not quite Father Inire's mirrors . . .

António Pedro Marques · 08 Jun 2011, 21:17 · from 2011-June.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:17:55 +0100
Subject: (urth) not quite Father Inire's mirrors . . .
In-Reply-To: <6C1B0158DB5143958C93711D380E29C4@jill>
References: <8FCA404E8BAE024CA6CED299DA8223DB09CFDC2694 at VA3DIAXVS291.RED001.local><4DEF63B7.9080104 at verizon.net><ED24FF6F77DF4AB9B6C35A54F58E23A7@jill>
	<BANLkTikuy1ZaFx0F43OAxpDGGEZg=dE0rA at mail.gmail.com>
	<6C1B0158DB5143958C93711D380E29C4@jill>
Message-ID: <4DEFE703.5030805 at gmail.com>

Gerry Quinn wrote (08-06-2011 19:49):
> ...might be considered a clear indication that when Wolfe finds a
> conflict between neat ideas and valid science, the neat ideas win out

Count me in!

> Tacking across the photon wind is a neat idea, but obviously it only
> works if you can get some sort of traction on the vacuum.  And if you
> could do that, special relativity would be completely DOA.

I don't know that that's the only problem with the 'photon wind', but the 
idea I have from the current and not-so-current panorama is that there isn't 
a single established theory that hasn't big holes in it - meaning that even 
as they are useful for Technological Progress, one shouldn't be completely 
shackled to their Fundamental Implications.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net