|
|
| Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL (625546) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (627945) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Tue Jun 3 16:55:18 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 3 16:23:51 2008. To quote Richard Dawson:"Good Answer!" |
|
|
| (627950) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Tue Jun 3 16:58:50 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jun 3 15:59:26 2008. Excellent, clear, and TO THE POINT. |
|
|
| (627976) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Jun 3 17:32:26 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:22:21 2008. Obviously no-one on the right is taking up the cause - are they? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (628011) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Jun 3 19:31:10 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:21:14 2008. The problem is nationwide and it cuts across political lines. The State of Tennessee has virtually declared that all photographers should be reported to the FBI:"You may think a guy is just shooting pictures, but if you report it to us, we'll send it on to the FBI and they may have four or five other reports of the same thing," said Richard Pillsbury with the Tennessee Fusion Center, a collaboration between the Department of Safety and the Department of Homeland Security. Hardly a hotbed of liberalism I would say.... After a photographer was harassed in Indianapolis the Mayor there declared that photographers and tourists should "confine themselves to tourist sites". I can go on and on with examples from all over the country - conservative and liberal jurisdictions alike - it's all the same. As to why the liberals are fighting this - well for one thing most artists tend to be liberal. Keep in mind that it isn't the average railfan escalating this issue to the political front. Pro and semi-pro photographers and artists have been hit hard and they are fighting mad - and yes most of them tend to be liberal and have liberal connections. The person who is spearheading the DC group is a former congressional staffer who still has connections. The LA group was not very successful in getting attention because they don't have the same connections - although that may change since there was another major incident on the Metro after the protest. Personally I don't care who leads the fight - I can argue ideology with them later - for now we need to unite behind what we all want which is the freedom to practice our hobby without harassment or fear thereof. |
|
|
| (628016) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Jun 3 19:50:43 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:22:21 2008. I think they really do want to defend the right to photography in this case, but I wouldn't doubt that hatred for the police is an added incentive. |
|
|
| (628043) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jun 3 20:54:56 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 12:20:48 2008.  Why does it have to be the most annoying liberal(s) taking up this fight?I'd be happy to have some conservative allies join the fight against photographer harassment. Unfortunately, I can't find any. That's understandable; the idea that individuals have inherent rights that government must respect is a liberal idea. It would be a walking contradiction for a conservative to support personal freedoms. This is an ideal conservative cause, an overzealous government trampling on individual rights. No, no, no. You're conflating different issues. Thinking of one scale from "left" to "right" is far too oversimplified and doesn't even come close to doing justice to the variety of viewpoints people hold. A somewhat better idea would be to imagine two scales from "left" to "right," a social scale and an economic scale. On the economic scale, someone towards the "right" would favor little government intervention in economic affairs, low taxes, and few government programs while someone to the "left" would favor greater government regulation, higher taxes, and more social programs. On the social scale, someone towards the "right" would favor greater government control over peoples' personal lives, whether it be (allegedly) for "security," "morality," or in the name of enforcing a particular religion while someone to the "left" would favor greater individual freedoms and civil liberties. The term "conservative," as is commonly used (to refer to the current presidential administration and people who think like them) refers to people who are to the right of the social and economic scales. These are the sort of people who would want to restrict photography— it's a personal freedom, and therefore a "left-wing" idea. Photographers' rights are a personal freedom, and therefore supporters thereof would fall on the left of the social scale. Position on the economic scale is largely irrelevant. Therefore, such people could range from economic left-social left (liberals) to economic right-social left, or people who would be called "libertarians." Admittedly, many of the people who support photographers' rights seem to be towards the left of the economic scale as well. I have some ideas as to why there are relatively few libertarians supporting photographers, but I don't see the need to be even more provocative than I have been already. |
|
|
| (628054) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 3 21:02:54 2008, in response to Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 20:11:12 2008. The first move that should be made is to terminate JLL's management of Union Station WITH CAUSE and place management in government administration.The cause is violation of its terms and exceeding authority. |
