Re: Aether or whatever
- From: sal <pragmatist@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:22:37 -0400
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:44:39 +0200, harry wrote:
"sal" <pragmatist@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.10.17.16.12.59.993549@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:03:29 +0200, harry wrote:
"Aatu Koskensilta" <aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Q55Zg.7926$wU3.6797@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
harry wrote:
"Aatu Koskensilta" <aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:GZ2Zg.7839$2M2.116@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That just goes to show your abysmal ignorance. Among physicists it's
well known that whatever does not exist, which explains their
commonly rather dim view of new crackpot "theories" of whatever.
You merely claim so - repetition and bullying won't help. Your last
remark even suggests that Lorentz and Einstein as well as Dirac were
"crackpots" and you accuse physicists in general of making
unscientific claims.
How does my last claim suggest that "Lorentz and Einstein as well as
Dirac were "crackpots""?
They were proponents of the existence of some kind of ether.
In any case, whatever was often postulated to have a wide variety of
physical properties and to interact in various ways with matter, and
thus the existence or non-existence of whatever is a scientific
question as good as any. But whatever.
I agree, if we include metaphysics in science (and I do). Metaphysics
is however not physics, by definition.
Sure it does. The concept of whatever was a very important in 19th
century physics, and its proposed physical properties were studied
by such great names as Gwollop and Freitznautzer.
It was of no importance in 20th century physics -- its existence or
non-existence has little bearing on physics as long as it belongs to
metaphysics.
How dare you belittle the work of Freitznautzer!
I don't talk about his work, but if he disagreed with my above
statement then I dare to respectfully disagree.
I don't see that. Perhaps you should be more specific about where you
feel Freitznautzer's reasoning went wrong. Do you see the same issues
with Gwollop, as well?
Exactly (supposing you address the one who brought them up), perhaps he
likes to elaborate?
Keep in mind that these are relatively old works and the notation may
seem archaic, but you shouldn't let that detract from your appreciation
of the underlying ideas.
In contrast, how do you dare to
belittle the opinions of Lorentz, Einstein as well as Dirac?
I try not to belittle anyone's opinions in this group. (Not always
successfully, I admit.)
Sal, if you look carefully, this was my attempt to try to bring Aatu to
reason in view of his claim that I "belittled" some philosophers. It
wasn't addressed to you, and I know that you are generally respectful of
others.
:-)
Sorry, Harry, I just couldn't resist jumping in.
I was having a hard time figuring out if you had realized that "Aatu" was
just spoofing and thought I'd play along a bit. Your responses all looked
so serious it was hard to tell.
Gwollop and Freitznautzer indeed. Wonder how long it took him to come up
with plausible names that would have zero Google hits? (Er, except for
the ones hitting on this thread, that is.)
Regards,
Harald
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Aether or whatever
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Aether or whatever
- From: harry
- Re: Aether or whatever
- References:
- Re: Aether or whatever
- From: harry
- Re: Aether or whatever
- Prev by Date: Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzschild solution - a response from Stephen Crothers.
- Next by Date: Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzschild solution - a response from Stephen Crothers.
- Previous by thread: Re: Aether or whatever
- Next by thread: Re: Aether or whatever
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
