Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 10:03 PM
130 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,173 Year: 13,779/21,208 Month: 3,261/3,605 Week: 47/556 Day: 47/54 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
18Next
Author Topic:   Speed of Light
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 181 of 268 (539498)
12-16-2009 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Viv Pope
12-16-2009 8:37 AM


Viv Pope Suspended 24 Hours
Viv Pope writes:

Is there ANYONE on this forum with the nous and the nerve to understand what I am saying?

This is unhelpful, off-topic, personal, and definitely not what we're looking for at EvC Forum. The people you're discussing with are not the topic of discussion. If you want to have a topic discussing what a bunch of noodniks participate at EvC Forum then open a topic over at the Coffee House, but in this thread you will focus on the topic, and if you don't then, as I'm doing now, you will be suspended for 24 hours. See you tomorrow.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Viv Pope, posted 12-16-2009 8:37 AM Viv Pope has not yet responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1044 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 182 of 268 (539499)
12-16-2009 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Viv Pope
12-16-2009 6:41 AM


Re: light travels
Give em hell Viv.

As far as I have seen, no one has been able to shot you down within anything other than their own closed minds, so that's nearly a win right there in itself.

I have often been amazed how frequently the so called experts who are at the top of their professions, don't know what the heck they are talking about much of the time. I forget who was the science fiction writer who said "Three-quarters of all of life is complete bullshit. "

By that he meant, don't go believing everything people tell you. So don't be disappointed if 3/4 of the people on this forum fall into that category-or even more; its a limited community.

oops. sorry, I wrote this before your reprimand. I thought small asides were allowed here. I guess not.

Well, then can I at least say, I was really enjoying his posts, because at least they contained plenty of food for thought, and he certainly made more of an effort to bring new and creative ideas to this site than many other people who only use it for criticism or repeating the same thing.

Edited by Bolder-dash, : oops

Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Viv Pope, posted 12-16-2009 6:41 AM Viv Pope has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Admin, posted 12-16-2009 9:18 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 186 by Admin, posted 12-17-2009 5:23 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 183 of 268 (539500)
12-16-2009 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Viv Pope
12-15-2009 2:41 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
Viv Pope writes:

feel that your caution to me about ‘fighting words’ and so on is misplaced.

Look, Viv, you're beginning to take up a lot of moderation time, so allow me to be blunt. I did, earlier, care what you think, but given your behavior you have taken this to the point where what you think does not matter. I was willing to work with you, but you seem determined to go your own way no matter what moderators say, so now I'm going to be blunt.

It doesn't matter that you think my caution to you about "fightin' words" is misplaced. I'm the moderator who will suspend you if you ignore him, so I suggest you take my caution seriously.

You can follow moderator requests to focus on the topic and not on the thread's participants, or you will be suspended for 24 hours.

You can start offering answers instead of evasions to questions, or you will be suspended for 24 hours.

You can start following moderator requests, or you will be suspended for 24 hours.

And about this:

Viv Pope writes:

So we can forget about your cautionary remarks on that. I was in no way meaning to report discussion problems. I am well capable of handling these myself (Sorry for the mistake!).

Do not take moderation issues into your own hands or you will be suspended for 24 hours.

Have I got your attention now, Viv?

EvC Forum has a set of Forum Guidelines that have been in place for years and years, I suggest you give them a read. Post any questions to Suggestions and Questions.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Viv Pope, posted 12-15-2009 2:41 PM Viv Pope has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 184 of 268 (539501)
12-16-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Bolder-dash
12-16-2009 9:08 AM


Bolder-dash suspended for 24 hours
Bolder-dash writes:

oops. sorry, I wrote this before your reprimand. I thought small asides were allowed here. I guess not.

You gotta be kiddin' me!

See you tomorrow.

Edited by Admin, : Change author.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 9:08 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1309 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 185 of 268 (539550)
12-16-2009 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by cavediver
12-15-2009 2:02 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
Fortunately, there is no quantum instantaneity to explain in the first place, nor any spooky action at a distance. There is "merely" the existence of quantum variables (something that Einstein did not want to consider) that behave unlike their classical counterparts.

More about this, please. This is exactly the sort of thing I would like to understand better.

As we discovered when we looked at the EPR experiment the other year, considerations of instanteous information exchange only arise when we try to mimic the statistical results of the EPR experiment using classical variables.

If there is no spooky-in-the-sky, why do so many people seem to believe that they can rub two particles together, evoke an equation or two, and then do read-a-lot-of-Frazer-but-never-seemed-to-get-the-point kind of things with them?

