FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Materiel between {}is by FearlessLeader2
I even drew some pictures to help myself better understand it, and read up on the topic. I'm not about to say that I am a qualified laser technician, or a qualified voice in the field, but I do understand the terms used, and I do understand the principles involved in the researcher's conclusions. He makes a very good case for his PoV, and the repercussions of his work are frankly staggering in their reach. If one loves to lay about onesself with William of Ockham's shaving instrument, then one cannot dismiss this research.
If this research data is accurate(and he did test his equipment before and after the experiment), then the conclusions he draws could very well be accurate too. It certainly appears, given his data, as if the speed of light is infinity, and that the apparent speed of light is actually a function of having to wait for the accumulated effect of light energy to build up to a level where the sensors can register its presence.
The implications of this research could well turn many branches of science on their ears. Several long-held, and never understood, concepts could be brushed aside, and newer, simpler concepts erected in their place. If light and gravity do possess the same velocity, then the relationship between the two no longer needs several chalkboards to be explored. If they possess the same velocity, then the relationship between magnetic attraction and repulsion and gravity is simplified as well. Thus far, it has been the experience of scientists everywhere that the simplest logical answer is usually correct. Why then, do ES scientists refuse to review his work, or duplicate his experiments?
The fact that no-one in Establishment Science has chosen to attempt to duplicate his experiment (to establish whether or not it can be duplicated--one of the first rules of research is that if it cannot be duplicated, it is probably invalid), indicates to me a perverse unwillingness to open their minds to new data. They are simply vetoing his research by ignoring it in favor of their own.
Edit to add link to data
Well, without actually quoting the source materiel, the second guy questions only the conclusions drawn by the first, and does indicate that the experimental data is accurately portrayed. As I do have a basic understanding of a great many branches of science(it really helps reading everything that isn't nailed down, Omni does a great job of explaining things in layman's terms, and from there one can Web-research any topic, not to mention the fact that I scored straight 'A's in Science and Math in school), I was able to follow the researcher's examination of the data.Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
On page five{of The Age-Old Arguement} you posted (17/05/01) a pointer to file discussing an experiment with light.{Experiment } I have now read that also. It starts with a description of a particular (no pun intended) experiment by the experimenter, laying out his method, results and conclusion. There then follows a dialogue with another person who wishes to verify the validity of the results. The discussion focuses mainly on the method of using the equipment and although there are occasional queries, one from the other, as to their mutual level of understanding of the overall subject, they both appear to know quite a lot about the physics of light.
Now, I have never heard of either of these people. I know nothing of their ability and experience to conduct and interpret such experiments. I don't know whether they are basically competent or not. I do not know any of the background as to the intricate details of light physics as presently understood, nor of other experimental work that may be relevant. There is no indication of peer group review of this work. In short I do not know how to evaluate it.
Can you help me with how you were able to come to the conclusion that the experiment was entirely valid and conclusive such that it has changed our understanding of the physics of light so radically?
I even drew some pictures to help myself better understand it, and read up on the topic. I'm not about to say that I am a qualified laser technician, or a qualified voice in the field, but I do understand the terms used, and I do understand the principles involved in the researcher's conclusions. He makes a very good case for his PoV, and the repercussions of his work are frankly staggering in their reach. If one loves to lay about onesself with William of Ockham's shaving instrument, then one cannot dismiss this research.
If this research data is accurate(and he did test his equipment before and after the experiment), then the conclusions he draws could very well be accurate too. It certainly appears, given his data, as if the speed of light is infinity, and that the apparent speed of light is actually a function of having to wait for the accumulated effect of light energy to build up to a level where the sensors can register its presence.
The implications of this research could well turn many branches of science on their ears. Several long-held, and never understood, concepts could be brushed aside, and newer, simpler concepts erected in their place. If light and gravity do possess the same velocity, then the relationship between the two no longer needs several chalkboards to be explored. If they possess the same velocity, then the relationship between magnetic attraction and repulsion and gravity is simplified as well. Thus far, it has been the experience of scientists everywhere that the simplest logical answer is usually correct. Why then, do ES scientists refuse to review his work, or duplicate his experiments?
The fact that no-one in Establishment Science has chosen to attempt to duplicate his experiment (to establish whether or not it can be duplicated--one of the first rules of research is that if it cannot be duplicated, it is probably invalid), indicates to me a perverse unwillingness to open their minds to new data. They are simply vetoing his research by ignoring it in favor of their own.
Edit to add link to data