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: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox on 2 Jul 2005 10:57 "Rebmun" <rebmun(a)isp.com> wrote in message news:b5c$42c6a4ce$d8080e06$4723(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... .... > The speed of light is a universal constantfro what should > be the obvious reason that the matter which we use in > the instruments which measure that speed use the > velocity of light to control their parameters. In absolute > terms, the speed of light changes between velocity and > elevation reference frames. It is this effect which > produces the relativisitc effects and releases the energy > of gravitation. The idea that the speed of light is a > constant follows from Dr. eisntein's hare-brained error in > the derivation of relativity and his attempt to plaster over > that error by ascribing the gravitational field to "curved > space". Thus speaks the liar, spammer, and defamer Ernest Wittke. Who just raised even more errors in his logic. If our instruments are affected by "local c", then in fact c *is* a constant when measured. So it isn't so hare-brained that you didn't just prove it yourself. Not that I expect reasoned discourse from you. David A. Smith
From: bz on 2 Jul 2005 11:10 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:g4pcc1tpbcjvqqnn4cknab54vt3dnmci1g(a)4ax.com: > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:19:49 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:hp01c1lh3je73ctsvk8ltttsih401i30q9(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>> Here is another reference: >>>>> http://weblore.com/richard/ru_cam_ex_cepheid_star.htm >>>>> >>>>> "Cepheids are known for their precise variability which can be >>>>> measured to a fraction of a second." >>>> >>>>'can be measured to a fraction of a second' does not necessarily mean >>>>'is constant to a fraction of a second'. >>>> >>>>There is no question that some cepheids are 'regular' for some period >>>>of time. There is also no question that most, if not all cepheids show >>>>some variations. >> >>> Weren't you the one who recently accused ME of moving the goalposts? >> >>Which goalposts did I move? I have been trying to show you that the >>'constancy of the cepheid' is overblown. > > That's not what the experts say. You have never been shy about challenging the 'experts' especially when the data does not support what the 'so called experts' say. You can download the data yourself. The data that I have seen does not justify the claim. >>> The BaT would predict that the periods of most cepheids should >>> steadily increase or decrease by varying degrees due to 'time >>> compression'. >> >>So, eventually the period reaches infinity or zero? > > No Bob. They would vary sinusoudally usually over very long periods of > time and only slightly....maybe up to a factor of four. Does time compression only apply to distant cepheids? >>>>> You cannot run away from the truth forever, Bob. >> >>>>I am searching for truth, Henri. >> >>> The speed of all starlight is not miraculously adjusted so that it >>> leaves its source at c wrt little planet Earth. >> >>And AE says quite clearly that the earth is not unique. Every FoR >>throughout the universe sees the same miracle. > > If you believe in miracles there is no room for you in science. > Paul Andersen believes in fairies. I don't believe in miracles, but if they exist when starlight arrives here at c, then the same miracle happens everywhere. Note: I am not calling it a miracle. I just call it a property of light. >>> Why don't you retaliate with this theory: >>> Light leaves stars at an infinite range of speeds. WE on Earth can >>> only detect that which is moving at c wrt us. >> >>It would require an infinite amount of energy to run my flashlight. > > You had better charge the battery then. In my universe, photons only go at one speed, so my flashlight doesn't need an infinite amount of energy. I was pointing out that your theory would violate conservation of energy. >>> That should make you think. It might not be as silly as it sounds. >> >>It is only viable if you throw away the principles of conservation of >>mass and energy. > > I didn't say it was variable. I said it possesses all velocities. > We only detect one. If it possesses all velocities, it must also possess all energies. > Is that a possibility? Not in this universe. > ......Like using a wave analyser on white noise. A wave analyser on white noise shows all frequencies are present in equal amounts. The energy is spread across the spectrum. If you put a passband filter on the signal, you will only pick up a small percentage of the power within that passband. The amplifier, however, had to output much more power than makes it through the filter. Your idea will not fly. >>>>Cepheids show some distinctive characteristics, such as rapid cyclic >>>>shifts in stellar type. >> >>> That is related to observed brightness and 'estimated' size. >>> I would expect variations in estimated luminosity. >> >>That is relative to the shape of emission spectrum and the absorption >>lines in the spectrum after doppler shift is correct for. >> >>It