FALSE PREMISE, TRUE CONCLUSION? (SIMPLER PRESENTATION)

Consider the following arguments:

(1) It rains; therefore the soil is wet.

(2) X=5; therefore X+3=8.

Clearly, in the first case the combination "false premise, true
conclusion" is possible (it does not rain but someone has watered the
garden) whereas in the second it is impossible. The question is: Are
there, in natural sciences, arguments analogous to (2), that is,
incompatible with the combination "false premise, true conclusion"?
Are crucial arguments, e.g. the Carnot theorem and arguments based on
Einstein's 1905 light postulate, of the type (2)? See some development
in:

http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

Consider the following arguments:

(1) It rains; therefore the soil is wet.

Soil can be wet without rain.
We call this an implication.


(2) X=5; therefore X+3=8.

X+3=8 cannot be without X=5.
We call this an equivalence.


Clearly, in the first case the combination "false premise, true
conclusion" is possible (it does not rain but someone has watered the
garden) whereas in the second it is impossible.

GASP!
After all these dreadful years Pentcho Valev finally seems to be on his
way to grasp the difference between an implication and an equivalence.

Perhaps we must remove this entry from the list of differences
Pentcho Valev fails to understand:
- rates vs. values,
- a personal humorous musing vs. a common dogma,
- children's books vs. inspired essays,
- physicists vs. philosophers,
- coordinate time vs. proper time,
- invariance vs. constancy,
- special relativity vs. general relativity,
- teachers vs. hypnotists,
- laymen vs. zombies,
- a person being right vs. a theory being right,
- students vs. imbeciles,
- bad science vs. bad engineering,
- bad engineering vs. bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory vs. fighting it,
- physics vs. linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 vs. a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book vs. turning its pages,
- speed vs. relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra vs. randomly writing down symbols,
- real life vs. a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply vs. being ignored,
- everyday concepts vs. scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial vs. non-inertial,
- speed vs. velocity,
- an article vs. a book,
- relativity vs. disguised ether addiction,
- algebra vs. analytic geometry,
- kneeling down vs. bending over,
- local vs. global,
- a sycophant in English vs. in French,
- a relation vs. an equation,
- massive vs. massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho vs. a Sears poncho,
- implication vs. equivalence, == to be removed?
- group velocity vs. phase velocity,
- science vs. religion

36 left.
Way to go!

Dirk Vdm

On Dec 20, 4:34*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in message

*

Consider the following arguments:

(1) It rains; therefore the soil is wet.

Soil can be wet without rain.
We call this an implication.

LOGICIANS call this an implication, Clever Moortel. Einstein zombies
(or Einstein dingleberries) just sing "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity":

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

On Dec 20, 4:34 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in message



Consider the following arguments:

(1) It rains; therefore the soil is wet.

Soil can be wet without rain.
We call this an implication.

LOGICIANS call this an implication, Clever Moortel. Einstein zombies
(or Einstein dingleberries) just sing "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity":

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

Pentcho Valev


No comment:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...LOGICIANS.html

Dirk Vdm

On Dec 20, 2:34 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in message



Consider the following arguments:

(1) It rains; therefore the soil is wet.

Soil can be wet without rain.
We call this an implication.



(2) X=5; therefore X+3=8.

X+3=8 cannot be without X=5.
We call this an equivalence.



Clearly, in the first case the combination "false premise, true
conclusion" is possible (it does not rain but someone has watered the
garden) whereas in the second it is impossible.

GASP!
After all these dreadful years Pentcho Valev finally seems to be on his
way to grasp the difference between an implication and an equivalence.

