Re: Speed Of Light Question
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Sep 2005 16:42:44 -0700
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2005 16:41:22 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >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
>
> ....sounds a bit like Einsteinian relativity.
100 years ago it might escape the label. Today I would have
to agree.
>
> >
> >Sue...
>
> The problem boils down to establishing reality when one's only data is known to
> be illusory......and to an unknown degree.
I think you are confusing the term illusion with a
mischaractization of the light path. If you evaluate
all the light paths from a magician's
assistant to your eye. You can say with certainty:
A. The lady was cut in half
or
B. The lady was not cut in half
or
C. The magician deprived us of a critical light path.
The reality of the performace is not an issue.
>
> So who is the bigger crackpot?
> The person who blindly accepts the illusion as being reality or the one who
> speculates on possible ways to establish reality from the illusion?
Neither. Physics is about measurements. If you measure
a resistive electrical component, and don't allow for
the resistance of the meter's test leads, you get an error
.... not an illusion or a reality.
Sue...
>
>
> 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".
.
- References:
- Re: Speed Of Light Question
- From: Sue...
- Re: Speed Of Light Question
- From: Sue...
- Re: Speed Of Light Question
- From: Sue...
- Re: Speed Of Light Question
- Prev by Date: Re: When does a FOR cease to be a FOR?
- Next by Date: Re: Can current theory explain the twin paradox?
- Previous by thread: Re: Speed Of Light Question
- Next by thread: Re: Speed Of Light Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
