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 | >+-------------------------------------------------------+--------+