Re: 1c+1c Light and matter

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 08/24/04 

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:49:00 GMT

"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.0408231811.5d809f1@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<tPkWc.5330$6v.65095884@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:3c4afb26.0408221801.4faa2c06@posting.google.com...
| > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:<dxXVc.4700$Ir2.56755235@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > | > "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:3c4afb26.0408211818.36f7ff9f@posting.google.com...
| > | > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
| > | > news:<lyJVc.4371$%q3.52927524@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > [snip]
| > | >
| > | > | Wasted , I'm afraid........
| > | >
| > | > Download from
| > | > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/virus_alert.htm,
| > | > Select Samples/ Sol. Select Spectrum/absorption.
| > | > You'll see a simulated spectrum with absorption lines. This
represents
| > light
| > | > from the sun, with absorption for ONE simulated element. The real
| > hydrogen
| > | > spectrum doesn't display this many lines in the visible range, and
| > neither
| > | > does the real helium spectrum, which is superimposed.
| > | > The slighty jagged grey line represents the luminosity, the height
| > (y-axis)
| > | > being automatically scaled, the the x-axis representing time.
| > | > There is some digitization because after all you are using a digital
| > | > computer, which is why the line isn't perfectly straight.
| > | > Select Data and you'll see a new window with some parameters from
which
| > the
| > | > curve was generated, in this case a straight line as expected.
| > | > Now select Samples/Algol.
| > | > You'll see a simulated planet orbiting a star - ignore relative
size -
| > and
| > | > the light curve and spectral velocity curve will shortly follow.
| > | > Select Data again, and change the photon count to 1,000,000 instead
of
| > | > 10,000. This will compute a million points around the orbit insead
of
| > ten
| > | > thousand, but will of course take 100 times longer to compute the
orbit.
| > | > You'll see the planet and the star revolve around a common centre.
| > | > Next go to http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/AST/UCEP.html
| > | > and you'll see an amateur astronomer's view.
| > | >
| > | > Decide for yourself if the velocity of light is source dependent as
the
| > data
| > | > indicates or source independent because Einstein said it was.
| > |
| > | (I need a second opinion (my daughter :-( ) as to whether this file
| > | is safe. Having had computer vandalism/terrorism before, I am a bit
| > | wary.
| >
| > By all means do so, I fully understand your apprehension. However, the
| > source is not unknown to you, and I'd be foolish and liable to
prosecution
| > if I deliberately introduced anything malicious into the code. Certainly
I
| > would not provide a web site and email address that is traceable, and
| > blueyonder is a reputable company actively engaged in the elimination of
| > malicious code. If the byte counts do not match exactly, do not open the
| > file, destroy it and please inform me immediately. I shall forward the
| > information to my ISP.
|
| I wasn't for a moment suggesting you! I am just aware of the fact that
| there are some who say nasty things about your/our position

It is only to be expected. Challenging a person's belief system isn't going
to be taken calmly, and having a low intelligence they react emotionally and
childishly. As I indicated to Gisse, if he thinks anyone is impressed by his
insults then I'll insult him to impress him in return. Sometimes you have
to come down to their level it that is all they can understand.

