one jot, the bugger.

You're not trying hard enough man - put some effort in to it!
Alternatively, wear a black jumper, that'll stop em...
SCW
.

User: "SCW"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 04:21:43 AM

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

We're off to a good start on this thread Pentcho!

A theory deduced (or deducible) from a false premise is dead science.
All its results are false. If jugglers have somehow managed to
introduce true results, close inspection would show they are
corollaries of the negation of the false premise.

Einstein's theory of relativity was deduced from Einstein's false
second postulate stating that the speed of light is independent of the
speed of the light source or observer (principle of constancy of the
speed of light). All its results are false. True results introduced by
Einstein or other jugglers are corollaries of Newton's principle of
VARIABILITY of speed of light. Einstein's theory is dead science.

If c was found to vary (in any given medium) then yes, the 1905 paper
on SR would be called in to question. I'm not entirely sure I see where
the vampires fit in? In any case, you'll need some empirical data to
back up this claim.

Thermodynamics was deduced from the false premise stating that heat
cannot be converted into work.

Are you sure about that Pentcho?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/heat.html

[...] All its results are false. True results
introduced by thermodynamics jugglers are incompatible with the false
premise and close inspection shows they do not belong to
thermodynamics.

Again, if you contend that there is a problem with TD, then some
theory, possibly an equation or two and a little experimental evidence
would be nice.

The state of death makes relativity and thermodynamics strong. Up until
recently Einstein was much stronger than Newton. This is changing
however:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3880

Pentcho Valev

Yeah! Newton sure kicked Einstein's butt in this poll, but then you
didn't think that a British audience would not choose Newton did you.
How come Galileo wasn't even in the frame?
SCW
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 04:26:09 AM

In article <1141467703.784800.213760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

We're off to a good start on this thread Pentcho!

If c was found to vary (in any given medium)

c is the speed of light in vacuum. Period. There ain't no such thing
as "c in any medium".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

User: "SCW"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 04:53:41 AM

wrote:

In article <1141467703.784800.213760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

We're off to a good start on this thread Pentcho!

If c was found to vary (in any given medium)

c is the speed of light in vacuum. Period. There ain't no such thing
as "c in any medium".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Sorry, but if we're being pedantic: I wrote "if c was found to vary (in
any given medium)" not "c in any medium". This was in an attempt, in
vain as it turns out, to prevent the pedantic response; especially the
compassion between in vacuo with (say) water, believing them to be the
same thing. I think it is quite common to refer to the speed of
propagation as c and then use a notation subscript to define the medium
(light, sound, water...).
SCW
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 05:04:44 AM

In article <1141469621.253583.83030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141467703.784800.213760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

We're off to a good start on this thread Pentcho!

If c was found to vary (in any given medium)

c is the speed of light in vacuum. Period. There ain't no such thing
as "c in any medium".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

No (being pedantic, since you insist on this) it is not common. c
refers to a single thing, the speed of propagation in vacuum. The
speed of propagation in any other medium is:
1) Not a constant but a function of frequency.
2) Not referred to as c.
Any statement along the lines of "the speed of propagation of light in
(say) water is such and such" is patented nonsense if it doesn't take
into account that speed is a function of frequency, not a single
number. Not to mention the point that, even at or around single
frequency one can specify what speed one refers to, since once you're
not in vacuum, the various notions of speed used, such as "phase
velocity", group velocity", "information propagation speed" "energy
propagation speed" etc. are not equivalent.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

User: "SCW"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 05:37:09 AM

wrote:

In article <1141469621.253583.83030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141467703.784800.213760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

We're off to a good start on this thread Pentcho!

If c was found to vary (in any given medium)

c is the speed of light in vacuum. Period. There ain't no such thing
as "c in any medium".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Really? You've never seen c used in sound:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound
or water
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/waves.htm
I'm sorry if this came as a shock to you. On the first example link,
there's a rather nice equation which show's the use of c and a
subscript: "Cair = ...", as mentioned in the previous post, (apologies
for the fact that I cannot subscript in plain text). The term c is
taken from celeritas, the latin for speed,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeritas) Did you think that SRT had it
all to itself?

