THE BEAUTIFUL PLUMAGE OF THE DEAD PARROT

In their successful attempts to sell dead science, hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult follow a pattern:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6DSoqZz_s

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/py...ead-parrot.htm

Still in the absurd world where shopkeepers sell dead parrots nobody
would claim the parrot is both dead and alive. Einstein's shopkeepers
have overcome this imperfection so in Einstein zombie world statements
of the type "Both A and non-A" are commonplace. Just two examples:

The speed of light is both constant and variable:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph..._of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920
book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ". . .
according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation
is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern
interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general
relativity."

A 80m long pole is trapped inside a 40m long barn but since
Einsteinians open the doors pretty quickly, trapping does not
occur:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Pentcho Valev

Still in the absurd world where shopkeepers sell dead parrots

At least you can stuff matresses with them.

On Sep 15, 4:30 am, Don Stockbauer wrote:
Still in the absurd world where shopkeepers sell dead parrots

At least you can stuff matresses with them.

Now I've got to stand in the tea chest.

--
Jan Bielawski

JanPB wrote:
On Sep 15, 4:30 am, Don Stockbauer wrote:

Still in the absurd world where shopkeepers sell dead parrots

At least you can stuff matresses with them.

Now I've got to stand in the tea chest.

singing
And did those feet in ancient time
walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
on England’s pleasant pastures seen?
...
/singing

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- -- AB2SB

On 15 Sept, 11:30, Pentcho Valev wrote:
In their successful attempts to sell dead science, hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult follow a pattern:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6DSoqZz_s

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/py...ead-parrot.htm

Still in the absurd world where shopkeepers sell dead parrots nobody
would claim the parrot is both dead and alive. Einstein's shopkeepers
have overcome this imperfection so in Einstein zombie world statements
of the type "Both A and non-A" are commonplace. Just two examples:

The speed of light is both constant and variable:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph..._of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920
book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ". . .
according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation
is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern
interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general
relativity."

A 80m long pole is trapped inside a 40m long barn but since
Einsteinians open the doors pretty quickly, trapping does not
occur:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

In chapter 7 of Einstein's 1920 "Relativity" one can find one of
Einstein's greatest idiocies: the second (light) postulate of special
relativity turns out to be a corollary of Einstein's first postulate
(the principle of relativity). Only the silliest Einsteinians would
repeat the idiocy and unfortunately a compatriot of mine is among
them:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of modern physics is
the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein regarded it as one of
the two postulates on which special relativity is based. So far,
however, little attention has been paid to the status of this
postulate when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the
constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of the
relativity principle, not an independent postulate. To see this let us
consider the two postulates of special relativity as formulated by
Einstein in his 1905 paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies":
"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We
will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of the motion of the emitting body" [1]. As
the principle of relativity states that "the laws of physics are the
same in all inertial reference frames" and the constancy of the speed
of light means that "the speed of light is the same in all inertial
reference frames (regardless of the motion of the source or the
observer)" it follow that the second postulate is indeed a consequence
of the first - the law describing the propagation of light is the same
for all inertial observers."

So we have again a statement of the type "Both A and non-A": Special
relativity is based on two postulates; it is also based on a single
postulate. Vesselin Petkov will teach this at Concordia University
this winter:

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~vpetkov/courses/PHIL328.html

The same Vesselin Petkov, together with brothers Einsteinians, will
deduce Minkowski's space-time geometry from Einstein's first postulate
alone in 2008:

http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 16, 7:00 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[snip idiocies]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of modern physics is
the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein regarded it as one of
the two postulates on which special relativity is based. So far,
however, little attention has been paid to the status of this
postulate when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the
constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of the
relativity principle, not an independent postulate.

This doesn't seem right. The speed of light constancy doesn't
automatically follow from the first postulate unless one adds the
extra assumption of no aether. The first postulate alone is not enough
as one could obviously set up a theory with aether, the first
postulate, and Maxwell's equations, all together in a happy (logical
but not physical) family.

