🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jang Jin Hong" <monad@chol.com> wrote in message 
news:576b0cc5-5cc2-44be-9aa0-9dffc521711b@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 5, 3:16 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
> Jang Jin Hong wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 3:30 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Karl Popper: "To this we have to add THE PRINCIPLE OF EMPIRICISM which
> >>asserts that in science, only observation and experiment may decide
> >>upon the acceptance or rejection of scientific statements, including
> >>laws and theories."
>
> >>If I were in Popper's shoes, I would have written:
>
> >>"To this we have to add THE PRINCIPLE OF LOGICISM which asserts that
> >>in science, only logical analysis of the deductive chain may decide
> >>upon the acceptance or rejection of scientific statements, including
> >>laws and theories."
>
> >>Example: Einsteiniana gives three incompatible equations showing how
> >>the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V:
> >>Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c
> >>(1+2V/c^2) and the constant-speed equation c'=c. The gravitational
> >>redshift factor (1+V/c^2) measured in 1960 by Pound and Rebka was
> >>consistent with one of them, c'=c(1+V/c^2), and that was one of the
> >>reasons why Divine Albert's Divine Theory was gloriously confirmed
> >>(the other reason was that Divine Albert's Divine Theory had to be
> >>gloriously confirmed anyway).
>
> >>Logical analysis shows that c'=c (the speed of light does not vary
> >>with the gravitational potential) is equivalent to Einstein's 1905
> >>light postulate (the speed of light does not vary with the speed of
> >>the light source) whereas c'=c(1+V/c^2) is equivalent to the
> >>antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
> >>Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source
> >>relative to the observer). Therefore in 1960 Divine Albert's Divine
> >>Theory should have been rejected rather than gloriously confirmed.
>
> >>Another example: Logical analysis shows that the conclusion "The bug
> >>is both dead and 
> >>alive"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/bugrivet.html
> >>can validly be deduced from Einstein's 1905 light postulate. This is
> >>REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence: again, Divine Albert's Divine
> >>Theory should have been rejected.
>
> >>Pentcho Valev
> >>pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > It is superstitious to use word "divine" to scientific theory.
> > In my personal opinion, the most sucessful application of relativity
> > is electromagnetism.
> > There is no experiment result which can reject relativity.
> > but in viewpoint of philosophy, It is possible to accept other theory.
>
> This is because philosophy has nothing to do with science.
>
>
>
>
>
> > your posting has some relation with my document look
> >http://monad.kr/relativity/relativity.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are Parrot.
===========
You are idiot.