Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- From: bz <bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 18:02:26 +0000 (UTC)
Phil <cms_pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1180193949.669258.233290
@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
.....
In any event, practictioners of SR simply do not bother with concepts
which, even if consistent in principal, are not subject to
experimental confirmation separably.
That should be extended to all scientists.
Only philosophers and non scientists spend time thinking about things that
can not be tested[or lead to something that can be tested].
Only those things they think are
confirmed by experience are allowed.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- From: Phil
- Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- References:
- The real paradoxes in SR.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- From: Phil
- The real paradoxes in SR.
- Prev by Date: Re: question for you morons
- Next by Date: Re: When do EM waves collide and when do they superposition???
- Previous by thread: Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- Next by thread: Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|