Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: newedana on 24 May 2005 18:00 >Dr. Albert Einstein did not know how light propagates through the vacant space, and also did not know what is the absolute speed of light. >>We had a bad fixed prejudice, action only through a medium and medium equals the mass. So the vacant empty space containing nothing can do nothing like mediating light transmission. This traditional fixed idea seriously distorted the science of understanding the light and its propagation characters. Light is exactly the same as sound wave in propagating character. However, in standard high school texts they deny this fact, light is entirely different from sound wave in terms of propagating characters through their medium. It is due to a strong influence of particle physicists who believe light is corpuscular photons. Sound waves once released from its source propagate through the air phase with its own speed that is independent from the speed of its source. If the source moves at some speeds there occurs the Doppler effect. Light is exactly the same as acoustic waves. Light pulses once emitted from their source propagate through empty space at their own speed that is quite independent to the speed of its source. Thus there occurs the Doppler effect when the source moves at some speeds. One cannot hear the steamwhistle influenced by the Doppler effect if one is in the same train. It is because the elongated wavelength of steamwhistle due to Doppler effect turns out to be restored to its initial dimensions when he receives it in the same train, because he runs with the same speed as the train does.. Light is exactly the same. If light source and the detector are on the same coordinate system, for example on the earth, one can measure always the absolute speed of light, without any relation to the orbiting speed of the earth. Elongated or condensed wavelength of light due to Doppler effect becomes restored when the detector receives it. The detector has to receive the elongated wavelength as it advances, or in reverse it has to receive the condensed wavelength as it retreats with the same speed as the source, Albert Einstein didn't notice this simple plain truth. Since his photon travels with its momentum given by its source, the speed of his photon has to involve the speed of source, as though a shut bullet travels in the space with its momentum given by its rifles, so the speed of bullet has to involve the speed of rifle. Thus allegedly he set forth the famous postulation for his special theory of relativity; If a number of observer are moving at uniform velocity in respect to each other and to a source of light, and if each observer measures the speed of the light emerging from the source, they will all obtain the same value. The same value in his word means the absolute speed of light from which the speed of source is excluded. > In order to explain the experimental result of Michelson-Morley, which did not give the expected wave phase interference, Einstein had to remove the speed of source v from additive formula, c=c'+ v. However, it was impossible to do since it conflicts logically with his photon theory. So he put forth the postulation c=c' when v approach the speed c. Thus he proposed the general principle of projectile mechanics involving the travelling mechanism of his photons, as an equation: v=(v'+u)/(1+v'u/c^2), by borrowing the idea of Lorentz's space contraction. And he announced that the speed of light is constant anywhere in the cosmic space, because the light has the fastest speed of all possible speeds in the nature, based on his own equation, m=m'(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. Mass increases its absolute value as its speed increases, so if the speed of mass approaches the speed of light its acceleration can no more contribute to its speed increment. However this idea was a big mistake. He did not realize when charged particle was accelerated it had to dump off its energy as radiation; the greater the acceleration the larger the dumping energy. >If we believe that the vacant space itself is only the medium of light propagation, the vacant space is absolutely uniform anywhere in this cosmic space, so the speed of light has to have a naturally constant speed. >Then how can we explain the light refraction taking place between different materials with different optical density? I could learn this phenomenon in Dr.Yoon's textbook(www.yoonsatom.net). He clearly explains the refraction phenomenon with a simple equation built without any postulation, without involving speed factor on page 271, n=(Æ/sinÆ) secηΔθ, where Æ=2k/λ, k: spacing factor of atomic nuclei(mass density factor), λ: wavelength of incident light, θ: incident angle, η: constant, but containing wavelength of incident light, mass density factor, as well as incident angle of incoming light. This equation is derived by due process of plain geometric analysis and trigonometry. He asserts that light refraction can take place because the atomic nuclei in mass system subdivides the incoming light wave into numerous micro beams which develope into spherical waves, so the constructive interference between them build a refractive light with a different running direction. If I quate his key principle described on page 259, "A plane wave front sliced by atomic