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


Golden Boar wrote:
PD wrote:
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.

This is just pure crap. Why should anyone have to pay anything to read
a scientific article at their own convenience? Also not everyone can
get off their *** to go to the library, not everyone can get a friend
to go to the library for them either. No wonder some people think there
is a conspiracy within the scientific community.

I say that they can stick the $23 up their arse, and a good seach on
the web will probably find the same article free of charge.

I'll bet not. That would violate copyright.

If not, I
bet the information contained within the article can be found on the
net free of charge.

I'll bet not. That's how journal publishers make a living.


$23 for a simple article, that is just pure robbery, you could get a
book for about that price.

And you wonder why tuition at universities is so high. You know what an
annual journal subscription costs a library? In some cases, $20,000.



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

You assume that everyone can afford to pay $23 for an article, or that
they live near a library that has access to the article free of charge.

Unless you can provide the article freely to all people with an
internet connection, you have no right to criticise people for not
reading it.

But I can't provide it for free. That would be a copyright violation.

There are those who think that all scientific information should be
free. There are also those who think all music should be free, and
movies as well. Some of those people are being convicted in court for
actions that abet that. I'll not argue whether this should or should
not be. But it is most certainly not the case that all scientific
information is free today. Sorry, but it's not.

Hundreds of thousands of college students move out of comfortable homes
into small, cramped quarters and pay a lot of money for access to
journals which they are provided as a service component of their
tuition.

There are alternative methods. Most authors are given a short stack of
reprints of their articles as a service by the publisher, which they
are free to give at their discretion to folks who ask them nicely and
provide return postage. If you get a reference, you are certainly able
to retrieve the abstract which contains the author names and
institutional affiliation where they can be reached. You can also try
to retrieve it from online preprint archives like the one at LANL,
which can certainly be done with a little effort, though some older
ones won't be there.

I won't criticize people for not having access to journals. But if
people want to know the details of the experimental evidence for the
constancy of the speed of light and they feel somehow *entitled* to
that information for free, I don't have a lot of sympathy.

PD

.