Re: Speed Of Light Question
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Sep 2005 16:10:03 -0700
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2005 16:42:44 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 26 Sep 2005 16:41:22 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >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...
>
> You see, most humans are very primative.
>
> Here on Earth, we can usually believe what we see...because the travel time of
> light makes little difference to out perception of even the fastest moving
> objects...so it was only natural that astronomers through the ages have assumed
> that the same should apply to the viewing of stars.
>
> But in the case of stellar objects many LYs away, we certainly cannot believe
> what we see. Objects aren't where we think they are. Movements are not as we
> might plot them. Orbits are not as we measure them...even their periods....so
> what we observe is a distorted view of past events.
>
> At some stage, astronomy made a great leap forward following the realization
> that allowance must be made for light's travel time....but it was still assumed
> that light travelled at a constant speed 'c' wrt little planet Earth......
> presumably a legacy of christianity's insistance that our planet was the centre
> of the universe.
>
> Now, some of the more enlightened humans have realised that because light
> leaves its source at c, the images we see are indeed very distorted
> representations of the truth.
>
> Using the fact that light speed is source dependent, I and others are now able
> to reconstruct the reality behind some of these illusions...with outstanding
> success.
There is not a scintilla of electromagnetic proof of what
you are unscientifically calling a 'fact'.
>
> It is to be hoped that the whole of astronomy soon recognizes this major
> breakthough and drags itself out of the Einsteinian rut.
Einstein has nothing to do the the work of Maxwell, Weber,
Heaviside and many others which show the
mode of propagation you are proposing is precluded by
well tested electomagnetic principles.
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: Can current theory explain the twin paradox?
- Next by Date: Re: Paradox in need of resolution.
- Previous by thread: Re: Speed Of Light Question
- Next by thread: Re: Speed Of Light Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