| > | >
| > | > | > These are combined into the single Doppler equation,
| > | > | > f' = f.(u+m)/(v+m)
| > | > | > from which we find that if both you and the helicopter are
moving at
| > the
| > | > | > same speed through air, you'll hear no shift, as expected.
| > | > |
| > | > | Forget the air- my helicopter is flying in space, with a "push"
| > | > | exerted at the tip of one rotor, and a "pull" at the opposite.
| > | > | Now,| how will the push/pulls per second vary with respect to me
| > | > | (stationary) with the motion of the chopper?
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Can't have your cake and eat it too. What is it pushing against?
|
| This is MY magic--"force at a distance"
| > |
| > | Concentrate! The rotor is like a bar magnet- opposite forces apply
| > | from each end. There is NO aether involved- just actions (pulses) at a
| > | point per time.
| >
| > I am concentrating. Unless you have invented a new means of propulsion
| > by spinning a bar magnet in a vacuum, I don't see what the push is
against
| > (except you, the observer).
|
| That's right. It is only the bark of the dog! The push/pull isn't
| doing anything, except producing a frequency
|
| > Otherwise the doppler principle applies as above.
| > f ' = f. (c+v+u.sin(omega.t)/c
| > where u is the tangential velocity of one blade, v the velocity of the
| > helicopter, c the velocity of light with respect to the helicopter and
omega
| > the rate of rotation of the blade.
| > I'm not sure how many blades you helicopter has, but if three then the
other
| > two blades provide
| > f2 ' = f. (c+v+u.sin(omega.t + 2pi/3)/c
| > f3 ' = f. (c+v+u.sin(omega.t + 4pi/3)/c
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > HOWEVER... For light in space, there is NO medium.
| > | > | > There is only relative motion.
| > | > | > LET would use f' = fc/(c+v)
| > | > | > Emission theory would use f'(c-v)/c
| > | > | > Relativity uses f' = f. sqrt( [(c-v)/c^2] / [(c+v)/c^2] )
| > |
| > | Isn't the expression c^2 a hoot!
| >
| > Well... not really. For any pythagorean triangle a^2 = b^2+c^2 and
| > if b and c are velocities then v^2 = u^2 + c^2, I have no problem with
that.
| >
| >
| > Dhr's will not even accept that
| > | 1c+1c=2c
| > | and yet are quite happy to use 300,000+300,000+300,000........300,000
| > | times!
| >
| > If an emitting body were to be travelling on the y-axis at c and
emitting
| > light
| > along the x-axis, I would expect the velocity of the light to be
sqrt(2).c
| > on a path at 45 degrees midway between the axes. That is, v = sqrt(c^2
| > +c^2). The problem you raise is that DHRs claim c = sqrt(c^2 + c^2).
This is
| > exemplified in Gardner's Paradox.
| > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/gardner.htm
| > If you examine the GIF on that page, the vertical purple line shows the
path
| > of the light with respect to the observer for a ray emitted in the
downward
| > and back direction.
| > The real problem with (v+c)/(1+v/c) = c is that Einstein doesn't use it
| > in his equation
| > ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)).
| >
| >
| > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in
| > the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t."
| > and
| > "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
| > composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we
obtain
| > V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
| > are contradictory statements. Just to add confusion he replaces v with
w,
| > hoping you won't notice the contradiction. SR is a hoot, I agree, and so
are
| > DHRs. Mathematicians they are not, and neither was Einstein. Certainly
no
| > mathematician would accept c+v and then change it to (c+v)/(1+v/c)
without
| > checking to see if it could be used to produce the same result.
|
| Even I can understand this "math"- what a joke!
| This probably relates to my beef with the LT's, which involve negative
| velocities (distances). When a position occurs that coordinates
| produce a "less than zero" distance, which obviously exists only in
| the imaginations of certain DHR's, the whole relativity swindle
| implodes.

Math is a useful tool, just like a 1200W circular saw. If you don't use it
properly, you can cut your fingers off. DHRs are vandals, hell bent on
destroying physics and astronomy without reason.

| >
| >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > For v << c, these three equations have approximately the same
value.
| > | > | > | 1) energy (kinetic) perhaps lost through interactions with
| > particles
| > | > | > | enroute
| > | > | >
| > | > | > That just loses the photon. You blocked its path, and it ends up
| > going a
| > | > | > different way. Do enough of that and you'll see fog.
| > |
| > | Glass?
| >
| > Shattered glass.
|
| Noted
| >
| >
| > | > |
| > | > | It may have just given up some of its linear velocity (kinetic
| > | > | energy), or angular momentum as it interacts.
| > | >
| > | > So what? If you've got fog in the way, of course the photon is going
to
| > give
| > | > up some energy, but you are not going to see through the fog to find
the
| > red
| > | > shift of a galaxy. All you'll see is the light from some other
source
| > | > scattered in your direction.
| > |
| > | I greatly suspect that the CMBR is a result of this effect.
| >
| > CMBR is probably a beat frequency between the lowest frequencies of IR.
|
| Ah ha! HARMONICS!!!

