Viv Pope writes:
I’m sorry if I seem to have upset you guys. It was by no means intentional.. Thinking about it, it seems to be due to a mismatch of educational backgrounds. As I have already intimated, apart from my early years in Electronic Engineering, my main education has been on the Arts side of the Educational divide — Philosophy,, in point of fact. But Philosophers and Physicists have always been at odds. As I think I said, in the university I was at, members of the two departments, of Philosophy and Physics, respectively, actually came to blows over their two different approaches to nature. So in my dedicated efforts to unite the two disciplines (my life’s work) it is inevitable that I should upset someone or other. It goes with the territory. (Recall that Socrates was executed for it, and so were other philosophers such as Giordano Bruno.)
I am not upset so much as disappointed. And drawing the parallel between you and scientists of the past who were executed is a bit of a stretch is it not?
Now you say that I should ‘dispense with the philosophical obfuscations’. That’s very sad, because those ‘philosophical obfuscations’ are by no means superficial, to be dispensed with ‘just like that’. For anyone who understands, they are absolutely central to my argument. Let me run that argument by you again and then you can tell me whether or not any of it is ‘obfuscation’.
Like I said this is just one man's opinions from your posts here on EvC. When you first started there was more philosphical bantering which skimmed the subject of relativity and the speed of light but since my post it seems that you and other have gotten more in-depth with answering these questions. Again this is my perception which could very well be wrong. Again, I am doing more reading that writing because many of the questions I would ask have already been asked but will put my pen to the page so to speak when I see areas that still need to be investigated.
I have proved to you that there can be n such thing as light in vacuo — at least, no-one, so far, in this forum or anywhere else (Cavediver notwithstanding) has succeeded in refuting any, far less all of those ten proofs. Now I have known many people who have been upset by the very suggestion that light may not be what they have always thought it to be, that it need not be thought of as something travelling in space but that it can be interpreted as no more than an observational constant. But, like it or not, the fact that c can be interpreted in that alternative way without logical contradiction, is irrefutable. If ignored, it doesn’t simply ‘go away’.
Will go back and reinvestigate those ten proofs as soon as I finish posting.
As for the ‘talking-down’ tone of my arguments, I apologise for that. Doubtless, it’s to my advanced age and world-weariness — a typical ‘Grumpy Old Man'.
LOL, I think we are all guilty of this here and there. My post came off too critical and negative in my view and for that I apologize. This was meant more as advise from several years of experience of being on this forum. It was not meant to be a personal attack but I am afraid that is the way it came off and for that I apologize.
Their concern ought to focus solely on the logic of the argument.
Agreed except that a discussion board is a little bit more fickle and ephemeral than the peer review process. Posts are seen in the moment so to speak and are quickly forgotten. In order to make an impression, just like in a verbal debate, points must be made clearly and distincly. It is a skill all of us have to learn here at EvC.
So, finally, may I say that we should stick to the argument that has developed here over the alternative interpretation of c and its philosophical ramifications. And if you think that is all ‘obfuscation’, then, to quote Oliver Cromwell: ‘In the bowels of Christ, think again!’
This will be my last post on this subject (your posts here on EvC) because I do not want this to go WWIII and produce a battle that draws away from the thread. That was never my intention. I will restrict all my own comments to asking for more clarification on your arguments.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
™ Version 4.2
(1)