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

On 25 Sep 2005 12:34:11 -0700, "platopes" <platopes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>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?

No. Absolute is the opposite of relative, by definition. It means
independent whereas relative means dependent. One day soon,
relativists will learn the true meaning of relative and absolute. I am
tired of know-it-all idiots talking about absolute motion needing a
frame of reference. Bend over goddamnit, I'll show you a fucking frame
of reference. ahahaha...

Now, ask yourself this question: How can a particle have access to its
position/motion relative to any frame of reference so as to change its
position relative to it? Are particles psychic?

> 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."

There is only one logic and it stems from the observation that
everything is ONE. Now, pack that up your ass and stop bugging me,
Mitch. ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.