Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA27923 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:55:25 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BE5@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:54:03 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
<it is obvious from this remark that either you did not read the
post or you
> are a bit slow on the uptake today! :-)>
>
Of course I read all of your interminably long post. You can't deny what is
the case just because it doesn't suit your model. Light displays
characteristics of both waves and particles, even the Royal Institution
Christmans lectures explained it in this way a couple of years ago.
> >> By the way, that reminds me that you never answered that question
> > >about the invariability of the speed of light.
>
<? I dont recall this at all, when, where?>
OK, this was you on the 27/11/2000 (responding to Joe):-
>>>BTW since you have not responded to previous emails (both off
> > >>memetics and
> > > >on) I suppose I will have to point you in the 'right' direction: the
> > >> *fourth* concept that enables the encapsulation of the idea of a wave
> is
> > > >SPEED, something you leave out so as to retain your
> > >>trichotomy... As usual
> > >> all those who favour trichotomies fail to differentiate relational
> > >> processes, they lump them all together, Freud did, Popper did,
> > >>and Peirce
> > >> did. An education based on these sorts of works prior to analysis of
> the
> > > >neurology clouds your thinking...
>
Joe asked:
>> How many speeds does light have, exactly?
You said:
>>>depends on context. in water is different to vaccuum is different to air.
To my mind this is an inadequate, and inaccurate statement.
Chris, you keep talking about what's behind everything, without ever
explaining anything in a succinct, comprehensible manner. You seem to
challenge every paradigm of every discipline with an entirely idiolectic
model that you cannot explain simply and clearly either on this list or on
your own websites. Go and take a course, or buy a book, on written
presentation- perhaps something on basic essay technique would help.
Vincent
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 18 2001 - 12:56:59 GMT