沒有哲學的科學正步入集體老年癡呆！

戴榕菁

和專業哲學界一樣，失去哲學思辨能力的科學界的一個普遍的病症就是閱讀能力的低下，而這種低下本身又伴隨著邏輯混亂。。。。。。

以DDWFTTW現象為例，他們會絞盡腦汁花費十多年的功夫試圖來說名DDWFTTW沒有違背熱力學定律，但是就沒有人想到過如果DDWFTTW在沒有外加動力的情況下都能超風速順風運行的話，那麽它超出風速的那部分就可以用來生產無中生有的能量。。。。。。

一旦有人向他們指出這個連中學生都應該明白的道理時，如同那位“白草”的混亂邏輯就出現了：即便超風速能運行，它仍然需要風在後麵吹它。。。。。。今天我還收到一位不知名的不知在哪裏得到我的Email的人士給我發來的類似白草的論調。。。。。。這就是典型的哲盲的表現：他們遇到一個問題就絞盡腦汁地隻想著這個問題，而忽略了與這個問題相關的其它因素。。。。。。

在DDWFTTW可以不需要外加動力而超風速的現象中，其實一個簡單的慣性坐標切換就可以告訴你：在與風速相同的慣性坐標係中，當DDWFTTW已經超出風速時，本來就不存在一個從後麵推動DDWFTTW的風力，因此，DDWFTTW就已經是在沒有任何來自後麵的風力的情況下自己運行了。。。。。。。

而對於這個結論的否認意味著你否認慣性坐標係中的物理特性的等價性，這比違背熱力學定律可能更嚴重。。。。。。這意味著你在課堂裏學的物理在火車上就不適用了。。。。。。但是哲盲科棍們管不了這麽多。。。當他們一門心思隻想著熱力學定律的時候，他們可以忽略慣性係的物理等價性。。。下次當他們再遇到慣性係的物理等價性問題時，他們又會忘掉熱力學的定律。。。。。。。

總之，沒有了哲學的科學在很大程度上正步入集體老年癡呆！

[慕容青草]

我在“跛腳的科學”一文中指出，沒有了哲學的科學以為數學和實驗可以解決一切，其實早已開始了跛腳。。。

這裏所說的白癡Vess馬上提供了一個最佳例子：他居然會要我做實驗來證實慣性係等價原理。。。

[慕容青草]

那位白癡Vess在被我那樣罵了之後居然還有臉繼續放屁。下麵是他的最新的email和我的回複：

His idiotic email:
【
"You said the the DDWFTTW vehicle would stop running if there is no wind."

Yes.

"we can conclude that DDWFTTW vehicle can move in ANY inertial system WITHOUT wind.....this is a simple application of the basic high school knowledge of physics."

Would you ever test this to see for yourself? If successful, this would blow the case wide open in a simple and direct way for everyone to see, including those of us hampered by Aristotelian failure to grasp inertial frame equivalence. From high school on down.
】

My response:
【
So finally you completely expose that you don't know the equivalence of inertial systems at all? From which country are you? I feel pity on the young students of your country who are not getting the proper education of physics as they deserve!
】

看來講英文的不要臉的臉皮比講中文的不要臉的還要厚。。。。

[慕容青草]

那位Vess沒完沒了地給我發胡言亂語的email，實在不堪其擾的之後，我給他回了如下的Email：

【
As long as you continue to email garbage to me, you will take the insult that you deserve.

You are not only uneducated in science and extremely poor in reading, but also lack the basic capacity of doing logical thinking, and don't have the least memory of what you have said....basically your are a shameless idiot.

You said the the DDWFTTW vehicle would stop running if there is no wind. I told you that if you take a frame moving with the wind then there is NO wind blowing on the DDWFTTW vehicle after its speed exceeds the wind, but the DDWFTTW would be still moving unlimitedly based on the repeated demonstrations during the past decade.....that is to say: the DDWFTTW can move unlimited in the system that is moving with the wind....therefore, according to the equivalence of inertial systems, we can conclude that DDWFTTW vehicle can move in ANY inertial system WITHOUT wind.....this is a simple application of the basic high school knowledge of physics.

But you keep sending me garbage emails because you first don't have the knowledge of the equivalence of the inertial systems in physics.....then somehow you seem trying to claim that you do know the knowledge of the equivalence of inertial systems, but still don't see how your claim that the DDWFTTW would stop running when there is no wind would violate the principle of equivalence of inertial systems.....Then finally, after you admit that the DDWFTTW vehicle would not have any wind blowing on its back in a system moving with the wind, you just simply seemed to have FORGOT that you once said that the DDWFTTW vehicle would stop running without wind.