Edited by Iblis, : have you seen the Yellow Sign?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by cavediver, posted 12-15-2009 2:02 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by cavediver, posted 12-17-2009 10:02 AM Iblis has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 186 of 268 (539568)
12-17-2009 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Bolder-dash
12-16-2009 9:08 AM


Re: light travels
Hi Bolder-dash,

You and Viv are going to be hearing from me more and more frequently if you cannot refrain from editorializing about the people you're discussing with. There is a Peanut Gallery thread and a Coffee House forum where that would be more appropriate.

I believe that this thread would be much more productive if Viv could resist the urge to take shots at everyone else, for example, about how frightened they are to consider anything new. We all love the novelty of new ideas, and Nobel prizes spring from new ideas. Viv's task is to muster the evidence and arguments for successfully promoting his views, and that definitely is not about "giving 'em hell". Give 'em evidence, and if the evidence supports the views then they'll think it's hell.

What I see from Viv is a great deal of self-praise combined with pompous denigration of anyone who disagrees with him, and his explanations almost always fall far short of anything useful. My criteria for a successful explanation is one that I could use to convince someone else. So far all Viv has provided here that I understand and could explain to others is how mistreated he is, and that's not the topic of this thread.

Viv has the additional problem of exhibiting the grandiose behavior of the delusional, such as claiming his ideas solve some of the most stubborn problems in physics today, like harmonizing relativity and quantum theory.

Let me conclude by providing the specific guidelines that Viv has been having significant problems with, just so there's no confusion. Notice that they have nothing to do with anyone's personal position on any issue:

  1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

  2. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

  3. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

You ran afoul of rule 10. Digressions are inevitable in any thread, but digressions to engage in attaboys for someone already violating three guidelines, and combined with yet more discussion of the participants rather than the topic, was a bit over the top.

See you in a few hours.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 9:08 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1057 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 187 of 268 (539576)
12-17-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Iblis
12-16-2009 11:46 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
More about this, please. This is exactly the sort of thing I would like to understand better.

Check out this thread from the past. If you just read my posts, you won't go far wrong Son Goku and Fallacycop help, but it's mainly to convince RAZD that he's got the wrong end of the stick. It is definitely not worth looking at his ideas until you understand what I am saying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Iblis, posted 12-16-2009 11:46 PM Iblis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Iblis, posted 12-17-2009 8:47 PM cavediver has responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1309 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 188 of 268 (539639)
12-17-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by cavediver
12-17-2009 10:02 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
I'm still reading, BUT

This seems pretty spooky after all. You appear to be demonstrating that the results at the other end will differ statistically depending on whether we observe our end or not. This implies that superposition and the collapse of the wave function are real things and they aren't bound by the speed of light. Am I getting this right?

If so, this seems to defeat Wheeler's idea that each possibility is true in some world and all our observation is doing is telling us which one happened to be true in our own world.

If this business about affecting the statistics is correct, why can't we use it to send messages FTL? What I mean is, send pulses of large statistical groups of entangled particles off to Alpha Centauri (some day) to some future human colony there. Then later, just before the wavicles arrive, observe all the groups we want to mean "1" and fail to observe all the groups that we want to mean "0"? Then when the colonists get them they can see which groups are 50/50 and which are 55/45 and decrypt them into letters from home telling them how the folks are doing just last week?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by cavediver, posted 12-17-2009 10:02 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by cavediver, posted 12-18-2009 4:33 AM Iblis has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1057 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 189 of 268 (539649)
12-18-2009 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Iblis
12-17-2009 8:47 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
This seems pretty spooky after all.

Yes, it is spooky - Einstein was no slouch

You appear to be demonstrating that the results at the other end will differ statistically depending on whether we observe our end or not.

NO! The results at ONE END are random, and no level of analysis of the results will convince you otherwise. It is the correlations between the TWO ENDS that are spooky.

This implies that superposition and the collapse of the wave function are real things

I would suggest that in a reasonably strong sense, they are.

and they aren't bound by the speed of light.

Oh yes they are


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Iblis, posted 12-17-2009 8:47 PM Iblis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by onifre, posted 12-18-2009 9:54 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 207 by Iblis, posted 12-22-2009 12:07 AM cavediver has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 190 of 268 (539663)
12-18-2009 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by cavediver
12-18-2009 4:33 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
Iblis writes:

and they aren't bound by the speed of light.

cavediver writes:

Oh yes they are

Aren't the two events causally disconnected because of the speed of light limit?

