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: sue jahn on 22 Jun 2005 04:45 "EL" <hemetis(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1119424620.556346.19140(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > [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. Cherenkov radiation will attest I am not doing that. > > > > > > 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. No... That can hurt feelings. :o) Sue... > > > > > Sue... > > > > > EL > > > >
From: Sue... on 22 Jun 2005 06:02 << relative to a stationary coordinate system >> That makes it imaginary so I agree. You can imagine anything you please. Kind regards, Sue...
From: bz on 22 Jun 2005 08:03 "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42b92d16$0$18650$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: EL: >> > > 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? ;-) The rules of SR/GR apparently prohibit the measurement of ANY speed relative to a Frame of Reference moving AT c. This is done for two reasons, as I understand it: 1) nothing with rest mass can move at c. 2) if something with rest mass could move at c, 'its clocks would stop', so measurements of velocities would be impossible. The question can be asked a bit differently: Given two particles moving at .999999....9 [100 9's] c [wrt observer 'O'] toward each other, would either see the other's speed as exceeding c? And the answer by SR/GR is clearly NO. Does observer 'O' calculate the closing rate of the two particles as > c. Wrt the observer, yes, but wrt each other, no. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Arthur Dent on 22 Jun 2005 08:06 > Henri may seem a little gruff and his h-aether is pure bull, > but it remains a fact that if we model c+v mathematically > we do indeed get the light curves of cepheids, recurrent > novae, flare stars and eclipsing binaries. Jerry wrote: "Actually, we don't." Actually, Jerry, YOU cannot say WE don't because you haven't modelled it, all you can say is that YOU don't. Henri and I do. Henri was the first I knew of to take the matter seriously and built his model, independently, after I had informed him of it. I was the first to build a c+v model, and reproduced my first cepheid curve in 1987, running under DOS. I scrapped the program because I "realised" it would not reproduce Algol. Then in the early 1990s I rebuilt it out of curiousity, this time running under Windows 3.1. Doodling around with the data, I saw the curve of Algol begin to emerge. I still have that program and it still works. You say that cepheids show large timing irregularities. So do the moons of Jupiter by 10 of 15 minutes, Roemer used that fact to discover his first approximation for the speed of light. I think it can quite easily be explained, although not by your theory. A century ago nobody was modeling c+v with a computer. You are 18 years behind the times, Jerry. A.D.
From: Arthur Dent on 22 Jun 2005 09:24
> bz wrote: > Arthur, > I am afraid I am not sure what your point is. > Are you arguing against what I said or supporting it? > Are you claiming c'=c+v is correct? > If so, what about all the experiments that have demonstrated that for > c'=c+vk k must be a very small number? > If not, what point are you trying to make? > I'm agreeing with your philosophical viewpoint: > "An assertion is a claim unsupported by evidence." bz: That is the meaning of the word 'assertion' as it is used in law. A.D. so what are you arguing about? > I've asked you to look at Einstein's assertion concerning time that is > a claim unsupported by evidence. Consider the following: bz: Einstein bases his SR on two POSTULATES. A postulate is a clearly stated assumption. It is not an assertion. A.D. What's the difference between a postulate and a definition, then? As far as I can see, both are "assertions" as used in law. When both litigants agree, that is then called a stipulation - in law. A.D. > A wave source emits one crest every second, and the crest travels away > from the source a distance of one meter in one second. bz: This is clearly not light we are talking about. A.D. I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of argument, and I'm certainly not going to debate semantics, in law or otherwise. If you do not accept that light has wave properties, we are not going to agree on anything. bz: c'=c+v is wrong because it REQUIRES k to be '1'(one). 2 = 1 + 1*k is wrong because it requires k to be '1' (one). A wonderful piece of logic. Have a nice day. A.D. |