> Tony Hollick latest post is, as usual, full of errors, I list a few of them
> below but I only glanced at it so I don't claim it's anywhere near complete.
Perhaps if John Clark took a bit longer to understand these
problems, he would have a better understanding of them.
I give a _physical_ explanation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty
principle, whereby I expressly demarcate the _physics_ of
Heisenberg's ideas from the observationalist/positivist religion:
> >All this [ Heisenberg's] 'observationalist' stuff is positivist old
> >hat and can be demolished quite readily. We can _retrodictively
> >correct_ the observation results.
My assertion that we can retrodictively correct the 'observational'
'evidence' to the extent that we understand the underlying processes
and interactions is simply _true_ (we do it all the time), and I
cannot understand why John Clark should fail to grasp the point,
unless he doesn't _want_ to understand it.
> No you can not, not readily and not at all
> >>Planck's constant is constant
> >Wake up man -- it's a ratio!
> Could you please explain why a ratio can not be a constant.
I was hoping to get Christian to see the difference between a ratio
and an (alleged) Absolute property. SR/GR simultaneously states
that there are no absolute properties, then tries to sneak in an
Absolute velocity of light. It just doesn't work.
> >Not [the speed of light is constant] according to Richard Feynman
> >in Quantum Electrodynamics.
>Dead wrong, Richard Feynman never said anything that stupid in his life.
I have a hundred dollars that says that I can give you citation for
Feynman's saying exactly this, that photons can travel faster and
slower than 'c'. In QED. Wanna play? >:-}
> >Not according to observation.
> A statement without a particle of fact.
We start with a uniform cubic space, say one metre along each edge.
On the north side is a blue LED pointing south, and alongside it, a
photoelectric cell likewise aimed southwards.
On the south side we have a red LED pointed north, and a northwardly
aimed photoelectric cell.
Our apparatus is rigged so that the red and the blue LEDs fire
simuultaneusly. The photoelectric cells record the time of flight
of the red and the blue photons.
Armed with this kit, we can do a timeslice-by-timeslice analysis of
the positions of the photons within the cube. We can show
_conclusively_ that -- for the photons to start where and when they
do, and end up when and where they do, the red photons MUST travel
at 2c relative to the blue photons.
Your whole crumbling edifice rests upon the empty assertion that
simultaneity is impossible, and that we cannot establish a uniform
mapping of the photons' positions. Yet we can, and do. QED.
> >Neither Special nor General Relativity have given science or
> >technology anything it didn't have anyway.
> Spectacularly wrong.
So name six technologies critically (patentably) dependent on
Special and General Relativity. You can't. And don't hand out that
tired old 'GPS' nonsense -- NASA use CLASSICAL MECHANICS for all
navigational calculations. e=mc^2 was derived classically 'way
before SR/GR, as every knowledgeable scholar in the field is (or
should be) aware. 'Black Holes' preceded GR by more than a hundred
years.
Just name six. If you can. Wanna bet?
John, I know the relativistic religion is alluring. But it's just
plain myth... >:-}
Tony