Physics Challenged

Thank you for this conversation. It was very enlightning. You did exactly as
I requested, and as I expected. It's amazing how quickly people will deride
an idea without giving a proper reason for the derision. For everything I
stated that you disagreed with, you pointed me to sources that explained
further what you meant.

Hopefully, some of the others in here will take up that same method of
discussion.

R.

"Ranando King" wrote in message
...
Thank you for this conversation. It was very enlightning. You did exactly
as
I requested, and as I expected. It's amazing how quickly people will
deride
an idea without giving a proper reason for the derision. For everything I
stated that you disagreed with, you pointed me to sources that explained
further what you meant.

Hopefully, some of the others in here will take up that same method of
discussion.

Civilized discussion is always a pleasure regardless of if you agree with
the person or not. Fell free to post again. I am sure with a reasonable
attitude and if you think about it carefully enough you will understand the
position of those like myself who believe in conventional physics. No need
to be converted to it - all I ask is understanding.

Thanks
Bill


R.

[Bill Hobba wrote]
Civilized discussion is always a pleasure regardless of if you agree with
the person or not.

[EL]
This is fabulous when posted by condescending and occasionally rude
pedantically authoritative people.
Try preaching yourself and you will gain our respect regardless of
agreement or disagreement.
Or is it that you demand our civility while you do not?
I personally have no problem with Civilized Bill Hobba, but I have
problems with his name-twin.
Physics is still challenged until corrective measures are taken.
Regards.

EL

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 04:37:34 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:


"Ranando King" wrote in message
...
Thank you for this conversation. It was very enlightning. You did
exactly as I requested, and as I expected. It's amazing how quickly
people will deride an idea without giving a proper reason for the
derision. For everything I stated that you disagreed with, you
pointed me to sources that explained further what you meant.

Hopefully, some of the others in here will take up that same method
of discussion.

Civilized discussion is always a pleasure regardless of if you agree
with the person or not.

I'd like to see you & others practice what you've just preached...

Fell free to post again. I am sure with a reasonable attitude and if
you think about it carefully enough you will understand the position
of those like myself who believe in conventional physics.

But that's not the problem...

No need to be converted to it - all I ask is understanding.

Yet you do not feel the need to do just that. The fact is, I
(and others) were taught conventional physics and were successful
enough to pass those courses with very high scores. I assure
you, Admiral Rickover did not tolerate fools likely. But, just
because one understands the metaphysical interpretations of modern
physics does not mean they have to buy it. Understanding does
not require acceptance. However, it is very clear from your
replies that it is you who will not contemplate, or tolerate
(with such phrases as rubbish, bunk, etc...), alternate perspectives.

It is, in general, those like you that are in fact, lacking the
capacity to understand alternate perspectives, and displaying a
overt and distinct intolerate of them. If you were serious, the I
suggest you do a soul searching and change your ways. However, I
doubt that you are. It is more likely you're being shallow PC &
two-faced.

Paul Stowe

Paul Stowe wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 04:37:34 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:


"Ranando King" wrote in message
...

Thank you for this conversation. It was very enlightning. You did
exactly as I requested, and as I expected. It's amazing how quickly
people will deride an idea without giving a proper reason for the
derision. For everything I stated that you disagreed with, you
pointed me to sources that explained further what you meant.

Hopefully, some of the others in here will take up that same method
of discussion.

Civilized discussion is always a pleasure regardless of if you agree
with the person or not.


I'd like to see you & others practice what you've just preached...


Fell free to post again. I am sure with a reasonable attitude and if
you think about it carefully enough you will understand the position
of those like myself who believe in conventional physics.


But that's not the problem...


No need to be converted to it - all I ask is understanding.


Yet you do not feel the need to do just that. The fact is, I
(and others) were taught conventional physics and were successful
enough to pass those courses with very high scores. I assure
you, Admiral Rickover did not tolerate fools likely. But, just
because one understands the metaphysical interpretations of modern
physics does not mean they have to buy it. Understanding does
not require acceptance. However, it is very clear from your
replies that it is you who will not contemplate, or tolerate
(with such phrases as rubbish, bunk, etc...), alternate perspectives.

It is, in general, those like you that are in fact, lacking the
capacity to understand alternate perspectives, and displaying a
overt and distinct intolerate of them. If you were serious, the I
suggest you do a soul searching and change your ways. However, I
doubt that you are. It is more likely you're being shallow PC &
two-faced.

Paul Stowe

Paul, are you up to speed with the observations
piling up that Quasars are intrinsically-redshifted?
Galaxies have been observed interacting with
each other where one is redshifted wrt the other.
Galaxies have been seen where one arm is
redshifted wrt the others.