Most importantly, you are such shameless idiot and would waste the time of others by repeating your idiotic mistakes!

Your are a logically confused idiot because you said or claimed to agree on these logically conflicted things: 1) the DDWFTTW would stop running without wind; 2) in an inertial system that runs at the speed of wind, there is NO wind at all, and thus there is no wind blowing on the back of the DDWFTTW vehicle. The ONLY wind in that system is the wind caused by the motion of the vehicle, and thus the wind comes from front not from back, at the same speed of the vehicle; 3) physics are the same in all inertial systems; 4) both earth system so as the ground of earth and the system moving with the wind are inertial systems;

How can you say or agree on all the above things without any feeling of logical difficulty in your mind unless your mind is severely messed up? Do you have any local clinic to help you with your problem of basic logical thinking???

So you are such a shameless idiot that would feel no guilt to waste the time of others by brazenly repeating your idiotic mistake!!!

】

大家可以自己去查字典翻譯上麵這段文字。。。這段文字同樣使用於講中文的人，不論是在哪個網站。。。



附錄：

下麵是文學城論壇的一位名叫“老健”的讀者的評論：

【看了下那個Blackbird car, 是很有意思，值得思量，不過這並不違反能量守恒，也不明白你的哲學和這個有何關係 -老鍵- ♂ 給 老鍵 發送悄悄話 老鍵 的博客首頁 老鍵 的個人群組 (0 bytes) (2 reads) 01/02/2022 postreply 22:16:30】

如果還有哪位願意與Vess為伍，也不妨象那位老健一樣自我暴露一下。。。

[慕容青草]

下麵是在萬維和網友的對話：

作者：有哲 回複 慕容青草 留言時間：2022-01-02 19:22:12

應是 ：沒有科學的哲學正步入集體老年癡呆！

作者：慕容青草 回複 有哲 留言時間：2022-01-02 20:10:59

先明確一點：我們這裏說的科學或哲學都指的是專業科學和專業哲學這兩個社會領域，而不是科學和哲學這兩個邏輯領域。。。

在明確了上述這點之後，難道你是說專業哲學還活著？這倒是考古新聞！

你錯了，我這裏所舉的例子表明的是：沒有哲學的科學已步入集體老年癡呆。。。。至於專業哲學，或許你有什麽關於他們還活著的內部消息。。。但至少在市麵上已經看不出來了。。。

[慕容青草]

下麵是那位不知名人士的email：

【

On Sunday, January 2, 2022, 02:43:05 PM EST, Vess Velikov wrote:

Hi. I just read your article "Self-feedback Perpetual Motion and Violation of Thermodynamics Laws" about Rick Cavallaro's Blackbird and similar DDWFTTW carts. In it you seek to solve the paradox of their apparent violation of the laws of thermodynamics. To pick this apart, the article spins away into various scopes of definition, types of perpetual motion, global vs local accounting, succumbing to entropy, etc.

But there is no paradox to solve. The cart does not use perpetual motion, claimed or apparent. The energy source is the wind, defined as the differential motion between air and ground. If there is wind, there is energy to power the cart. If there is no wind, there is no energy. Simple as that. Same as any other wind-powered device (like a sailboat, or wind turbine). The need to spin off into philosophical depths to find a solution to an energy problem for Blackbird, is the same as for a sailboat; that is to say, none.

One twist is an intuition that throws off many people when thinking about this, and that is thinking about the differential motion of air vs. vehicle; and if this was the energy source, then it indeed disappears once the vehicle reaches wind speed, and then (to make matters even worse) reverses. But this is not the energy source; it is the differential motion of air vs. ground. And this stays the same regardless of vehicle speed. And DDWFTTW carts have a clever arrangement of parts, that sits at this interface and taps into this energy no matter the vehicle's speed, or relative/apparent wind.

In a more fine grained view, very simply put, the energy comes from the air processed by the propeller. (This is in the ground frame of reference, but you can analyze from any frame of reference for the same result). The air (blown backward) slows down, therefore its kinetic energy is reduced, and this kinetic energy goes into the cart, used for a combination of acceleration and thermal loss (mechanical and aerodynamic). Mostly acceleration in the beginning, tapering to no acceleration and all thermal loss at the steady-state DDWFTTW speed.

(Your Appendix I analysis contains a fundamental error about the torque on the propeller at faster than wind speed, but I avoided talking about it because it doesn't really bear on the points above. But I will, if you'd like).

】

真不知今天的科學界的這種根本讀不懂文章還自淫自嗨的毛病是怎麽遺傳來的。。。