Because to my recollection he had never deviated from mocking Kondrashov’s synergistic epistasis idea. Tracking that down was nothing more than entering “epistasis” in the TOL search box.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Why don't creationists publish?
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
Because to my recollection he had never deviated from mocking Kondrashov’s synergistic epistasis idea. Tracking that down was nothing more than entering “epistasis” in the TOL search box.
Well, tracking down my question only required you to have actually read the post you quoted.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Sorry if you got your feelings hurt. Want me to send you a puppy dog too?
Yes, I have it both in English, and in the native German as it was originally written. I am going to look at it again, because, as I said in an earlier post to you, I don't recall that Einstein tried to prove the constancy of the speed of light. I thought you concurred in that.
Sure. I can take my frustrations with you out on it.
No, I didn't.
Let us know when you're ready.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
No, I didn't. I probably screwed up my wording by trying to stay away from the implication that he succeeded.
In his paper, he presents an attempted proof for the constancy of light speed. Did you find it?
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
The nearest thing I see to what you seem to be saying is in Section "3. Theory of the Transformation of Coordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relative to the Former”. Within that section he states:
“We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity.”
Is that what you are referring to?
At the rate this conversation is going, I just might stomp on that puppy and then send it to you.
If you have something material to say, then just present it so I can look at it and respond. I am not going to prod you for a bunch of little hints. I will look at your posts, but if they are as devoid of specifics as your last few, then I will ignore you.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Ooooo...
The dreaded ignore ploy!
The dreaded ignore ploy!
It was a simple question. Einstein attempts to prove the constancy of light speed. You got the paragraph where he introduces it, the next paragraph is the proof.
But, by all means, stomp away.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
if it's really really important that someone knows you're ignoring them, you're doing it wrong
and to make sure you get it, here's a racist superman:
It was a simple question. Einstein attempts to prove the constancy of light speed. You got the paragraph where he introduces it, the next paragraph is the proof.
But, by all means, stomp away.
The next paragraph is all of two sentences long, with the last part of the second sentence being the standard equation of a spherical wave emanating from the origin of a non-moving Cartesian coordinate system.
The puppy, or what was the puppy, is on its way. Pending something far more substantial than this, I hereby terminate my participation with you on this subject.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
If you don't like Einstein's "proof," just say so. :idunno:
| “We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c." |
That he spent only a couple of lines on it is hardly my fault, is it?
Good luck getting it past customs, not to mention the Feds. :chuckle:
:wave2:
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
That next two-line paragraph that Stripe says is the proof is actually just mathematically defining a wave in a coordinate system that Einstein then uses in the next couple of pages of his paper.
Stripe is really coo-coo on this one, but I guess he succeeded in suckering me in for a few posts.
Stripe is really coo-coo on this one, but I guess he succeeded in suckering me in for a few posts.
Let's just read the passage in its entirety:
| We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity. At the time when the origin of the coordinates is common to the two systems, let a spherical wave be emitted therefrom, and be propagated with the velocity c in system K. Transforming this equation with the aid of our equations of transformation we obtain [a solution]. The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible. |
— Equations deleted. Source.
Looks to me like Einstein claimed to have proved "that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c." :idunno:
Are you saying that Einstein did not prove the constancy of the speed of light?