🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danny Milano" <milanodanny@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:da8f59fb-cb87-45c2-b721-140443f4f908@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 12, 7:34 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Danny Milano" <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e99577a3-3439-4bd8-8f40-0abfa68ea377@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 12, 2:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 8:58 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > But you said earlier that there is no way to know whether time,
> > > length distort or it is just some misunderstood additional
> > > newtonian parameters which made it that way. What is
> > > really the case?
>
> > No, what I said is that some *cranks* think that way, that Newtonian
> > physics is fine if we would only find the right forces to include in
> > Newton's equations of motion. This is based on a rather naive
> > presumption that Newton's laws can fit *any* phenomenon, if the right
> > parameters are put in. This turns out to be decidedly NOT the case,
> > which a little bit of concentrated investigation will prove out. There
> > are a number of things that are seen in nature which are *impossible*
> > to generate in Newtonian mechanics, even if tricked-out.
>
> > PD
>
> It seems that anti-relativists would go to any length to
> debunk time dilation, length contraction at the cost of
> even weirder mechanisms. In your years of experience
> with them. Do yo think anti-relativists are purely newtonian?
> Or do anti-relativists still believe in quantum mechanics "now you
> see it, now you don't" foundations? Because if anti-relativists
> are quantum followers. They could propose creatures
> that can control quantum probability (call it fairies)
> that can create the same predictions and observations as
> time dilation, length contraction in physical stuff. This
> is the only way I think they can explain the same relativistic
> experiments. But if anti-relativists don't believe in fairies
> and they don't think time and length can distort and just
> believe in absolute space and absolute time, there seems
> no way to pull off those SR, GR experimental stunts, isn't it...
> unless anti-relativists are aetherists. Are they? In essence,
> how many percentage approximately of anti-relativists
> believe in quantum mechanics and how many percentage
> approx. believe in the aether and how many percentage
> believe in neither of them. I'd like to have rough idea of
> how their brains work.
>
> Danny
>
> Why not ask them instead of the idiot PD?
> Oh wait... that would too easy, right?
> Go on, ask a thief how a copper's mind works.
> Idiot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

| From this newsgroup. It appears that anti-relativists
| seem to be zombies.
=====================================
You haven't asked them, how would you know?
=====================================

They keep repeating the same
arguments for many years with no flexibilities in
thought. for example.. Ken Seto who has repeated
the same thought for more than a decade (from newsgroup
archive) and can't seem to understand experimental
data or superior arguments... that is a trademark of
a zombie.
=====================================

Ok, so Ken Seto is a zombie. He's an aetherialist.
=====================================

You may be a more clever zombie. Good. Tackle
quantum spacetime or gravity as it is more challenge.
====================================

Quantum spacetime?  What the heck is quantum spacetime?
You create a mystery and then want me to solve it? You seem
to be a fuckheaded zombie. If you are so fucking smart,
you solve your quantum spacetime photon torpedo wormhole
black holes that don't exist.
 Come to think of it, you really do seem to be a fuckheaded zombie.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Anti-relativity zombies could be useful as from time
to time it is refleshing to reflect on the foundations of SR
===========================================

The foundation of SR and GR is this:
  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

 Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Answer that question and perhaps you won't seem to be a fuckheaded
crackpotted crank relativity re-fleshed zombie.