Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists

In article <ihion1tg09l3om14luqe354kp5et67vpvr@xxxxxxx>, Helmut Wabnig <EmailAddress@> writes:
>On 16 Nov 2005 23:19:04 -0800, franklinhu@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>Great to hear that Sci Am is starting to recognize Aether theories. I
>>can't wait to read it. I think that in the future, the no-aether
>>hypothesis will go the way of the Earth centered and flat Earth
>>theories and being wrong, wrong, wrong and generally backwards.
>>
>Why do you people WANT an ether?
>There is no need to have it, it is not necessary,
>it is superfluous because a postulated ether,
>if not described by it's properties, does not explain anything.
>
>Why do peole WANT an ETHER?
>
Ohh, it is very simple.

You see, you've this people sincerely believing that they've the
brain power to understand anything worth understanding. Yet, they
cannot comprehend relativity. It doesn't "make sense" to them. So,
they have the choice, either accept the fact that their brainpower
isn't quite up to par, or keep fervently believing that no, they are
very smart, only relativity is false and that's why it "makes no
sense". Guess which option they pick?

And the connection of the ether to this? Well, they vaguely recall
that relativity replaced all the ether hypotheses. So (goes their
reasoning) if only the existance of some ether could be proven, then
there is no need for relativity and they are vindicated.

Do not underestimate the lengths to which people with delusions of
adequacy can go. Would've been sad, would it not have been so
entertaining.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

Relevant Pages
Loading