178
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 149:
Line 149: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:World History Lecture Eleven (view source)
Revision as of 04:10, April 25, 2009
, 04:10, April 25, 2009→Postulates of Special Relativity
::::::::::::: Clement, there's no substance in your replies. You're just imitating and copying. This is a site for thinking. Please address the ''substance'' of my comments above. [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:33, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Clement, there's no substance in your replies. You're just imitating and copying. This is a site for thinking. Please address the ''substance'' of my comments above. [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:33, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
<- unindent: ''Please address the substance of my comments above.'' Fine.
* ''Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???).'': I said that ''I keep it out of my science or history classes'', I don't censor it from history.
* '' I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here.'' I didn't quote the Bible, but I mentioned it - as I do now
* ''You seem to quote everything and everyone except the Bible.'' The Bible doesn't say much about the history of Prussia, the political parties Orwell belonged to, or the Theory of Special Relativity. You haven't quoted the Bible on these issues neither. At the moment, I try to treat Conservapedia as an ''educational'' source, not a ''spiritual'' one.
* '' You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate.'' If you want to state Einstein's postulates, you should try to represent them truthfully, i.e., use a wording which is accepted in physics. We're talking about something quite elementary, so a look in a text book should help. '''You still haven't given any source for your formulation of the postulates'''. Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.
* '' I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it.'' Pauli is nowadays most popular for his exclusion principle. But to say that ''had nothing to do with relativity'' is downright comical.
* '' I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. '' First, it isn't a description, it's a widespread formulation of Einstein's postulates. Second, yes the postulates don't ''preclude expressly'' that the speed of light increases. As BHarlan stated above, that's a conclusion of the postulates.
* ''Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.'' What ''formulas for relativity'' are you referring to?
Yes, I copied your edits above. I tried to address any statement of your edit. As for substance: Calling Pauli's work inadequate, and stating that he had ''nothing to do with the theory of relativity'' - though he wrote one of the most prominent articles on this subject made me cringe.
In a discussion, someone will always have the last word - at least temporarily. But you'll have the last word on the article, as I won't alter it against your will.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:10, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
== Regarding Trotsky ==
== Regarding Trotsky ==