Re: Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton

xxein_at_bellsouth.net
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: 8 Mar 2005 17:03:16 -0800

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1110261186.253202.116880@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:1110156773.687462.167730@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> > > > > I think we will never reach completeness of physical
> > > > > understanding.
> > > > > I also think that, even in (the possibly hypothetical) case
an
> > > > > 'ether'
> > > > > would stubbornly continue to have exactly all the right
> > > > > properties
> > > > > to remain undetected (or by definition perhaps even
> > > > > undetectable),
> > > > > there will always be people who cannot live without it. In
short,
> > > > > I think that religion and belief in the supernatural will
never die
> > > > > out.
> > > > > But I could be wrong.
> > > > > I hope I'm wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dirk Vdm
> > > >
> > > > xxein: C'mon, you are being a hypocrite again. What is this
> > > > bullcrap?
> > > > You are insinuating that an ether is a belief different than
the
> > > > belief that light passes you at exactly c?
> > > >
> > > > They are in the same boat,
> > > > in the same sea, eating the same rations.
> > >
> > > You are doing exactly the same as the creationist calling
> > > main stream biologists "evolutionists with just another belief."
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Do us a favor and measure the one-way speed of light so that we
all
> > > > may quit the belief aspect of it and allow it to be physically
true.
> > > >
> > > > Btw, I was writing a post that did not take umbrage. It was
lost. In
> > > > the meantime I changed my feeling of belief in what you are. I
now
> > > > take clear umbrage. You, apparently, cannot separate physics
from
> > > > belief.
> > >
> > > I think we will never reach completeness of physical
understanding.
> > > I also think that, even in (the possibly hypothetical) case an
'ether'
> > > would stubbornly continue to have exactly all the right
properties
> > > to remain undetected (or by definition perhaps even
undetectable),
> > > there will always be people who cannot live without it. In short,
I
> > > think that religion and belief in the supernatural will never die
out.
> > > But I could be wrong.
> > > I hope I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > In your case I'm obviously right.
> > > You are a typical creationist.
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > xxein: When you are so wrong about me being a creationist, how can
I
> > or anybody else have any credence in whatever you write/post?
>
> I meant to say that you are the *exact* analogon of a creationist,
> and you look like one from top to bottom. And not only to me.
> I don't care about that, but seeing your reaction, apparently you
> do. That is *your* problem, and *you* can do something about
> it. I can't, and frankly I couldn't care less whether you do
> something about it.
>
> >
> > Let's put it this way. I am right because you let your "belief"
> > dictate, not only physics, but the way you judge all people.
Snip-snap
> > he/she is what you immediately think they are. No additional
thinking
> > required.
>
> Let me put it this way- for the third time now:
> I think we will never reach completeness of physical understanding.
> I also think that, even in (the possibly hypothetical) case an
'ether'
> would stubbornly continue to have exactly all the right properties
> to remain undetected (or by definition perhaps even undetectable),
> there will always be people who cannot live without it. In short, I
> think that religion and belief in the supernatural will never die
out.
>
>
> If *you* think that this is a declaration of my belief, then you
> are severely sick and/or incredibly stupid.
> I have seen you and I have talked to you. You are totally ignorant
> and you don't learn.
> Probably you are dishonest as well. Probably you are a troll, so
> you could even be worse than a creationist.
>
> >
> > Your credibility is zero.
>
> That is what every creationist will shout to the scientist who has
> just put him in a corner.
>
> > You are nothing but a classroom snitch
> > trying to gain points with your teacher (from whom you will never
learn
> > anything).
> >
> > Creationist? That is so antithetical to my thinking. Do you ever
read
> > my posts that are not threaded to you?
>
> It is exactly your reaction to what I wrote, that makes you the
> exact analogon of the creationist.
> I see you don't like that. That's your problem.
>
> >
> > And to climax it all, who would create a goof site if they didn't
have
> > such a strong belief?
>
> In the context of that site, the only real belief I have, is that
there
> will always ignorant, arrogant and malicious idiots who are
> prepared to make fools of themselves, apparently for the benefit
> of our entertainment. That I do believe, together with this:
> I think we will never reach completeness of physical understanding.
> I also think that, even in (the possibly hypothetical) case an
'ether'
> would stubbornly continue to have exactly all the right properties
> to remain undetected (or by definition perhaps even undetectable),
> there will always be people who cannot live without it. In short, I
> think that religion and belief in the supernatural will never die
out.
>
> So, now I have told you four times.
> Think about it - if there is some room in that tiny mind of
> yours ;-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
>
> > Even your underware fails to hide you. Freud
> > has you nailed.
> >
> > A little knowledge is a dangerous thing (especially when combined
with
> > impertinent belief).
> >
> > Go preach on alt.dvm.phys.
> >

xxein: "I think we will never reach completeness of physical
understanding." That much, I can agree with. The "In short..."
implies to me that you are connecting an ether to "...religion and
belief in the supernatural..." as something inferior to believing that
the one-way speed of light is c to all moving observers.

To remove any confusion that I might have as to what you really mean -
just answer two questions with a simple yes or no.

Is it possible that some sort of "ether" exists as a substrate?

Is it possible that the one-way speed of light is an isotropic c to all
(moving) observers?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton
    ... > I think we will never reach completeness of physical understanding. ... > think that religion and belief in the supernatural will never die ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Torture - A lawful good act?
    ... scribed into the ether: ... some dying to try to protect your lifestyle. ... want their children sent to die. ... Cause lord knows that without rodeo clowns, the streets would run red with ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Re: Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton
    ... Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ... > I think we will never reach completeness of physical understanding. ... You are insinuating that an ether is a belief different than the ... I was writing a post that did not take umbrage. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton
    ... Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ... > I think we will never reach completeness of physical understanding. ... You are insinuating that an ether is a belief different than the ... I was writing a post that did not take umbrage. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Ethnic insults
    ... CDB wrote: ... made it through the ether. ... My own understanding of the word was that ... it had always primarily meant "Mexican" (but look what I thought about ...
    (alt.usage.english)