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
On Dec 7, 5:36 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
> "Mahipal" wrote in message
> On Dec 6, 10:37 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
> <LordAndroc...@December2012.org> wrote:
> > "Mahipal" wrote in message
> > > 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.
> 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.