🚀 go-pugleaf

only that there is no absolute vacuum per Blaise Pascal's experiment
-- he didn't know about partial pressures --
so no "final" value of c, unless it can be calculated
from other known constants & "an ideal region of perfectly empty
space;"
ours is close-enough for all work.

Newton's corpuscles were sum-totally alleviated
by Young's experiments: all essential properties are those
of waves, aside from the seeming ballisticness of the photoelectric
effect, or
when Moon hits your eye like that.

Roswell is strictly a psychological "denial" of the people
of the area about its two elements of cache from around WW2,
as well as a sort of tourist attraction (couldn't be that large,
though .-)

"faster than light" is an idea that is required
by no known physical principles, other than "hard SF,"
the same as multiverses et al ad vomitorium.

> If the light postulate is true, then miraculous effects (time
> dilation, length contraction etc.) do exist and Einstein is at least
> one of the discoverers of the fantastic world we live in. However if
> the light postulate is false, that is, if the speed of light obeys
> Newton's model presenting light as discontinuous bullet-like particles
> and disobeys Maxwell's model presenting light as discontinuous field,
> then Einstein's 1954 confession resolves all remaining problems:
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a...
> Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
> be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
> Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
> theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
> physics."

thus:
he didn't get that with my example of slaloms,
that he applied to skiing, either, but you have to realize that
the "straight line," even if it exists in a particular stretch,
is also a slalom/brachistochrone/tautochrone.  so, I just realized,
the fact that it takes longer to fall from a higher heighth,
is partly a result of "terminal velocity" with air drag.

> It seems that the theory from which his "laws of inertia" are derived
> excludes the Sun's gravity as a "physical cause". If it works anywhere
> at all, that could only be in a very small box. ;)

thus:
well, obviously, the gallilean principle of relativity;

--Seargent Barracks Soros McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft,
boys'n'girls: NO AMERICAN MIDDLESCHOOLER LEFT BEHIND;
              NO RHODESIA SCHOLARS IN HARM'S WAY!"
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3526lar_soros_pamph.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526save_nations_parasites.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526zim_brit_op.html