Date: Dec 7, 2012 9:25 AM Author: Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway Subject: Re: Stephen Fry does something no human has ever done before "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*