Any statement along the lines of "the speed of propagation of light in
(say) water is such and such" is patented nonsense if it doesn't take
into account that speed is a function of frequency, not a single
number. Not to mention the point that, even at or around single
frequency one can specify what speed one refers to, since once you're
not in vacuum, the various notions of speed used, such as "phase
velocity", group velocity", "information propagation speed" "energy
propagation speed" etc. are not equivalent.

Whilst we are still in pedant mode, it's "patent" not "patented". This
has nothing at all to do my original post and is, deliberately I feel,
drifting off topic. If you feel that all life starts with frequency and
that it is dominant to wavelength and velocity, I'd try and get out a
bit more.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

SCW
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 07:03:26 AM

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1141472229.806043.14030@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141469621.253583.83030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141467703.784800.213760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

We're off to a good start on this thread Pentcho!

If c was found to vary (in any given medium)

c is the speed of light in vacuum. Period. There ain't no such thing
as "c in any medium".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Really? You've never seen c used in sound:

We are talking about light.

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

or water

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/waves.htm

or hypotenuses of triangles:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PythagoreanTheorem.html

I'm sorry if this came as a shock to you.

Don't count on that :-)
Can you find a serious reference to *light* speed where the
symbol c is used in a context of medium dependency or
alleged variability in vacuum?
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "SCW"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 11:04:24 AM

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1141472229.806043.14030@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141469621.253583.83030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141467703.784800.213760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

We're off to a good start on this thread Pentcho!

If c was found to vary (in any given medium)

c is the speed of light in vacuum. Period. There ain't no such thing
as "c in any medium".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Really? You've never seen c used in sound:

We are talking about light.

Specifically, we're talking about the 1905 paper, previous to which it
was assumed that an aether was required. A point which appears to be
completely lost on Mati Meron, who seems to think that c is a function
of frequency rather than viscosity - I'm sure it hasn't dawned on him
yet that c (the velocity of a wave) is independant of the emitter
because it is a function of the medium.

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

or water

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/waves.htm

or hypotenuses of triangles:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PythagoreanTheorem.html

You're measuring propogation velocity using pythagorus?! (this is a
joke Dirk, no need for a reply!)

I'm sorry if this came as a shock to you.

Don't count on that :-)

Well his two bullet points...

1) Not a constant but a function of frequency.
2) Not referred to as c.

....are categorically wrong. Wave velocity c is constant and it has
nothing to do with frequency - it is has do with viscosity. c is also
quite plainly referred to as wave velocity not just the speed of light,
but also, as given in the examples, for other mediums such as air and
water.

Can you find a serious reference to *light* speed where the
symbol c is used in a context of medium dependency or
alleged variability in vacuum?

Dirk Vdm

<slight shock>
Dirk are you trolling here?
You are not seriously trying to say that I have implied that c is
variable in vacuo?
c_ident, where ident is the media descriptor is common parlance in wave
velocity. c_0 or c0 is a standard for notation for speed of light in a
vacuum and it's not difficult to find references to this:
http://folk.uio.no/michalj/node72.html
http://www.20sim.com/webhelp4/languageReference/Keywords/PredefinedConstants.htm
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00049CBB-43F5-1C61-B882809EC588ED9F
http://einstein.ucsd.edu/keni/string/html/assignments.html
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c
Also see the reference to c_air in the previous post.
This seems to have been lost in s.p.r recently where some people have
been using c_0 or c' as a "rest" [sic] velocity for light.
It seems to me that a number of people are cloistered in s.p.r and a
trip outside once in a while would help them realise that a whole world
of physics existed before relativity.
..
SCW
.

User: "Hexenmeister"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 01:29:20 PM

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141491864.002284.323160@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141472229.806043.14030@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141469621.253583.83030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article
<1141467703.784800.213760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "SCW"
<doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And
the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

We're off to a good start on this thread Pentcho!

A theory deduced (or deducible) from a false premise is dead
science.
All its results are false. If jugglers have somehow managed to
introduce true results, close inspection would show they are
corollaries of the negation of the false premise.

