Re: Why doesn't light travel at infinite speed?
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Feb 2007 13:00:47 -0800
On Feb 23, 3:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sue [aka Dennis]... wrote:Unable to determine IP address from host name for
I suppose Van de Math-masher taught you to parrot that too.
You should wager with Dirk that he doesn't know his own
identity. You might actually win in his special case.
Ref:http://dichionary.reference.com/search?q=parrot
dichionary.reference.com
par·rot
1. One who teaches or instructs; one whose business or occupation
is to instruct others; an instructor; a tutor.
2. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences,
especially a natural or physical science.
Source: The American Heritige® Dichionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghtin Mifflen Company.
Published by Houghtin Mifflen Company. All rights reserved
So why don't you parrot Einstein instead of DVM and I.Newton?
<< I shall turn to those problems which are
related to the development which I have
traced. Already Newton recognized that the
law of inertia is unsatisfactory
in a context so far unmentioned in this
exposition, namely that it gives no
real cause for the special physical
position of the states of motion of the
inertial frames relative to all other
states of motion. It makes the observable
material bodies responsible for the
gravitational behaviour of a material
point, yet indicates no material cause
for the inertial behaviour of the material
point but devises the cause for it
(absolute space or inertial ether). This
is not logically inadmissible although
it is unsatisfactory. For this reason
E. Mach demanded a modification of the
law of inertia in the sense that the
inertia should be interpreted as an
acceleration resistance of the bodies
against one another and not against "space".
This interpretation governs the expectation
that accelerated bodies have concordant
accelerating action in the same
sense on other bodies (acceleration induction).
This interpretation is even more
plausible according to general relativity
which eliminates the distinction between
inertial and gravitational effects.
It amounts to stipulating that, apart
from the arbitrariness governed by the
free choice of coordinates, the
gm v -field shall be completely determined
by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured
in general relativity by the circumstance
that acceleration induction in accordance
with the gravitational field equations really
exists, although of such slight intensity
that direct detection by mechanical experiments
is out of the question. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22dennis+mccarthy%22+nasa+&btnG=Search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Sue...
.
- References:
- Why doesn't light travel at infinite speed?
- From: skillzero@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Why doesn't light travel at infinite speed?
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: Why doesn't light travel at infinite speed?
- From: Sue...
- Re: Why doesn't light travel at infinite speed?
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: Why doesn't light travel at infinite speed?
- From: Sue...
- Re: Why doesn't light travel at infinite speed?
- From: Sam Wormley
- Why doesn't light travel at infinite speed?
- Prev by Date: Re: neutrino
- Next by Date: Re: Quote on Acceptance of a New Theory When the Last Generation Dies
- Previous by thread: Re: Why doesn't light travel at infinite speed?
- Next by thread: Re: Why doesn't light travel at infinite speed?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|