Sure.

| > | > | >
| > | > | > | 2) angular momentum similarly (linear velocity may be
exchanged,
| > or
| > | > | > | some lost)
| > | > | > Sure. No problem with that, the conversion of energy from linear
to
| > spin
| > or
| > | > | > back again is fine. That is what I'd expect to produce
refraction.
| > | > |
| > | > | As above
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | 3) gravity
| > | > | > A two-edged sword. We use momentum exchange to accelerate
spacecraft
| > out
| > | > | > beyond the solar system. A comet gains velocity as it approaches
the
| > sun,
| > | > | > converting potential enegy into kinetic, and loses velocity as
it
| > climbs
| > | > | > away again. A photon hurtling sunward is accelerated, encounters
 the
| > earth,
| > | > | > and its velocity suddenly drops to c_air, and the spin goes up.
| > | > |
| > | > | Are we sure that spin increases?
| > | >
| > | > Drop a plane on a runway and tell me if the wheels don't spin up.
| > Runways
| > | > usually have a lot of skid marks at the touchdown point.
| > |
| > | You may be right, but what happens to an out going photon? Whence the
| > | energy exchange to (presumably) reduce the spin rate?
| >
| > Same thing as at take-off; the wheel doesn't spin down. The energy is
lost
| > through friction, but that doesn't happen to a photon.
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | > | Going on responses from Srians to
| > | > | date, I'd bet em both that c has never been measured in space, say
| > | > | with sunlight and then star light.
| > | >
| > | > Of course it hasn't. Relativists are only interested in experiments
that
| > | > will show their religion is ok. Science doesn't interest them. The
| > simplest
| > | > experiments are the easiest. Shoot the moon with laser from the ISS,
and
| > | > time the reflection from the mirror Armstrong left there in 1969. Do
| > that at
| > | > moonrise and mooset, some 45 minutes later. Repeat as necessary.
Heck,
| > the
| > | > whole thing could be set up to run automatically with nothing more
than
| > an
| > | > ordinary PC coupled to a hand-held GPS receiver, the laser and the
| > | > telescope. It could be done on the next launch, its that easy. So
what
| > have
| > | > they done so far? Put some mustard seeds up for some school project,
its
| > | > good PR!
| > |
| > | The Nobel Committee, having given a famous prize to Einstein, would
| > | have a major midlife crisis, if forced to contemplate giving one to
| > | someone who proved his ideas bull***. And yes, I do know that he
| > | wasn't awarded specifically for GR.
| >
| > It was awarded for the photo-electric effect, and deserving. Copernicus
was
| > hopelessly wrong when he thought the planets moves around the sun in
| > circles, but right that they moved around the Sun and not the Earth.
| > Einstein was right about photons, but wrong about relativity. So give
him a
| > prize for photons. No biggy, Watson and Crick did far more research on
DNA
| > than Eistein did on the photo-electric effect, but being first with a
| > principle is what counts.
|
| Gotta disagree! The German sheila had her gold medal (equestrian)
| taken off her, when a time fault was discovered. I couldn't give a
| Nobel to someone who thought c=c+v

Ah, but could you fairly take away a gold medal she'd won in freestyle
swimming as well, had she done so?
Certainly a time fault is not going to be deliberate on her part. However,
had she deliberately cheated, that would be a different matter.

