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


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

So-called "opposites" are crap. You're an idiot. :)

> It means
> independent whereas relative means dependent.

Independant of any sort of *reference* - self-referential, you
incredible moron. :)

> 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...

You mean the one I showed your mother?
>
> 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?

Are you an idiot? Does the rock need "access" to anything once I've
thrown it at your head? :)
>
> > 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.

Private language again - look up "observed", then read Wittgenstien
re: private language.

> Now, pack that up your ass and stop bugging me,

I kinda figured you were the only one getting bothered by this. It's
pretty much a joke to the rest of us, professional and layman alike.

Now! Let's have a contest to see how long I can hold down the "n" key
for.
Ready?

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnv

Faaack!

p

.