nuclei in material system constructs numerous micro spherical waves. Light pencils packed in spherical waves bend roundly with respective curvatures which increase depending on their deviation form the center light pencil that has a straight pathway, as they propagate through the space. However, all the distance of their curved pathways are exactly the same as that of straight pathway because the speed of light is the same and constant. As one knows, human eye cannot view the curved pathway of the light, but only the straight distance projected on the center light pencil. ......Denser the nuclei and the shorter the wavelength the greater the curvature of bent light pencil..." >He also shows a number of schematical demonstration of light refraction, utilizing transparent plastic films upon which a large number of concentric half circles is drawn, representing sequential wave phases. Superimposing them and sliding one of them with the way of his suggestion, it shows the schematic light refraction. He explains, with the same principle, the mechanism of separating white light into component mono-chromic lights with a diffraction grating. And he concludes that light refraction can take place even in the vacant space if the light wave is sliced by atomic nuclei such as those contained in the solar wind. > This fact disproves Einstein's assertion, star light behind the sun bending at near the sun is due to the solar gravitation, and its red shift is due to losing its energy in order to escape from the solar gravitational field. However, this is a fraudulent explanation! The real interpretation is that the solar wind containing nuclear particles make the star light bend, and its red-shift is due to the reason, the nuclear particles in the solar wind travel for the earth with the same direction as that of star light travels. (We have to remind the Fizeau's experiment.) >He claims the empty space itself is the only medium of light propagation, and element particles building material system has nothing to do with this light propagation. Although his statement conflicts critically with the traditional concept, it is quite correct. People today has been taught that electrons building the material system serves to transmit the light passing through material system. Lichard P Feynman had also the same idea as this. He established his equation representing the refractive index, built based on his QED theory, utilizing the rule of complex number mechanics. However it is a typical example of explaining with a fraudulent science justified with a fantastic mathematical trick. It is a plain truth, electric and magnetic force can act through this empty vacant space without any aid of mass particles. This incorrect belief, mass system interferes the speed of light is our traditional knowledge inherited from our science pioneer such as Fizeau who tried to investigate in 1845, how does the speed of light change due to moving speed of its medium, such as water. He mis-evaluated the light interference occurred between two light beams; one running along the flowing water and the other against that, as speed difference between them. But it is quite incorrect! >Imagine two rockets, one approaches the earth and the other departs from the earth with the same speed. If they emit lights with the same wavelength toward a detector on the earth, the detector would receive two signals interfering with one another, exactly the same pattern as that Fizeau obtained in his experiment. Have these two lights different speed? Absolutely no! They are exactly the same, since the absolute speed of light is the travelled distance of a light pulse in a second, and not the total length of light train inserting pulse gaps. This is the reevaluation of Fizeau's experiment by Dr.Yoon, and he says if vacuum empty space itself is only the medium of light, there cannot exist such a moving coordinate system in this universe as far as concerned to transmission of light, which is the base of Einstein's two relativity theory. Newedana wrote
From: Henri Wilson on 24 May 2005 19:47 On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:48:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >> >> >>>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >>><H@> >>>wrote >> >> >>>>>Emissive theory drops postulate [1], and substitutes for [2] >>>>> >>>>>[2'] Lightspeed c is relative to the source. >>>>> >>>>>SR uses >>>>> >>>>>[2"] Lightspeed is c everywhere. >>>>> >>>>>and modifies [3], twisting space and time to make [2"] fit. While >>>>>SR is bizarre, the Universe so far has validated it. >>>> >>>>so far....but it hasn't really been tested directly. >>> >>>And BaT has? >> >> >> >> Yes Ghost. >> >> Using variable stars. > >Henri Wilson has shown that the BaT predicts that >the binary HD80715 should be variable. >It isn't. You are raving lunatic. I told you why it is NOT a variable. > >So for once Henri is right. >The BaT is tested quite directly. >It failed the test and is thus falsified. You are a raving lunatic. > >Henri Wilson has also tested the BaT on Algol. >The result was that he proved that the parameters >for the variable had to be wildly different from >their real values if the BaT should correctly predict >the light curve. >So Algol is another binary known to falsify the BaT. > >The fact is that the BaT does not predict the