Einstein's theory of relativity was deduced from Einstein's
false
second postulate stating that the speed of light is independent
of the
speed of the light source or observer (principle of constancy
of the
speed of light). All its results are false. True results
introduced by
Einstein or other jugglers are corollaries of Newton's
principle of
VARIABILITY of speed of light. Einstein's theory is dead
science.

If c was found to vary (in any given medium)

c is the speed of light in vacuum. Period. There ain't no such
thing
as "c in any medium".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just
the same"

Sorry, but if we're being pedantic: I wrote "if c was found to vary
(in
any given medium)" not "c in any medium". This was in an attempt,
in
vain as it turns out, to prevent the pedantic response; especially
the
compassion between in vacuo with (say) water, believing them to be
the
same thing. I think it is quite common to refer to the speed of
propagation as c and then use a notation subscript to define the
medium
(light, sound, water...).

Really? You've never seen c used in sound:

We are talking about light.

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

or water

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/waves.htm

or hypotenuses of triangles:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PythagoreanTheorem.html

You're measuring propogation velocity using pythagorus?! (this is a
joke Dirk, no need for a reply!)

I'm sorry if this came as a shock to you.

Don't count on that :-)

Well his two bullet points...

1) Not a constant but a function of frequency.
2) Not referred to as c.

...are categorically wrong. Wave velocity c is constant and it has
nothing to do with frequency - it is has do with viscosity. c is also
quite plainly referred to as wave velocity not just the speed of light,
but also, as given in the examples, for other mediums such as air and
water.

Can you find a serious reference to *light* speed where the
symbol c is used in a context of medium dependency or
alleged variability in vacuum?

Dirk Vdm

<slight shock>
Dirk are you trolling here?
You are not seriously trying to say that I have implied that c is
variable in vacuo?

c_ident, where ident is the media descriptor is common parlance in wave
velocity. c_0 or c0 is a standard for notation for speed of light in a
vacuum and it's not difficult to find references to this:

http://folk.uio.no/michalj/node72.html
http://www.20sim.com/webhelp4/languageReference/Keywords/PredefinedConstants.htm
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00049CBB-43F5-1C61-B882809EC588ED9F
http://einstein.ucsd.edu/keni/string/html/assignments.html
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c

Also see the reference to c_air in the previous post.

This seems to have been lost in s.p.r recently where some people have
been using c_0 or c' as a "rest" [sic] velocity for light.

It seems to me that a number of people are cloistered in s.p.r and a
trip outside once in a while would help them realise that a whole world
of physics existed before relativity.
.

SCW

Not all of us are mobile enough to walk far and its cold outside.
I can drive, though.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
Androcles.
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 11:42:47 AM

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1141491864.002284.323160@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1141472229.806043.14030@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141469621.253583.83030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141467703.784800.213760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

We're off to a good start on this thread Pentcho!

If c was found to vary (in any given medium)

c is the speed of light in vacuum. Period. There ain't no such thing
as "c in any medium".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Really? You've never seen c used in sound:

We are talking about light.

Specifically, we're talking about the 1905 paper, previous to which it
was assumed that an aether was required.

In that paper c is specifically said
"to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
In the original version it was labeled V, and the words were:
"eine universell Konstante (die Lichtgeschwindigkeit im leeren
Raume"

A point which appears to be
completely lost on Mati Meron, who seems to think that c is a function
of frequency rather than viscosity - I'm sure it hasn't dawned on him
yet that c (the velocity of a wave) is independant of the emitter
because it is a function of the medium.

You seem to be severely mistaken about Mati's point.
Since you missed it entirely, perhaps you could go back
to it and ask Mati to explain...
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "SCW"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 11:53:38 AM

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1141491864.002284.323160@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1141472229.806043.14030@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141469621.253583.83030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141467703.784800.213760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

We're off to a good start on this thread Pentcho!

If c was found to vary (in any given medium)

c is the speed of light in vacuum. Period. There ain't no such thing
as "c in any medium".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Really? You've never seen c used in sound:

We are talking about light.

Specifically, we're talking about the 1905 paper, previous to which it
was assumed that an aether was required.

You seem to be severely mistaken about Mati's point.
Since you missed it entirely, perhaps you could go back
to it and ask Mati to explain...

