Science Forums 2

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Tormod, I just saw the reply you made about "permission to reply". I never got an email saying there was a response, so I never saw it. Don't take the lack of a response as agreement with what you said.

I simply wanted to point out that this book is most likely the man's livelihood. I have to work for a living so I exposed myself to an attack because I respect the position he is in. Obviously, if I didn't think there was value in his book, I wouldn't go through the trouble.

What is it that you want to accomplish on this website? Perhaps what will happen here is what I have observed on other sites: slowly, over time, discussion will come to an end because people become just plain rude. As if 'winning' the argument is the same as identifying what is true.

K's post was very rude and not as logical as he'd like to think it was. On the bright side, another sword has been added to the army, eh?

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed". I love that saying although I don't know who said it. If McCutcheon is right, we humans have a fundamental perceptual flaw: we are incapable of detecting motion unless that motion is relative to us. Like the frog that can't detect the motion of a pebble thrown through its field of vision but instantly sees when a fly does, we too might be blind to some aspects of existence.

I suppose if he's correct we could just ignore him. And besides, if he's right then we'd have to rewrite every physics book that was ever written, rethink Franklin's theory of electricity, Einstein's light speed limitation, not to mention all the formulas that would have to come under consideration. Way too much trouble for such a tenuous concept as truth.

Let's vote on it.