From: Glenn Morton (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 22:44:48 EDT
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
>Behalf Of George Murphy
>Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 9:19 PM
> & apropos Barnes - his _Physics of the Future_ (published
>by ICR) is one of the
>msot grotesque attempts to do serious physics I've ever read.
>It's essential claim is
>that "the physics of the future" is the physics of 1890. He
>labors mightily with a
>classical model of the atom to replaces Bohr's theory (which he
>apparently thought was
>modern QM!) but couldn't even get the Rydberg formula.
When I was a YEC, I used to go to UTEP for recruiting for ARCO. I told
Barnes and Slusher several times that I thought that they didn't have
anything with their classical approach until they could explain the
cyclotron. Neither ever had an answer except that they didn't like the fact
that modern science didn't have absolutes. And that was what drove them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 22:44:59 EDT