Dirk Vdm

No Dirk, Mati Meron misread c as c_0 and jumped in a with an
ill-judged, ill-informed and ill-educated post.
So, let's ask Mati. Please explain to us why c will not be found to
vary (in any given medium)? If you disagree with this statement, please
explain why.

Dirk Vdm

SCW
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 12:25:42 PM

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1141494818.078296.327250@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1141491864.002284.323160@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1141472229.806043.14030@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141469621.253583.83030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1141467703.784800.213760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

We're off to a good start on this thread Pentcho!

If c was found to vary (in any given medium)

c is the speed of light in vacuum. Period. There ain't no such thing
as "c in any medium".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Really? You've never seen c used in sound:

We are talking about light.

Specifically, we're talking about the 1905 paper, previous to which it
was assumed that an aether was required.

You seem to be severely mistaken about Mati's point.
Since you missed it entirely, perhaps you could go back
to it and ask Mati to explain...

Dirk Vdm

No Dirk, Mati Meron misread c as c_0 and jumped in a with an
ill-judged, ill-informed and ill-educated post.

So, let's ask Mati. Please explain to us why c will not be found to
vary (in any given medium)? If you disagree with this statement, please
explain why.

You wrote:
"If c was found to vary (in any given medium)..."
But c is a constant with the value 299792458 m/s.
By definition constants don't vary.
The speed of light in vacuum is assumed to be c.
Specially when talking to an idiot like Pentcho Valev,
you better had said:
"If the speed of light in vacuum was found to vary..."
without even mentioning the part "(in any given medium)".
That was and still is the point. Try to take it :-)
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 12:32:20 PM

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:GYkOf.294572$sd7.9329696@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141494818.078296.327250@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141491864.002284.323160@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141472229.806043.14030@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article
<1141469621.253583.83030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "SCW"
<doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article
<1141467703.784800.213760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"You cannot kill me because I am dead" vampires often
say. And the
state of death makes them much stronger than humans.

We're off to a good start on this thread Pentcho!

A theory deduced (or deducible) from a false premise is
dead science.
All its results are false. If jugglers have somehow
managed to
introduce true results, close inspection would show they
are
corollaries of the negation of the false premise.

Einstein's theory of relativity was deduced from
Einstein's false
second postulate stating that the speed of light is
independent of the
speed of the light source or observer (principle of
constancy of the
speed of light). All its results are false. True results
introduced by
Einstein or other jugglers are corollaries of Newton's
principle of
VARIABILITY of speed of light. Einstein's theory is dead
science.

If c was found to vary (in any given medium)

c is the speed of light in vacuum. Period. There ain't no
such thing
as "c in any medium".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a
fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing
just the same"

Sorry, but if we're being pedantic: I wrote "if c was found to
vary (in
any given medium)" not "c in any medium". This was in an
attempt, in
vain as it turns out, to prevent the pedantic response;
especially the
compassion between in vacuo with (say) water, believing them
to be the
same thing. I think it is quite common to refer to the speed
of
propagation as c and then use a notation subscript to define
the medium
(light, sound, water...).

Really? You've never seen c used in sound:

We are talking about light.

Specifically, we're talking about the 1905 paper, previous to which
it
was assumed that an aether was required.

A point which appears to be
completely lost on Mati Meron, who seems to think that c is a
function
of frequency rather than viscosity - I'm sure it hasn't dawned on him
yet that c (the velocity of a wave) is independant of the emitter
because it is a function of the medium.

You seem to be severely mistaken about Mati's point.
Since you missed it entirely, perhaps you could go back
to it and ask Mati to explain...

Dirk Vdm

No Dirk, Mati Meron misread c as c_0 and jumped in a with an
ill-judged, ill-informed and ill-educated post.

So, let's ask Mati. Please explain to us why c will not be found to
vary (in any given medium)? If you disagree with this statement, please
explain why.

You wrote:
"If c was found to vary (in any given medium)..."
But c is a constant with the value 299792458 m/s.
By definition constants don't vary.

