Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group


Rudolf Drabek wrote:
dda1 schrieb:

It was carried out, it has been carried out for ages.
Here is a newer one:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v42/i2/p731_1?qid=6c4ab66eee46e0e8&qseq=4&show=30
I don't want to pay 23US$ for this article.

Why do we still have a discussion about this topic in this group in yr
view?

Because there are too many people who are unwilling to sit in their
chair and pay $23 for the article at their convenience, or unwilling to
get their *** out of their chair to go to the nearest university
library where they will find it for free, or unwilling to call up a
friend or acquaintance to go to the library for them and xerox the
article in exchange for treating them to dinner sometime.

Unfortunately, several of these people nevertheless maintain that they
are interested enough in the topic to have spent considerable effort
and time coming up with an alternative notion that doesn't require c to
be constant. However, they are still unwilling to do either of the
above to admit the possibility that they made a serious mistake and
have to start over. And so they trot it out here and expect others to
remove that requirement of extra effort.

PD

.