The photo-electric effect is unrelated to relativity.
Last week, a convicted rapist won £7,000,000 in the national lottery.
Many people think that should go to his victim, and morally they may
be correct. However, the law states that he must serve his time, and
that he is entitled to his winnings.
That leaves it up to the victim to sue for compensation, as far as I can
see, and a jury to award damages.
In the case of Einstein v Rest of the World, he's dead, so perhaps his
estate should be handed over to be shared proportionally among charities.
That leaves his heirs as victims... not really fair, is it, to visit the
sins of the father on the offspring. How would you feel if he was your
daddy?
Better that they cut his brain up for research. Oh, they did... They can
have mine, too, when I'm done with it.

|
| > |
| > | > | > | > | My photons/waves, are as dogs to barks; the bark indicates
the
| > | > | > | > | presence of a dog, and may transfer information about the
dog
| > and
| > its
| > | > | > | > | motion (etc). I am increasingly coming to the thought that
a
| > photon
| > | > | > | > | exerts an influence without "contact" ie that it acts as
if
| > exerting a
| > | > | > | > | field around itself.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Yes, I agree. A photon has size. My photon doesn't have two
| > poles,
| > though.
| > | > | > | > It has one, like an electron that turns into a positron, and
a
| > magnetic
| > | > | > | > monopole that turns from North to South. When the charged
| > "electron"
| > (there
| > | > | > | > is no mass, hence the quotes) has no magnetic field to
support
| > it,
| > it
| > | > | > | > collapses, producing a North pole. At zero E-field, the
north
| > pole
| > is at
| > | > | > | > maximum. It collapses, having nothing to maintain it, and
| > produces a
| > | > | > | > positive field, and then that produces a South pole, from
which
| > the
| > cycle
| > | > | > | > continues. Thus the total energy is constant, since sin^2 +
| > cos^2 =
| > | > 1.
| > | > The E
| > | > | > | > and B fields leapfrog over each other, making no mechanical
| > aether
| > | > | > | > necessary, and the velocity of the photon is source
dependent.
| > The
| > frequency
| > | > | > | > of the photon is simply how rapidly it alternates, and it
can
| > stand
| > still
| > | > | > | > ( or you can fly alongside, same thing). But my photons
| > interact,
| > | > too,
| > | > and
| > | > | > | > the interaction is a function of size, distance between them
and
| > frequency.
| > | > | > | > We can have two photons side by side, one with a North pole
and
| > the
| > other
| > | > | > | > with a South (your bar magnet) and one can spin around the
other
| > in
| > | > x, y
| > | > or
| > | > | > | > z axes. But they still change their polarity intrinsically,
like
| > reversing
| > | > | > | > the current in a solenoid. And of course, it is the current
in a
| > solenoid
| > | > | > | > that produces a magnetic field, and waving a bar magnet past
a
| > | > solenoid
| > | > that
| > | > | > | > produces a current. That is of course the basis of a
| > transformer. We
| > can
| > | > | > | > have a high current at low voltage or low current at a high
| > voltage.
| > | > | > | > In a transformer, the current is constrained to the copper
and
| > the
| > magnetic
| > | > | > | > "current" constrained to the iron core. The photon has no
| > | > constraint,
| > | > but
| > | > | > | > the fields still exist.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | My bar magnet is just another expression of "push/pull" or
| > "on/off".
| > | > | > | It is representing a vibration, and the frequency is "ACTIONS
AT A
| > | > | > | POINT" (emphasis for any lurking Hogwarts). Your explanation
is
| > very
| > | > | > | much on the same (wavelength :-) )
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | I have no idea how far this extends, or whether
| > | > | > | > | this would constitute "mass" of the photon.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > No mass, except in the sense the E = h(nu) = mc^2, and that
only
| > applies
| > | > | > | > when the photon has reached its destination, having given up
it
| > velocity.
| > | > | > | > It has carried away some mass from the star, too, and that
means
| > the
| > star
| > | > | > | > has a weaker gravitational field. So what part of the photon
is
| > the
| > | > part
| > | > we
| > | > | > | > call gravity, however tiny?
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Interesting. This suggests that the speed of gravity is that
of
| > light,
| > | > | > | right?
| > | > | > Well... I'd prefer to think of the entire field as a whole
gradually
| > fading
| > | > | > in strength. If that is because the field is expanding outwards,
it
| > is
| > still
| > | > | > almost as strong as it is where it is when it is. And of course
the
| > Earth's
| > | > | > field isn't radiating away. We are only emitting the same energy
| > that
| > | > | > falling on us. Were it otherwise, the mean termperature of the
Earth
| > would
| > | > | > be changing. Of course there have been ices ages in the past and
| > global
| > | > | > warming is something we are concerned with today, but that has
| > little to
| > do
| > | > | > with gravity.
|
| I think you might be confusing "averages" again. Each individual
| photon may be losing energy, but that is different to less photons per
