Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pur-phy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:pur-phy!wayne
From: wayne@pur-phy.UUCP (Wayne K. Schroll)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: this newsgroup
Message-ID: <1804@pur-phy.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 22:34:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.1804
Posted: Thu Jul 18 22:34:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 05:13:02 EDT
References: <1801@pur-phy.UUCP> <11571@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: wayne@pur-phy.UUCP (Schroll)
Distribution: net
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., IN
Lines: 59
Summary: 

In article <11571@brl-tgr.ARPA> gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) writes:
>>      We have people insisting on the existence of the ether, varying the speed
>> of light, saying that quantum mechanics is still much in debate, arguing about
>> what mass is, posing self-contradictory relativity questions, this list is 
>> almost endless.
>
>Although much of the recent discussion has been ill-founded,
>it is not wise to pooh-pooh every idea that differs from the
>conventionally-accepted body of "knowledge".  Some of the
>best ideas in physics at first sounded rather strange to the
>majority of practitioners.   ....
>                                              ....    On the
>other hand, discussing what is meant by "mass" is not a bad
>idea.  I suspect most working physicists cannot answer that
>question, except to say that mass is the "m" in their
>formulas.  


     Please do not misunderstand my previous posting. I, by NO means 
intend to "pooh-pooh" a new idea that differs from conventionally-accepted
body of knowledge. We are all too familiar with the scepticism that greeted
the birth of quantum mechanics. I only meant to point out that there are
certain established FACTS which are proven and immutable, therefore it is
most definately a waste of time to dispute or attempt to discredit them. 
Namely :
	1) There is no ether. ref : Michelson and Morley (1881), Kennedy (1926)
				    and Illingworth (1927)
        2) The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers who
	   are in uniform, rectilinear, relative motion and is independent
	   of the motion of the source. Its free space value is the universal
	   constant c given by Maxwell's equations. ref : Einstein (1905)
	   note : There is some speculation that c may depend on the size of
	   the universe, i.e. Hubble's constant, but it will take many years
	   to accrue the neccessary data.
        3) Light is light, be it visible, radio, radar or UV. The quantum of
	   electromagnetic energy is the photon. It  travels at velocity c
	   in free space (see 2).
        4) Gravity is non-granular. It is a field and its quantum is the 
	   (as yet) conjectured graviton.  On scales smaller than the Planck
	   length, it is uncertain what its nature is.
        5) We have all seen many special relativity paradoxes. They are all
	   resolvable under close enough scrutiny. They are, however, at
	   times, amusing brain teasers.
        6) Propagation of information at velocities greater than c (free space)
	   has not been observed nor predicted by any sound theoretical
	   formulation.
        7) Uri Geller - absolutely no comment.
     I agree with your attitude toward an insightful understanding of such
fundamental entities such as mass, and I rather enjoyed the clear answer
posted. (Sorry I don't recall who.) However, such basic concepts are quite
lucidly covered in texts such as Halliday and Resnick. Again, I must state
I am not "pooh-poohing" all the articles, just the ones where a little
reading would have made the posting more enjoyable for all concerned. After
all, doesn't the beauty of physics lie in its fundamental predictions of
a very confusing universe, rather than its basis being one of fantasy?

     W. K. Schroll