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: EL on 22 Jun 2005 01:43 [Sue... wrote] > It is inconsistent with SR, GR, Maxwell, Weber > and the fine structure constant. > > <<Of course, Newton's third law is intimately tied up with the > conservation of momentum in the universe. A concept which > most physicists are loath to abandon. It turns out that we > can ``rescue'' momentum conservation by abandoning ` > `action at a distance'' theories and adopting so-called ` > `field'' theories in which there is a medium, called a field, > which transmits the force from one particle to another. > In electromagnetism there are, in fact, two fields; the > electric field and the magnetic field. Electromagnetic > forces are transmitted though these fields at the speed > of light, which implies that the laws of relativity are never violated. > >> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node25.html > > That puts c + v in the realm of perpetual motion machines. > > Sue... [EL] You missed the point, sue. I singled out the relativity of light as SR and GR because only those depend on postulating more than just the constancy of light speed as _c_. Your argument would be a good one if I ever said the the speed of light in vacuum relative to self-histories was anything but _c_, which I did not imply or explicitly claim. What I said is that formulating a relative speed as c+v is absolutely acceptable when the reference of choice is the wavelength of the wave in its stationary frame with its source. Nothing can move at a speed faster than _c_ with respect to any reference. But two things moving at _c_ may have as much as 2c for a relative velocity when they move head on in vacuum, don't you think? ;-) EL
From: sue jahn on 22 Jun 2005 02:14 "EL" <hemetis(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1119419027.948994.28170(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > [Sue... wrote] > > It is inconsistent with SR, GR, Maxwell, Weber > > and the fine structure constant. > > > > <<Of course, Newton's third law is intimately tied up with the > > conservation of momentum in the universe. A concept which > > most physicists are loath to abandon. It turns out that we > > can ``rescue'' momentum conservation by abandoning ` > > `action at a distance'' theories and adopting so-called ` > > `field'' theories in which there is a medium, called a field, > > which transmits the force from one particle to another. > > In electromagnetism there are, in fact, two fields; the > > electric field and the magnetic field. Electromagnetic > > forces are transmitted though these fields at the speed > > of light, which implies that the laws of relativity are never violated. > > >> > > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node25.html > > > > That puts c + v in the realm of perpetual motion machines. > > > > Sue... > [EL] > You missed the point, sue. > I singled out the relativity of light as SR and GR because only those > depend on postulating more than just the constancy of light speed as > _c_. > Your argument would be a good one if I ever said the the speed of light > in vacuum relative to self-histories was anything but _c_, which I did > not imply or explicitly claim. > What I said is that formulating a relative speed as c+v is absolutely > acceptable when the reference of choice is the wavelength of the wave > in its stationary frame with its source. I don't see that. This guy looks to be outrunnig his postulates: http://cabibbo.physics.wm.edu/~steiner/sonic_boom_lancer1.jpg > Nothing can move at a speed > faster than _c_ with respect to any reference. Assuming a telescope's mirror can be considered a point of reference: <<...the data shown below on Type Ia SNe from Riess, Press and Kirshner (1996) extend beyond 30,000 km/sec and provide a dramatic confirmation of the Hubble law, v = dD/dt = H*D >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm My spillin and math is atroshus but is that 10 times the speed of light ? > But two things moving at > _c_ may have as much as 2c for a relative velocity when they move head > on in vacuum, don't you think? ;-) No... One object has no knowlege what the other object is doing so why should they conspire? To please theorists ? :o) Sue... > EL >
From: sue jahn on 22 Jun 2005 03:02 "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42b9032b$0$18640$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk... > > "EL" <hemetis(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1119419027.948994.28170(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > [Sue... wrote] > > > It is inconsistent with SR, GR, Maxwell, Weber > > > and the fine structure constant. > > > > > > <<Of course, Newton's third law is intimately tied up with the > > > conservation of momentum in the universe. A concept which > > > most physicists are loath to abandon. It turns out that we > > > can ``rescue'' momentum conservation by abandoning ` > > > `action at a distance'' theories and adopting so-called ` > > > `field'' theories in which there is a medium, called a