home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dziuxsolim.rutgers.edu!ruhets.rutgers.edu!bweiner
- From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: waves
- Message-ID: <Dec.16.19.42.25.1992.9075@ruhets.rutgers.edu>
- Date: 17 Dec 92 00:42:25 GMT
- References: <abian.724200923@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> <Bz81F4.Lqt@quake.sylmar.ca.us> <1ggssaINN9s2@gap.caltech.edu> <Bz9yqE.DuM@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
- Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
- Lines: 18
-
- brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
-
- [claim that light cannot be a wave because you need a thing to wave]
-
- > rickert@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Warren Rickert) writes:
- >>The ability to predict experimental behaviour correctly is the real
- >>test of a theory, not whether or not it can be visualized.
-
- >I am not claiming that such theories are false because they cannot be
- >visualized. I am claiming they are false because they are irrational.
-
- Who told you that was grounds to reject a scientific theory? In any
- case I recommend you go and read a book on the history of physics -
- look up "luminiferous ether" in the index.
-
- And STOP CROSSPOSTING this gibberish to eight groups!!! Don't you
- people know to edit the "Newsgroups:" line? In fact you might
- consider not posting this gibberish to sci.physics either.
-