This happy family would not be SR and would not match experimental
results but its very existence as a possible logical corollary
disproves Petkov's claim. Comments?

[snip]

--
Jan Bielawski

"JanPB" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Sep 16, 7:00 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
:
: [snip idiocies]
:
: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
: Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of modern physics is
: the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein regarded it as one of
: the two postulates on which special relativity is based. So far,
: however, little attention has been paid to the status of this
: postulate when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the
: constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of the
: relativity principle, not an independent postulate.

[snip ****witisms]

Oops, nothing left.

--


'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: ups.com



'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: ups.com


"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.

The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying *******s will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.

Dear JanPB:

"JanPB" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 16, 7:00 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[snip idiocies]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of
modern physics is the constancy of the speed of light.
Einstein regarded it as one of the two postulates on
which special relativity is based. So far, however, little
attention has been paid to the status of this postulate
when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the
constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence
of the relativity principle, not an independent postulate.

This doesn't seem right. The speed of light constancy
doesn't automatically follow from the first postulate
unless one adds the extra assumption of no aether.
The first postulate alone is not enough as one could
obviously set up a theory with aether, the first
postulate, and Maxwell's equations, all together in a
happy (logical but not physical) family.

This happy family would not be SR and would not
match experimental results but its very existence
as a possible logical corollary disproves Petkov's
claim. Comments?

The constancy of the speed of light follows from Maxwell, Maxwell
formulated his "laws of physics" with an aether, and the aether
"fell out" in the derivation. So if Maxwell's relations qualify
as laws of physics under postulate 1, then postulate 2 is
superfluous.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
: Dear JanPB:
:
: "JanPB" wrote in message
: oups.com...
: On Sep 16, 7:00 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
:
: [snip idiocies]
:
: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
: Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of
: modern physics is the constancy of the speed of light.
: Einstein regarded it as one of the two postulates on
: which special relativity is based. So far, however, little
: attention has been paid to the status of this postulate
: when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the
: constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence
: of the relativity principle, not an independent postulate.
:
: This doesn't seem right. The speed of light constancy
: doesn't automatically follow from the first postulate
: unless one adds the extra assumption of no aether.
: The first postulate alone is not enough as one could
: obviously set up a theory with aether, the first
: postulate, and Maxwell's equations, all together in a
: happy (logical but not physical) family.
:
: This happy family would not be SR and would not
: match experimental results but its very existence
: as a possible logical corollary disproves Petkov's
: claim. Comments?
:
: The constancy of the speed of light follows from Maxwell, Maxwell
: formulated his "laws of physics" with an aether, and the aether
: "fell out" in the derivation. So if Maxwell's relations qualify
: as laws of physics under postulate 1, then postulate 2 is
: superfluous.
:
: David A. Smith

Dar Smiffy,
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the
present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." -- Albert Einstein.
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein.

That's two dead parrots and yours makes three.
Squawk, squawk, squawk.
--

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: ups.com



'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: ups.com


"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.

The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying *******s will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.

On Sep 16, 11:20 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear JanPB:

"JanPB" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Sep 16, 7:00 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[snip idiocies]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of
modern physics is the constancy of the speed of light.
Einstein regarded it as one of the two postulates on
which special relativity is based. So far, however, little
attention has been paid to the status of this postulate
when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the
constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence
of the relativity principle, not an independent postulate.

This doesn't seem right. The speed of light constancy
doesn't automatically follow from the first postulate
unless one adds the extra assumption of no aether.
The first postulate alone is not enough as one could
obviously set up a theory with aether, the first
postulate, and Maxwell's equations, all together in a
happy (logical but not physical) family.

This happy family would not be SR and would not
match experimental results but its very existence
as a possible logical corollary disproves Petkov's
claim. Comments?

The constancy of the speed of light follows from Maxwell, Maxwell
formulated his "laws of physics" with an aether, and the aether
"fell out" in the derivation. So if Maxwell's relations qualify
as laws of physics under postulate 1, then postulate 2 is
superfluous.

David A. Smith

Yes, that's a much better way of putting it.

--
Jan Bielawski