Cosmos Without Gravitation
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
OIM:
So, you decline to display basic manners to posters who help you. Noted.
Also noted is that you ignored most of the substance of my previous post, to focus on one issue only. I will respond to that issue and assume you agree with the other points I made.
Kant was a philosopher, not a physicist. Also, this was written in 1781 - before much was known about space and time.
Another philosopher. This out-of-context quote is so vague that by itself it is next to useless.
Which arguments? Another out-of-context quote. Please quote the entire passage. Or is this yet another dishonest attempt on your part to mislead readers?
This is correct, but irrelevant to the argument that spacetime exists.
An insightful comment. I note that you rely on Einstein when it suits your purposes, but at other times you claim he was completely wrong.
You're flip-flopping as to whether you trust Einstein or not. Which is it?
Another out-of-context quote that requires context to have any meaning at all.
So, you decline to display basic manners to posters who help you. Noted.
Also noted is that you ignored most of the substance of my previous post, to focus on one issue only. I will respond to that issue and assume you agree with the other points I made.
Kant was a philosopher, not a physicist. Also, this was written in 1781 - before much was known about space and time.
Another philosopher. This out-of-context quote is so vague that by itself it is next to useless.
Which arguments? Another out-of-context quote. Please quote the entire passage. Or is this yet another dishonest attempt on your part to mislead readers?
This is correct, but irrelevant to the argument that spacetime exists.
An insightful comment. I note that you rely on Einstein when it suits your purposes, but at other times you claim he was completely wrong.
You're flip-flopping as to whether you trust Einstein or not. Which is it?
Another out-of-context quote that requires context to have any meaning at all.
If any of those quotes are out of context then I'm a Roman Emperor.
You cannot be a physicist unless you are a philosopher.
Also, Kant was a physicst first and foremost.
"Kant pointed out in the middle of last century, what had not previously been discovered by mathematicians or physical astronomers, that the frictional resistance against tidal currents on the earth's surface must cause a diminution of the earth's rotational speed. This really great discovery in Natural Philosophy seems to have attracted little attention,--indeed to have passed quite unnoticed, --among mathematicians, and astronomers, and naturalists, until about 1840, when the doctrine of energy began to be taken to heart." -- Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1897
"Lord Kelvin has rightly pointed out that no previous mathematician or physical astronomer had discovered or anticipated Kant's solution--and with this Professor Tait and M. Wolf agree; so that it appears to be absolutely original." -- Thomas Wright, historian, 1900
:roflmao:
Nothing true can be said about space or time without reference to Kant.
"To suppose a reader thoroughly indifferent to Kant, is to suppose him thoroughly unintellectual...." -- Thomas De Quincey, author, 1827
I only quoted one.
No he wasn't.
You're being ignorant.
"The sort of geological speculation to which I am now referring (geological aetiology, in short) was created as a science by that famous philosopher, Immanuel Kant, when, in 1775 [1755], he wrote his General Natural History and Theory of the Celestial Bodies; or, an Attempt to Account for the Constitutional and Mechanical Origin of the Universe, upon Newtonian Principles." -- Thomas H. Huxley, biologist, 1869
"Kant pointed out in the middle of last century, what had not previously been discovered by mathematicians or physical astronomers, that the frictional resistance against tidal currents on the earth's surface must cause a diminution of the earth's rotational speed. This really great discovery in Natural Philosophy seems to have attracted little attention,--indeed to have passed quite unnoticed, --among mathematicians, and astronomers, and naturalists, until about 1840, when the doctrine of energy began to be taken to heart." -- Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1897
"Lord Kelvin has rightly pointed out that no previous mathematician or physical astronomer had discovered or anticipated Kant's solution--and with this Professor Tait and M. Wolf agree; so that it appears to be absolutely original." -- Thomas Wright, historian, 1900
OIM:
Nonsense.
That is a lie.
Nonsense.
Another out-of-context quote. Quincey was referring to philosophy.
OIM:
Your misleading quote-mining must stop. It amounts to trolling, and my patience is wearing thin.
Either you do not understand the content of what you quote, and so quote it out of context, or else you do understand and are deliberately seeking to mislead your readers.
In the first case, you should get yourself and education before attempting to use quotes. In the second case, you must learn to have some personal integrity.
Either way, further out-of-context quotes from you will now result in a ban from sciforums for the period of 1 month. Consider carefully before you quote somebody again...
Nonsense.
That is a lie.
Nonsense.
