Re: OK
From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 11/01/04
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Twin Paradox in non-trivial spatial topologies"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Hammond Teh Moderator"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: OK"
- Next in thread: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: OK"
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: OK"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:02:41 GMT
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:01:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse
><fsegg@uaf.edu>
> wrote
>on 31 Oct 2004 02:38:08 -0800
><fd0fc2fa.0410310238.419661ac@posting.google.com>:
>> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message
>> news:<jvk8o0ldm0ech8atd3kv6re717jn15mher@4ax.com>...
>>> On 29 Oct 2004 20:51:24 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>>>
>>> >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message
>>> >news:<vlh1o010e6ust8sm4rusp82cc84nnf8mlf@4ax.com>...
>>> >> On 26 Oct 2004 14:14:23 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>>> >>
>
>[snip]
>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >You can't explain anything. Your theory is crap. Just admit you
>>> >> >believe without evidence and go to a religious newsgroup, and we will
>>> >> >leave you alone.
>>> >>
>>> >> Geese, please, just for once, will you tell me how and why light
>>> >> from two differently moving sources should ever end up traveling
>>> >> at the same speed through space. If you cannot do this then I
>>> >> will have to ignore you in future becasue you obviously have
>>> >> nothing to offer.
>>> >
>>> >Look at the previous answers: I have no explantion for "why", it just
>>> >does. Just because SR doesn't satisfy an arbitrary philosophical
>>> >requirement does not mean it is less useful.
>>> >
>>> >It is not my fault you ignore experimental evidence because the
>>> >Newtonian universe meshes with your worldview better.
>>>
>>> Geese I have postulated that light moves at c relative to its
>>> source and guess what?
>>>
>>> Everything falls neatly into place.
>>
>> Everything?
>
>Well, it does explain the null result of Michelson-Morley.
>That's probably about it. :-) It certainly doesn't
>explain, for instance, supernovae observations or muon
>observations; in the former, bits of the exploding gas
>shell are apparently moving rather quickly (after 950
>years the nebula is about 10 light-years wide), and yet
>the observers in 1054 A.D. still saw it glowing for at
>most a year -- this at a distance of 7,000 light years,
>according to estimates for the distance between us and
>the Crab Nebula. Were c'=c+v we'd see it far differently.
I think you will find it explains all these phenomena, ghost.
Because of c+v, we DO see everything differently.
>
>As for "why"? Why does light exist at all? I'm not up
>on my electromagnetics so can't say why it perambulates
>throughout the Universe, although there is a sort of nice
>philosophical thought in that it takes 0 time subjective
>to do so, arriving fresh as a daisy to impinge on the
>sensor/eyeball, as opposed to the laggard particles (which
>AIUI tend to spread out).
The 3D graphical representation of space is all psychological anyway.
>
>[.sigsnip]
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Twin Paradox in non-trivial spatial topologies"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Hammond Teh Moderator"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: OK"
- Next in thread: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: OK"
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: OK"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
