Re: Painful but inevitable resignation
From: Andr? Michaud (srp_at_microtec.net)
Date: 11/22/04
- Next message: Michael Moroney: "Re: Storing the summer heat"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Fizeau paper now in printable pdf format, with minor revisions"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Painful but inevitable resignation"
- Next in thread: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Painful but inevitable resignation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Nov 2004 09:14:19 -0800
greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0411212334.7262d71f@posting.google.com>...
> srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0411200533.1572d05@posting.google.com>...
> > greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0411191755.7e53b3cf@posting.google.com>...
So, we agree on the physical existence of the "present moment" (or
"now moment").
Great.
[snip]
> > > How to tell "objective" reality? Scince collects data from deep space,
> > > and then subjects that data to ASSUMPTIONS, especially that c is
> > > unvariable. From that they build a model which is claimed to be
> > > objective, and a true picture of the universe, but if it has a built
> > > in bias?? (that light is NOT always c)
> >
> > This issue seems to have been pretty much ascertained. There remains
> > little doubt about the constancy of the speed of light. Too many
> > processes would not work properly if c was not constant, starting with
> > radar Doppler ranging.
>
> :-( Doppler can be (and often is) misunderstood. Whenever a change
> of frequency is observed, DHR's claim that as c is constant, the
> change is due to a change of wavelength, NOT a change in c. This
> unwarranted assumption is at the heart of the circular logic on which
> Relativity is based.
> Consider: if c alters due to source dependency, and wavelength stays
> the same, a Doppler effect will STILL be seen, but under present
> (wrong) assumption about light speed), the result is wrongly
> attributed (although still correct)
There is far more than Doppler as evidence that all EM frequencies all
travel at precisely c in vacuum.
But as I said, however unfortunate it is for the rate of progress that no
one will reconsider from scratch any fundamental conclusion that he reached,
I will bring no argument to bear. We all have the same data available to
analyze.
[snip]
> > > Does a blind man live forever, or not at all?
> > > How did science get so confused, just because an atom has a preferred
> > > speed for ejecting a photon?
> >
> > Even in the deepest night, at ambient temperature, electrons are excited
> > and de-excited in surrounding materials and emit photons. The numbers
> > however simply are below the sensitivity threshold of our eyes.
> >
> > So, this is not a real problem.
>
> But there are none of these "observers" slinking about, on who all
> seem to have to rely as to what is happening.
Then, all of them have been relying on a delusion. Common sense is a better
guide than subjective and arbitrary restrictions.
> > > > >
> > > > May I ask you for being so fair to pass on my message to your students
> > > > in case you consider it serious but do not share it, just like one more
> > > > opinion?
> > >
> > > I suggest that it is so politically incorrect within science
> > > institutions to criticise AE, that any teaching to students along
> > > these lines will lead to a very short teaching tenure.
> >
> > You are absolutely right. That route is barred by peer pressure to
> > conform. Only orthodox views can be taught in formal institutions.
> >
> > All strays are quickly chastized to conform or they are out. For
> > the same reason, no paper not stemming from totally orthodox
> > foundations has been allowed into formal print since SR, GR and
> > QM set the "acceptable" orthodox foundation.
> >
> > Other means must be resorted to to spread coherent ideas that are
> > not mainstream. That's what I do.
>
> Carry on, and good luck!
Thank you, but this is too important to have been left the whims of
lady luck.
André Michaud
- Next message: Michael Moroney: "Re: Storing the summer heat"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Fizeau paper now in printable pdf format, with minor revisions"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Painful but inevitable resignation"
- Next in thread: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Painful but inevitable resignation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