is related to the size and temperature of the star. > > There are about four inter-related factors. A mistake in one will throw > the others out. That is why your program needs sanity checking. > If for instance a star appeared cooler than it really was, ..because of > gravitational redshift Such red shift does not make the star appear cooler. Red shift shifts the peak of emission but it also shifts absorbtion lines. The temperature estimates take red shift into account. >, (the BaT type...same as GR) then its size would > have to be exaggerated to account for the amount of energy it was > radiating, as estimated from its peak spectral wavelength and its > distance from us. Only if they fail to correct for doppler shift. >>BaT should not cause changes in the type of star. Only changes in the >>atmospheric chemistry of the star can do that. > > But what is seen, based on constant c, might not be what is real. Science only deals with what is observable, identifiable and verifiable. When you start talking about what we see not being what is really happening, then you step outside of science, into religion. -- 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: sue jahn on 2 Jul 2005 13:38 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns9687677EA521FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:g4pcc1tpbcjvqqnn4cknab54vt3dnmci1g(a)4ax.com: > > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:19:49 +0000 (UTC), bz > > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >>news:hp01c1lh3je73ctsvk8ltttsih401i30q9(a)4ax.com: > >> > > > >>>>> Here is another reference: > >>>>> http://weblore.com/richard/ru_cam_ex_cepheid_star.htm > >>>>> > >>>>> "Cepheids are known for their precise variability which can be > >>>>> measured to a fraction of a second." > >>>> > >>>>'can be measured to a fraction of a second' does not necessarily mean > >>>>'is constant to a fraction of a second'. > >>>> > >>>>There is no question that some cepheids are 'regular' for some period > >>>>of time. There is also no question that most, if not all cepheids show > >>>>some variations. > >> > >>> Weren't you the one who recently accused ME of moving the goalposts? > >> > >>Which goalposts did I move? I have been trying to show you that the > >>'constancy of the cepheid' is overblown. > > > > That's not what the experts say. > > You have never been shy about challenging the 'experts' especially when the > data does not support what the 'so called experts' say. > > You can download the data yourself. The data that I have seen does not > justify the claim. > > >>> The BaT would predict that the periods of most cepheids should > >>> steadily increase or decrease by varying degrees due to 'time > >>> compression'. > >> > >>So, eventually the period reaches infinity or zero? > > > > No Bob. They would vary sinusoudally usually over very long periods of > > time and only slightly....maybe up to a factor of four. > > Does time compression only apply to distant cepheids? > > >>>>> You cannot run away from the truth forever, Bob. > >> > >>>>I am searching for truth, Henri. > >> > >>> The speed of all starlight is not miraculously adjusted so that it > >>> leaves its source at c wrt little planet Earth. > >> > >>And AE says quite clearly that the earth is not unique. Every FoR > >>throughout the universe sees the same miracle. > > > > If you believe in miracles there is no room for you in science. > > Paul Andersen believes in fairies. > > I don't believe in miracles, but if they exist when starlight arrives here > at c, then the same miracle happens everywhere. > > Note: I am not calling it a miracle. I just call it a property of light. > > >>> Why don't you retaliate with this theory: > >>> Light leaves stars at an infinite range of speeds. WE on Earth can > >>> only detect that which is moving at c wrt us. > >> > >>It would require an infinite amount of energy to run my flashlight. > > > > You had better charge the battery then. > > In my universe, photons only go at one speed, so my flashlight doesn't need > an infinite amount of energy. Ahh ! It is the reflector of your flashlight where the wizard is hidden. When *photons* move from the bulb toward the reflector he makes ugly faces and scares them into turning around? How big do ya think the wizard has to be inside this reflector ? http://ltp-education.gsfc.nasa.gov/gifs/lunar_ra.jpg ;-) Sue... > > I was pointing out that your theory would violate conservation of energy. > > >>> That should make you think. It might not be as silly as it sounds. > >> > >>It is only viable if you throw away the principles of conservation of > >>mass and energy. > > > > I didn't say it was variable. I said it possesses all velocities. > > We only detect one. > > If it possesses all velocities, it must also possess all energies. > > > Is that a possibility? > > Not in this universe. > > > ......Like using a wave analyser on white noise. > > A wave analyser on white noise shows all frequencies are present in equal > amounts. The energy is spread across the spectrum. If you put a passband > filter on the signal, you will only pick up a small percentage of the power > within