🚀 go-pugleaf

"maxwell" <spsi@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:8ca41483-e609-4f68-89c8-6f0a13e492b8@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 25, 7:41 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 9:27 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 11:55 pm, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 10 2009, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ......
> > >>> These types of mediumless fields remind me of the grin of the 
> > >>> Cheshire
> > >>> Cat.
> > >>> For the rest of us: no cat, no grin.
>
> > >> Well, the "rest of us" is a rather small but cranky minority,
> > >> apparently, who have difficulty when nature resists pigeonholing.
> > >> Space that isn't devoid of properties, wave phenomena outside of
> > >> media, objects that are neither particles nor waves, fields that
> > >> aren't made of stuff, properties of objects that don't have a unique
> > >> and frame-independent value, causality that doesn't require strict 
> > >> and
> > >> time-ordered determinism -- all of these are threats to favorite
> > >> comfort toys and cuddle bears that are difficult to let go of, even
> > >> when it becomes plain that nature is not as simple as we thought in
> > >> our cuddle-bear days.
>
> > >> PD
>
> > > You have that rare ability, shared by many of today's theoretical
> > > physicists, to talk about logically self-contradictory concepts and
> > > imagine that these contradictions actually form the basis of reality.
> > > It is no surprise that modern theoretical physics is lost in
> > > "Wonderland"?
> > > Space = nothing AND has properties;
> > > waves = variations in a medium AND in empty space;
> > > fields = variation in a component of reality AND not made of anything;
> > > object properties = invariant defining characteristics
> > > AND values varying by viewpoint;
> > > causality = invariant determinism across time AND anything goes.
>
> > > No, Mr Draper, it is you who are still stuck in the nursery - the
> > > childlike world where any contradiction is allowed and where logical
> > > consistency is not required.
> > > Time to grow up and recognize that when your ideas are so muddled and
> > > contradictory, you have not created a theory of the world (physics)
> > > but a self-indulgent, fools paradise, funded by gullible
> > > governments.
>
> > Well said 'maxwell', I agree with you.
> > Yes, today's theoretical physicists do talk about logically self-
> > contradictory concepts. Perhaps in the grand maze of the unknown,
> > theoretical physicists have somewhere missed the right track and are
> > now approaching a dead end. They have been steadily indoctrinated into
> > believing that due to the complexity of physical reality, they can
> > not demand logical consistency in physical concepts and can not even
> > demand mental visualization of basic phenomena in quantum mechanical
> > world. In this regard let me quote from "The Farce of Physics" by
> > Bryan G. Wallace.
>
> > "In 1963, P. A. M. Dirac, in his paper, `The evolution of the
> > physicist's picture of nature', [65] writes: `one can make a safe
> > guess that uncertainty relations in their present form will not
> > survive in the physics of the future'. Andr� Mercier reports [121] a
> > conversation with Werner Heisenberg, in which Heisenberg argued `that
> > even major modifications of present physical theories would not
> > transform them into the desired new theory, as quite different and
> > novel ideas are required. Secondly, the impact of quantum theory and
> > relativity theory on the minds of those scholars who helped found them
> > during the first half of our century is conceivably such that they are
> > imprisoned by these theories and thus cannot help but reason
> > conformably, that is, in terms of traditional concepts; whereas the
> > need is for a whole revolution of thought, which can only be carried
> > through by nonconformists.'..."
>
> > GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yet the facts are that in a two-slit experiment in a vacuum in which
> only one electron (or photon) goes through at a time, if you leave
> both slits open, you get a two-slit interference pattern on the end
> screen. If you cover up one slit, you get a one-slit pattern. (And
> if you cover both slits, you get nothing.)
>
> These phenomena occcur whether you believe in them or not.
>
> Benwww.greenba.com

Yes, Ben, these are the facts (at least, after MANY electrons have
gone through the screen). The game is to produce a rational
explanation. One cannot argue about the facts - only the theories.
===========================================
Bonehead Green, redneck of science, believes in theories and fairies.
                      SANITY WARNING (Bonehead Green)

On March 7th 2009
 Bonehead Green claimed Einstein's first postulate: "relative motion"
implies that space and time is homogeneous and space is isotropic.

Einstein's 2nd postulate: "light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body" bears no resemblance whatsoever to Green's:
"Einstein's 2nd postulate of SR says that the speed of light is c in
every inertial frame."

Green makes no apology for misrepresenting Einstein, instead he
mumbles "I insist on using a modern form of the 2nd postulate."

Einstein himself says "Nun bewegt sich aber der Lichtstrahl relativ
zum Anfangspunkt von k im ruhenden System gemessen mit der
Geschwindigkeit V - v, so da� gilt: t = x'/(V-v)."

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that t = x'/(c-v)."

Green cannot distinguish a postulate from a conclusion or realize
his assertion conflicts with Einstein's statement.

Green is guilty of lying and has lost all credibility by attempting to
excuse himself.
He is a cheat with zero integrity to be treated with contempt by all.
Even if what he says on other subjects were to be proven true he
cannot be trusted, one would always need to check the source for
verification or denial.

Green has been invited to sue for defamation of character but has
declined the offer to test the outcome. He has no defence.

Androcles, you disappoint me.  After I praised you so highly for your
close reading of Einstein's 1905 paper, it seems to have flown right
out of your head.

"SQUAWK! It's a closing velocity, you don't know the difference
between a relative velocity and a closing velocity, Androcles! SQUAWK!
-- Uncle Bonehead
He is right, I don't know the difference between a relative velocity and a
closing velocity. Nor can he tell me.