🚀 go-pugleaf

Jang Jin Hong wrote:

> 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.

For you, this is what passes as a scientific argument.
Pretty sad.