- Oni

Btw the link to your discusion with RAZD is awesome. I have to go through the archives here more often, so much is already covered and answered. Thanks for that link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by cavediver, posted 12-18-2009 4:33 AM cavediver has not yet responded

    
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 2377 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 191 of 268 (539741)
12-19-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Admin
12-16-2009 8:57 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
To Percy (Moderator)

Re.: the issue of ‘light-speed’.

Thanks for the ‘slap on the wrist’. I would like to comply with your instruction if only it were that simple. It has to be faced, though, that not everyone on this forum or any other is quite as honest and well intentioned as you seem to assume. There have, for instance, been attacks on me from those who can only be characterised as ageist; and there are others who are definitely dedicated to de-rail the discussion at every turn. And there have been those who have committed the sin of argumentum ad populum by obviously ganging up on me, citing how many and how clever their companions are. How can I stick to the topic of light-speed when these people obviously don’t wish to? And how can these people not be ‘categorised’?

Anyway, while I was under ‘suspension’, in contemplative mood I wrote the following inter-round analysis of the discussion, for the eyes of all concerned. I’m sure those outsiders who are keeping a watching brief on these discussions would like to see – as, of course, I would – what the response, if any, will be.

SUMMARY OF THE LIGHT-SPEED DISCUSSION TO DATE.

I am grateful for the short lay-off from the glut of questions that have been directed at me – not that I resent having to answer those questions but simply because of the difficulty of dealing with them without having to spread my attentions too thin.

Anyway, having encountered, from the start, a veritable rock-slide of negativity, this discussion on light-velocity has now crashed. Let’s see if we can clear away the crap and get the thing back on the road.

The aim of this exercise was originally simple. It was, as it were, to road-test a theory about light which has been more than a half-century in the making and testing. In academic circles it has been declared a ‘dangerous theory’, a heresy, being too fast, as it were, for the current motorway restrictions. In the words of one professor, it should be accompanied by ‘a government health warning’, and another has declared “Mon Dieu, but thees ees dynamite!” I’d better tell the whole story.

It all begins with a letter from Einstein, which I received in 1954 in answer to a critical question to him about his Theory of Relativity. I was then a young telephone lineman with no academic pretensions whatsoever. From my letter to him, Einstein must have seen it as a question posed by some young person out of nothing more than sincere, naïve curiosity. Although he was renowned for his chariness in answering correspondence, even among his peers, he congratulated me on my “well formulated” question and gave me an answer which was the start of my lifelong philosophical odyssey. (That letter is preserved in the County Archives, and they tell me it is worth some thousands of pounds.)

When this letter from Einstein came to the notice of the press (in an Open Day at the local astronomical society) it was given some wide coverage and has since been featured a number of times in the national dailies, plus on radio and TV. However, as soon as it became public, apart from one or two exceptions, this publicising of a ‘new theory of relativity’ was met with a wall of cynicism of the “Who the hell do you think you are?” variety – much as it has on this forum. It was assumed immediately to be motivated, not by disinterested curiosity but by some kind of bid for intellectual stardom.. From its beginnings in sincere philosophical curiosity, it was thrust into the fast lane of the ‘rat-race’ where all recognition of its honest beginnings were trampled under.

Be that as it may, this honest curiosity of mine led to me being taken “out of the cold”, as one adviser put it, to pursue my philosophical interests in the relative security of a university. With the prompting of my wife – an English scholar – I took up this offer and eventually became, albeit reluctantly, an academic myself – more as a “loose cannon”, you might say, than a subscriber to the Educational System.

Remember that this is still about my theory of ‘light-velocity’. Throughout all this – and it’s necessarily a long story – my constant aim, against the present tide of creeping commercialisation, has been to preserve, promote and encourage among students the disinterested philosophical curiosity and initiative with which this whole enterprise of mine started. In pursuit of this aim to encourage initiative in students, my wife and I were invited by the then Liberal MP, Clement Freud, to attend meetings in Westminster. As for making any headway on that front, we might as well have been invited to swim up the Niagara Falls!

Again, recall that are still talking, here, about the underlying ‘speed of light’ issue. Anyway, to cut that long story short, encouraged by Einstein, my insatiable curiosity in that philosophical direction, particularly regarding the concept of the ‘speed of light’ in relativity theory, led early on to the idea that has since been declared a heresy and a “danger” to society. This was to discover, after his demise, that Einstein’s theory of relativity could be greatly simplified by leaving out all reference to ‘light-velocity’ – indeed without reference to light altogether. Some time later, this simplification was corroborated by Herman Bondi, the Cambridge (UK) astronomer and Science commentator, not excluding my long time ‘partners-in-crime’, Dr. Anthony Osborne of Keele University, Professor Alan Winfield of UWE, Bristol and the late Alan Smart of British Telecom. Swansea.

