🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:daf17514-1b2e-40f3-a53d-4de97cc45a32@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 14:00, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:f01d260a-49b7-43a0-b1ad-85d5b1b590f7@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Curved-Spacetime-without-relativity/dp/0955706807
>> > Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without special relativity
>> > by Eric Baird (Author)
>> > "Relativity theory has become one of the icons of Twentieth Century
>> > science. It's reckoned to be a difficult subject, taught as a layered
>> > series of increasingly difficult mathematics and increasingly abstract
>> > concepts. We're told that relativity theory is supposed to be this
>> > complicated and counter-intuitive. But how much of this historical
>> > complexity is really necessary? Can we bypass the interpretations and
>> > paradoxes and pseudoparadoxes of Einstein's special theory and jump
>> > directly to a deeper and more intuitive description of reality? What
>> > if curvature is a fundamental part of physics, and a final theory of
>> > relativity shouldn't reduce to Einstein's "flat" 1905 theory //on
>> > principle//? "Relativity..." takes us on a whistlestop tour of
>> > Twentieth Century physics - from black holes, quantum mechanics,
>> > wormholes and the Big Bang to the workings of the human mind, and
>> > asks: what would physics look like without special relativity?"
>>
>> Evolution in Selecting Nature: Life without Evolution
>> by Beric Aird (Author)
>> "Evolution theory has become one of the icons of Nineteenth Century
>> science. It's reckoned to be a difficult subject, taught as a layered
>> series of increasingly difficult common sense and increasingly abstract
>> concepts. We're told that Evolution theory is supposed to be this
>> complicated and counter-intuitive. But how much of this historical
>> complexity is really necessary? Can we bypass the interpretations and
>> paradoxes and pseudoparadoxes of Darwin's evolution theory and jump
>> directly to a deeper and more intuitive description of reality? What
>> if selection is a fundamental part of biology, and a final theory of
>> Evolution shouldn't reduce to Darwin's "flat" 1859 theory //on
>> principle//? "Evolution..." takes us on a whistlestop tour of
>> Nineteenth Century biology - from black birds, quacking geese,
>> hole worms and the Big Elephant to the workings of the human mind, and
>> asks: what would biology look like without Evolution?"
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Bravo Moortel! A witty zombie! However your work is not finished.
> There is another text that should be dealt with by bellicose zombies:
>
> http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
> Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
> vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
> que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ;

Of course we don't know a theoretical reason for that, imbecile.
We also don't know the theoretical reason why you are so
frighteningly stupid.

Dirk Vdm