Re: Dear Greenfield collection
From: Sam Wormley (swormley1_at_mchsi.com)
Date: 11/25/04
- Next message: Thomas Lee Elifritz: "Re: Extremophile Mars"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- In reply to: Eckard Blumschein: "Dear Greenfield collection"
- Next in thread: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Dear Greenfield collection"
- Reply: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Dear Greenfield collection"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:17:25 GMT
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
> I refer to the "Greenfield collection" as to Sam W, uncle Al and all the
> other self-entitled Einsteinians who managed to drag away all attention
> from my original topic "Is physics really a matter of belief?" and to
> pleasure-seeking attack the admittedly somewhat strange views of Jim,
> not Edward, Greenfield.
>
As Uncle Al points out, "Relativity is an internally self-consistent
geometry. It contains no paradoxes, it cannot be disproven from within".
The speed of light is a defined constant of nature. Relativity enjoys
so many empirical verifications... if fact there has NEVER been a
prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
- Next message: Thomas Lee Elifritz: "Re: Extremophile Mars"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- In reply to: Eckard Blumschein: "Dear Greenfield collection"
- Next in thread: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Dear Greenfield collection"
- Reply: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Dear Greenfield collection"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|