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: Henri Wilson on 22 Jun 2005 19:17 On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:45:14 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:c85hb1pbcn3b1prl24iecftpetgd09gb65(a)4ax.com: > >>>Every photon leaves its source at c wrt everything in the universe. >>>That is a property of photons. >> >> Bob, light leaves its source at c. > >we agree on this. > >> >> If you or anyone else proposes a theory that claims otherwise, then the >> onus is on them to privide a physical reason for this not being so. > >we agree on this. > >> Einstein declared straight out that light does not leave its source at c > >wrong. He declared [postulated] that light leaves its source at c. > >> but at c wrt little planet Earth, even though little planet Earth didn't >> even exist for most of the time. > >He also declared [postulated] that wherever and whenever it arrives at >anywhere, its measured velocity is ALSO c. .....an idea he stole directly from LET. > >> This is an obvious ploy aimed at propping up the archaic religious >> notion that humans hold a special place in the universe and Earth is its >> centre. > >Actually it is the exact reverse, The earth is NOT special. Every place in >the universe is equally special. that's a strange statement from an SRian. You also believe that all starlight is emitted at c wrt little planet Earth. the two claims are incompatible. > >> The Einsteinian religion has been rigorously defended by the >> same kind of people for 100 years. > >For over 100 years scientists have repeatedly attacked Einstein's theories >and tried to disprove them. > >Practially everyone who has closely studied Einstein's work has tried to >think of a definitive test that will invalidate his postulates. None have >succeeded. until recently, there was no sci.physics.relativity If Einstein were here today, he would be shot down in flames. All he did was re-orientate aether theory. He reasoned that if every observer's clocks and rods are contracted according to LET, then light emitted by any one of them would arrive at any other at c, as measured by the latter's contracted rods and clocks. Unfortunately, it breaks down because v appears in quadratic form and not linear. > >> There is not an ounce of supporting >> evidence for any of it. > >There has never been any evidence against it, despite people trying their >best to find such evidence. All such attempts have failed. > >You act like there has been a conspiracy to prevent people from testing SR >and GR. To the contrary, the exact opposite has been happening. There is no >conspiracy and scientists have repeatedly tried to disprove SR and GR. SR cannot be tested directly because there is no known way to measure OWLS from a moving source.. GR has been tested with te Pound-Rebka experiment. It matches the BaT perfectly. Light increases speed when falling down a gravity well, just like anything else. > >They have found, over and over, while searching for subluminal and >superluminal photons, that the range of possible velocities becomes >narrower and narrower, closer and closer to c. They don't know how or where to look. The HST receives light at speeds other than c all the time. 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: EL on 22 Jun 2005 20:34 [bz wrote] > 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 [EL] I know I oversimplified the issue because light cannot see but can be seen. The setup should have been such that the observer is stationed at the middle between two light sources. For a continuous wave each from each side of the observer, the phase velocity of each wave-front relative to the observer is c but with a different sign, and in that case the relative velocity 2c is between the two wave-fronts as observed by the middle observer and not as relative to the observer because of isotropy. My oversimplified statements was not meant to be verbose at the time, but only to expose the maximal velocity limit as being a relative velocity of 2c and an absolute speed limit of c. So let us avoid the sophistry of semantics if we are practically in agreement, please. EL
From: bz on 22 Jun 2005 20:57 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:gprjb1ll6nepkofq8cqkbpf6hfmjc4cp5c(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:45:14 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:c85hb1pbcn3b1prl24iecftpetgd09gb65(a)4ax.com: >> >>>>Every photon leaves its source at c wrt everything in the universe. >>>>That is a property of photons. >>> >>> Bob, light leaves its source at c. >> >>we agree on this. >> >>> >>> If you or anyone else proposes a theory that claims otherwise, then >>> the onus is on them to privide a physical reason for this not being >>> so. >> >>we agree on this. >> >>> Einstein declared straight out that light does not leave its source at >>> c >> >>wrong. He declared [postulated] that light leaves its