🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:9c1b39be.0410300913.1e947fa7@posting.google.com...
> David Evens <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:<fl4sn0p60jpvs9khnh4k2d1v0mqkvs8l9b@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:55:27 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
> > >On 22 Oct 2004 21:09:09 -0700, netspider4@lycos.com (Karl-Hugo
Weesberg) wrote:
> > >
> > >>Sorry, but this theory is rubbish and must be replaced by a new,
> > >>better theory or mankind is doomed!
> > >
> > >As far as I can see, Einstein's version of relativity was never taken
seriously
> > >outside of the USA and GB. It is a western hoax, perpetuated by
generations of
> > >academic inbreeding.
> > >
> > >Most physicists elsewhere still accept the Ritzian view that light
speed is
> > >source dependent. Accordingly, the universe is much easier to
understand.
> >
> > How would some like you, with no contact with the scientific
> > community, and no knowledge of any language but English, know anything
> > about what anyone outside the English-speaking world thinks about
> > anything?
>
> He is right and you are wrong, left with your ad hominen weapon. The
> same was true with Newton's laws. British and Americans taught them as
> empirical laws. Continental Europe taught them as axioms. As a matetr
> of fact, anyone knows and admits today that Newton's law carry no
> empirical content at all.

That is not quite true.  Newton's third law carries empirical content.
Carefully analyzed and suitably reformulated Newton's second and first law
can be given empirical content eg the first law can be interpreted as
inertial frames exist where inertial frames are defined by symmetry
properties.  Newton's second law as analyzed by Feynman shows it is 'half a
law'.  But even this difficulty can be overcome in an exact treatment.  In
modern times however, at least for advanced work, it has become standard
practice to formulate classical mechanics from the POR and the PLA which
avoids these problems from the outset, shows the connection between
conservation and symmetry, and genralises more readily to QM and field
theories.

Thanks
Bill

They are just metaphysical statements. Read
> and learn: (MO is in the USA)
>
> http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/newton.html
>
>
> Eveyone, I mean eveyone, outside USA and the UK, thinks SR and GR are
> jokes. Well, SR is half joke, GR is paranoia at its best.
>
> Mike