Re: MMX and FORs Revisited
From: Peter Kinane (pkinane_at_iol.ie)
Date: 06/13/04
- Next message: Patrick Reany: "Re: What is the Standard Model"
- Previous message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: MMX and FORs Revisited"
- Next in thread: Peter Kinane: "Re: MMX and FORs Revisited"
- Reply: Peter Kinane: "Re: MMX and FORs Revisited"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 13 Jun 2004 12:54:52 -0700
Perhaps this is an opportunity to connect here to an O'Barr post, in
the context of my position that the speed of light is an expression of
- effects through - its source- -causes.
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e9b03d3c.0406091933.1af3769f@posting.google.com...
The fact that the
> speed of light is independent of its source is
> absolute proof that there is an ether, by one name or
> another. The fact that light even moves, the fact
> that it moves at a fixed rate, the fact that one
> particle of light moves exactly the same as all other
> particles of light, the fact that we see the rates of
> clocks being affected by velocities, the fact that
> lengths must therefore also change if the
> measurements remain constant, all these facts demand
> that there is an ether.
It seems to me that the 'supportive' arguments he makes to the
proposition that "the speed of light is independent of its source"
actually support the opposite - that the speed (of light) is dependent
on its source.
-- Peter Kinane http://www.effectuationism.com/
- Next message: Patrick Reany: "Re: What is the Standard Model"
- Previous message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: MMX and FORs Revisited"
- Next in thread: Peter Kinane: "Re: MMX and FORs Revisited"
- Reply: Peter Kinane: "Re: MMX and FORs Revisited"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|