So according to the length contract *****.
the meter is no longer constant when moving real fast
and a second also is no longer a constant since it also
supposedly changes rate with super speeds.
etc..
Seems like you have fallen for a world full of non constants
yet you call them constants..
And more funny,
the constant speed of c would be in violation of
basic relative motion speed changes.
LOL
Poor relativists..
so wishy washy and "constantly" thinking without a clue.
:)
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 12:48:06 PM

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:7PydnRqSFYCvQJTZRVn-gQ@comcast.com...

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:GYkOf.294572$sd7.9329696@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

[snip]

You wrote:
"If c was found to vary (in any given medium)..."
But c is a constant with the value 299792458 m/s.
By definition constants don't vary.

Right, you got it. Slightly less carelessly expressed, my
meter and my second vary as measured by you with
standard agreed upon measuring methods, in such a way
that our speeds of light in vacuum have the same value.
We know that your tiny used tires salesman's mind cannot
cope with that, but since you have decided to turn taking
unrestrained pleasure in your blissful ignorance into a fine
art, I will not stand in your way.
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 12:54:09 PM

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:GhlOf.294606$n32.9313347@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:7PydnRqSFYCvQJTZRVn-gQ@comcast.com...

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
in message news:GYkOf.294572$sd7.9329696@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

[snip]

You wrote:
"If c was found to vary (in any given medium)..."
But c is a constant with the value 299792458 m/s.
By definition constants don't vary.

So, the only reason lightspeed is constant is because
standards such as the meter and the second have been allowed
to become variable.
No wonder you need a "transform" to prove lightspeed
is constant to all observers..
Of course. only the most brainwashed and stupid as you are
can not see that the transform is a silly self speed limiting
math trick..
You are such a moron Dirk!
LOL
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 01:11:04 PM

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:0dmdnR4gaN3Sf5TZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:GhlOf.294606$n32.9313347@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:7PydnRqSFYCvQJTZRVn-gQ@comcast.com...

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
in message news:GYkOf.294572$sd7.9329696@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

[snip]

You wrote:
"If c was found to vary (in any given medium)..."
But c is a constant with the value 299792458 m/s.
By definition constants don't vary.

So, the only reason lightspeed is constant is because
standards such as the meter and the second have been allowed
to become variable.

The reason we assume that lightspeed is constant, is because
we always get the same value when we try to measure it.
We know that your tiny used tires salesman's mind cannot
cope with that, but since you have decided to turn taking
unrestrained pleasure in your blissful ignorance into a fine
art, I will not stand in your way.
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Traveler"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 01:56:58 PM

***** Van de merde (ahaha...) wrote:

The reason we assume that lightspeed is constant, is because
we always get the same value when we try to measure it.

ahahaha... If the value you use is a measured value, then you cannot
speak of the speed of light per se but the *measured* speed of light.
The reason is that the measured speed of light has as much to do with
the real speed of light as it has to do with your measuring
instrument. Since the relative speed of light is already an integral
part of your instrument, is it any wonder that you always get the same
value? This certainly does not mean that the real speed of light is
constant but that the measured speed of light is constant.

We know that your tiny used tires salesman's mind cannot
cope with that, but since you have decided to turn taking
unrestrained pleasure in your blissful ignorance into a fine
art, I will not stand in your way.

We know that your tiny ***** kisser's mind cannot cope with that, but
since you have decided to turn taking unrestrained pleasure in your
blissful ignorance into a fine art, I will not stand in your way.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 02:29:05 PM

"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message news:rqrj02t1chmq06ckrtvhl5rg9if2gvls37@4ax.com...

***** Van de merde (ahaha...) wrote:

The reason we assume that lightspeed is constant, is because
we always get the same value when we try to measure it.

ahahaha...

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AutisticSpacetime.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nobody.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MaybeConspiracy.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SavainAnswer.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Insanity.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EatShit.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PoliteConversation.html
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Traveler"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 03:11:09 PM

Inveterate ***** kisser (does it for free) ***** Van de merde (ahaha...)
wrote:

"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message news:rqrj02t1chmq06ckrtvhl5rg9if2gvls37@4ax.com...

***** Van de merde (ahaha...) wrote:

The reason we assume that lightspeed is constant, is because
we always get the same value when we try to measure it.

ahahaha...

