Re: O'Barr>Reality!
- From: "Hexenmeister" <vanquish@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 06:46:01 GMT
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138501054.299185.48460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In <1138472012.083677.291750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> oriel36 <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>I thought I got rid of the bogus history surrounding
>>the linking of aether with Newton's absolute space
>>and the so-called mmx.
>>
>>Few have a problem comprehending Newton's explicit
>>rejection of an aether * in 1704 which is why most
>>of the old guys here look around to present
>>relativistic concepts in other ways and without
>>success. Without Newton, relativity is just another
>>pathetic attempt among many to try and get around
>>the Newtonian Dystopian creation, the can of worms
>>inside a bigger can type thing.
>>
>>Want to know what Newton really meant with absolute
>>space and why it is a pathetic attempt to understand
>>the methods of heliocentric astronomers ?.
>>
>>"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling
>>the whole of space is of no use for explaining the
>>phenomena of Nature, since the motions of the
>>planets and comets are better explained without it,
>>by means of gravity; and it has never yet been
>>explained how this matter accounts for gravity. The
>>only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
>>be to interfere with and slow down the motions of
>>those large celestial bodies, and weaken the order
>>of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of bodies,
>>it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts
>>which their heat and all their active force consists
>>in. Further, since matter of this sort is not only
>>completely useless, but would actually interfere
>>with the operations of Nature, and weaken them,
>>there is no solid reason why we should believe in
>>any such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be
>>utterly rejected." Optics 1704
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
> What a joy to read. Some actual thinking going on
> in this post!
(deletes by Androcles)
Ah, sigh... a fellow fuckwit.
Thanks for reading.
Androcles.
.
- References:
- O'Barr>Reality!
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: O'Barr>Reality!
- From: oriel36
- Re: O'Barr>Reality!
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- O'Barr>Reality!
- Prev by Date: Re: What is LET? RADIO WAVES ARE NOT COHERENT - ROBERTS.
- Next by Date: Re: Error in Weisstein's redshift
- Previous by thread: Re: O'Barr>Reality!
- Next by thread: Re: O'Barr>Reality!
- Index(es):