| area of the expanding bubble, although the overall effect would be the
| same.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | I've held the view that gravity is instantaneous (or close
to). My
| > | > | > | photons have some mass as well (which is transfered away from
| > sorce as
| > | > | > | you say)
| > | > | > | I further suspect that as photons slow below a certain speed,
they
| > | > | > | become undetectable (dark matter?).
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Two in one there. Yes, I'll go along with there being a limit to
the
| > extent
| > | > | > of the observable universe, with light being undetectable beyond
| > that
| > limit.
| > | > | > That takes us all the way down to the CMBR.
| > | > | > Dark matter, though, is an entirely different story, born of
| > misunderstand
| > | > | > of doppler shift. I've given a brief reason at
| > | > | > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SekerinTime.htm
| > | > | > at the end of the page for why it is thought to exist, but I
really
| > should
| > | > | > expand a little further. Let us assume for the moment that the
| > galaxy in
| > | > | > view on that page has no velocity with respect to us at its
core.
| > The
| > rim
| > | > | > will have one velocity toward us, and diametrically opposite the
| > negative of
| > | > | > that velocity, as shown in the red and blue boxes. These should
sum
| > to
| > | > | > zero, of course, giving the velocity of the galaxy as whole. You
| > could
| > do
| > | > | > this with your helicopter blades, of course.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Our method of determining velocity is to determine red shift (or
| > frequency)
| > | > | > and applying that to the doppler equation, solving for v. Using
the
| > | > | > equations
| > | > | >
| > | > | > v = c( [1- f '^2 /f^2 ] / [1+ f '^2/f^2] ) (SR)
| > | > | >
| > | > | > and
| > | > | >
| > | > | > v = c ( 1-f' /f) (ET)
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I've produced a table using a spread ***.
| > | >
| > | > Yeuch.... didn't work.
| > | > | >
| > | > Observed f Einstein v Galileo v Lorentz v Recession velocity
| > | > 0.0 300000 300000 #DIV/0! 60000
| > | > 0.1 294059 270000 2700000 62106
| > | > 0.2 276923 240000 1200000 59216
| > | > 0.3 250459 210000 700000 52350
| > | > 0.4 217241 180000 450000 42890
| > | > 0.5 180000 150000 300000 32308
| > | > 0.6 141176 120000 200000 21940
| > | > 0.7 102685 90000 128571 12866
| > | > 0.8 65854 60000 75000 5878
| > | > 0.9 31492 30000 33333 1492
| > | > 1.0 0 0 0
0
| > | > 1.1 -28507 -30000 -27273 1492
| > | > 1.2 -54098 -60000 -50000 5878
| > | > 1.3 -76952 -90000 -69231 12866
| > | > 1.4 -97297 -120000 -85714 21940
| > | > 1.5 -115385 -150000 -100000 32308
| > | > 1.6 -131461 -180000 -112500 42890
| > | > 1.7 -145758 -210000 -123529 52350
| > | > 1.8 -158491 -240000 -133333 59216
| > | > 1.9 -169848 -270000 -142105 62106
| > | > 2.0 -180000 -300000 -150000 60000
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Notice that for observed frequencies of 0.9 and 1.1, we have
| > | > | > 30,000 - 30,000 = 0 in column 3, so the galaxy is stationary,
| > | > | > but in column 2 we have 31492 -28507 = 1492, the galaxy core is
| > receding.
| > | > | > Thus we find recession not only from overall red shift, but from
| > observation
| > | > | > of a single galaxy, simply by using Einstein's equation instead
of
| > the
| > | > | > correct one.
| > | > | > I sometimes get very frustrated when I think just how far
reaching
| > | > | > Einstein's nonsense has thrown physics and astronomy off track.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Incidentally, there is a curiousity between 1.8f and 2.0f or
0.0 to
| > 0.2f.
| > | > | > See it?
| > | > | > Try plotting column 5 on a graph if not.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | At very low velocity, they may
| > | > | > | begin to combine under gravity (sucked in by a star or galaxy)
and
| > | > | > | eventually be reconstituted as hydrogen-- and round she goes
| > again!
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Continous creation. Yes, quite conceivable, and the clouds seen
at
| > | > | > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031026.html
| > | > | > could easily stop a slow photon dead over a few light years.
They
| > are
| > | > | > absolutely enormous. Nature doesn't care about a few billion
years,
| > she
| > has
| > | > | > eternity to play with, and has had a past eternity as well. It
is
| > difficult
| > | > | > for the human mind to imagine that such clouds have always
existed.
| > | > | > Certainly it is for me, since I abhore circularity in
mathematical
| > argument,
| > | > | > yet philosophically it seems I must accept it in Nature.
Intuition
| > tells
| > me
| > | > | > that must have has a beginning, even if they eventually form an
| > entire
| > | > | > galaxy. How did they get their in the first place? Yes, I'll
agree
| > that
| > | > | > photons carry the "Stuff" to make them, but what is the seed?
| > |
| > | No seed, no chicken and egg scenario, no beginning, no end, no
| > | "creation"!!
| >
| > I meant the seed of the hydrogen cloud. One would expect the cloud to
vanish
| > eventually, gravitating toward the stars it 'created'.
|
| The mass of the cloud might be such that it all gravitates to its OWN
| center of gravity, and a star is born!

Sure, but how did the cloud form in the first place? That's the seed that is
missing. Nature recycles plants and animals, and we understand (well,
loosely) how it happens. A tree produces a seed, the seed gets buried by a
squirrel, a fox catches the squirrel, no other squirrel knows where the seed
is, the seed grows and becomes a tree, the older tree dies and its nutrients
are broken down by insects and fungi, returning to the ground, the young
tree matures, is visited by insects and produces a seed, the cycle repeats.
Are stars the seed and the cloud the tree, or is it the other way around?

|
| Continous recycling
| > might be a more appropriate term, but the term 'continuous creation' has
| > been with us since before the introduction of the big bang.
|
| Recycling is the one!!!!! EMR particles (or smaller) -> hydrogen ->
| star -> heavier elements -> Sn -> EMR
| .............................
| >
| > | The human psyche just cannot handle or accept the concept of 1/0.
| > | Because of that, religions are created in the human mind to fill the
| > | void, and DHR's claim that 1/0 is "undefined".
| >
| > It IS undefined.
| > a = b , given
| > a^2 = ab (multiply by a)
| > a^2-b^2 = ab - b^2 (subtract b^2)
| > (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) (factorize)
| > a+b = b ....?? ( dividing through by a-b = 0 )
| > b+b = b (because a = b)
| > 2b = b
| > 2 = 1
| > Thus division by zero is undefined.
| > You can make 3 = 1 if you like, or c+v = c. That should give a hint that
| > a division by zero is embedded in SR. The trick is to find it.
| > I have found it.
|
| Damn! and I was going to use v=d/t as a way to travel back in time.
| You see, I have been told by Al, Dirk v and others, that "less than
| zero distance" is a reality.

Can't happen, sorry. Dinky is a real idiot anyway. He just told Ghost that
if x = 0, x' = -vt' , because Einstein defined x' = x-vt.
That leaves t = t'.

| >
| > | I certainly can't
| > | "understand" it; I CAN exercise my ability to apply logic to
| > | observation and arrive at this intellectual conclusion, relying on
| > | natural truths, rather than Relativity's "magic".
| > | (Although "force at a distance" is somewhat "magical" at that)
| >
| > Only if you seek a cause. Of course we do, but if you start with
| > 'action at a distance' as the fundamental axiom of physics all else
follows
| > from that.
|
| Well that is what my photons do- bark when nearby.
|
| Ooroo
| Jim G
| c'=c+v
:-)
Androcles

Quantcast