You spend a lot of energy in your ***** kissing crusade, don't you, van
de *****? ahahaha... Would not be so bad if you actually got paid for
it. How old are you now, van de merde? 75? 80? Are you retired yet? I
guess you can take an ***** kisser from away from work but you can't
take ***** kissing away from the ***** kisser. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.

User: "Lloyd Parker"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 09:04:16 AM

In article <rqrj02t1chmq06ckrtvhl5rg9if2gvls37@4ax.com>,
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:

***** Van de merde (ahaha...) wrote:

The reason we assume that lightspeed is constant, is because
we always get the same value when we try to measure it.

Does light exist when it's not being measured (i.e., observed)?

We know that your tiny ***** kisser's mind cannot cope with that, but
since you have decided to turn taking unrestrained pleasure in your
blissful ignorance into a fine art, I will not stand in your way.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

User: "Traveler"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 03:28:43 PM

On Sat, 04 Mar 06 15:04:16 GMT,

(Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

Does light exist when it's not being measured (i.e., observed)?

Does your momma? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahahaha..
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.

User: "platopes"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 04:14:54 PM

Traveler wrote:

***** Van de merde (ahaha...) wrote:

The reason we assume that lightspeed is constant, is because
we always get the same value when we try to measure it.

Definitions on the web for "assume" -
http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=define%3AAssume&meta=&btnG=Google+Search
To what exact purpose do we put the un-measured speed of light, or
anything for that matter?
p
.

User: "Traveler"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 04:54:29 PM

On 4 Mar 2006 14:14:54 -0800, "platopes" <platopes@yahoo.com> wrote:

Traveler wrote:

***** Van de merde (ahaha...) wrote:

The reason we assume that lightspeed is constant, is because

we always get the same value when we try to measure it.

ahahaha... If the value you use is a measured value, then you cannot
speak of the speed of light per se but the *measured* speed of light.

The reason is that the measured speed of light has as much to do with
the real speed of light as it has to do with your measuring
instrument. Since the relative speed of light is already an integral

part of your instrument, is it any wonder that you always get the same
value? This certainly does not mean that the real speed of light is
constant but that the measured speed of light is constant.

Definitions on the web for "assume" -

http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=define%3AAssume&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

To what exact purpose do we put the un-measured speed of light, or
anything for that matter?

We never measure light moving. We only observe the effects of light
when it's not moving. We only assume that it is moving (deny at your
own detriment) and a very good assumption it is. To what exact purpose
do you put the unobserved movement of light? Did you know that over
90% of so-called observed phenomena that physicists take for granted
are never observed directly even if physicists assume they are?
Indeed, they cannot be observed directly. To what purpose are these
things put? Answer: They are used to create a model of reality. The
proper role of science is to explicate nature through the use of
models deduced from observation.
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.

User: "platopes"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	04 Mar 2006 05:01:01 PM

Traveler wrote:

On 4 Mar 2006 14:14:54 -0800, "platopes" <platopes@yahoo.com> wrote:

Traveler wrote:

***** Van de merde (ahaha...) wrote:

The reason we assume that lightspeed is constant, is because

we always get the same value when we try to measure it.

ahahaha... If the value you use is a measured value, then you cannot
speak of the speed of light per se but the *measured* speed of light.

The reason is that the measured speed of light has as much to do with
the real speed of light as it has to do with your measuring
instrument. Since the relative speed of light is already an integral

part of your instrument, is it any wonder that you always get the same
value? This certainly does not mean that the real speed of light is
constant but that the measured speed of light is constant.

Definitions on the web for "assume" -

http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=define%3AAssume&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

To what exact purpose do we put the un-measured speed of light, or
anything for that matter?

That was quick! ~:?)
I'll just say that even if something is observed indirectly, it is
still measured, no?
Hey, read this (don't jump to conclusions from the title, read it) -
http://www.flyingdisk.com/stupid.htm
Later,
p
.

User: "Traveler"
Title: Re: The Force of Dead Science	05 Mar 2006 08:07:41 AM

On 4 Mar 2006 15:01:01 -0800, "platopes" <platopes@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'll just say that even if something is observed indirectly, it is
still measured, no?

That's my point exactly. If it can be logically deduced from
observation, it is just as valid and useful as a direct observation.
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.

Page 1 of 3

Post reply