field, > > > which transmits the force from one particle to another. > > > In electromagnetism there are, in fact, two fields; the > > > electric field and the magnetic field. Electromagnetic > > > forces are transmitted though these fields at the speed > > > of light, which implies that the laws of relativity are never violated. > > > >> > > > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node25.html > > > > > > That puts c + v in the realm of perpetual motion machines. > > > > > > Sue... > > [EL] > > You missed the point, sue. > > I singled out the relativity of light as SR and GR because only those > > depend on postulating more than just the constancy of light speed as > > _c_. > > Your argument would be a good one if I ever said the the speed of light > > in vacuum relative to self-histories was anything but _c_, which I did > > not imply or explicitly claim. > > What I said is that formulating a relative speed as c+v is absolutely > > acceptable when the reference of choice is the wavelength of the wave > > in its stationary frame with its source. > I don't see that. This guy looks to be outrunnig his postulates: > http://cabibbo.physics.wm.edu/~steiner/sonic_boom_lancer1.jpg > > > Nothing can move at a speed > > faster than _c_ with respect to any reference. > > Assuming a telescope's mirror can be considered a point of reference: > > <<...the data shown below on Type Ia SNe from Riess, Press and Kirshner (1996) > extend beyond 30,000 km/sec and provide a dramatic confirmation of the Hubble law, > v = dD/dt = H*D >> > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm > > My spillin and math is atroshus but is that 10 times the speed of light ? OOps! It's a good job I'm not helping Saul Perlmutter with his calcs or he'd be looking under his car seats for more dark matter. That looks more like 1/10 the speed of light. That isn't much help, however for the notion that a proton in the Tevatron considers itself a point of reference and slows down when it sees a particle in a superluminal jet going fast. :o) Sue... > > > But two things moving at > > _c_ may have as much as 2c for a relative velocity when they move head > > on in vacuum, don't you think? ;-) > > No... > One object has no knowlege what the other object is doing so why > should they conspire? To please theorists ? :o) > > Sue... > > > EL > > > >
From: EL on 22 Jun 2005 03:17 [sue jahn wrote] > "EL" <hemetis(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > [EL] > > You missed the point, sue. > > I singled out the relativity of light as SR and GR because only those > > depend on postulating more than just the constancy of light speed as > > _c_. > > Your argument would be a good one if I ever said the the speed of light > > in vacuum relative to self-histories was anything but _c_, which I did > > not imply or explicitly claim. > > What I said is that formulating a relative speed as c+v is absolutely > > acceptable when the reference of choice is the wavelength of the wave > > in its stationary frame with its source. > I don't see that. This guy looks to be outrunnig his postulates: > http://cabibbo.physics.wm.edu/~steiner/sonic_boom_lancer1.jpg [EL] Do not confuse sound with light, please. > > > Nothing can move at a speed > > faster than _c_ with respect to any reference. > > Assuming a telescope's mirror can be considered a point of reference: > > <<...the data shown below on Type Ia SNe from Riess, Press and Kirshner (1996) > extend beyond 30,000 km/sec and provide a dramatic confirmation of the Hubble law, > v = dD/dt = H*D >> > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm > > My spillin and math is atroshus but is that 10 times the speed of light ? [EL] No, because what you posted up here does not even begin to make sense. > > > But two things moving at > > _c_ may have as much as 2c for a relative velocity when they move head > > on in vacuum, don't you think? ;-) > > No... > One object has no knowlege what the other object is doing so why > should they conspire? To please theorists ? :o) [EL] Now you are waffling, so could you get serious, please. > > Sue... > > > EL > >
From: EL on 22 Jun 2005 03:25
[sue jahn wrote] > OOps! > It's a good job I'm not helping Saul Perlmutter with his calcs or he'd > be looking under his car seats for more dark matter. > That looks more like 1/10 the speed of light. > That isn't much help, however for the notion that a proton in the > Tevatron considers itself a point of reference and slows down > when it sees a particle in a superluminal jet going fast. :o) > > > Sue... > [EL] :-) There you go, "OOps!" :-) Nothing can move faster than _c_ in any absolute sense, but relatively, the Natural relative speed limit is 2c. In other words, I have no objection if experimenters claimed to have calculated a relative velocity being faster than light, but I will very strongly object if they claimed that that relative velocity was anywhere, even infinitesimally greater than 2c. Naturally, I will reject any idea that one thing can move relative to a stationary coordinate system faster than _c_. EL |