So far, so good. However, the “danger to society” threatened by this suggestion of “getting rid of light” soon became apparent. This was when it transpired that, believe it or not, it led a small number of students to seek psychiatric help.

So now we come to the full – indeed, the vital – relevance of all this to the subject of ‘light-velocity’. For a start, you may glean from all this that this idea of mine, kick-started by my early initiative in contacting Einstein, is far from trivial. Also, any truly thinking person must see that, from this point in the discussion, in no way can the issue be kept within the narrow confines of ‘Physics’ as that subject is classified nowadays. It naturally spreads into the dreaded domain of Philosophy – at which point we will no doubt lose most of any remaining readers on this thread. Specifically, the reason for this broadening is as follows.

As you have seen, (See my ‘Ten Proofs’ on this thread, none of which has been refuted), light cannot have a ‘velocity’ in space (in vacuo, as Einstein assumed in his notorious ‘Second Postulate’ of Special Relativity). So, what else can the ‘constant c’ be in our Physics textbooks if not the ’velocity of light in space’? The answer is supplied by the Logic which some member of this forum says he would like to be purged from this discussion. The logical answer is that the fact that all velocities are distances divided by time does not imply that all distances divided by time (such as c) are velocities. This means that c may, without contradiction, be interpreted as just a dimensional constant, with no connotations of ‘light-velocity’ whatsoever. Put this together with the consequence of the ‘Ten Proofs’ and it affirms, both logically and practically – even commonsensically – that our classical idea of light as something ‘travelling in space’ is a misconception, an over-interpretation of the actual observational and experimental facts, which makes it conceptually redundant.

But it cannot just stop there. Among logically-minded thinkers, apart from its significance to Physics as a New Approach to Relativity (Journal of Ed. in Maths, Sci. and Tech., 1987 – click ‘New Approach, Pope’ on Google), it causes, as I have already indicated, some consternation among students confronted with this proposition that there is ‘no such thing as light in space’. It strips away one’s traditional precepts about objective physical reality, seemingly without replacing them with any satisfactory intuitional alternative.* It was this, undoubtedly, which sent those students I mentioned to seek medical help and which marked it as a ‘dangerous idea’ in the estimation of those academics I cited.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This is the philosophical position called Solipsism’, the idea that everything is no more than a dream.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, where do we go from here? Well, as I have tried, strenuously, to explain, the only palliative left, if we abandon the concept of ‘light-speed’, is to adopt the mindset of the alternative-Physics Philosopher, Ernst Mach, as later developed under the title of Neo-Machian Normal Realism (click on Google). This is still Physics, but a much, MUCH broader and more embracing kind of physics which students are taught.. But the question is: notwithstanding its ‘danger’, might it not be the prime candidate for the role of the ‘New Physics’ that NASA calls for? If not, then will someone please tell us what is?

What sorts of questions should this change in interpretation of the constant, c, raise in a forum such as this? Well, for instance, some perceptive thinker is bound to ask “If you get rid of light in space, then what about ‘gravity’?” Other intelligent questions would be: “If there is no light or gravity in space, then how do bodies influence one another at a distance?” “What makes the planets orbit the sun?” “How does this solve NASA’s Pioneer problem, the EPR paradox, the Unified Field problem, the Missing Mass anomaly and other outstanding problems of Extant Physics which current standard textbook knowledge of the subject has so eminently failed to solve? Such serious, intelligent questions are well worth answering, and some of them have been answered in this forum. Indeed these sorts of questions have been raised and answered over the last half-century, although there have been some completely daft ones, like “How does Normal Realism explain the Resurrection?” “What does it say about the Holy Trinity?” and suchlike. Some questions on that same intelligence level have been, “What’s your experimental evidence for there being no light in space? Where are your mathematical equations?” and so on. What does one do in such cases when the member insists on having answers to his daft questions and appeals to the Moderator of the forum that his questions aren’t being answered to his satisfaction? This is not a rhetorical question. What happens is that one gets banned, as I have been, permanently, from another forum such as this (BAUT), on the trumped-up, incredibly ridiculously charge of my being a ‘multiple user’ – merely because, like most people I have two Christian names, Neville and Vivian. Plainly, this was no more than an excuse get this ‘dangerous thinker’ off their backs, so as not to disturb their complacency with such radically new ideas.

