
Re: Stephen Fry does something no human has ever done before
Posted:
Dec 7, 2012 9:25 AM


"Mahipal" wrote in message news:03b9175abb0b41c1b9f4af5e7eb6370f@p15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 7, 5:36 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAndroc...@December2012.org> wrote: > "Mahipal" wrote in message > > news:f091c743d691471fa34e1dbffe39f6cb@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > On Dec 6, 10:37 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" > > <LordAndroc...@December2012.org> wrote: > > "Mahipal" wrote in message > > >news:6684cea48fb04ea692fe498cdf3b0ebb@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 backarsewards 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 nonexistent. > 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*