Perhaps we must remove this entry from the list of differences
Pentcho Valev fails to understand:
- rates vs. values,
- a personal humorous musing vs. a common dogma,
- children's books vs. inspired essays,
- physicists vs. philosophers,
- coordinate time vs. proper time,
- invariance vs. constancy,
- special relativity vs. general relativity,
- teachers vs. hypnotists,
- laymen vs. zombies,
- a person being right vs. a theory being right,
- students vs. imbeciles,
- bad science vs. bad engineering,
- bad engineering vs. bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory vs. fighting it,
- physics vs. linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 vs. a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book vs. turning its pages,
- speed vs. relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra vs. randomly writing down symbols,
- real life vs. a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply vs. being ignored,
- everyday concepts vs. scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial vs. non-inertial,
- speed vs. velocity,
- an article vs. a book,
- relativity vs. disguised ether addiction,
- algebra vs. analytic geometry,
- kneeling down vs. bending over,
- local vs. global,
- a sycophant in English vs. in French,
- a relation vs. an equation,
- massive vs. massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho vs. a Sears poncho,
- implication vs. equivalence, == to be removed?
- group velocity vs. phase velocity,
- science vs. religion

36 left.
Way to go!

Dirk Vdm

- rates vs. values,
A rate is a value divided by another reference value

- a personal humorous musing vs. a common dogma,
Common dogma lacks personal humorous musing

- children's books vs. inspired essays,
there are children's books that are good inspired essays

- physicists vs. philosophers,
Physics was born from philosophy

- coordinate time vs. proper time,
time dilation is a common dogma

- invariance vs. constancy,
time dilation is a common dogma
time dilation is a common dogma
time dilation is a common dogma
....

- special relativity vs. general relativity,
Why a child must struggle against his father?

- teachers vs. hypnotists,
If the teacher is a beautiful woman, you will be
hypnotized for sure

- laymen vs. zombies,
laymen can be zombies if they lack personal humorous musing

- a person being right vs. a theory being right,
Theories are neither right nor wrong, they only may be
valid or invalid. A person always has rights.

- students vs. imbeciles,
There are a lot of imbeciles that are no longer students

- bad science vs. bad engineering,
There may be bad engineering with good science,
the reverse is always impossible

- bad engineering vs. bad cost management,
There may be bad engineering with good cost management,
the reverse is always possible

- honing the foundations of a theory vs. fighting it,
Excesive hone becomes a dangerous weapon to fight with

- physics vs. linguistics,
Mathematics is the language of physics,
physics is the language of Nature

- an article written in 1905 vs. a theory created in 1915,
Archaeology and history are always interesting disciplines

- understanding a book vs. turning its pages,
I don't understand this antithesis, so I turn it out,

- speed vs. relative (aka closing) speed,
Do you mean Einstein's addition of speeds? Well, that's the point

- doing algebra vs. randomly writing down symbols,
It is the same thing if nobody understands your algebra

- real life vs. a Usenet hobby group,
Real life is real, Usenet hobby group is Usenet

- receiving a detailed reply vs. being ignored,

- everyday concepts vs. scientific concepts in physics,
Everyday concepts vs. scientific concepts in physics, yeah

- the three things that smell like fish,
Sashimi, Sushi and Sukiyaki

- inertial vs. non-inertial,
non-gravitation vs. gravitation

- speed vs. velocity,
An arrow is a pointed projectile that is shot with a bow.

- an article vs. a book,
A good book always is a good article

- relativity vs. disguised ether addiction,
Really?

- algebra vs. analytic geometry,
I can't see the reason of this issue

- kneeling down vs. bending over,
The former is often practiced, the latter seldom

- local vs. global,
Global warming threatens local cooling

- a sycophant in English vs. in French,
sycophant vs. flagorneur

- a relation vs. an equation,
A=B is an equation, A is friend of B is a relation

- massive vs. massless particles,
Like the tortoise and the hare of the fable,
the former always wins

- a Mexican poncho vs. a Sears poncho,
Do you mean a Cisco poncho?

- implication vs. equivalence, == to be removed?
Often, equivalences have implications

- group velocity vs. phase velocity,
A fish in a river vs. water stream

- science vs. religion
Wars of Religion, again? No more Jihad, please

Seasons Greetings

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
[...]

- physicists vs. philosophers,
Physics was born from philosophy

- coordinate time vs. proper time,
time dilation is a common dogma

- invariance vs. constancy,
time dilation is a common dogma
time dilation is a common dogma
time dilation is a common dogma
....

