1984

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Pentcho Valev - 29 Jul 2005 09:54 GMT

FALSITY IS TRUTH
The postulate of constancy of the speed of light is false (A. Einstein,
"Relativity", Chapter 22), but the theory of relativity is true.

OBSCURITY IS POWER
C. Truesdell: « Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes
no sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of
philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandement ; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean... Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked
and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot understand. »
A. Eddington: «The law that entropy always increases, - the second law
of thermodynamics - holds, I think, the supreme position among the
laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of
the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so
much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be
contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists bungle
things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope ; there is nothing for it
but to collapse in deepest humiliation.»

SCIENCE IS MONEY
http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0507/24/D04-256983.htm
http://einsteinplag.tripod.com/intro.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

Pentcho Valev

Reply to this Message

Dirk Van de moortel - 29 Jul 2005 10:25 GMT

FALSITY IS TRUTH
The postulate of constancy of the speed of light is false (A. Einstein,
"Relativity", Chapter 22), but the theory of relativity is true.

The only place on the web where google finds the string
"postulate of constancy of the speed of light is false"
is on your page
www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm
I did not find this statement in my copy of the book,
and I didn't find it in the version of the book
http://www.wbabin.net/einstein.zip
that is found on http://www.wbabin.net/index.htm

What I do find is this:
| "In the second place our result shows that, 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 and to which we have already frequently referred,
| 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. Now we might think that as a
| consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and
| with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the
| dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only
| conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim
| an unlinlited domain of validity ; its results hold only so
| long as we are able to disregard the influences of
| gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

So, you just have given us another instance of a linear
combination of your dishonesty and stupidity.

B.t.w, I'm still waiting for an answer to
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e51556f68cf6f5a
where you fabricated another quote.

Dirk Vdm

Reply to this Message

Harry - 29 Jul 2005 10:51 GMT

> FALSITY IS TRUTH
> The postulate of constancy of the speed of light is false (A. Einstein,
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> So, you just have given us another instance of a linear
> combination of your dishonesty and stupidity.

Whose stupidity? A quote is usually put in between quotation marks: " xyz ".
You did so but he did not! Absence of such quotation marks may be
interpreted to indicate that it was not a quotation but a paraphrase or even
just a conclusion (conclusions are debatable of course).

Harald

Reply to this Message

Dirk Van de moortel - 29 Jul 2005 11:52 GMT

> > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1122627249.192209.265190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> Whose stupidity?

Pentcho Valev's:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nightmare.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NoProgress.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Initiaded.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OrigInfinity.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TheTheory.html

> A quote is usually put in between quotation marks: " xyz ".
> You did so but he did not! Absence of such quotation marks may be
> interpreted to indicate that it was not a quotation but a paraphrase or even
> just a conclusion (conclusions are debatable of course).

Yes, I had noticed that this time he deviously left the quotation
marks away. But his usage of the parentetical expression
<quote>
(A. Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 22)
</quote>
clearly indicates that it was meant as a quotation.
Nothing is debatable about Pentcho Valev. He is a dishonest
fraud, as can be seen in the part that you conveniently snipped:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e51556f68cf6f5a

Dirk Vdm

Reply to this Message

Harry - 29 Jul 2005 14:40 GMT

> > > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1122627249.192209.265190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> Nothing is debatable about Pentcho Valev. He is a dishonest
> fraud, as can be seen in the part that you conveniently snipped:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e51556f68cf6f5a

I doubt that your insinuation is correct about his *non*-parenthetical
expression being meant to suggest parenthesis, and I did not read your link
to that off-topic subject. Still, I nowadays rarely bother to comment on his
contributions as they are rarely useful for anything.

Cheers,
Harald

Reply to this Message

Dirk Van de moortel - 29 Jul 2005 14:43 GMT

> > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:42e9fb88$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>
> I doubt that your insinuation

No insinuation.
Statement of fact.

