Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!oddjob!matt
From: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: Light
Message-ID: <846@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 17:22:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.846
Posted: Tue Jul  9 17:22:30 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 07:15:51 EDT
References: <344@sri-arpa.ARPA> <1157@mnetor.UUCP> <151@prometheus.UUCP>
Reply-To: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 60

In article <151@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M Koloc writes some utter
gibberish which is appended to this article for the benefit(?)
of those who want to refresh their memories.  He is far from the
first to contribute such nonsense to net.physics.  Does anyone
else think we ought to try to do something about this?

People, let's get serious.  This newsgroup is supposed to be for
physics, not for sf-lovers, flat-earthers, psychic dabblers or
religious debaters.  A few philosophical questions in this group
are perfectly fine by me, and questions from the less physics-
knowledgeable are welcome, but this spouting of total nonsense
is extremely annoying to me.  There may be innocent readers out
there who believe that articles such as the one below actually
mean something.  I have a folder full of similar nonsense which
I have received over the years via US mail.  Some of it is printed
on heavy glossy paper with pretty letterheads and photos of
"experimental equipment", but it is all just as meaningless as
the sample below.

How can we keep the standards of net.physics up?  Can system
administrators be expected to squelch their users?  Should
we all have our favorite newsreading program just kill articles
from certain people and pretend that the problem has gone away?
Certainly some crackpots and fringies will holler that the
"scientific establishment" is trying to "protect itself from
creative non-members", but such protestations are not new.

Suggestions?
_____________________________________________________
Matt		University	crawford@anl-mcs.arpa
Crawford	of Chicago	ihnp4!oddjob!matt

================= enclosure copied From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc)
>The speed of light is a constant in vacuum at given gravitational field density.
>In general :-)  it speeds up infinitely in a void where no matter exists 
>(gets lost).  Or another way of looking at it is that the photon wave length 
>goes to infinity as the background gravity field goes to zero.   Or another 
>way of thinking about it is the the framing rate (quantized time) goes to 
>infinity. 
>
>For people living at sea level it (the speed of light) even varies a little 
>because of the tide and the moon.  So remember the laws of physics aren't 
>LAW they are consensus guesses OR consensus convention, because otherwise 
>things get complicated.  
>
>In fact it kind of looks like gravity acts like it has some of the character-
>istics fantasized for an ether. The ether was kind of a neat idea because it 
>made things like sound waves and light waves a lot more analogous.   
>
>That is aEther would be a sort of gas like medium for the transmission of 
>light.
>
>Gravity is grainy.  But grains of what?  Well that's another story for
>yet another episode in this saga of Reality vs Physics. Who will win??
>                                                         Paul
>+-------------------------------------------------------+--------+
>| pmk@prometheus: (301) 445-1075                        | FUSION |
>| Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222       |  this  |
>| ..!{umcp-cs,seismo}!prometh!pmk                       | decade |
>+-------------------------------------------------------+--------+