TIRED LIGHT

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...
John Zinni wrote:


[snip]

Facts exist whether or not there is a reference to scientific
literature. Facts exist even if I am unaware of them or do not know
them. Facts exist if I do not understand them. Facts exist if I do know
them. Facts are not a matter of tenured social agreement, however.

It is rather difficult to draw logical conclusions from facts that you are
unaware of and/or do not understand.


Given the truth of the premises what I wrote makes sense to me. The
premises, basically say, IF thus and such are true, the conclusion is
necessary and proper.

As OG has already pointed out, this is not what you have done.

You repeatedly present ...
"the theory of the reduction of the energy level of photons in inelastic
collisions."
- Ralph Hertle -
.... as fact even though, by your own admission, you cannot support it,
cannot describe it, and do not understand it.

You even allude to experimental verification of said theory ...
"They neither recognize that gravitational existents nor hydrogen atoms can
cause a reduction of the energy level of the photon, when in fact there have
been experiments that illustrate a plausible causal relationship to the
lowered energy level of the photon due to such collisions."
- Ralph Hertle -
Experimental verification would indeed establish a fact. Can you support
your assertion with a citation?

Your arguments are based on nonsense.

[snip]

Hey Ralph-

This question was posed to you sometime earlier, but you
declined to comment. Inasmuch as you use the term "existent(s)"
constantly, the question has to do with our perception of 'being' vs.
'not being', or, what exists and what does not exist.
Suppose you are a fish down deep in the ocean, say down
in the Marianas Trench. You are a very smart fish, very reasoned in your
thought. You've been hearing this strange theory going around about the
"ocean" and how it supposedly is the all-pervasive underlying support
medium, having enormous hydrostatic pressure. You call to task these
maverick theorists, saying "See here now, there is no 'ocean'. We live
in a void. We know this because we have no sensory perception of such an
'ocean' or its purported pressure." To prove your point, you produce an
air bubble and say "See? The bubble is 'what is'. Your 'ocean' is what
'is not'; it does not exist. Case closeed. Away with you and your
heresy. Begone."
So Ralph, what sayest you about our sense-based logic
being error-prone on what we *perceive* to exist and not exist? And what
does this say about our perception of the "void"-ness of space? oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Hey Ralph-

This question was posed to you sometime earlier, but you
declined to comment. Inasmuch as you use the term "existent(s)"
constantly, the question has to do with our perception of 'being' vs.
'not being', or, what exists and what does not exist.
Suppose you are a fish down deep in the ocean, say down
in the Marianas Trench. You are a very smart fish, very reasoned in your
thought. You've been hearing this strange theory going around about the
"ocean" and how it supposedly is the all-pervasive underlying support
medium, having enormous hydrostatic pressure. You call to task these
maverick theorists, saying "See here now, there is no 'ocean'. We live
in a void. We know this because we have no sensory perception of such an
'ocean' or its purported pressure." To prove your point, you produce an
air bubble and say "See? The bubble is 'what is'. Your 'ocean' is what
'is not'; it does not exist. Case closeed. Away with you and your
heresy. Begone."

Bill

To what do you suppose these very smart fish would attribute their ability
to swim around???



So Ralph, what sayest you about our sense-based logic
being error-prone on what we *perceive* to exist and not exist? And what
does this say about our perception of the "void"-ness of space? oc

John wrote,

To what do you suppose these very
smart fish would attribute their ability to
swim around???

It'd be precisely equivalent to the ancient Greeks' 'pneuma'- the
ineffible, all-pervasive 'something' that gives flight to the birds,
power to the storms, and confers the breath of life. But today, the
enquiry is into our latter-day 'pneuma' with the question "what is
space?" And 'Darla' really muffed it.g oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
John wrote,

To what do you suppose these very
smart fish would attribute their ability to
swim around???

It'd be precisely equivalent to the ancient Greeks' 'pneuma'- the
ineffible, all-pervasive 'something' that gives flight to the birds,
power to the storms, and confers the breath of life.

In other words "air". Man did not need the ability to travel into space in
order to deduce the existence of air. Your very smart fish would not need
the ability to travel into air in order to deduce the existence of water. So
how are we to deduce the existence of the "ether"?

Tell you what, if you can demonstrate the ability to swim about in open
space, I will accept the existence of a flowing space ether.


But today, the
enquiry is into our latter-day 'pneuma' with the question "what is
space?"

And 'Darla' really muffed it.g oc

Sorry, I've been ignoring any and all references to Darla.

John wrote,

Tell you what, if you can demonstrate
the ability to swim about in open space, I will accept the existence
of a flowing
space ether.

You mean you never watched them X-Wing and Tie-fighter ships in zooming,
swooping dogfights? Heh.
Seriously though, to any rational thinker, a simple
bathroom scale ought to indelibly demonstrate matter's resistance=A0to
the flow of the spatial medium, and its directionality, as the mechanism
of gravity. Your invoking the term 'ether' is not relevant, since
historically, the "aether" referred to a static medium incapable of
flow.
Hey 'Darla', maybe you and Squish could explain the
'roach motel' issue of where does the stuff go once injested, since
quantum nonlocality has already been proven in the lab to be a valid
transfer mechanism. oc

The photon gives energy to an electron,and an electron can give energy
to a photon. It is all part of natures balancing act. Energy can't be
destroyed it can only be absorbed,and emitted(transferred) Nature with
the force of gravity would like to bring the universe back to the energy
before the BB (zero). Nature realizes that is not possible,and had to
go in the other direction. The universe will expand for an infinite
time. Flatening out to an infinite thinness All energy brought to
zero. All that would be left is the intrinsic field of space. A field
that has nothing to relate to,and must wait for the next BB Bert