Dirk Vdm

is correct about his *non*-parenthetical

> expression being meant to suggest parenthesis, and I did not read your link
> to that off-topic subject. Still, I nowadays rarely bother to comment on his
> contributions as they are rarely useful for anything.
>
> Cheers,
> Harald

Reply to this Message

Harry - 29 Jul 2005 15:03 GMT

> > > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > news:42e9fb88$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> > >
> > > Pentcho Valev's:

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nightmare.html

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NoProgress.html

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Initiaded.html

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OrigInfinity.html

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TheTheory.html

> > > > A quote is usually put in between quotation marks: " xyz ".
> > > > You did so but he did not! Absence of such quotation marks may be
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> > > Nothing is debatable about Pentcho Valev. He is a dishonest
> > > fraud, as can be seen in the part that you conveniently snipped:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e51556f68cf6f5a

> > I doubt that your insinuation
>
> No insinuation.
> Statement of fact.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Unscientific. On top of that, I just read your above link, and you surprise
me greatly, for with Yahoosearch, result 1 of about 22 for Ignatius of
Loyola "white I believe to be black" - 0.84 sec. :

"In the book, 'The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola', translated
from the authorised Latin by Charles Zegar M.A., and prefaced by no less a
person than the Rt. Rev. Nicholas Wiseman, B.D., the following occurs:
"That we may in all things attain the truth, that we may not err in
anything, we ought ever to hold it a fixed principle, that what I see white
I believe to be black if the Romish Church define it so to be". "
- http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?printerFriendly=true&ArtKey=face

Harald

> is correct about his *non*-parenthetical
> > expression being meant to suggest parenthesis, and I did not read your link
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > Cheers,
> > Harald

Reply to this Message

Dirk Van de moortel - 29 Jul 2005 15:16 GMT

> > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:42ea3111$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
[quoted text clipped - 84 lines]
>
> Unscientific.

Don't care. Fact is fact.

Dirk Vdm

Reply to this Message

sal - 29 Jul 2005 18:37 GMT

>> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:42ea3111$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
[quoted text clipped - 89 lines]
> surprise me greatly, for with Yahoosearch, result 1 of about 22 for
> Ignatius of Loyola "white I believe to be black" - 0.84 sec. :

Look at Dirk's reference again. There were _two_ quoted statements in
PV's post, and Dirk's comment which begins "I could not find this..." is
placed immediately after the _second_ of the quoted statements, to which
it seems to refer. And that statement is (with quotes and spelling shown
as given by PV),

> "The traveller measures the clock at rest to be slower than the
> travelling clock but on his return the traveller finds the clock at
> rest to be faster than the travelling clock."

That appears to be the "silly statement" to which Dirk was responding,
not the rather well-known quote from Ignatius.

But why am I defending Dirk? He of all people certainly can come to his
own defense if he wants to. whatever...

Signature

Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

Reply to this Message

Dirk Van de moortel - 30 Jul 2005 09:25 GMT

[snip]

> > >> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6e51556f68cf6f5a
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> But why am I defending Dirk? He of all people certainly can come to his
> own defense if he wants to. whatever...

Indeed I can, but when the "attack" is as toothless, irrelevant,
careless and misplaced like it was here (and like it usually is),
I don't think that a defensive reply is called for :-)

Thanks anyway,
Dirk Vdm

Reply to this Message

T Wake - 29 Jul 2005 10:35 GMT

>FALSITY IS TRUTH
>The postulate of constancy of the speed of light is false (A. Einstein,
>"Relativity", Chapter 22), but the theory of relativity is true.

When you make something up as the first sentence of your post, you know its
going to be a winner.

Crackpot. Are you tj Frazir in disguise?

--
" einstein wrote one copie of The Universe .
they would not publish it.
I own the only copie ...he was my dad."

tj Frazir - newsgroup posting - sci.physics - 29 July 2005

Reply to this Message

Bilge - 30 Jul 2005 18:09 GMT

Pentcho Valev, who regrets donating his brain to the vet school:

>FALSITY IS TRUTH

black is white
up is down
over is under
stupid is smart
crass is refined

Feel free to employ anyone of these in your next idiotic,
spammed troll.

Reply to this Message

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / July 2005

1984