The trouble is, of course that, as on this present EvC forum thread, what begins as a narrow Physics issue of whether or not light travels in space broadens, untidily, into a philosophical, psychological and, indeed, sociological issue. How does the poor Moderator deal with this? How can the rules of such a forum be hedged against this inevitability?

Some people I’ve discussed this with are sceptical about the use of these forums altogether. They’re only “playing games”, says one , “They’ll never understand you,” says one colleague, ” “They’ll make every excuse to ban you”, says another. Another says: “The only response you’ll get will be silly ‘Yah Boo!’ replies.” and yet another colleague says: “It will frighten them shirtless” – or, at least, that’s what it sounded like.

So the question I have to answer is this: How on earth is one to suggest involving, in the call for a New Physics, those who are Educationally crimped into conformity with the existing System? And why does one find so many people of that ilk in these so-called ‘Science’ forums? To get these people to THINK is like pulling teeth or trying to pick winkles out of their shells. They resist any move forward, taking every serious suggestion of advancement as an affront to their own self-esteem For someone like myself it beggars belief that in these forums there is such an impenetrable wall of pure ignorance against any significant chance of moving forward.

What, then, does one do with people who hammer away at one’s proposed idea without studying it first, who aren’t prepared to access the recommended sources, who are scarcely inclined even to click a mouse on the suggested buzzwords, who are too lazy even to read the relevant postings, far less read any of the books and free publications mentioned on the websites? How does one deal with those who are not concerned with the provenance of the presented material on the one, single thread without seeking immediately to rubbish and demean it? So I ask myself, what sorts of people are these, and what the hell do they imagine they are doing for Science, if not simply to ‘queer the pitch’ and trip up the true thinkers? Please tell me, dear Moderator, how I can fend off these idiots without seeming to be ’rude’ to them simply by pointing out their logical mistakes?

So why, you may ask, do I do what I do? The reason is that it’s an experiment to ‘test the waters’, as it were, for public reaction to my ‘Dangerous Idea’. This is in defiance of my more academically cloistered colleagues, who regard this democratic sallying forth among the ‘great unwashed’ as infra dig, and will have no part of it. Ideally, however, my life’s aim, as an educator and someone rooted firmly among that ‘great unwashed’, has been, right from the start, to free philosophical knowledge from the fetters of a traditionally divisive Education System. In other words, it is to engage Ordinary Commonsense in the affairs of science, so as to curb those intellectual and financial extravagances of Modern Physics and Cosmology which have become so apparent recently with the abortive, and extremely expensive search for the ‘God Particle’, ‘reading the Mind of God’, and so on.

So, again, may I ask you, as Moderator of this forum thread, from what we have seen so far, how do you rate my chances of pursuing this democratic ideal in this present forum? Is it likely to extend the thread or, perhaps, unravel the whole garment? From the fact that the revered Einstein saw fit to correspond, extramurally, with an ordinary, non-academic telephone lineman, I feel I owe it to him to extend that privilege, in my turn, to others who may be as receptive towards new ideas as I was to Einstein’s. But where are those ‘receptive thinkers’? Where are those who can follow the full logical implications of dispensing with ‘light in space’? One wonders whether this or any other similar forum is the place to do it. Is it a foregone conclusion, as some say, that it is just a waste of time? Also, how representative are these forums of the mindset of the public at large? Are they seen as no more than the vulgarisation, or dumbing-down of true scientific knowledge? These are genuine questions and, for me, the jury is still out on them. Let’s just see how we go from here, eh!

Viv Pope (no pseudonym)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Admin, posted 12-16-2009 8:57 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by lyx2no, posted 12-19-2009 12:41 PM Viv Pope has responded
 Message 193 by Admin, posted 12-19-2009 12:54 PM Viv Pope has responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2130 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 192 of 268 (539745)
12-19-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Viv Pope
12-19-2009 11:08 AM


A Working Model
Thank you for the post. Am I to now understand I should understand what your talking about?


The world breaks everyone, and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those it cannot break, it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these, you can be sure that it will kill you too, but there will be no special hurry.
— Ernest Hemingway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Viv Pope, posted 12-19-2009 11:08 AM Viv Pope has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Viv Pope, posted 12-20-2009 7:21 AM lyx2no has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 193 of 268 (539746)
12-19-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Viv Pope
12-19-2009 11:08 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
Hi Viv,

I'm not a participant in the discussion, so you shouldn't be directing replies to me. If you have issues or problems regarding discussion or moderation then please take them to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

Long experience has taught us that discussion of moderation issues isn't very often productive. EvC Forum's position on such issues is that those with viable positions or ideas will keep their attention focused on evidence and rational arguments, so my suggestion is that you do that.

