Re: Speed of light Eric?

From: Marcus Wellpoth (wellpoth_at_gmx.de)
Date: 08/08/04 

Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:01:07 +0200

Eric Gisse wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 04:55:02 GMT, "Androcles"
> <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Gisse" <fseggNO!SPAM@uaf.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bb88h01pab884arcfjgm83qu3mmjhoknl1@4ax.com...
>>| On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 20:53:36 GMT, "Androcles"
>>| <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>| [snip]
>>|
>>| >Disproven with rhetoric by a
>>| >| >> middle-school theologian who just MAKES *** UP as he goes along.
>>| >| >>
>>| >| >> Wait, no. I think you are an idiot. That makes more sense.
>>| >
>>| >Only to you. Maybe opinions are subjective.
>>| >Oh... I forgot... They ARE.
>>| >Androcles.
>>|
>>| By this, I take it you presume Mitchell to be right. Am I correct?
>>|
>>| [snip]
>>
>>Not at all. Opinions vary from individual to individual, and we all think
>>we are right. This ng is all about having a difference of opinion, and we
>>judge others by the objectivity/subjectivity ratio they demonstrate, which
>>is inversely proportional to our own.
>>Thus if your opinion is in total agreement with mine I consider you a
>>clever fellow, but if your opinion is diametrically opposed to mine you
>>are an idiot. You would think the same of me.
>>IQ has little to do with opinion, a well thought out and carefully
>>considered opinion takes time, but IQ measures the reaction speed of
>>programmed responses.
>>I interpret the phrase "make up *** as he goes along" to mean "has a
>>different opinion to mine" and "disproven with rhetoric" to mean "has a
>>different opinion to mine". The pot is blacker than the kettle, and the
>>kettle looks like a witch's cat in a coal cellar at midnight. Only by
>>turning on a light can they be distinguished, and neither seems to have
>>one pointed at themselves.
>
> After a month of dealing with Mitchell, I think im qualified to say
> that he is an idiot.
>
> Mike Helland has a different opinion. He doesn't appear to deny
> reality.
>
> Michell is just stupid. He insists on making predictions about
> pheonomena that are only predicted by GR, yet when GR is used or cited
> to point out the error in his understanding I am told to put my bible
> away.
>
>>Let us have a little test, quite harmless, that has nothing to do with
>>intelligence, only with opinion.
>>What, in your opinion, is the best source to obtain an understanding of
>>relativity from?
>
> A book. For the moment, the book that fills that role is Carroll's "an
> introduction to general relativity spacetime and geometry".
>
> Furthermore, a book published that isn't *** all over by other
> physicists for being useless or incorrect.
>
> I like books.
>
>>
>>When you've given it, is it likely that we'll agree?
>>a) no
>>b) not likely
>>c) very likely
>>d) yes
>>e) don't know.
>
> a
>
>>
>>What criteria did you use to come to your answer?
>
> You think relativity is wrong from stem to stern, so the answer you
> would think to be correct would be "nothing". That wasn't my answer,
> so b.
>
> How about this.
>
> Do you acknowledge, "errors" aside, that SR and GR accurately predict
> things in nature?
>
> Do you acknowlege that newtonian dynamics is simply wrong?
>
>>
>>Androcles.
>>
>>
>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every good book would surely be completed by a good lecture, excersises and
discussions with your fellow students.
mw

Quantcast