Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light


"harry" <harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1116768223.824008.313200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Curious" <anthonyroseuk-curious@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1116699504.606400.104400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Big help, Harry, thanks!! Very well put.
> > >
> > > >The diplomatic answer is that physics is about measurements, it's
> > > > not
> > > >intended to cover such "philosophical" matters.
> > >
> > > Yep, I've seen that time and again. Shoving it over into philosophy
> > > as
> > > if it doesn't matter is a bit of a cop-out I think.
> >
> > Harry is using a strawman. Physicis is not "not intended
> > to cover...", but "uncapable of covering..." for the simple
> > reason that some matters cannot be verified with
> > observations or measurements. That makes statements
> > about such matters essentially useless. And *that* answer
> > is not like Harry says diplomatic, but sharply practical.
> > If I tell you that all elementary particles are made of
> > thousands of identical little blips that are too small to be
> > detected, you will say that I am mad, because you are
> > convinced that it's not blips but groundles, and not
> > thousands but billions. Useless.
>
> It was no strawman and neither do I disagree with your alternative
> formulation.

Your usage of the word "diplomatic" and my prejudice
towards your agenda made me see it as a strawman.
His usage of the words "shoving it over" and "cop-out"
convinced me.

> Let's hope that your clarification helps.

I have severe doubts.

Dirk Vdm


.