light >curve of a single binary correctly. >Henri has realized this, that's why he doesn't dare >to enter the data for any of the thousands of known >binaries into his program. > >And he is of course regretting bitterly that he >ever tested the BaT using real, measured data. >He has ever since desperately tried to explain why >the BaT doesn't predict what his program says it predicts. > >Those "explanations" are however quite entertaining. :-) You are stubburn raving lunatic. You know I am correct but wont admit to the fact. > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 25 May 2005 03:50 On 24 May 2005 15:00:15 -0700, "newedana" <simplesong1004(a)hanmail.net> wrote: >>Dr. Albert Einstein did not know how light propagates through the vacant space, and also did not know what is the absolute speed of light. > >>>We had a bad fixed prejudice, action only through a medium and medium equals the mass. So the vacant empty space containing nothing can do nothing like mediating light transmission. This traditional fixed idea seriously distorted the science of understanding the light and its propagation characters. Light is exactly the same as sound wave in propagating character. However, in standard high school texts they deny this fact, light is entirely different from sound wave in terms of propagating characters through their medium. It is due to a strong influence of particle physicists who believe light is corpuscular photons. Sound waves once released from its source propagate through the air phase with its own speed that is independent from the speed of its source. If the source moves at some speeds there occurs the Doppler effect. Light is exactly the same as acoustic waves. Light pulses once emitted from their source propagate through empty space at their own speed that is quite >independent to the speed of its source. Thus there occurs the Doppler effect when the source moves at some speeds. One cannot hear the steamwhistle influenced by the Doppler effect if one is in the same train. It is because the elongated wavelength of steamwhistle due to Doppler effect turns out to be restored to its initial dimensions when he receives it in the same train, because he runs with the same speed as the train does. Light is exactly the same. If light source and the detector are on the same coordinate system, for example on the earth, one can measure always the absolute speed of light, without any relation to the orbiting speed of the earth. Elongated or condensed wavelength of light due to Doppler effect becomes restored when the detector receives it. The detector has to receive the elongated wavelength as it advances, or in reverse it has to receive the condensed wavelength as it retreats with the same speed as the source, Albert Einstein didn't notice this simple >plain truth. Since his photon travels with its momentum given by its source, the speed of his photon has to involve the speed of source, as though a shut bullet travels in the space with its momentum given by its rifles, so the speed of bullet has to involve the speed of rifle. Thus allegedly he set forth the famous postulation for his special theory of relativity; If a number of observer are moving at uniform velocity in respect to each other and to a source of light, and if each observer measures the speed of the light emerging from the source, they will all obtain the same value. The same value in his word means the absolute speed of light from which the speed of source is excluded. > >> In order to explain the experimental result of Michelson-Morley, which did not give the expected wave phase interference, Einstein had to remove the speed of source v from additive formula, c=c'+ v. However, it was impossible to do since it conflicts logically with his photon theory. So he put forth the postulation c=c' when v approach the speed c. Thus he proposed the general principle of projectile mechanics involving the travelling mechanism of his photons, as an equation: v=(v'+u)/(1+v'u/c^2), by borrowing the idea of Lorentz's space contraction. And he announced that the speed of light is constant anywhere in the cosmic space, because the light has the fastest speed of all possible speeds in the nature, based on his own equation, m=m'(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. Mass increases its absolute value as its speed increases, so if the speed of mass approaches the speed of light its acceleration can no more contribute to its speed increment. However this idea was a big mistake. He did not >realize when charged particle was accelerated it had to dump off its energy as radiation; the greater the acceleration the larger the dumping energy. >>If we believe that the vacant space itself is only the medium of light propagation, the vacant space is absolutely uniform anywhere in this cosmic space, so the speed of light has to have a naturally constant speed. Speed must be relative to something I think you are just a traditional aetherist. >>Then how can we explain the light refraction taking place between different materials with different optical density? I could learn this phenomenon in Dr.Yoon's textbook(www.yoonsatom.net). He clearly explains the refraction phenomenon with a simple equation built without any postulation, without involving speed factor on page 271, n=(?/sin?) sec???, where ?=2k/?, k: spacing factor of atomic nuclei(mass density factor), ?: wavelength of incident light, ?: incident angle, ?: constant, but containing wavelength of incident light, mass density factor, as well as incident angle of incoming light. This equation is derived by due process of plain geometric analysis and trigonometry. > He asserts that light refraction can take place because the atomic >nuclei in mass system subdivides the incoming light wave into numerous >micro beams which develope into spherical waves, so the constructive >interference between them build a refractive light with a different >running direction. If I quate his key principle described on page 259, >"A plane wave front sliced by atomic nuclei in material system >constructs numerous micro spherical waves. Light pencils packed in >spherical waves bend roundly with respective curvatures which increase >depending on their deviation form the center light pencil that has a >straight pathway, as they propagate through the space. However, all the >distance of their curved pathways are exactly the same as that of >straight pathway because the speed of light is the same and constant. >As one knows, human eye cannot view the curved pathway of the light, >but only the straight distance projected on the center light pencil. >.....Denser the nuclei and the shorter the wavelength the greater the >curvature of bent light pencil..." >>He also shows a number of schematical demonstration of light refraction, utilizing transparent plastic films upon which a large number of concentric half circles is drawn, representing sequential wave phases. Superimposing them and sliding one of them with the way of his suggestion, it shows the schematic light refraction. He explains, with the same principle, the mechanism of separating white light into component mono-chromic lights with a diffraction grating. And he concludes that light refraction can take place even in the vacant space if the light wave is sliced by atomic nuclei such as those contained in the solar wind. >> This fact disproves Einstein's assertion, star light behind the sun bending at near the sun is due to the solar gravitation, and its red shift is due to losing its energy in order to escape from the solar gravitational field. However, this is a fraudulent explanation! The real interpretation is that the solar wind containing nuclear particles make the star light bend, and its red-shift is due to the reason, the nuclear particles in the solar wind travel for the earth with the same direction as that of star light travels. (We have to remind the Fizeau's experiment.) >>He claims the empty space itself is the only medium of light propagation, and element particles building material system has nothing to do with this light propagation. Although his statement conflicts critically with the traditional concept, it is quite correct. People today has been taught that electrons building the material system serves to transmit the light passing through material system. Lichard P Feynman had also the same idea as this. He established his equation representing the refractive index, built based on his QED theory, utilizing the rule of complex number mechanics. However it is a typical example of explaining with a fraudulent science justified with a fantastic mathematical trick. > It is a plain truth, electric and magnetic force can act through this >empty vacant space without any aid of mass particles. This incorrect >belief, mass system interferes the speed of light is our traditional >knowledge inherited from our science pioneer such as Fizeau who tried >to investigate in 1845, how does the speed of light change due to >moving speed of its medium, such as water. He mis-evaluated the light >interference occurred between two light beams; one running along the >flowing water and the other against that, as speed difference between >them. But it is quite incorrect! >>Imagine two rockets, one approaches the earth and the other departs from the earth with the same speed. If they emit lights with the same wavelength toward a detector on the earth, the detector would receive two signals interfering with one another, exactly the same pattern as that Fizeau obtained in his experiment. Have these two lights different speed? Absolutely no! They are exactly the same, since the absolute speed of light is the travelled distance of a light pulse in a second, and not the total length of light train inserting pulse gaps. This is the reevaluation of Fizeau's experiment by Dr.Yoon, and he says if vacuum empty space itself is only the medium of light, there cannot exist such a moving coordinate system in this universe as far as concerned to transmission of light, which is the base of Einstein's two relativity theory. Newedana wrote HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 25 May 2005 07:18 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:48:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >>><ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >>>><H@> >>>>wrote >>> >>> >>>>>>Emissive theory drops postulate [1], and substitutes for [2] >>>>>> >>>>>>[2'] Lightspeed c is relative to the source. >>>>>> >>>>>>SR uses >>>>>> >>>>>>[2"] Lightspeed is c everywhere. >>>>>> >>>>>>and modifies [3], twisting space and time to make [2"] fit. While >>>>>>SR is bizarre, the Universe so far has validated it. >>>>> >>>>>so far....but it hasn't really been tested directly. >>>> >>>>And BaT has? >>> >>> >>> >>>Yes Ghost. >>> >>>Using variable stars. >> >>Henri Wilson has shown that the BaT predicts that >>the binary HD80715 should be variable. >>It isn't. > > > You are raving lunatic. > I told you why it is NOT a variable. A comment which illustrates my words: "He has ever since desperately tried to explain why the BaT doesn't predict what his program says it predicts." >>So for once Henri is right. >>The BaT is tested quite directly. >>It failed the test and is thus falsified. > > > You are a raving lunatic. A comment which illustrates my words: "he is of course regretting bitterly that he ever tested the BaT using real, measured data." >>Henri Wilson has also tested the BaT on Algol. >>The result was that he proved that the parameters >>for the variable had to be wildly different from >>their real values if the BaT should correctly predict >>the light curve. >>So Algol is another binary known to falsify the BaT. >> >>The fact is that the BaT does not predict the light >>curve of a single binary correctly. >>Henri has realized this, that's why he doesn't dare >>to enter the data for any of the thousands of known >>binaries into his program. >> >>And he is of course regretting bitterly that he >>ever tested the BaT using real, measured data. >>He has ever since desperately tried to explain why >>the BaT doesn't predict what his program says it predicts. >> >>Those "explanations" are however quite entertaining. :-) > > > You are stubburn raving lunatic. > You know I am correct but wont admit to the fact. I hit a nerve, didn't I. :-) BTW, what is it you want me to admit that you are right about? Is it that your program works and show what the ballistic theory predicts? Or is it that your program doesn't work and doesn't show what the ballistic theory predicts? Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 25 May 2005 17:01
On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:18:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:48:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >>>><ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >>>>><H@> >>>>>wrote >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>Emissive theory drops postulate [1], and substitutes for [2] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[2'] Lightspeed c is relative to the source. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>SR uses >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[2"] Lightspeed is c everywhere. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>and modifies [3], twisting space and time to make [2"] fit. While >>>>>>>SR is bizarre, the Universe so far has validated it. >>>>>> >>>>>>so far....but it hasn't really been tested directly. >>>>> >>>>>And BaT has? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes Ghost. >>>> >>>>Using variable stars. >>> >>>Henri Wilson has shown that the BaT predicts that >>>the binary HD80715 should be variable. >>>It isn't. >> >> >> You are raving lunatic. >> I told you why it is NOT a variable. > >A comment which illustrates my words: >"He has ever since desperately tried to explain why > the BaT doesn't predict what his program says it predicts." > >>>So for once Henri is right. >>>The BaT is tested quite directly. >>>It failed the test and is thus falsified. >> >> >> You are a raving lunatic. > >A comment which illustrates my words: >"he is of course regretting bitterly that he > ever tested the BaT using real, measured data." > >>>Henri Wilson has also tested the BaT on Algol. >>>The result was that he proved that the parameters >>>for the variable had to be wildly different from >>>their real values if the BaT should correctly predict >>>the light curve. >>>So Algol is another binary known to falsify the BaT. >>> >>>The fact is that the BaT does not predict the light >>>curve of a single binary correctly. >>>Henri has realized this, that's why he doesn't dare >>>to enter the data for any of the thousands of known >>>binaries into his program. >>> >>>And he is of course regretting bitterly that he >>>ever tested the BaT using real, measured data. >>>He has ever since desperately tried to explain why >>>the BaT doesn't predict what his program says it predicts. >>> >>>Those "explanations" are however quite entertaining. :-) >> >> >> You are stubburn raving lunatic. >> You know I am correct but wont admit to the fact. > >I hit a nerve, didn't I. :-) > >BTW, what is it you want me to admit that you are right about? > >Is it that your program works and show >what the ballistic theory predicts? > >Or is it that your program doesn't work >and doesn't show what the ballistic theory predicts? > >Paul Paul, I know your faith has been waning for several years now. Why don't you stop fighting and accept the truth. Light travels across space at c wrt its original source. Variable star light curves prove this to be true. That aspect of Einsteiniana is definitely wrong. Astronomers have been baffled for years because of the red herring they have been chasing. Since SR is an aether theory and there might be 'a local aether' around the Earth, it is not completely impossible that some of his theory is partly correct. At this stage, I don't know of any aspect that is. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |