Re: Basics series proposed

From: Jim Greenfield (greenfield_7_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/20/04 

Date: 19 Nov 2004 19:28:15 -0800

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<ur4qp0h76tc7sa6dmt8im0ttcq6fmu8p2k@4ax.com>...
> On 17 Nov 2004 13:20:46 -0800, jowr.pi@gmail.com (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>
> >greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0411170036.67ec79d@posting.google.com>...
> >> fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.0411141228.635d878c@posting.google.com>...
> >> > greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0411132202.4ddc7245@posting.google.com>...
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> > If you think we are religious you should leave. If you knew anything
> >> > about religious people, you would realise that arguing with them will
> >> > change nothing because religion is taken on faith and not evidence -
> >> > and no amount of arguing can change that. Even though you have blinded
> >> > yourself to scientific evidence, I hope you aren't blind to simple
> >> > logic.
> >> >
> >> > Do you go to religious groups and *** on the people there because you
> >> > disagree, just like you do here?
> >>
> >> If they couldn't explain how light from two sources can hit a receptor
> >> moving from one to the other at the SAME velocity, and this was the
> >> very basis of their creed, then I might.
> >> So consider yourself shat on!
> >>
> >> Jim G
> >> c'=c+v
> >> PS: don't cry
> >
> >I notice two things.
> >
> >First, the mental block. You still can't comprehend that experimental
> >evidence supports SR.
>
> Geese, NO evidence supports SR.
> The only thing that supports it is your FAITH!

Frighteningly, this is still only a "faith in training".
He indicated in another thread with Al S and cronies, in which the
mutual backslapping was in support of the crap in the FAQ's, that he
is actually only a Relativity neophyte. ie that he hasn't finished
studying it yet, has never questioned it, and yet has an unshakable
belief in everything taught him thus far, and that all in the future
from his mentors will be exactly true as well.
Is that not bomb-chucker mentally of the first order?
>
> >Even though SR reduces to Newtonian kinematics
> >at the v << c limit, which corrosponds to daily life.
> >
> >Second, the "don't cry" phrase. This is something I expect to, and
> >often do, see in online games. Insults that "work" in starcraft do not
> >work in here.

I was reacting to a note of hysteria which creeps in when logic trumps
belief. I realise that phsycologically you have a lot invested.
>
> What Jim said is true. SR is a circularly logical exercise.

...and not that hard to spot! Amazing that so many of our brightest
can be taken in by it.
>
> A theory based on the assumption that OWLS is always measured as c
> will...surprise, surprise....show that OWLS always equals c!
>
> Now that's what I call REAL Nobel prize stuff...!

How could the Nobel committee ever give the science award to a
non-believer?
It would be akin to the Pope recanting his faith.

Jim G
c'=c+v
>
> HW.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Quantcast