Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm sorry my friend. Even if I read the whole document, I still don't know if you agree with it, disagree with it, or how strongly you feel about it either way. Maybe you could summarize the view presented in the document and then present your feelings about it?
The opening paragraph...is enough to brand what follows as scatter-brained ramblings. And taken with the sound of his own voice, the author shows his true objective: self aggrandizement.
Know a lot about Relativity, do you?
As for your claim that Kelso's "true objective" was self-aggrandizement, I well-remember that a goodly number of his correspondents in the about.com/Physics Forum, on their first encounter with him, accused him of arrogance. Over the roughly two years that I was acquainted with him, I watched all but the most obtuse change their opinions and recognize that what first had seemed to them to be arrogance was actually self-confidence.
Briefly:
- If I have not misunderstood the document, I believe it implicitly says: "Ex nihilo nihil fit (Out of nothing nothing is made.").
- The document explicitly says that "motion is exclusively a property of physical objects."
- Because I agree with that notion, I occupy some of my free time wondering what kind of being a spirit is, if it is not a physical being.
- The document explicitly says that "space" and "time" [a.k.a. Absolute Space and Absolute Time] are abstract nouns. As such, neither moves (nor undergoes expansion or compression.)
- The document explicitly describes a theoretical physical content of space which moves: atoms, each of which has no parts and each of which moves through space at the same constant speed. The physical objects which occupy and move through space consist of subsets of these atoms, ranging in size from the very small to the very large.
- For the record, Kelso was a self-acknowledged agnostic and did not believe in gods or unicorns, among other things. I, on the other hand, am a theist of the heretical christian kind. We both were, and I continue to be, devout anti-relativists.
Self-confidence while being wrong is no virtue.
Neither is wasting your time and effort trying to rattle my cage, but if that's what amuses you, knock yourself out.
Enough to recognize inane blather when I see it.Know a lot about Relativity, do you?
Didn't read enough of it to recognize any outright arrogance, just how much he was taken by the sound of his own voice: "Let me show you all the scientific jargon I know. Don't you wish you were me?"As for your claim that Kelso's "true objective" was self-aggrandizement, I well-remember that a goodly number of his correspondents in the about.com/Physics Forum, on their first encounter with him, accused him of arrogance. Over the roughly two years that I was acquainted with him, I watched all but the most obtuse change their opinions and recognize that what first had seemed to them to be arrogance was actually self-confidence.
Enough to recognize inane blather..."
Didn't read enough of it ... All of which exists within the most atrocious grammar I've read in some time. Obviously, the editor of the piece is as incompetent as was Kelso himself..
Ahhh, so you're a poorly informed Relativist groupie, eh? I suspected as much.
How about a well-informed advocate of relativistic physics?
It seems to me that those who reject relativity are especially poorly informed.
??? You lost me.
- I asked skwim: "Know a lot about relativity, do you?
- skwim responded: "Enough to recognize inane blather when I see it."
- I say: :"Ahhh, so you're a poorly informed Relativist groupie, eh?"
- And you ask me: "How about a well-informed advocate of relativistic physics?"
- Are you suggesting that skwim's reading of an unspecified portion of a document and his conclusion that that portion contained "inane blather" is evidence for a claim that he is a well-informed advocate of relativity?
- If that's not what you're suggesting, then I don't know what you're suggesting.
- However, if that is what you're suggesting, I say--based on my previous experience observing and interacting with well-informed advocates and opponents of relativity--that you have a remarkably low standard of what constitutes being a well-informed advocate or opponent of relativity, as a consequence of which I conclude that you have nothing new or of importance to teach me.
Ha! You have a long way to go before I'll fret over a negative opinion from you. It's time for us to part ways and move on to more entertaining and/or productive activities.
So, you prefer an ignorant Relativity advocate to an Anti-relativist, regardless of the latter's abilities, in your world, eh?
- Well, he at least has a basic enough understanding to recognize that this was inane blather.
Your desire for the last word seems strong.
- Well, read the first few pages of the article. If you think it is anything other than inane blather, then you are probably ignorant of basic physics.
And yet you persist. Your desire for the last word borders on lust. Perhaps I can help you.
- Well, how about supporting any of the assumptions of that article? From the faulty physics, to the misunderstandings of Godel's results, there is hardly anything there. As they say, there is correct and new stuff there: what's new isn't correct and what's correct isn't new.
So, you prefer an ignorant Relativity advocate to an Anti-relativist, regardless of the latter's abilities, in your world, eh?
I'm neither surprised nor dismayed. In spite of the obvious irreconcilable difference between you and me, you don't.want to follow my previous recommendation: that we part ways and pursue other interests. That suggests to me that you relish having the last word, shifting the decision to walk away to me. Thanks.
Your desire for the last word seems strong.
And yet you persist. Your desire for the last word borders on lust. Perhaps I can help you.