Another out-of-context quote. Quincey was referring to philosophy.
OIM:
Your misleading quote-mining must stop. It amounts to trolling, and my patience is wearing thin.
Either you do not understand the content of what you quote, and so quote it out of context, or else you do understand and are deliberately seeking to mislead your readers.
In the first case, you should get yourself and education before attempting to use quotes. In the second case, you must learn to have some personal integrity.
Either way, further out-of-context quotes from you will now result in a ban from sciforums for the period of 1 month. Consider carefully before you quote somebody again...
Kant was a physicist. You cannot be an Aristotelian Metaphysician without first being a physicist. Metaphysics literally means things which come after physics...
"The sort of geological speculation to which I am now referring (geological aetiology, in short) was created as a science by that famous philosopher, Immanuel Kant, when, in 1775 [1755], he wrote his General Natural History and Theory of the Celestial Bodies; or, an Attempt to Account for the Constitutional and Mechanical Origin of the Universe, upon Newtonian Principles." -- Thomas H. Huxley, biologist, 1869
"Kant pointed out in the middle of last century, what had not previously been discovered by mathematicians or physical astronomers, that the frictional resistance against tidal currents on the earth's surface must cause a diminution of the earth's rotational speed. This really great discovery in Natural Philosophy seems to have attracted little attention,--indeed to have passed quite unnoticed, --among mathematicians, and astronomers, and naturalists, until about 1840, when the doctrine of energy began to be taken to heart." -- Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1897
"Lord Kelvin has rightly pointed out that no previous mathematician or physical astronomer had discovered or anticipated Kant's solution--and with this Professor Tait and M. Wolf agree; so that it appears to be absolutely original." -- Thomas Wright, historian, 1900
Last edited:
OIM:
Your statement was:
Your out-of-context quotes do nothing to back up your statement that Kant was first and foremost a physicist.
It's a stupid statement on its face.
I note also that you repeated your out-of-context quotes following my previous warning to you. In case you really are too stupid to realise your errors, let me just say this:
This quote is out of context. Why? Primarily because we don't know which "solution" of Kant's it is referring to. You have not quoted enough of the surrounding material to even give a hint.
In the context of the rest of your post, we are apparently supposed to think that it has something to do with a theory of gravity. But who knows?
We also aren't given any hint as to who Professor Tait and M. Wolf are, and why their support of Kant's "solution" is supposed to be important to us.
Now, I require you to provide the context for this specific quote, or be banned from sciforums. You have 24 hours.
Your statement was:
Your out-of-context quotes do nothing to back up your statement that Kant was first and foremost a physicist.
It's a stupid statement on its face.
I note also that you repeated your out-of-context quotes following my previous warning to you. In case you really are too stupid to realise your errors, let me just say this:
This quote is out of context. Why? Primarily because we don't know which "solution" of Kant's it is referring to. You have not quoted enough of the surrounding material to even give a hint.
In the context of the rest of your post, we are apparently supposed to think that it has something to do with a theory of gravity. But who knows?
We also aren't given any hint as to who Professor Tait and M. Wolf are, and why their support of Kant's "solution" is supposed to be important to us.
Now, I require you to provide the context for this specific quote, or be banned from sciforums. You have 24 hours.
They don't?
It's stupid to say metaphysics means things which come after physics?
If you read the quotes you would know what they are refering to. The 1754 papers (1) the above referenced nebular paper referenced by Huxley and (2) the paper on the retardation of the rotation of the Earth referenced by Kelvin.
If you read the quotes it's not necessary. The two 1754 papers. The Nebular paper and the Rotation paper.
See above.
Since when is out of context quoting a bannable offense?
Depends on who's doing the out of context quoting.
I'd say OIM has much less leeway than other members of Sci.
http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=6
Rules said:
Are you kidding? I'd say you moderators have given OIM more leeway than almost any other abusive poster here!
woot!
Yeah, a lot of people watch Jackass on MTV, too.
If I may be forgiven borrowing OilIsMastery's techniques for a moment.
"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable." -Michael Palin (et al) Historian.
We may therefore disregard anything Kant had to say as the delusional ramblings of a Drunkard.
Now...
There's two or three major holes in this logic, which aren't immeadiately obvious without the context of the quote.
"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable." -Michael Palin (et al) Historian.
We may therefore disregard anything Kant had to say as the delusional ramblings of a Drunkard.
Now...
There's two or three major holes in this logic, which aren't immeadiately obvious without the context of the quote.