Please explain the group property of the LT.

[...]

- speed vs. relative (aka closing) speed,
Do you mean Einstein's addition of speeds? Well, that's the point

Certainly not - anyone who makes that mistake is to be pitied.

Harald

"harry" wrote in message
...

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
[...]

- physicists vs. philosophers,
Physics was born from philosophy

- coordinate time vs. proper time,
time dilation is a common dogma

- invariance vs. constancy,
time dilation is a common dogma
time dilation is a common dogma
time dilation is a common dogma
....

Please explain the group property of the LT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics)
In mathematics, a group is an algebraic structure consisting of a set
together with an operation that combines any two of itselements to form a
third element.

Please explain the lame excuse for Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Please explain why you are a drooling incompetent cretin.


[...]

- speed vs. relative (aka closing) speed,
Do you mean Einstein's addition of speeds? Well, that's the point

Certainly not - anyone who makes that mistake is to be pitied.

No, you are not pitied, you are scorned, you pathetic babbling idiot.

Einsteiniana's hypnotists trying to camouflage the falsehood of
Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue33/henry.htm
Teaching Special Relativity: Minkowski trumps Einstein
Richard Conn Henry
Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy
The Johns Hopkins University
"How grotesquely badly we teach special relativity encapsulates the
practical problem of teaching physics to the freshman physics major. I
have never found a single freshman physics textbook that teaches
Minkowski spacetime; I have never found a single text on General
Relativity that mentions "Einstein's two postulates." Every physics
freshman is taught ... well, let me quote an example. In the fall of
2007 I will, for the second time in my career, teach introductory
physics for physical science majors at the Johns Hopkins University.
One text that has recently been used for that course is "University
Physics," by R. L. Reese. On page 1155 we read "The entire special
theory stems from only two postulates. ... Postulate 1: The speed of
light in a vacuum has the same numerical value c when measured in any
inertial reference frame, independent of the motion of the source and/
or observer.”... Postulate 2: The fundamental laws of physics must be
the same in all inertial reference frames." The reader is invited to
recoil, not only at the bizarre re-numbering of the infamous two
postulates, but of course at the use of the postulates at all. There
is no doubt that, historically, Albert Einstein, in 1905, did
introduce two postulates (and also, that it is he who discovered
special relativity). But the second of these postulates (the one
concerning the constancy of c, just in case Reese has confused you!)
did not survive the year. In September of 1905 Einstein published a
development from relativity—the discovery of the implication that E =
mc2 , and in this new paper he mentions a single postulate only. But
the paper contains a sweet footnote: "The principle of the constancy
of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's
equations." How I love that "of course!" Einstein was human! I do not
know if it is true, but I recall being told that during the Middle
Ages undergraduates learned to multiply and divide using Roman
numerals, while the exotic Arabic numerals were reserved for the more
advanced students. That is exactly what we do today in teaching
special relativity. Antique postulates that are not of anything but
historical interest to genuine physicists are presented to students as
"Special Relativity." Some books do better than others in warning
students how seemingly impossible the second postulate is; but all
have the students working out true but unintuitive consequences (e.g.
relativity of simultaneity) using thought experiments with of course
the second postulate producing the bizarre result. A small number of
texts (Ohanian, Knight, a few others) at least follow Einstein's
second paper in having but a single postulate; but none do what needs
to be done, which is to drop Einstein and adopt Minkowski."

Other hypnotists do not see Minkowski space-time as suitable
camouflage for Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/
MINKOWSKI SPACE-TIME: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY
Harvey R. Brown, Oliver Pooley
"It is argued that Minkowski space-time cannot serve as the deep
structure within a "constructive" version of the special theory of
relativity, contrary to widespread opinion in the philosophical
community."

http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/c...st%20tense.doc
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
spacetime’s many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On
this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
uniquely decomposable into space and time."

Sooner or later the problem "False premise, true conclusion?" will
become the central problem in some movement towards resurrection of
science:

http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf

Pentcho Valev