Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] On relativity principle

Expand Messages
  • c.h.thompson
    Dear Adrian ... distinction ... convenience ... content ... is ... For once we are in total agreement! [skip] ... Where did you get this idea from? My ideas
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 7 1:21 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Adrian

      > [Adrian] WE already know all that, but in principle to "draw lines of
      distinction"
      > between whatever and whatever else is, perhaps, an intellectual
      convenience
      > [and one I'd disagree about] but does reality know that? You may be
      content
      > playing homogenised mudpie but I prefer my mudpie mucky, just the way it
      is
      > for real. I find this "scientific" ...

      For once we are in total agreement!

      [skip]

      > PS It APPEARS that David Finkelstein, a "scientist", reckons one does NOT
      > need math to understand science, with which I completely agree and if
      > Carolyne wishes to assert I cannot without math I will disagree,

      Where did you get this idea from? My ideas on physics are wholly intuitive,
      with maths as a mere tool that occasionally helps. Sometimes working out
      orders of magnitude of possible effects of our assumptions helps, but I only
      ever use the really simple things, like knowing that the intensity of light
      in a spherical wave will decrease as 1/r^2 or slightly more.

      > with or without the "authority" of David Finkelstein. At which
      > uncture Carolyne refusing to admit she's out of my "depth"
      > of understand

      Dear Adrian, this has never been the case. I understand you quite well. I
      just have not time to wade through your verbiage and get annoyed by your
      preconceptions about what I understand! And sometimes, if may I say so,
      your preconceptions about yourself are slightly unbelievable: you classify
      yourself as so tolerant, yet you have been known to insult me for no reason
      that I have been able to grasp.

      > will classify me as a nong or idiot, which she
      > cannot say to my face, or so she imagines and
      > simply does not reply any further.

      Well, not exactly, but please please stop burying remarks addressed to me in
      long messages! I do not have time to wade through them.

      Cheers
      Caroline
    • Adrian
      So why reply now? Wish would god the giftie gie us to see ourselves as ithers see us. Rabbie. verbiage is, of course, not an insult, merely an objective
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 7 10:14 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        So why reply now?

        "Wish would god the giftie gie us to see ourselves as ithers see us. Rabbie.

        "verbiage" is, of course, not an insult, merely an "objective appraisal"?

        Some folk live on and some even outside the edge of the asymptotic Bell
        Curve, which your belief has nothing to do with.

        Adrian.
      • John Schnurer
        The view from the apple...: If you were a small bug, on the apple, on the BOTTOM of the apple... as it fell towards the Earth ... and the distance is exactly
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 9 7:59 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          The view from the apple...:

          If you were a small bug, on the apple, on the BOTTOM of the
          apple... as it fell towards the Earth ... and the distance is exactly
          100 feet the posture, or matrix or "fabric of the being of the bug is
          almost assuredly:

          WOOAAA !!! Hep Hep Hep Me WOOAAA !!! ... and then the end of the
          observation ...

          On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Adrian wrote:

          > Dear Daniel,
          >
          > WE already know all that, but in principle to "draw lines of distinction"
          > between whatever and whatever else is, perhaps, an intellectual convenience
          > [and one I'd disagree about] but does reality know that? You may be content
          > playing homogenised mudpie but I prefer my mudpie mucky, just the way it is
          > for real. I find this "scientific" "If you don't agree with me you don't
          > understand me, so go back and read the textbook" rather charming but not
          > very useful as, to MY understanding it is that Relativity has observers NOT
          > observe the same event, thing or whatever. in a "same" way. And the Quantal
          > has changed the DE-tached Observer into the Participant observer who happens
          > to be entangled with reality such that he can only observe when he collapses
          > this entanglement into an observation of sorts. And that one has put all
          > those pretty little applecarts of "convenience" rendered unto dogma up for
          > grabs. Thus just because I don't OBSERVE those charming scientific niceties
          > does NOT mean I don't know them, nor fail to understand them, I simply
          > refuse to observe them. Besides you failed to mention that for science
          > "observe" means instrumental observation which implies that as you lot won't
          > let me near any such instrumental observation the other "convenience" that
          > for the scientific observer what is true is true for other people is now
          > used in a god-game where I cannot argue with you because I cannot verify nor
          > validate your pretty experiments.
          >
          > AND the apple only APPEARS to fall downwards whereas apple and earth are
          > attracted to each other and so if you did not ASSUME the identity of
          > observer with the earth position and failed to also assume a centre or zero
          > position for that observer, like a kind of Keplerian grid, we would not be
          > ABLE to decide which direction it moves in as there would be no directions
          > to be had. And should I take the time to pick holes in any of your
          > "principles" that are not principles but unprovable dogmas, plus the errors
          > deriving from history and poor textbooks you would not have a leg left to
          > stand on or a hole to sit in. Finally your "authority" as a scientist does
          > not have any authority except if I should decide to "believe" you and that
          > is one Carolyne seems to have problems with too. I am quite happy to play
          > any kind of "intellectual games" but I will not be bullshitted on. So
          > should you ask, "would I please, tolerate your irrational conventions?" I'll
          > say, yes, quite happily, but I won't if you insist I have to understand and
          > believe you and just laugh when you say it is all logically founded as I
          > know logic and axiomatics are NOT the same thing.
          >
          > BECAUSE
          >
          > A: I understand what you understand
          > B: I understand what you don't understand or SEEM not to.
          > C: I understand the credibility gap between that A & B
          > D: I can explain that in any way I like.
          >
          > PS It APPEARS that David Finkelstein, a "scientist", reckons one does NOT
          > need math to understand science, with which I completely agree and if
          > Carolyne wishes to assert I cannot without math I will disagree, with or
          > without the "authority" of David Finkelstein. At which uncture Carolyne
          > refusing to admit she's out of my "depth" of understand will classify me as
          > a nong or idiot, which she cannot say to my face, or so she imagines and
          > simply does not reply any further.
          >
          > PPS I find the "attitude" diplayed by you, Daniel, in THIS missive
          > patronising and quite at odds with what else I have read of you.
          >
          >
          > Adrian
          >
          > Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] On relativity principle
          >
          >
          > > Dear Claude,
          > >
          > > Would you please pass this e-mail to the interested people?
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
          > http://click.egroups.com/1/5533/6/_/187292/_/962949256/
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          > To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
          >
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.