|
|
| (628060) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 3 21:18:36 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Easy on Fri May 30 23:24:58 2008. My reading of it disagrees with you, however...and shows that the Congressman is right..let the fireworks at Congress begin.In the case of a waiting area being only for certain persons, a similar situation exists at New York Penn Station as well, and thus that point becomes irrelevant. Similarly, boarding tracks are technically nonpublic areas. But an exterior place...if a security guard yelled at me, my response would be: CALL THE POLICE if it is really against the law (so that the Metropolitan Police can document it; the police report would be used as evidence), and I will contact my congressman, WJLA, WUSA, and WRC (the big network O&Os or affiliates in DC)...and expect a civil action (against the guard, JLL, and the security firm employing him). Of course, the security guard would have to cross the street first...GOOD LUCK! In the meantime, I would deride his private citizen status until he could reach me, if he can. In court, challenge JLL to find a law on the books, or a federal law stating that their rules are as good as law...there isn't, insofar as nonticketed areas are concerned. |
|
|
| (628063) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 3 21:23:35 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Sat May 31 19:07:42 2008. The next move would be to inform JLL that it is now a candidate for its own management contract...and that keeping it would be contingent on changing its policy. |
|
|
| (628065) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 3 21:27:31 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:21:14 2008. WTTG, however, which ran the story, is controlled by well-known conservative Roger Ailes who heads Fox's O&O TV stations. Thus, your claim of biased media reports becomes irrelevant. |
|
|
| (628066) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 3 21:29:28 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:22:21 2008. What left? WTTG (who picked up the story) is a Rupert Murdoch property. |
|
|
| (628067) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 3 21:31:23 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Easy on Fri May 30 22:18:26 2008. The courts have ruled on this...and if asked to explain before Congress, JLL doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, with regards to areas restricted to ticketed customers. |
|
|
| (628069) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 3 21:32:22 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by BMTLines on Tue Jun 3 17:32:26 2008. Except the local Fox O&O. :-) |
|
|
| (628071) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 3 21:34:30 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Jun 3 19:50:43 2008. What hatred for what police? Security officers are neither POLICE nor PEACE officers.Someone who is really smart will go to where the records are kept and find out who is really registered as the owner of the property...and then who holds the master lessee. |
|
|
| (628072) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 3 21:35:05 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:23:24 2008. The courts don't agree with you. |
|
|
| (628077) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Jun 3 21:41:28 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Nilet on Tue Jun 3 20:54:56 2008. Photographers' rights are a personal freedom, and therefore supporters thereof would fall on the left of the social scale. Position on the economic scale is largely irrelevant. Therefore, such people could range from economic left-social left (liberals) to economic right-social left, or people who would be called "libertarians."The members of the photo clubs I belong to are both liberal and conservative. I tend to be libertarian believing as I do in maximum personal freedom as well as some libertarian economics like re-privatizing the subways. If I had my druthers all bridges, tunnels, airports, and turnpikes would be privatized as well. Also I hate the fact that the government builds and/or subsidizes sports arenas. OTOH I am not opposed to government programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, CUNY, SUNY, etc. and I am not opposed to most environmental and safety regulations either. Admittedly, many of the people who support photographers' rights seem to be towards the left of the economic scale as well. I have some ideas as to why there are relatively few libertarians supporting photographers, but I don't see the need to be even more provocative than I have been already. Perhaps there are very few libertarians who are involved in the hobby. What I am finding is that this is more of a "self interest" issue. Those who are seriously interested in the hobby and/or low budget pros are very much interested in the issue. Those who largely bought cameras to take snaps of their kids birthday parties and show them ad-nauseum to everyone who visits couldn't care less about the issue. |
|
|
| (628121) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 3 23:00:09 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 3 15:34:45 2008. I think it is hard to blame one discrete group which caused this diaper wearing sharade, which guys do you created the overzealous government though?I honestly think the government and interests did this to dumb people down so we go into a 1984 type world, and no i am not crazy, i contemplated that idea, but i really think there are a lot of perverts where they shouldn't be. Jon Corrizine being one, and we all know the more famous federal ones. Seriously, England is already approaching 1984 status, they even monitor web surfing there, and cameras everywhere, maybe they do it here too, who knows. |