source at c. >> >>> but at c wrt little planet Earth, even though little planet Earth >>> didn't even exist for most of the time. >> >>He also declared [postulated] that wherever and whenever it arrives at >>anywhere, its measured velocity is ALSO c. > > ....an idea he stole directly from LET. Stole? Science builds upon former successes and former failures. This is not stealing, it is science. >>> This is an obvious ploy aimed at propping up the archaic religious >>> notion that humans hold a special place in the universe and Earth is >>> its centre. >> >>Actually it is the exact reverse, The earth is NOT special. Every place >>in the universe is equally special. > > that's a strange statement from an SRian. I keep telling you that I don't have faith in any particular theory. > You also believe that all starlight is emitted at c wrt little planet > Earth. SR says that all light moves at c WRT every mass in the universe, including our little insignificant ball of left over star vomit. > the two claims are incompatible. My statements are compatible. I have no idea which two 'claims' you say are incompatible. >> >>> The Einsteinian religion has been rigorously defended by the >>> same kind of people for 100 years. >> >>For over 100 years scientists have repeatedly attacked Einstein's >>theories and tried to disprove them. >> >>Practially everyone who has closely studied Einstein's work has tried to >>think of a definitive test that will invalidate his postulates. None >>have succeeded. > > until recently, there was no sci.physics.relativity There were physicists in labs all over the world looking for holes in published articles. > If Einstein were here today, he would be shot down in flames. > All he did was re-orientate aether theory. His work is still here today. People keep shooting at it and missing. > He reasoned that if every observer's clocks and rods are contracted > according to LET, then light emitted by any one of them would arrive at > any other at c, as measured by the latter's contracted rods and clocks. > > Unfortunately, it breaks down because v appears in quadratic form and > not linear. Unfortunately many physical processes are not linear. >>> There is not an ounce of supporting >>> evidence for any of it. >> >>There has never been any evidence against it, despite people trying >>their best to find such evidence. All such attempts have failed. >> >>You act like there has been a conspiracy to prevent people from testing >>SR and GR. To the contrary, the exact opposite has been happening. There >>is no conspiracy and scientists have repeatedly tried to disprove SR and >>GR. > > SR cannot be tested directly because there is no known way to measure > OWLS from a moving source. OWLS/TWLS, it doesn't matter unless you believe in aether. > GR has been tested with te Pound-Rebka experiment. It matches the BaT > perfectly. Light increases speed when falling down a gravity well, just > like anything else. Pound-Rebka matches SR/GR. >>They have found, over and over, while searching for subluminal and >>superluminal photons, that the range of possible velocities becomes >>narrower and narrower, closer and closer to c. > > They don't know how or where to look. > The HST receives light at speeds other than c all the time. I look forward to you providing irrefutable evidence for that assertion. -- 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: The Ghost In The Machine on 23 Jun 2005 01:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:51:57 GMT <goqjb114sl73o8a6e3968b4c89n3o70a9l(a)4ax.com>: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:32:43 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoortel(a)ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>"Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:1119441996.587027.124540(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >>> > 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. >> >>Henri Wilson and Arthur Androcles Dent, Two Modern >>but Alas Retired Giants of Logic: >> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogicBull.html >> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html >> >>Dirk Vdm >> > > Thank christ Androcles is back. Now we can have some genuine > wisdom here again. > > I was getting really worried when Androcles, Jim Greenfield > and John Kennaugh disappeared almost simltaneously...it > looked as though the physics mafia had gotten to them. Physics Mafia? Damn. Where's my membership card? :-P~ I'd make a very good ylemrunner, although not a lot of call for that sort of thing nowadays. Or perhaps I'd be the SR lookout? [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: sue jahn on 23 Jun 2005 04:12
"bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns967DCB094520WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:gprjb1ll6nepkofq8cqkbpf6hfmjc4cp5c(a)4ax.com: > > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:45:14 +0000 (UTC), bz > > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >>news:c85hb1pbcn3b1prl24iecftpetgd09gb65(a)4ax.com: > >> > >>>>Every photon leaves its source at c wrt everything in the universe. > >>>>That is a property of photons. > >>> > >>> Bob, light leaves its source at c. > >> > >>we agree on this. > >> > >>> > >>> If you or anyone else proposes a theory that claims otherwise, then > >>> the onus is on them to privide a physical reason for this not being > >>> so. > >> > >>we agree on this. > >> > >>> Einstein declared straight out that light does not leave its source at > >>> c > >> > >>wrong. He declared [postulated] that light leaves its source at c. > >> > >>> but at c wrt little planet Earth, even though little planet Earth > >>> didn't even exist for most of the time. > >> > >>He also declared [postulated] that wherever and whenever it arrives at > >>anywhere, its measured velocity is ALSO c. > > > > ....an idea he stole directly from LET. > > Stole? Science builds upon former successes and former failures. This is > not stealing, it is science. > > >>> This is an obvious ploy aimed at propping up the archaic religious > >>> notion that humans hold a special place in the universe and Earth is > >>> its centre. > >> > >>Actually it is the exact reverse, The earth is NOT special. Every place > >>in the universe is equally special. > > > > that's a strange statement from an SRian. > > I keep telling you that I don't have faith in any particular theory. > > > You also believe that all starlight is emitted at c wrt little planet > > Earth. > > SR says that all light moves at c WRT every mass in the universe, including > our little insignificant ball of left over star vomit. ....because AE had never heard of the term "effective aperture" > > > the two claims are incompatible. ....because mass in not always proportional to "effective aperture" but it is usually close. Big things have big cross sections. In astronomy big = 10 * (small) LOL > > My statements are compatible. I have no idea which two 'claims' you say are > incompatible. > > >> > >>> The Einsteinian religion has been rigorously defended by the > >>> same kind of people for 100 years. > >> > >>For over 100 years scientists have repeatedly attacked Einstein's > >>theories and tried to disprove them. > >> > >>Practially everyone who has closely studied Einstein's work has tried to > >>think of a definitive test that will invalidate his postulates. None > >>have succeeded. > > > > until recently, there was no sci.physics.relativity > > There were physicists in labs all over the world looking for holes in > published articles. > > > If Einstein were here today, he would be shot down in flames. > > All he did was re-orientate aether theory. > > His work is still here today. People keep shooting at it and missing. > > > He reasoned that if every observer's clocks and rods are contracted > > according to LET, then light emitted by any one of them would arrive at > > any other at c, as measured by the latter's contracted rods and clocks. > > > > Unfortunately, it breaks down because v appears in quadratic form and > > not linear. > > Unfortunately many physical processes are not linear. > > >>> There is not an ounce of supporting > >>> evidence for any of it. > >> > >>There has never been any evidence against it, despite people trying > >>their best to find such evidence. All such attempts have failed. > >> > >>You act like there has been a conspiracy to prevent people from testing > >>SR and GR. To the contrary, the exact opposite has been happening. There > >>is no conspiracy and scientists have repeatedly tried to disprove SR and > >>GR. > > > > SR cannot be tested directly because there is no known way to measure > > OWLS from a moving source. > > OWLS/TWLS, it doesn't matter unless you believe in aether. Is a sea of leptons considered aether ? > > > GR has been tested with te Pound-Rebka experiment. It matches the BaT > > perfectly. Light increases speed when falling down a gravity well, just > > like anything else. > > Pound-Rebka matches SR/GR. Nope... GPS launch presets do not agree with the LPI interpretation of PR and Vessot. http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000068000002000115000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&jsessionid =3051831093837402530 IOW... Gravity reduces the frequency of an oscillating mass. Gravity does not blueshift "falling fotons"... an absurb causality violation anyway. Sue... > > >>They have found, over and over, while searching for subluminal and > >>superluminal photons, that the range of possible velocities becomes > >>narrower and narrower, closer and closer to c. > > > > They don't know how or where to look. > > The HST receives light at speeds other than c all the time. > > I look forward to you providing irrefutable evidence for that assertion. > > > > -- > 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 |