#51
|
|||
|
|||
"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] |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Light year distance question | Tony Sims | Technology | 7 | April 29th 05 04:41 PM |
speed of light question | Michael Barlow | Amateur Astronomy | 46 | May 7th 04 07:30 PM |
UFO Activities from Biblical Times | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 25th 03 05:21 AM |
Myth or Science? (Tired Light) | Sergey Karavashkin | Astronomy Misc | 1 | July 3rd 03 04:18 PM |