Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

John Smith wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

There's theory, and then there's fact.



What fact????


Do you not believe in fact, Cecil?

You can't even prove that you exist. :-)


There's evidence indicating that I do, and none indicating that I
don't. So I'm at least a valid theory. What I can't prove is that I
don't exist. For a number of reasons.

73, Jim AC6XG


Personally Jim, I doubt your existence. I have a theory you are much
more likely to be a "brain in a bottle", you are nothing more than a
brain in some aliens laboratory and housed within life support
equipment, the body you see as yours is only imagined and a very good
illusion.

Kewl!!!


Some of us here are just like you, but I am real (a "control" in the
experiment you are involved in.) And, I do understand how all this can
be so confusing.

Your post brings to mind my theory of newsgroups, John. Many people do
not look at the other poster(s) as human beings. It is just some sort of
interactive sparring match with their computer. Kind of like the old
game Zork, but with infinite variability, and only one room filled with
"the enemy"..

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

I'm pretty sure of my position, but I don't have faith in it.


If your position is not worthy of any faith
at all, why do you believe in it?


Faith is a fine thing for religion, not science.

If there are 3 known types of wombats in the world, I'd agree there are
three. If a 4th type is discovered, I will change my mind and agree that
there are 4 types. I allow the possibility for change.

If I had faith that there were 3 types, I could continue to have that
faith.

Faith is not about fact. Faith is about what you "know" without proof.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Faith is a fine thing for religion, not science.

You have faith in your ability to understand science.
It is possible that you (and I) don't really understand
a single thing about science.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

There's theory, and then there's fact.



What fact????


Do you not believe in fact, Cecil?

You can't even prove that you exist. :-)


There's evidence indicating that I do, and none indicating that I
don't. So I'm at least a valid theory. What I can't prove is that I
don't exist. For a number of reasons.

73, Jim AC6XG


Personally Jim, I doubt your existence. I have a theory you are much
more likely to be a "brain in a bottle", you are nothing more than a
brain in some aliens laboratory and housed within life support
equipment, the body you see as yours is only imagined and a very good
illusion.

Kewl!!!


Some of us here are just like you, but I am real (a "control" in the
experiment you are involved in.) And, I do understand how all this
can be so confusing.

Your post brings to mind my theory of newsgroups, John. Many people do
not look at the other poster(s) as human beings. It is just some sort of
interactive sparring match with their computer. Kind of like the old
game Zork, but with infinite variability, and only one room filled with
"the enemy"..

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

Thanks! You were able to see the difficulty in my words and say what I
wanted to, and better!

Regards,
John

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Faith is a fine thing for religion, not science.

You have faith in your ability to understand science.
It is possible that you (and I) don't really understand
a single thing about science.

Cecil:

Ahhh, why did you have to go and admit that? Still, if as you say is
so, we will just find someone else who knows less and point at him!
evil grin

Regards,
John

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
Perhaps he was correct, you think?

Of course, he was correct. Empty space has been
proved not to be empty and certainly appears to
have a structure with particles winking in and
out of existence. The physicists were correct
about the existence of the medium (ether) but they
made incorrect assumptions about its nature. It was
a mistake to assume the ether didn't exist just
because its nature was different than expected.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I dont think that the problem is that thought space was empty, rather than
that they thought space was nothing.

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Jimmie D wrote:
I dont think that the problem is that thought space was empty, rather than
that they thought space was nothing.

If there really were *nothing* there, there would
be nothing through which EM waves could propagate.
Therefore, there is something there. *Nothing* is
outside of the universe. Something is inside the
universe. EM waves cannot propagate through nothing
outside of the universe. They only propagate through
something inside the universe.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Mike Coslo wrote:
Anyhow, what alterations to the equation do you propose that will allow
or introduce the aging effect?

No alterations necessary. Just accept the equations
as literal facts of physics.

All very well, but how do you argue for the velocity of light slowing
down?

The velocity factor of empty space is changing. With
seconds getting shorter and space getting longer, light
just cannot travel as far in a second as it once did.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I doubt if light is slowing down, an inch is just getting longer, but that
is a relativistic observation.

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
You don't like relativity?

I apparently like it a lot better than some
astronomers and astrophysicists. The space
containing the Big Bang expanded a lot more
than it is possible for 3D space to expand.
Therefore, space is not three dimensional.
Latest theories are 10+ dimensions for space.


I think that those thories have some nasty side effects that are making a
lot of people take a second look at them.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Actually a lot lot of the side effects are accounted for by there being even
more dimensions, If there may be 10 why not 11 0r 12 or a n infinite number
of dimensions. An infinite number of dimensions would imply that any point
in the universe could be adjacent to any other point in the universe

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
Jimmie D wrote:
I dont think that the problem is that thought space was empty, rather
than that they thought space was nothing.

If there really were *nothing* there, there would
be nothing through which EM waves could propagate.
Therefore, there is something there. *Nothing* is
outside of the universe. Something is inside the
universe. EM waves cannot propagate through nothing
outside of the universe. They only propagate through
something inside the universe.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I was implying that space is the ether or at least could be.

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Jimmie D wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

Cecil Moore wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

You don't like relativity?

I apparently like it a lot better than some
astronomers and astrophysicists. The space
containing the Big Bang expanded a lot more
than it is possible for 3D space to expand.
Therefore, space is not three dimensional.
Latest theories are 10+ dimensions for space.


I think that those thories have some nasty side effects that are making a
lot of people take a second look at them.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -


Actually a lot lot of the side effects are accounted for by there being even
more dimensions, If there may be 10 why not 11 0r 12 or a n infinite number
of dimensions. An infinite number of dimensions would imply that any point
in the universe could be adjacent to any other point in the universe

It quickly becomes really ugly. Simply the number of strings is witness
to that:

Bosonic-26
I-10
IIA -10
IIB-10
HO-10
HE-10

If we wait long enough, there will be more string theories than
dimensions they predict.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -