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: mpc755 on 9 Feb 2010 14:27 On Feb 9, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 9, 2:16 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Are we absolutely certain that the original photon is reflected, or is > > it an entirely new photon generated at the point we perceive as > > reflection? > > Again, I prefer the concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave > which when detected collapses into a quantum of aether and as a wave I > think it is reflected, but there doesn't seem to be any way possible > to be sure one way or the other. > > > > > > > > Until proven otherwise, waves and changes to the state of the aether > > > > > propagate through the aether at 'c'. > > > > > But unlike those photon creations, propagation and eventual > > > > termination (such as into a CCD or as having run itself into an atom > > > > that diverts and/or converts that photon), matter has always existed > > > > and represents a continuous/infinite graviton wave or weak link that's > > > > at least as old as the universe, and manages to survive regardless of > > > > whatever it runs into. > > > > > ~ BG > > > > Matter and aether are different forms of the same stuff and as old as > > > the universe. I don't see the need for the graviton wave. > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > > As the matter transitions to aether it expands. This expansion of > > > matter as it transitions to aether and the effect this expansion has > > > on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. > > > > The body's mass diminishes and the aether's mass increases. > > > The extremely weak force of gravity does exist, and it does seem as > > though infinite (zero Hz that seemingly can be frequency modulated). > > > ~ BG > > In Aether Displacement terms, the effects of aether displaced by > matter does seem infinite. > > In Einstein terms: > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational > potentials" > > There can be no part of the aether without displacement potentials. And the potential to 'displace back' where the 'displacing back' is the pressure the aether exerts towards the matter where the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.
From: BradGuth on 9 Feb 2010 14:29 On Feb 9, 11:18 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 9, 10:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 9, 1:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 9, 7:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 9, 10:36 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 9, 5:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 11:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 8:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 11:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 7:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 9:52 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 4:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 3:19 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 12:06 pm, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has been seen by experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But a few minutes back I got an idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > > > > > > > > > > > > > > orthogonal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since a Sine wave is a curve. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets imagine a light wave with amplitude "x" and wavelength "w" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now we say light travels a distance of Wavelength "w" at speed of "C" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But since sine wave is a curve the perimeter of movement is larger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than the wavelength. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When we increase the frequency of light the parameter enlarges even > > > > > > > > > > > > > > further as the amplitude has risen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So higher frequency light has to travel a longer distance. As the sine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > curve is more enlongated away from center. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So Light wave moves up and down at a speed faster than "C" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now we assume another case an Electron is fired at speed of "c" The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > electron too travel like a wave. So electron will go up and down in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sine wave. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So reality is speed of electron is more than "c" As the sine wave is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > curved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope my analogy is understood by all. If not let me try to speak in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more detail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So an electron/ Light travelling at speed "c" is actually moving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > faster than "c" as it goes up and down the sine curves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if an electron is moving at speed "c" It is actually moving faster > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than "c" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bye > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanny > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chat with Computer:http://www.GetClub.com/Version2.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is slow light depending on the gravity of the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > Gravity usually involves density and/or mass per given volume, > > > > > > > > > > > The aether is displaced based on mass per given volume. The pressure > > > > > > > > > > associated with the aether displaced based on mass per given volume is > > > > > > > > > > gravity. > > > > > > > > > > > > and yes > > > > > > > > > > > photons move seemingly slowly whenever a sufficient number of atoms > > > > > > > > > > > are getting in the way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Atoms are FIFO photon transponders that only trigger their output at > > > > > > > > > > > exactly 180 degrees. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > There is radioactive pressure that is based on the amount of the > > > > > > > > > radioactive element itself. Half life proves it. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > And that has nothing to do with the post you are responding to.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > Aether flow is the absolute truth. Care to argue? > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > I do not care to discuss a concept with someone who rambles and is > > > > > > unable to stick to the topic under discussion. If you ever are able to > > > > > > stay on topic and make coherent points then I would be willing to have > > > > > > a 'conversation' with you but it is obvious you are incapable of doing > > > > > > so. > > > > > > > This thread is titled "Light speed is constant 'c'. I am puzzled". > > > > > > > I have made two points. > > > > > > > The first one is light waves propagate at 'c' with respect to the > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > > The analogy is an emitter moving through water. When the emitter emits > > > > > > a flash of light the light waves propagate with respect to the water, > > > > > > not the emitter. > > > > > > > Now, remove the water. > > > > > > > An emitter is moving through aether. When the emitter emits a flash of > > > > > > light the light waves propagates with respect to the aether, not the > > > > > > emitter. > > > > > > > Another poster said gravity is based on mass per volume. I often refer > > > > > > to mass per volume when discussing the aether displaced by matter so I > > > > > > felt I had a legitimate reason to respond stating the pressure > > > > > > associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. > > > > > > > The poster then responded by saying that was interesting and can it be > > > > > > leveraged or is it just knowledge. It can be leveraged because it > > > > > > explains the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment. The > > > > > > 'particle' travels a single path and the associated aether wave > > > > > > propagates available paths. 'Particle' is in quotes because we are not > > > > > > sure exactly what a photon or electron are. A particle of matter (i.e. > > > > > > a C-60 molecule) has an associated aether displacement wave. So, yes, > > > > > > the concept can be leveraged as a unified theory. > > > > > > How would the much greater (near instantaneous) velocity of a > > > > > perpetual/sustained gravity wave or its aether modulation relate to > > > > > the much slower propagation of light? > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > I'm not sure your statement is correct. There is some 'evidence' > > > > gravity waves propagate faster than 'c' but most of the evidence seems > > > > to be the speed of gravity is 'c'. > > > > >http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2003/gravity/ > > > > > But even that is in dispute: > > > > >http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-speed-of-gravity.html > > > > > So let's just say the speed of gravity is still open to debate. > > > > > If the speed of gravity is determined to be faster than 'c' then that > > > > is evidence a photon is an actual particle and has an associated > > > > aether displacement wave. > > > > > If the speed of gravity is determined to be 'c' then that is evidence > > > > the speed at which the state of the aether is able to change is 'c' > > > > and is evidence a photon is a directed/pointed wave which when > > > > detected collapses into a quantum of aether. > > > > > Until there is more evidence my preferred description of a photon is > > > > as a directed/pointed wave which collapses into a quantum of aether > > > > when detected and gravity waves and any type of change to the state of > > > > the aether propagates through the aether at 'c'. > > > > When a photon wave-front or wave-point runs itself directly square > > > into an atom, what happens to that directed photon? > > > If it runs square into an atom it is probably reflected, but if it is > > the correct frequency it can be physically absorbed by the metal and > > collapse and transition into a quantum of aether where it will occupy > > three dimensional space within the metal causing an electron to be > > emitted as in the photoelectric effect experiment. > > > > > Until proven otherwise, waves and changes to the state of the aether > > > > propagate through the aether at 'c'. > > > > But unlike those photon creations, propagation and eventual > > > termination (such as into a CCD or as having run itself into an atom > > > that diverts and/or converts that photon), matter has always existed > > > and represents a continuous/infinite graviton wave or weak link that's > > > at least as old as the universe, and manages to survive regardless of > > > whatever it runs into. > > > > ~ BG > > > Matter and aether are different forms of the same stuff and as old as > > the universe. I don't see the need for the graviton wave. > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > As the matter transitions to aether it expands. This expansion of > > matter as it transitions to aether and the effect this expansion has > > on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. > > > The body's mass diminishes and the aether's mass increases.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Light's clock is a constant. > > Mitch raemsch Some physical portions of those extreme galaxy extremities seem to exceed c, suggesting that gravity is perhaps worth at least 2c, if not as fast as c2. Technically the force/wave of gravity has to be faster than c. At 2c, is the photon clock still running the same? Why is the speed of gravity so difficult to measure? ~ BG
From: bert on 9 Feb 2010 18:09 On Feb 6, 11:03 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ab4864d8-e899-4471-8ded-105afdaade2b(a)s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 7, 1:08 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 12:06 pm, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > > > has been seen by experiments. > > > > But a few minutes back I got an idea. > > > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > > > orthogonal. > > > > Since a Sine wave is a curve. > > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > > When it is said that light is a wave, it doesn't mean that it travel > > along a sinusoidal path. It means that the field strength varies > > sinusoidally, meaning the electric and magnetic fields get stronger > > and weaker over space. It has nothing to do with the path that light > > follows (which is a straight line). > > If space is curved, how come a 'straight line'? > > _______________________________________ > Straight lines are defined as the shortest path between two points. These > exist in cuved space as well.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Nothing goes from A to B in a straight line. Curve is in TreBert
From: Double-A on 9 Feb 2010 18:16 On Feb 6, 8:03 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ab4864d8-e899-4471-8ded-105afdaade2b(a)s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 7, 1:08 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 12:06 pm, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > > > has been seen by experiments. > > > > But a few minutes back I got an idea. > > > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > > > orthogonal. > > > > Since a Sine wave is a curve. > > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > > When it is said that light is a wave, it doesn't mean that it travel > > along a sinusoidal path. It means that the field strength varies > > sinusoidally, meaning the electric and magnetic fields get stronger > > and weaker over space. It has nothing to do with the path that light > > follows (which is a straight line). > > If space is curved, how come a 'straight line'? > > _______________________________________ > Straight lines are defined as the shortest path between two points. These > exist in cuved space as well. Question is, how do you define "shortest path"? Double-A
From: BradGuth on 9 Feb 2010 18:20
On Feb 6, 10:57 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Sanny" <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a1c75804-b3d2-4784-84f8-c91feea8fba5(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > > has been seen by experiments. > > That is in a perfect vacuum. > > Light can be slowed to almost a stop. > > As for the rest of your post, remember the relativistic > properties of anything aproaching C. That's why the > closing speed of 2 photons in a vacuum is still C. > > > > > But a few minutes back I got an idea. > > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > > orthogonal. > > > Since a Sine wave is a curve. > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > > Lets imagine a light wave with amplitude "x" and wavelength "w" > > > Now we say light travels a distance of Wavelength "w" at speed of "C" > > > But since sine wave is a curve the perimeter of movement is larger > > than the wavelength. > > > When we increase the frequency of light the parameter enlarges even > > further as the amplitude has risen. > > > So higher frequency light has to travel a longer distance. As the sine > > curve is more enlongated away from center. > > > So Light wave moves up and down at a speed faster than "C" > > > Now we assume another case an Electron is fired at speed of "c" The > > electron too travel like a wave. So electron will go up and down in > > sine wave. > > > So reality is speed of electron is more than "c" As the sine wave is > > curved. > > > I hope my analogy is understood by all. If not let me try to speak in > > more detail. > > > So an electron/ Light travelling at speed "c" is actually moving > > faster than "c" as it goes up and down the sine curves. > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > > So if an electron is moving at speed "c" It is actually moving faster > > than "c" > > > Bye > > Sanny > > > Chat with Computer:http://www.GetClub.com/Version 2.0 Gravity is much faster than c, and we can't manage to objectively measure that either. ~ BG |