🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 18, 3:08 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
> Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 2:28 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >> 5146f720-ca66-4ab2-8501-ffc2fa9cb...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle
> >>> "Herbert Dingle (2 August 1890 - 4 September 1978), an English
> >>> physicist and natural philosopher, who served as president of the
> >>> Royal Astronomical Society from 1951 to 1953 (...) He was one of the
> >>> founders of the British Society for the History of Science, and served
> >>> as President from 1955 to 1957. He founded what later became the
> >>> British Society for the Philosophy of Science as well as its journal,
> >>> the British Journal for The Philosophy of Science."
>
> >> Here's how utterly stupid Digle became at the end of his life:
> >>  http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialF...
>
> >> Dirk Vdm
>
> > If a theory says "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length",
> > the refutation is impossible or, if someone is naive enough to try
> > one, Clever Moortel is always there to demonstrate utter stupidity.
>
> Indeed, the most recent demonstration of utter stupidity:
>    http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EssentiallyThe...
> and more demonstrations utter stupidity galore:
>    http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=pe...
>
> Thank for you making my point :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm

Clever Moortel, you should first demonstrate utter supidity INSIDE
Einsteiniana (otherwise your behaviour may be characterized as pure
sycophancy). Let me help you:

Utter supidity INSIDE Einsteiniana:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? Heureusement, il nen est rien ; mais, pour sen assurer, il
convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et dailleurs plus
économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la condition de
lexploiter à fond."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyond-Approaches-Theoretical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is CONSTANT BY
DEFINITION!....Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com