Light speed is constan "c". I am puzzled
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: is light/radiative energy potential or kinetic or both?
Next: Timerate is a Slow C in gravity by Gamma mathematics
From: Peter Webb on 7 Feb 2010 17:54 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:82d415f4-6ec9-4e64-ab23-2ffc9312e5c4(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Feb, 04:13, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> > In any event, there is no verified law that says nothing can travel >> > faster than 'c' even on a local basis. There is merely empirical >> > evidence to suggest that light does not propagate over distances >> > faster than 'c'. >> >> Again, no. >> >> That light waves cannot travel faster than c is a direct result of >> Maxwell's >> equations, which predate and are independent of SR, and provide massive >> theoretical support for light not travelling faster than c. > > Isn't that what I said? "There is no verified law ... merely empirical > evidence to suggest". No. The exact opposite. Empirical = experiment. Maxwell = theory. Its got both.
From: BURT on 7 Feb 2010 18:00 On Feb 7, 11:45 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 10:51 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 9:36 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 7, 9:28 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "Shrikeback" <shrikeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:a59d9cf7-205e-4aa5-84bc-88135c7d4d84(a)g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Feb 7, 6:00 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > "bert" <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:e7e363d3-eaa3-446a-8cd6-656064a59659(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >To Ya All Photons never bounce or change their speed. TreBert > > > > > > It's truly amazing that one person can so consistently wrong. > > > > > > NONE of the light you see is traveling at C. > > > > > Our atmosphere slows it. > > > > > But that is just the phase velocity. > > > > > Phase THIS. > > > > Shouldn't I set it to stun first?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Light is a slow C constant. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > True, and the more densely packed and/or compressed those atoms, the > longer it takes for those photons or quantum strings to squirm their > way through, if ever. > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The photon is not a vibrating loop of string but rather only a wave of light electri energy level.
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Feb 2010 09:49 BradGuth wrote: > On Feb 7, 5:39 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> Sanny wrote: >>> The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes >>> longer if you go up and down in curves. >> Wrong. >> >> Buy a pizza. Eat one slice. Now join the pizza edged made by >> removing that slice. You end up with a bowl. Pick two >> points on the edge of the bowl. Find the "shortest" distance >> between those two points. You may not fly. >> >> Now find a globe of the world. What is the "shortest" >> distance between NYC and Tokyo? >> >> /BAH > > That's silly, because you'd obviously fly straight through the Earth > in order to get to wherever. (just kidding) I mean, why bother going > around? > > Photons always have to go around atoms. The fewer the atoms the > better. > > However, what happens when there are no atoms (say less than 1/km3)? > > How does the photon migrate from its point-source? > Don't you get bored acting stupid? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Feb 2010 09:50 Sanny wrote: >> Ask your computer this; In this entire expanding universe, how many >> all-inclusive photons (gravity to Planck) per atom do we have by now? > > infinite, if infinite exists. > > Bye > Sanny > > Chat with Computer: http://www.GetClub.com/ Version 2.0 Your computer program gave that output? /BAH
From: BradGuth on 8 Feb 2010 12:54
On Feb 8, 6:49 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > BradGuth wrote: > > On Feb 7, 5:39 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> Sanny wrote: > >>> The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > >>> longer if you go up and down in curves. > >> Wrong. > > >> Buy a pizza. Eat one slice. Now join the pizza edged made by > >> removing that slice. You end up with a bowl. Pick two > >> points on the edge of the bowl. Find the "shortest" distance > >> between those two points. You may not fly. > > >> Now find a globe of the world. What is the "shortest" > >> distance between NYC and Tokyo? > > >> /BAH > > > That's silly, because you'd obviously fly straight through the Earth > > in order to get to wherever. (just kidding) I mean, why bother going > > around? > > > Photons always have to go around atoms. The fewer the atoms the > > better. > > > However, what happens when there are no atoms (say less than 1/km3)? > > > How does the photon migrate from its point-source? > > Don't you get bored acting stupid? > > /BAH Now you say that photon accounting is "stupid"? (is this another faith- based form of transference?) Perhaps our photons are not being so randomly created, because on the observation sphere looking in, that's on average 14 billion light years away from any given original point-source of those photons, there's still at least a worse case detectable photon for each and every mm2/sec (14e9 ly r = 2.204e59 mm2). 2.2e59 photons/sec is still impressive, especially considering that perhaps only 0.1% ever manage to get that far without their being blocked, diverted or converted. From a given galaxy that can be detected at 14e9 light years we'd need at least a monochromatic point source of 2.2e62 photons/sec in order to detect each monochromatic photon/mm2/sec at that distance, and then the all-inclusive spectrum or variety of such photons goes from the infinity of gravity to those of Planck that'll also show up within each and every one of those mm2 on the inner surface of that same sphere. Theres supposedly <1e12 galaxies as providing our point sources of those old and new photons. Conservatively theres at least 1e18 kinds and/or variations of accessible photons within any given m3/second, and otherwise within a sphere radius of 14e9 light years theres a volume of 9.726e78 m3 (1e18) = 9.726e96 photons/sec. Given those 14e9 years (roughly less than a tenth of what our universe is likely worth), or 4.415e27 seconds times 9.726e96 = 4.294e124 photons thus far. However, if objectively measuring everything from the inside out (including the photon sink of those dark molecular clouds and black holes) there should be way more of those various monochromatic photons/ galaxy/sec that well never detect, possibly another trillion fold greater number of those mostly stealth/invisible photons as either being converted on the fly and/or gravity, mass and other strong force diverted and/or sequestered in ways that are not presently accounted for, but none the less exist. This puts us up to 4.3e136 photons and counting as our universe is supposedly expanding and aging at something greater than 0.5 c. In addition to those 4.3e136 photons and counting, theres antimatter and the gamma thats usually associated as yet another whole realm of photons that (sort of speak) slip through our fingers. Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet |