|
|
Re: Stephen Fry does something no human has ever done before
Posted:
Dec 7, 2012 9:25 AM
|
|
"Mahipal" wrote in message
news:03b9175a-bb0b-41c1-b9f4-af5e7eb6370f@p15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 7, 5:36 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@December2012.org> wrote:
> "Mahipal" wrote in message
>
> news:f091c743-d691-471f-a34e-1dbffe39f6cb@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Dec 6, 10:37 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
>
> <LordAndroc...@December2012.org> wrote:
> > "Mahipal" wrote in message
>
> >news:6684cea4-8fb0-4ea6-92fe-498cdf3b0ebb@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>
> [trim]
> > > Einstein posited E = mc^2...
>
> > > ==========================================================
> > > I am nitpicking, as pedantic as any mathematician can be. Your choice
> > > was
> > > postulate.
> > > 1. To make claim for; demand. 2. To assume or assert the truth,
> > > reality,
> > > or
> > > necessity of... etc.
>
> > Don't nitpick, feel free to suggest a rewriting for the first few
> > opening words in my deriving -- drunken or otherwise -- said
> > derivation of 'me always changes.'
>
> > DUI == Deriving Under the Influence (He he).
>
> > > That which you believe and I also believe, WITHOUT PROOF, is an axiom.
> > > If you can prove that which you believe from a more primitive axiom
> > > then
> > > that which you believe is not an axiom, it is a theorem.
>
> > > Newton's first law is an axiom.
> > > Einstein's first "postulate is an axiom.
> > > Indeed, it is so primitive he was unable to describe it and could only
> > > give an example.
>
> > Per a old previous line of mine, which you took significant and
> > measurable umbrage with, IMO there are no axioms in real Physics. If
> > physics were axiomatic, our discussions here would be as dull and
> > stale as in some math forum. Shhh... be very very secretive.
>
> > =============================================================
> > Syllogism and contrapositive.
> > If not C then not B, if not B then not A.
> > No physics without mathematics, no mathematics without axioms.
>
> Mathematicians are clever enough to invent new axioms as needed.
> ==============================================================
> Bullshit.
> Poets are stupid enough to invent new axioms as needed.
There really are no poems posted to these here two newsgroups.
============================================================
Oh, I thought your nonsense was Indian poetry.
> There have been rainbows before and without mathematics.
> ==========================================================
> Rainbows are an observation. Black holes are not.
> Investigating the rainbow we arrive at an explanation which requires
> mathematics. Observation, investigation, explanation.
> Explaining the black hole we investigate the mathematics and
> then go looking for one. That's back-arsewards insanity.
No predicted black holes have been observed?
========================================
Only in Calcutta.
> If physics
> were axiomatic like mathematics insists on being, then there would be
> no need for experiments.
> ===========================================================
> Ok. I'll get out the lawn sprinkler and simulate rain on a sunny day to
> investigate rainbows, you go ahead and experiment on a black hole,
> see if I care -- as long as you don't want my tax money to pay you for it.
I pay taxes too.
> > > "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
> > > and
> > > a
> > > conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the RELATIVE
> > > MOTION of the conductor and the magnet,"
>
> > > He has not defined "relative motion", you are supposed to know what it
> > > means without proof. That's what makes it an axiom.
>
> > Let go the axiom John. That one does not take the time to define
> > "relative motion" clearly indicates a predisposition to be vague.
> > ===================================================
>
> > Let go the booze, Bard Virdy. Mathematics is all about proof and
> > the language of physics is mathematics. All crackpot theories are
> > founded on castles in the air. Real physics are built on axioms.
> > It's impossible to define colour objectively yet we know what it is
> > subjectively. If you think otherwise then tell a blind person.
> > It's not easy to define relative motion. Try it and we'll see who is
> > vague.
>
> You are beyond inadequate as a mathematician. Whether I booze or not.
>
> ===============================================
> Your attempt to define relative motion is so vague it is non-existent.
> Must try harder. I'm keeping the axiom. Let go the booze.
When and where did I offer to define this, as you say, relative
motion? When is it suddenly my obligation to attempt this feat at all
in any place?
===============================================
Try it and we'll see who is vague. You are beyond inadequate as a poet.
Whether you booze or not.
> > > That which you believe and I DO NOT believe but will allow temporarily
> > > as
> > > an
> > > hypothesis, is a postulate.
> > > Einstein's second postulate is a postulate to him and an hypothesis to
> > > me.
> > > Moreover, it is a compound statement and hence not primitive:
> > > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
> > > which
> > > is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> > > "Empty space" is a frame of reference against which the light has
> > > RELATIVE
> > > velocity c.
>
> > There exist known experiments where the light speed has been slowed
> > down to slug speed rates. Where's experimental Einstein now? I once
> > heard that Ein Stein translates and means One Way. Was I mislead?
> > ========================================================
> > Yes, you were misled. German stein translates to English stone.
> > The real point is we can examine what Einstein postulated leads to and
> > conclude
> > the postulate is false on strictly logical grounds, without the need for
> > experiment.
>
> Your hatred blinds you.
> ================================
> My emotions are not the subject under discussion, but since you want
> to discuss me rather than physics I'll discuss you. Your attention span
> and crass stupidity fucks you up, you imbecile.
Let it all out John. Your bottled anger is erupting. Your insults
will at last resolve physics.
===========================================================
Still want to talk about me, huh?
That's soon solved.
*plonk*
|
|
