Re: Speed Of Light Question


Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2005 19:47:33 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:59:25 -0400, "sue jahn" <suzysewnshow> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:47:32 -0400, Henri Wilson <H@..> wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> >>> It looks like disturbed charges in a spherical region
> >> >>> LYs in radius if you look at it LYs after emission.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> <<
> >> >>> In a non-quantum world, light is
> >> >>> http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/more/light/images/wave_eq_B.gif
> >> >>
> >> >> very enlightening.
> >> >
> >> ><<Draw it for me. >>
> >> >Sure! With a little help:
> >> >http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour02.htm
> >>
> >> quite neat...but not really relevant.
> >
> >I think you mean 'not really helpful'
> >...to a corpuscle theory of light.
> >
> >Sue...
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In a quantum world, light is
> >> >>> http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/more/light/images/formula_planck.gif
> >> >>> From:
> >> >>> http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/more/light/light_page1.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Nah! I like mine better. It's alive.
> >> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/E-field.exe
> >> >
> >> >So are these:
> >> >Set Windows Media Player to "repeat".
> >> >
> >> >... But they have measrement to prove they
> >> >are right:
> >> >http://www.eecs.umich.edu/RADLAB/html/LABFACILITIES.html
> >>
> >> What is that supposed to prove?
> >
> >It prove that:
> >http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour02.htm
> >didn't come out of some cranks arse.

HW: <<Ah! ...but what is a crank? >>

<<
Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally
(including the scientific method), and can be identified by a
combination of these characteristics:

by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental
results;
by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that
violate falsifiability);
by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established
results;
by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible
results;
by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them
(called "science by press conference")
by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to
predict;
by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the
explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when
multiple viable explanations are possible (and the more egregious the
violation, the more likely); or
by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.
Pseudoscience is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or
spirituality in that it claims to offer insight into the physical world
by "scientific" means. Systems of thought that rely upon "divine" or
"inspired" knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not
claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science.
There are also bodies of practical knowledge that are not claimed to be
scientific. These are also not pseudoscience.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Sue...



<<
>
> >
> >Sue...
>
> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>
> "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

.

Loading