|
|
| (628161) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jun 3 23:46:19 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Bingham C50 on Sat May 31 09:18:58 2008. big time |
|
|
| (628408) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jun 4 16:12:58 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 3 23:00:09 2008. ummm, the meds are wearing off. |
|
|
| (628410) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Jun 4 16:16:01 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:22:21 2008. Stop farting and support her.Even Edward Kennedy lines up with arch conservatives when they have a common goal. |
|
|
| (628428) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 4 16:37:15 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 12:20:48 2008. Why does it have to be the most annoying liberal(s) taking up this fight? This is an ideal conservative cause, an overzealous government trampling on individual rights.The individual rights wing of the conservative movement has been pretty dormant for a long time. With a few brief exceptions, since the Republican Party agreed to abandon Reconstruction in order to get Hayes elected president when Tilden had actually won. |
|
|
| (628469) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by StationStops on Wed Jun 4 18:41:57 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 4 16:37:15 2008. Today's Republican party is not conservative, its NeoConservative.Unfortunately, despite the radical difference between traditional Republicans and modern neoconservatives, neoconservatives do not like to uniquely label themselves as such, in order to keep the confused existing traditional Republican headcount included with the Republican Party. Its sort of like if Satanists hijacked into your local Lutheran church and never bothered to take down the cross or sign so as not to affect attendance rates on Sunday. I predict this will be the first presidential election where enough traditional Republicans will finally realize their cheese was moved. |
|
|
| (628479) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jun 4 18:59:06 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 3 21:02:54 2008. IAWTP. |
|
|
| (628481) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Jun 4 19:01:43 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Bingham C50 on Tue Jun 3 16:51:18 2008. He's just paranoid and uneducated. |
|
|
| (628498) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by StationStops on Wed Jun 4 19:20:23 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by StationStops on Wed Jun 4 18:41:57 2008. ugh, sorry for the political rant, that was unnecessary. |
|
|
| (628653) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Thu Jun 5 01:20:20 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by StationStops on Wed Jun 4 19:20:23 2008. No need to apologize. |
|
|
| (628767) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Thu Jun 5 09:20:43 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Jun 4 19:01:43 2008. I just wish he and a few others here would try to make just a small effort to be both more open-minded on this issue, and more welcoming to individuals and groups willing to fight to stop this insanity. As long as we all benefit and the desired result is achieved, it shouldn't matter who, what, or how.As you yourself stated, even Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) would work with conservative Republicans to get good, beneficial legislation passed, and he was more than often quite successful. |
|
|
| (628787) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Thu Jun 5 10:38:33 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Bingham C50 on Thu Jun 5 09:20:43 2008. Exactly - both sides of the aisle have united for common interests. It doesn't always have to be left vs. right. |
|
|
| (628794) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Jun 5 10:47:25 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 3 10:49:08 2008. huh? |
|
|
| (628835) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Thu Jun 5 11:57:27 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Jun 5 10:47:25 2008. It has to be the meds! |
|
|
| (628837) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Jun 5 11:59:38 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JohnL on Thu Jun 5 11:57:27 2008. Yers, but are they taking effect or wearing off? |
|
|
| (628838) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 12:00:08 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JohnL on Thu Jun 5 11:57:27 2008. No john, you have a BAD attitude, seem to be negative, particularly in the field of science and engineering. |
|
|
| (628863) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Thu Jun 5 12:37:33 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 12:00:08 2008. …negative, particularly in the field of science and engineering.If you call understanding the limitations of Newton, Einstein, Otto, Carnot and Sterling negative, then yes. |
|
|
| (628865) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 12:45:37 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JohnL on Thu Jun 5 12:37:33 2008. What?Einstein was wrong, the statement that light is constant in all frames is inherently flawed and impossible. Einstein wasn't totally stupid, that is for sure, and the energy mass equivalence is one way of taping into the aether's energy, perhaps, if energy does equal to mass times speed of light squared. Note that the permittivity constant and permeability constants were not measured, but rather assigned. If they were measured pleas tell me how that was done. If not, then man somehow defined the speed of light, which is proposterous. Speed of light IS something, but not the way we think of it. Newton was not so wrong, his laws are true for most situations on our scale, but not on grander, and more organized scales. Otto, Carnot, and Stirling were good engine guys, and have nothing to do with what i was saying, the stirling and otto engines were made and worked, end of story. |
|
|
| (628873) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Thu Jun 5 13:03:04 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 12:45:37 2008. Thanks. You just proved my point! |
|
|
| (628881) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 13:14:38 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JohnL on Thu Jun 5 13:03:04 2008. I bet you cannot even think, you are enslaved, and only think of what is told to you. That is a shame. I am enslaved by no man's laws, and bound by little, i am only enslaved by the boundaries of the universe, if they exist. |
|
|
| (628930) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Jun 5 14:22:39 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 12:45:37 2008. Cut the meds. |
|
|
| (628932) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Jun 5 14:23:31 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 13:14:38 2008. ...and you have bananas in your behind. |
|
|
| (628936) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Thu Jun 5 14:32:38 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 13:14:38 2008. You need to learn more about physics and cosmology (amongst other things). The laws I quoted are only named after the people who discovered them. They are laws of nature and we are all bound by them, like it or not! |
|
|
| (628937) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Thu Jun 5 14:33:05 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Jun 5 14:23:31 2008. I don’t need to share his anal fixation! |
|
|
| (628939) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 14:33:52 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JohnL on Thu Jun 5 14:32:38 2008. we bearly know the laws of nature, like it or not. |
|
|
| (628948) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jun 5 15:05:31 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 14:33:52 2008. no, YOU barely know them. |
|
|
| (628950) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jun 5 15:10:43 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 14:33:52 2008. we bearly know the laws of nature, like it or not.Indeed. Only bears could come to know the laws of nature bearly.... |
|
|
| (628952) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jun 5 15:21:39 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 12:45:37 2008. Einstein wasn't totally stupid, that is for sureYes, for sure, he wasn't totally stupid, but you might well be. Einstein was wrong, the statement that light is constant in all frames is inherently flawed and impossible. How could Einstein be wrong about something he never asserted????? Have you ever actually read any Einstein, or do you make this crap up as you go along? If not, then man somehow defined the speed of light, which is proposterous. Look, the speed of light under whatever conditions is what it is. We don't define it. Even if we defined it to be 2 mph, that would mean what, exactly? Contrary to what you think, ignorant fool, the speed of light doesn't depend on what one thinks it is. What moron taught you physics? |
|
|
| (628953) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jun 5 15:22:39 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jun 5 15:21:39 2008. I suspect the same one who taught him ecology... |
|
|
| (628957) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jun 5 15:32:48 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jun 5 15:21:39 2008. Part of the special theory of relativity states that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. Since the formula E = mc˛ actually works, I'd regard that as proof of the statement. In the material universe, that is. Not to mention that all electromagnetic waves travel at that speed in all frames of reference as well—which is borne out by observing all of the above in several frames of reference.The only thing that changes the speed of light is the medium it passes through. And it's always slower than "c" (about 671 million mph). |
|
|
| (628960) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jun 5 15:42:21 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jun 5 15:32:48 2008. Our fellow poster is concerned with refuting the "statement that light is constant in all frames" allegedly made by Einstein. I want to know where he thinks that Einstein made THAT assertion. |
|
|
| (628961) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jun 5 15:44:53 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jun 5 15:42:21 2008. It's true that Einstein never said that. Not to mention that it's a meaningless statement. |
|
|
| (628964) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jun 5 15:49:25 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Jun 5 14:33:52 2008. we bearly know the laws of natureHuh? You calling Yogi stupid??  |
|
|
| (628967) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Thu Jun 5 15:52:55 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jun 5 15:49:25 2008. I can't bear this thread any more :o) |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