If you would like to discuss the meta-issues you keep trying to introduce into the discussion, such as hostility or fears you think are being exhibited by your co-participants, then begin a new thread over at the Coffee House forum and discuss them there to your heart's content. Raising them again in this thread will bring 24 hour suspensions every time you do so (not this time, however, since you've just returned from suspension). In case this isn't clear, you are not being told you can't discuss such issues, because you most certainly can. But you can't discuss them anywhere you please, because in most threads it would be off-topic. You should take such issues to a thread where they would be on-topic, and the easiest way to do that would be to initiate this thread yourself.

Many here would love to better understand your ideas. If you'd like to discuss them then this is a great place to do that. If you only want to refer people to what you've written at other websites then you've already done that.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Viv Pope, posted 12-19-2009 11:08 AM Viv Pope has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Viv Pope, posted 12-20-2009 6:22 AM Admin has responded

    
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 2377 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 194 of 268 (539823)
12-20-2009 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Admin
12-19-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
To Percy (Moderator)
I’m surprised, if not staggered at your ‘take’ on what I wrote. I thought I’d made it a abundantly clear that what I wrote was about LIGHT-VELOCITY. In NO WAY was it meant to be a complaint to the Moderator. How could you possibly have thought that? My whole point was that, starting with the narrow issue of’ light-speed’ the consequences of the argument spread automatically into talking about Relativity, Einstein, the philosophy of light and perception (involving light, of course), hence into perception psychology, all stemming from the original question of ‘Lightspeed’. And insofar as this automatically involves Einstein and Relativity, it is, surely, more than just trivially relevant to mention Einstein’s correspondence with myself on the subject of LIGHT-SPEED in his (Einstein’s) theory.

Now I appreciate that you must be pushed for time but I respectfully suggest that you should read my text carefully again and reconsider your opinion of it. I think you will then see that read as a ‘complaint to the Moderator’ it would seem very bizarre indeed!

In other words, Percy, you should note that the piece was addressed, not so much to yourself as to the ‘LIGHT-SPEED GROUP AS A WHOLE and to be recorded as such as an integral part of the LIGHT-SPEED discussion. Otherwise, if I were to do as you advise – that is, to take the discussion at this crucial point away to some other thread – that would be tantamount to abandoning the discussion at that point and preventing it from reaching its logical conclusion. That would be fine by me, just as long as you made it plain that I had been removed from the thread by the Moderator for being too abstruse, too philosophical or whatever, rather than for it to be assumed that, under pressure if argument, I had just ‘cut and run’. For me it would make my point, very clearly, that I had been removed from the discussion for those very reasons cited in my text.

So the upshot is: shall I now just finish with this discussion – albeit prematurely – or will you let my piece stand as the logical outcome of the discussion on light-speed?

It’s up to you, Percy. Shall I go or shall I stay?

Respectfully,

Viv Pope.

PS.
I suggest that for decency’s sake this conversation of ours should not be hidden but should be recorded for democratic review by those who may have been following the argument from scratch, and whose views on it may be different from yours and, of course, mine.

VP.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Admin, posted 12-19-2009 12:54 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Admin, posted 12-20-2009 8:24 AM Viv Pope has responded

    
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 2377 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 195 of 268 (539830)
12-20-2009 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by lyx2no
12-19-2009 12:41 PM


Re: A Working Model
To lyx2no

Thanks for your reply. Your piece from Hemmingway is very apposite. It looks as though I won't be allowed on this thread for long since the conclusion I was coming to on this question of ‘Lightspeed’ seems close to being disallowed.

Here is something else to ponder on:

‘How happy is he born and taught, That serveth not another's will; Whose armor is his honest thought, And simple truth his utmost skill.’
[Sir Henry Wooton].

Viv Pope.

PS,
Yes. If you should understand what I am talking about, then with a bit of ordinary commonsense logic, from the simple premises I have presented, unencumbered by the usual precepts, you – indeed, like anyone – should able to construct the whole argument yourself. The trick js to free yourself from the clutch of the dead hand of conventional physics education.

VP.
-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by lyx2no, posted 12-19-2009 12:41 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Admin, posted 12-20-2009 8:42 AM Viv Pope has responded
 Message 203 by lyx2no, posted 12-21-2009 11:14 AM Viv Pope has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017