Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
From: Pax (pax1_at_whitesweb.com)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: stew dean: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: andreas: "Re: hubble and the age of the universe"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Next in thread: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:18:19 GMT
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:mgR3d.37941$D7.28797@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
> news:gdQ3d.136$q67.40@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:iMN3d.37748$D7.30605@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
> > > news:peM3d.7052$RG7.483@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > Bill, I apologize.
> > >
> > > Apology not required but of course appreciated. We are here to
discuss
> > > physics and if you had a look at the links I gave that is the
important
> > > thing.
> >
> > Agreed. Peace. :)
> >
> > > > I was seeing you in the light of your first, derogatory
> > > > statement and your further incorrect assumptions concerning my
present
> > > state
> > > > of knowledge concerning physics, including assuming I have not even
> read
> > > > Feynman.
> > >
> > > I was concerned about your opinions regarding mathematics and its
> relation
> > > to physics. Those that read my posts know I have strong opinions in
> this
> > > area - basically the same as the links I gave.
> >
> > I was apparently extremely unclear as to my true feelings about math as
> > regards physics. I consider the math to be very important. Einstein may
> have
> > started with a flash of insight, but he always ended by proving it with
> > math. Only an idiot would not consider that as a clear indication of how
> > important math is to physics. When I spoke of "mathheads", I was
referring
> > to those who value ONLY the math part of physics, and denegrate the
> > inspiration of "Why...? What if...?" Physics is just a crippled by a
> totally
> > mathhead approach as it would be with any approach that disregards the
> value
> > of math.
> >
> > > > Personally, I have just been through one of the most devastating
> > > > periods of my life, so perhaps I'm not in the correct frame of mind
to
> > > even
> > > > attempt physics again.
> > >
> > > It is always the right time to learn. Keep at it and knowledge will
> come.
> >
> > Thanks. At this moment I have a bit of time, since I seem to be in
between
> > calamities right now. I was escaping to these newsgroups and the physics
I
> > love to explore. Foolish really, I should know by now there actually is
no
> > escape.
>
> IMHO understanding something as important as physics is never foolish or
an
> escape.
All we ever really learn is that there is so much to learn we'll never
discover it all, much less learn it all. We're ignorant coming in and only a
bit less ignorant going out... and when we're history we're a matter of
opinion with a spin on it and then finally most of us are nothing. One of
the few areas that seems to escape this death trap is science. We can't
truly learn a lot from history, because it's so easily and constantly
rewritten to match popular opinion, but we can learn from science, because
it's discoveries are revered.
> > Besides, for me, it's really exactly as Sherlock Holmes once stated,
> > "What difference is it to me if the Earth goes around the sun or the
moon
> > around the Earth, how does knowing that change my life? Would life
> continue
> > differently for most of us if the Earth went around the moon? No it
would
> > not. It's knowledge that is of no use to me, therefore I consider it
> > irrelevant." I wish I shared his attitude concerning physics, I'd be a
lot
> > happier.
>
> Trouble is it all is an interconnected whole. Some may not consider it
> important if we consider the earth goes around the sun or the moon, but as
a
> paradigm for the way we consider the world it has important everyday
> applications. Basically what physics shows us is that things are not
> necessarily what they seem on the surface. But when viewed correctly it
> takes on almost startling beauty and symmetry. Could other things be the
> same? I believe they are. Take for example the question should we have a
> costly legal based system of accident compensation or a government run
fund?
> We could examine political philosophy, capitalism vs socialism, and all
> sorts of other things you often see politicians trot out - even the old
> standby of not answering the question you are asked. But how would
physics
> tackle the problem? Simple - conduct an experiment. And when we compare
> one system to the other purely on that basis what do we find - the
> government option costs a lot more because it is easier to claim so you
get
> a lot more frivolous ones. When this is pointed out you can pretty well
> guess which way people will vote.
Unless those people are like me, and have experience with other govenment
insurance programs such as Flood Insurance. The requirements for that are so
stringent, and the adjusters so parsimonious, they save a huge fortune
compared to what such insurance handled by the private sector would cost.
However, this comes at the expense of the disaster victims, since very
seldom are they granted enough money to actually repair and refurnish their
homes without going deep into their own pockets.
Also, it's far from easy to make such a claim, the paperwork alone is
onerous, not considering the other miles of red tape. One thing our
government is superior at doing is taking money and not giving it back in
any manner that's actually very useful to the taxpayer. Only about 5 cents
of every dollar actually ever returns to the taxpayer in a positive manner,
the rest is sucked in to feed the ever-growing black hole of bureaucracy.
> It is sort of like the technology
> dividend we all got from the space program - nothing direct but indirect
> things like IC's that came out of it had a big impact. Similar with
> physics - by seeing how you discover nature works at a fundamental level
we
> learn how to discover the answer to other more directly important
questions.
I completely agree.
> Having said that the above is not the reason to study physics, or science,
> or play tennis, appreciate art or other similar human activity. You do it
> because you like it - simple as that.
In my case, I'm driven where science is concerned. Have been ever since I
was a child. It's a hunger. The best Christmas present we ever got when I
was around 12 was a complete set of encyclopedias, which included an added
set devoted to the natural sciences and an unabridged dictionary that was 2
or 3 large books long. It was a treasure trove.
> Thanks
> Bill
Be well - Pax
- Next message: stew dean: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: andreas: "Re: hubble and the age of the universe"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Next in thread: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
