On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 08:04:08 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

It is now assumed that space and time began maybe 15 or 20 billion years
ago. Poe may be wrong.

Hi Richard,

Poe got it right. The greater portion of the night sky is as black
now as it was in Poe's time - nothing has changed to render Poe's
assessment incorrect.

" My general proposition, then, is this: -- In the Original Unity
of the First Thing lies the Secondary Cause of All Things, with
the Germ of their Inevitable Annihilation.

Poe is describing both concepts we now proclaim as the Big Bang, AND
the Big Crunch.

"In speaking of what is ordinarily implied by the expression,
'Universe,' I shall take a phrase of limitation -- 'the Universe
of stars.' Why this distinction is considered necessary, will be
seen in the sequel.

"But even of treatises on the really limited, although always
assumed as the un limited, Universe of stars, I know none in which
a survey, even of this limited Universe, is so taken as to warrant
deductions from its individuality."
...
" It seems to me that, in aiming at this latter effect, and,
through it, at the consequences -- the conclusions -- the
suggestions -- the speculations -- or, if nothing better offer
itself, the mere guesses which may result from it -- we require
something like a mental gyration on the heel. We need so rapid a
revolution of all things about the central point of sight that,
while the minutiae vanish altogether, even the more conspicuous
objects become blended into one. Among the vanishing minutiae, in
a survey of this kind, would be all exclusively terrestrial
matters. The Earth would be considered in its planetary relations
alone. A man, in this view, becomes mankind; mankind a member of
the cosmical family of Intelligences."

These paragraphs introduce a literary device used by Poe to discuss
the topic, a message found in a floating bottle - from the futu

" And now, before proceeding to our subject proper, let me beg the
reader's attention to an extract or two from a somewhat remarkable
letter, which appears to have been found corked in a bottle and
floating on the Mare Tenebrarum - an ocean well described by the
Nubian geographer, Ptolemy Hephestion, but little frequented in
modern days unless by the Transcendentalists and some other divers
for crotchets. The date of this letter, I confess, surprises me
even more particularly than its contents; for it seems to have
been written in the year Two thousand eight hundred and
forty-eight. As for the passages I am about to transcribe, they, I
fancy, will speak for themselves."

I will pause here in anticipation of further inquiry. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Pennino wrote:
"There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of
light is other than a constant, ever."

A.A. Michelson and E.W.Morley in 1881 measured the speed of light in the
direction of the Earth and the speed of light at right angles to the
Earth`s motion. No difference was found.

Light does have different speeds in different media. This causes light
to bend when passing from one medium to another. The "speed of light" is
through space or a vacuum. The more a substance bends light, the higher
its refractive index.

I said Einstein may be wrong. I should have added that I don`t think so.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
"There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of
light is other than a constant, ever."

A.A. Michelson and E.W.Morley in 1881 measured the speed of light in the
direction of the Earth and the speed of light at right angles to the
Earth`s motion. No difference was found.

Light does have different speeds in different media. This causes light
to bend when passing from one medium to another. The "speed of light" is
through space or a vacuum. The more a substance bends light, the higher
its refractive index.

I said Einstein may be wrong. I should have added that I don`t think so.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

You might want to read the following:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...edofLight.html

and maybe:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...xperiment.html


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Jim Pennino wrote:
"There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of
light is other than a constant, ever."

Heh, heh, and nobody has ever gotten *exactly* the same results. :-)


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Harrison wrote:
I said Einstein may be wrong. I should have added that I don`t think so.

I predict that Einstein was wrong by the same percentage that Newton
was wrong. After all, physics is a converging series. :-) In 100 years,
I predict that Einstein's theories will be just as obsolete as Newton's
theories are now. 'Course, my great-great-grandson will have to collect
any bets.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
I said Einstein may be wrong. I should have added that I don`t think so.

I predict that Einstein was wrong by the same percentage that Newton
was wrong. After all, physics is a converging series. :-) In 100 years,
I predict that Einstein's theories will be just as obsolete as Newton's
theories are now. 'Course, my great-great-grandson will have to collect
any bets.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


Perhaps you might read:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Einstein.html

and tell us where there's a place for a "percentage" where Einstein might
have been wrong.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
"There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of
light is other than a constant, ever."

Heh, heh, and nobody has ever gotten *exactly* the same results. :-)


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Or to put it in more realistic terms, as instrumentation gets better
and better, the value of c gets more decimal points.

By 1947 it was to +/- 3 km/s, in 1958 +/- 0.1, and by 1973 +/- 0.001.

To put things in perspective, +/- 0.001 km/s is an error of .000000000007%.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Jim Pennino
...tell us where there's a place for
a "percentage" where Einstein might
have been wrong.

Al said: "God does not play dice..."

Current Truth is: "He not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where
even He can't see them."





-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Dogs do not play dice... wrote:
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Jim Pennino
...tell us where there's a place for
a "percentage" where Einstein might
have been wrong.

Al said: "God does not play dice..."

Current Truth is: "He not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where
even He can't see them."

Actually, what he said was "God does not play dice with the world.".

He also said "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not
doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal
himself because of his enormous size".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Richard Clark wrote:

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:01:27 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:


Richard Clark wrote:
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"

There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.


A close and suggestive answer.

Hi All,

Well, it is notable that no "astronomer" got this one right ;-)

I will 'fess up in that it was a trick question because it contained a
ringer (one that three out of three sprung for).

However two out of three got the extra credit question (Olber's
Paradox). No doubt second tier, and to date silent, observers may
chime in with "authority." ;-)

No, Hubble may have described an answer that satisfies the paradox,
however the FIRST (1848) and ACCURATE response to this issue was
written by Edgar Allen Poe in "Eureka!" what he calls a prose poem
dedicated to Alexander von Humboldt:
"Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the
sky would present us an uniform luminosity, like that displayed by
the Galaxy -- since there could be absolutely no point, in all
that background, at which would not exist a star."

Awesome, Richard! Can this monograph be found online?

- Mike KB3EIA -