Light never changes velocity ever!!! Its perfect! Like the Jonas Brothers!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: NGeneered Virus To Split Water for Energy...
Next: The Recognition of Insanity in the Public Sphere (was Re: The detectionof motion by weight)
From: GogoJF on 13 May 2010 13:52 On May 13, 12:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/13/10 10:49 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > ...in reality, light is instantaneous. But, we still > > believe light is finite. Since, we institute this finiteness when it > > comes to light, it doesn't matter whether we are moving towards or > > away from a light source, the delay will always be the same. Instant > > light + finite measure = constant delay of light. > > You've been out to lunch > > Physics FAQ: How is the speed of light measured? > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure... > > Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html The problem with measuring light, is that we have measured it, as if it were a projection- like a light ray or a light signal or a laser signal which is shot. In all of these methods, EMR is traveling, invisible, and has not reached their sink. When we measure this way, we only measure what is between source and sink and not the source or sink themselves. If we measure light by sight, we find that these methods "happen" faster than signal measures. For instance, in the 50's the Navy measured radar along side of sight triangulation methods and found that the radar always fell short- which means it was slower finite-wise. In reality, sight measures are instant, or nearly instant, depending on the time it takes for an image to develop on a photographic plate or mirror. By the way my nephew, Nathan Gogo attends your university. Say hi to him for me will you. He's majoring in meteorology.
From: Sam Wormley on 13 May 2010 14:41 On 5/13/10 12:52 PM, GogoJF wrote: > On May 13, 12:37 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/13/10 10:49 AM, GogoJF wrote: >> >>> ...in reality, light is instantaneous. But, we still >>> believe light is finite. Since, we institute this finiteness when it >>> comes to light, it doesn't matter whether we are moving towards or >>> away from a light source, the delay will always be the same. Instant >>> light + finite measure = constant delay of light. >> >> You've been out to lunch >> >> Physics FAQ: How is the speed of light measured? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html >> >> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > The problem with measuring light, is that we have measured it, as if > it were a projection- like a light ray or a light signal or a laser > signal which is shot. In all of these methods, EMR is traveling, > invisible, and has not reached their sink. When we measure this way, > we only measure what is between source and sink and not the source or > sink themselves. If we measure light by sight, we find that these > methods "happen" faster than signal measures. For instance, in the > 50's the Navy measured radar along side of sight triangulation methods > and found that the radar always fell short- which means it was slower > finite-wise. In reality, sight measures are instant, or nearly > instant, depending on the time it takes for an image to develop on a > photographic plate or mirror. By the way my nephew, Nathan Gogo > attends your university. Say hi to him for me will you. He's > majoring in meteorology. There is a difference between nearly instant and instant that cannot be ignored. BTW--I'm Bcc'ing Nathan so he will know this USENET conversation is taking place. JF, I would like you to further digest the Physics FAQ linked above as they and/or their reference address your concerns. -Sam
From: Igor on 14 May 2010 10:39 On May 13, 5:33 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > This explains EVER cosmological observation ever... except... its > taboo. > Being wrong is taboo?
From: bert on 14 May 2010 11:07 On May 13, 1:52 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 12:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 5/13/10 10:49 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > > ...in reality, light is instantaneous. But, we still > > > believe light is finite. Since, we institute this finiteness when it > > > comes to light, it doesn't matter whether we are moving towards or > > > away from a light source, the delay will always be the same. Instant > > > light + finite measure = constant delay of light. > > > You've been out to lunch > > > Physics FAQ: How is the speed of light measured? > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure... > > > Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > The problem with measuring light, is that we have measured it, as if > it were a projection- like a light ray or a light signal or a laser > signal which is shot. In all of these methods, EMR is traveling, > invisible, and has not reached their sink. When we measure this way, > we only measure what is between source and sink and not the source or > sink themselves. If we measure light by sight, we find that these > methods "happen" faster than signal measures. For instance, in the > 50's the Navy measured radar along side of sight triangulation methods > and found that the radar always fell short- which means it was slower > finite-wise. In reality, sight measures are instant, or nearly > instant, depending on the time it takes for an image to develop on a > photographic plate or mirror. By the way my nephew, Nathan Gogo > attends your university. Say hi to him for me will you. He's > majoring in meteorology.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Reality is two flash lights back to back do not have their light relating as being faster than c Photons never bounce Photons never change speed of 186,242 mps. It you think I am wrong "PROVE IT" You will find your arguement weak,and my facts reality trebert
From: GogoJF on 14 May 2010 11:37
On May 14, 10:07 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On May 13, 1:52 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 13, 12:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 5/13/10 10:49 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > > > ...in reality, light is instantaneous. But, we still > > > > believe light is finite. Since, we institute this finiteness when it > > > > comes to light, it doesn't matter whether we are moving towards or > > > > away from a light source, the delay will always be the same. Instant > > > > light + finite measure = constant delay of light. > > > > You've been out to lunch > > > > Physics FAQ: How is the speed of light measured? > > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure.... > > > > Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > The problem with measuring light, is that we have measured it, as if > > it were a projection- like a light ray or a light signal or a laser > > signal which is shot. In all of these methods, EMR is traveling, > > invisible, and has not reached their sink. When we measure this way, > > we only measure what is between source and sink and not the source or > > sink themselves. If we measure light by sight, we find that these > > methods "happen" faster than signal measures. For instance, in the > > 50's the Navy measured radar along side of sight triangulation methods > > and found that the radar always fell short- which means it was slower > > finite-wise. In reality, sight measures are instant, or nearly > > instant, depending on the time it takes for an image to develop on a > > photographic plate or mirror. By the way my nephew, Nathan Gogo > > attends your university. Say hi to him for me will you. He's > > majoring in meteorology.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Reality is two flash lights back to back do not have their light > relating as being faster than c Photons never bounce Photons never > change speed of 186,242 mps. It you think I am wrong "PROVE IT" You > will find your arguement weak,and my facts reality trebert This is interesting. Instead of two flashlights, lets use two laser beams. You say two laser beams, back to back- their product does not exceed c. Is this what you are saying bert? How about two telephone signals traveling in opposite directions- do they not cover twice the distance? My theory, is a theory of illumination. The bulbs of the flashlights or lasers, at first, are the only events that are observable. Next, if there are dust motes in the air, then their beams can be visualized. Next, if the flash light or laser impinges on a surface, then the surface becomes illuminated. In all three situations- the bulb, the beam, and the surface are chronologically in order. In each of these three situations, there is no motion involved- the light is observed where it lies. |