The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 21:31:39 +0100
From: Steve Taylor
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Subject: Re: Alan Blumlein site
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <6RWg9.101$Fc5.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Organization: Zen Internet
Kevin Aylward wrote:
> I have merely been
> pointing out the fallacy of the arguments that were presented in support
> of this view.
Maybe, but if you knew more maybe you'd agree.
> I'm way ahead of you on this. Do you really think that I'm that daft.
> You can use hindsight to evaluate what is reasonable for most or
> reasonable only for a few. What you suggesting is that *everything* that
> is initially unknown has merit.
...and your suggesting that nothing has ! Unless it is a theoretical
construct rather than a physical one !
>>Besides, relativity is obvious
> You think so...Ahmmmm.
No, but I took *your argument* "reductio ab absurdam".
> I doubt it. If I measure the velocity of light coming from the sun and
> keep running into it faster and faster, why should its light always be
> coming in at the same speed? If you think that this is to be expected,
> you dont understand basic mechanics at all. Even today, there is *no*
> explanation. It just is. It the way the universe works, but to pretend
> that one understands why, is quite nonsense.
Read my post, note as above.
> Your doing exactly what your accusing me of falling for.
Precisely ! seems silly doesn't it ?
Do you think then there are no engineers of genius, by your standard ?
> have already pointed out that he equations of SR were already there.
> Thats why they are called the Lorenz Equations. However, the
> interpretation of those equations are radically different
...and then there is the infamous cosmological constant. And Einstein's
attitude to Planck ?
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup