My malt has departed to the United States in the metabolism of an American cousin. I felt obliged even to find the reserve bottle, as the poor soul was returning to the threat of Budweiser, which I understand from the adverts is made by balefully tuneful, croaking frogs. In the USA, all beer is essentially piss-coloured water, differentiated by advertising. Don't send your left foot for evidential scrutiny old chap, I can trust enough to memories of the fair maiden's unique ass-qualities and general left feet to agree your comparison. Still, there is the odd arse that gets off by staring at feet.
I have no idea whether any of the massive literature (of which the above are tiny parts) has any real validity in advancing physics, though I would say I'm not inclined to think Einstein so incompetent he would use inverted commas merely to enhance presentation, or is likely to have used his written submission for an impromptu darts match which confused the type-setters. Most of the "science" I see today is a form of pornography for the layman, delivered by Village Idiot Promotions Inc. You are still missing the point, but then you suggest I may be missing points writ large around a word! You may well ask next if I can tell the time, and given an evening's end on rather excellent Bulgarian vodka (home made), it may be a while until I can. In some ways, your writings lack something of the reflective quality of your wit and criticism. There is something of a 'destructive distillation' of words, but something of a failure to move to experimental constructions and 'systems that are good enough' at least to work back from to what we have missed in explanation. The 'destruction' too often applies to others, a positive and negative I share. I have trouble with clowns, yet am appreciative of them in the general circus as laughter is better than the cruelty to animals and general mundanity. History is littered with philosophers and religionists who could always go one better in deconstruction or urge to purity, though the best of these (Kierkegaard) can be read as a comedian. My later life teaching 'management' (surely less certain than "time") has been a tragedy, though the Greeks might have it as a comedy should there be a happy ending, and I at least got my students laughing, no mean feat when all are drowning in bullshit. The physics is by no means clear and no clearer for your method or comment on fragments. I can't help other than to point at a literature, one I know to have faults, know I have little grasp of as an 'insider', yet have reason to trust far more than 'Dead Sea Scrolls'. That physicists and philosophers of science are 'at' one way speed of light considerations seems clear, and as clear that you don't like it. This would be the only conclusion left after critical scrutiny of what's in here. Your dismissals lack the criteria your writings evince. I have a much more general construction of argument and learning in it in mind than whether the physics is right. Socratus was not a good start in my opinion. Sticking "vacuum" on Einstein's dartboard might be, even leading to an idea of the journey time to the edge of the universe taking into account of what is in "vacuum", even if the work has been done by a woman in Australia, mentioned before in passing and apparently of no interest to those with a more recent 'interest' in "vacuum". A comparison of Blair Athol with your Islay would be conducive. Shall I bring "eggs" to show you I can suck them? My father's brother was John. He worked at the distillery and lived far longer than science would have given his liver. Neil On 3 Jan, 17:50, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > ============== > G: > Whatever one may say about your doubtful taste of drinks, > you are certainly not lazy. The amounts you produced on > one-ways and things make me feel like a son of toil buried > under ton of soil. > Lazy myself, I'll make a short digest, if I dare say. > Before commenting it, let me say that I'm sorry to see you > falling pray to misleading handbooks and "interpretations". > I happen to be one of the last Einstein's collaborators and > certainly the last who was particularly dealing with > ontological foundations of his Second Scientific Revolution. > I just wrote an outline thereof in > > http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_S1_S... > > It's certainly not absolutely right - what is - but it could > give a sincere and rigorous view of philosophical implications > of the concurrent physics. > ================ > Neil, quoting Einstein: > We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter > cannot be defined at all unless 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. > > G: > Did you ask yourself why Einstein puts "time" in quotes? > Answer in my above mentioned essay. > > We should distinguish two cases: > 1.A,B are distinct referentials. Then simultaneity gets relative. > For some referential C simultaneous; for D, A precedes B; > for E, B precedes A. > > 2.A,B distant points in a single referential. It's trivial and > boils down to the ontological principle of isotropy of cosmos, > which underlies whole physic. It's not quite honest of Einstein > to present it as his additional axiom. > ================ > Neil: > Nothing like proving a Frenchman wrong! > > G: > Pleasure shared with 1 140 000 google village idiots. Of course > Descartes only created modern science and epistemology. And > infinite C was the only reasonable assumption in the context > of axiomatic absolute time and space. But he was Frenchman, one > cannot deny that. > ================ > Neil: > Maybe Socratus' 'hidden ether' can turn us to ideas of > whatever spins in dark matter? > > G: > I don't know about Socratus, but why not have a look at > > http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/SECOND_ENLIGHTENMENT/0h_dark_matter.html > ================ > Neil: > I have not found anyone assuming MM not to be a round trip > except you. > > G: > I understood by "round trip" your muddling pointer to silly > asses who imagined light traveling round the earth, giving > its speed as C+-V. > If you understand by this term the "go-and-return" travel of > the reflected beam, then of course both beams do merry-go-round. > I always heard and used "reflection". > ================ > Neil: > In rebutting the claim that measurement of the ratio of electrostatic > units to electromagnetic units suffices to ascertain the one-way speed > of light, Adolf Grunbaum exhibits still > other ways in which prior synchrony conventions are involved. > According to Grunbaum, the proponent of that approach . . . begs the > question by his failure to see that the simultaneity > criterion based on the choice of e = 1/2 is used in the very > definitions of the physical quantities that enter into Maxwell's > equations and that these equations would be different for a different > choice of C, since then the various physical quantities would, in > general, have different relationships to one another. Thus, for > example, the first partial derivative of the electric field strength > with respect to one of the space coordinates represents a space > variation of simultaneous values of the quantity E .... In this way, > the simultaneity criterion e = 1/2 is presupposed in the very > equations which are used to define the electromagnetic and > electrostatic units of charge as well as in the experimental > determination of their ratios > > G: > The first Maxwell equation says: > div(E) = ro / eps > where > E - electric field > ro - charge density > eps - permittivity of free space > > I don't see any e equal 1/2, or whatever else. > > And Maxwell made no "choice of C", but deduced C from his > equations as function of empiric constants: > C = 1/sqrt(mu * eps) > where > eps - permittivity of free space > mu - permeability of free space > > His three epochal achievements are: > > 1.Combining electricity and magnetism in a unique construct - > the electro-magnetic field capable of propagating by itself, > without any support, the electric and magnetic components > generating mutually one another. > > 2.Determining C by deduction from his equations. > > 3.Postulating light to be EM field, in view of near identity > of his deduced C and the speed of light measured empirically. > > In their light I consider him as one of three greatest > physicists, ex equo with Newton and Einstein. > ================ > Neil, quoting some Vasco de Gumboil: > possible non-invariance of the one-way speed of light and > compatibility between the Lorentz–Poincaré and Einstein–Minkowski > philosophies. > > G: > Nice piece of bullshit to finish. > One-, Two-, Thirty five-way speed of light stays invariant > as long as you don't falsify the totality of concurrent physics. > > Einstein–Minkowski SR model and Lorentz–Poincaré Aether model > are as compatible as my left foot with the ass of Brigitte Bardot. > ================ > Have a look at my Second Enlightenment and join me in drinking > something drinkable. I drink your health with Islay Single Malt > Bowmore. > > Bob's your uncle > Georges. > ================ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
