Re: Naturally, there can be no "aether"; Special Relativity Lecture by Michael Fowler


Traveler wrote:
[snip]

> ... the notion
> that only relative motion exists that is complete devoid of meaning.
> In fact, it is stupid. Why? Because, in a system where every
> motion/position is relative to every other motion/position, one ends
> up with having every motion relative to itself. IOW, a
> self-referential system. There are more equally valid reasons but this
> one is sufficient. It should be a crime to teach young people that
> only relative motion/position exists. It should be punishable by
> flogging. Truth is, only the absolute exists. The relative is abstract
> and non-existent. Get a clue.
>
Isn't "the absolute" self-referential? How can one be sure that
"self-referential" is "not allowed" outside human logic, or for that
matter, *within* human logic?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-constants/

"...there is little philosophical consensus about the basis for the
distinction between logical and nonlogical expressions."

p

.