Galaxies are seen with a Quasar on each side.
These are explained as gravitational lensing
because a single Quasar is directly behind,
but there are too many exactly like that for
this to happen by chance *plus* the redshift of
the two Quasar images are different *plus*
when you work out the different Z values, you
see that one is coming towards us at the same angle
and rate that the other is receding.

So, there are *two* kinds of redshift (at least);
that due to distance and that due to
intrinsic redshift.

Tired light is beginning to look better.

John

"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
[Bill Hobba wrote]
Civilized discussion is always a pleasure regardless of if you agree
with
the person or not.

[EL]
This is fabulous when posted by condescending and occasionally rude
pedantically authoritative people.
Try preaching yourself and you will gain our respect regardless of
agreement or disagreement.
Or is it that you demand our civility while you do not?

EL, that even handed well known lily white intellectual who genuinely tries
to see all sides wrote previously:

'I am not shocked by the fact, because it did escape a multitude of
scientists for over a century, which does not make you stand out alone
as incompetent since competence is an issue of standards and averages.'

If you want reasonable discussion do not call those you are discussing
things with incompetent nor couch your posts in terms they are fools for not
seeing what it appears you are the only one capable of seeing.

Bill

I personally have no problem with Civilized Bill Hobba, but I have
problems with his name-twin.
Physics is still challenged until corrective measures are taken.
Regards.

EL

[Bill Hobba wrote]
"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
[Bill Hobba wrote]
Civilized discussion is always a pleasure regardless of if you agree
with the person or not.

[EL]
This is fabulous when posted by condescending and occasionally rude
pedantically authoritative people.
Try preaching yourself and you will gain our respect regardless of
agreement or disagreement.
Or is it that you demand our civility while you do not?

EL, that even handed well known lily white intellectual who genuinely tries
to see all sides wrote previously:

'I am not shocked by the fact, because it did escape a multitude of
scientists for over a century, which does not make you stand out alone
as incompetent since competence is an issue of standards and averages.'

If you want reasonable discussion do not call those you are discussing
things with incompetent nor couch your posts in terms they are fools for not
seeing what it appears you are the only one capable of seeing.

Bill

[EL]
I have apparently failed to express my self then, because I asked
myself; how could it be possible that someone as obviously competent as
Bill Hobba did not see what I _accidentally_ found out!
My pondering lead me to believe that while you are quite competent by
the standard measures I am familiar with, you are not guilty of
anything at all because less and more competent scientists did not
accidentally stumble on those facts either, and neither did I during my
years on campus. Then It cannot be due to incompetence of others or any
genius qualities attributed to me.
You see, your prejudice could have been the reason behind missing the
comprehension of what I was trying to say. In fact I do admire a score
of posters when they are in their good mood of sharing knowledge rather
than the condescending mood of showing others how idiot they are.
I am guilty of the same of course, but there are those who are obvious
idiots as seen by any competent poster, and occasionally I lose my
temper too. You will find me extremely kind to those who use their
minds in an honest search for knowledge, and you shall find me rough or
harsh with pedantic tones. When I begin to sound sarcastic or spice my
post with mockery, be sure that I am in a playful mood with a poster
who was playful or an utterly hopeless case idiot.
Obviously, I seek civilized discussions too, but it cannot be one-sided
even if I worked hard to push it in that direction; it needs an effort
from the other side too.
Regards.

EL


I personally have no problem with Civilized Bill Hobba, but I have
problems with his name-twin.
Physics is still challenged until corrective measures are taken.
Regards.

EL

From Angelo C.:

..the velocity of sound is fixed by the
pressure and density of the material in
which the sound is propagating.

..And its _temperature_ (with credits to OG).
And to what do you attribute the high propagation speed
of light? Enquiring minds would like to know.
oc

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From Angelo C.:


..the velocity of sound is fixed by the
pressure and density of the material in
which the sound is propagating.


..And its _temperature_ (with credits to OG).
And to what do you attribute the high propagation speed
of light? Enquiring minds would like to know.
oc


The Plancke constant.

From SCPlasma:

The Plancke constant.

Planck's constant merely *describes* the relationship of a photon's
energy to its frequency. It explains nothing.

The question was: What _causes_ the speed of light to be the high value
that it is?
By way of analogy, Angelo C. explained the speed of
sound as being the function of the density/pressure of the propagative
medium (also its temperature).
So what can be deduced as _causing_ the speed of
light to be what it is? oc