that passband. > > The amplifier, however, had to output much more power than makes it through > the filter. > > Your idea will not fly. > > >>>>Cepheids show some distinctive characteristics, such as rapid cyclic > >>>>shifts in stellar type. > >> > >>> That is related to observed brightness and 'estimated' size. > >>> I would expect variations in estimated luminosity. > >> > >>That is relative to the shape of emission spectrum and the absorption > >>lines in the spectrum after doppler shift is correct for. > >> > >>It is related to the size and temperature of the star. > > > > There are about four inter-related factors. A mistake in one will throw > > the others out. > > That is why your program needs sanity checking. > > > If for instance a star appeared cooler than it really was, ..because of > > gravitational redshift > > Such red shift does not make the star appear cooler. Red shift shifts the > peak of emission but it also shifts absorbtion lines. The temperature > estimates take red shift into account. > > >, (the BaT type...same as GR) then its size would > > have to be exaggerated to account for the amount of energy it was > > radiating, as estimated from its peak spectral wavelength and its > > distance from us. > > Only if they fail to correct for doppler shift. > > >>BaT should not cause changes in the type of star. Only changes in the > >>atmospheric chemistry of the star can do that. > > > > But what is seen, based on constant c, might not be what is real. > > Science only deals with what is observable, identifiable and verifiable. > > When you start talking about what we see not being what is really > happening, then you step outside of science, into religion. > > > > > > -- > 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: Sue... on 2 Jul 2005 14:11 bz wrote: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:g4pcc1tpbcjvqqnn4cknab54vt3dnmci1g(a)4ax.com: > > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:19:49 +0000 (UTC), bz > > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >>news:hp01c1lh3je73ctsvk8ltttsih401i30q9(a)4ax.com: > >> > > > >>>>> Here is another reference: > >>>>> http://weblore.com/richard/ru_cam_ex_cepheid_star.htm > >>>>> > >>>>> "Cepheids are known for their precise variability which can be > >>>>> measured to a fraction of a second." > >>>> > >>>>'can be measured to a fraction of a second' does not necessarily mean > >>>>'is constant to a fraction of a second'. > >>>> > >>>>There is no question that some cepheids are 'regular' for some period > >>>>of time. There is also no question that most, if not all cepheids show > >>>>some variations. > >> > >>> Weren't you the one who recently accused ME of moving the goalposts? > >> > >>Which goalposts did I move? I have been trying to show you that the > >>'constancy of the cepheid' is overblown. > > > > That's not what the experts say. > > You have never been shy about challenging the 'experts' especially when the > data does not support what the 'so called experts' say. > > You can download the data yourself. The data that I have seen does not > justify the claim. > > >>> The BaT would predict that the periods of most cepheids should > >>> steadily increase or decrease by varying degrees due to 'time > >>> compression'. > >> > >>So, eventually the period reaches infinity or zero? > > > > No Bob. They would vary sinusoudally usually over very long periods of > > time and only slightly....maybe up to a factor of four. > > Does time compression only apply to distant cepheids? > > >>>>> You cannot run away from the truth forever, Bob. > >> > >>>>I am searching for truth, Henri. > >> > >>> The speed of all starlight is not miraculously adjusted so that it > >>> leaves its source at c wrt little planet Earth. > >> > >>And AE says quite clearly that the earth is not unique. Every FoR > >>throughout the universe sees the same miracle. > > > > If you believe in miracles there is no room for you in science. > > Paul Andersen believes in fairies. > > I don't believe in miracles, but if they exist when starlight arrives here > at c, then the same miracle happens everywhere. > > Note: I am not calling it a miracle. I just call it a property of light. > > >>> Why don't you retaliate with this theory: > >>> Light leaves stars at an infinite range of speeds. WE on Earth can > >>> only detect that which is moving at c wrt us. > >> > >>It would require an infinite amount of energy to run my flashlight. Dear friend Bz, Since you are all up-to-date an current on photon speeds and paths and behavior and know all about the the wizards that direct them, you can probably explain a mystery... perhaps a miracle that I observed. Standing arms length from a mirror which was really to large for my purposes (girls have lots of "wall stuff" to hang) I traced my silhouette with lipstick on the mirror. I then took the mirror to a glass cutter to have the unecessary material removed. When I rehung the mirror, my image was much dimmer than I recall. I had to to better that quaduple the lighting in my bathroom just so my makeup would look the same. I think the glass cutter did something to silvering. What do you think ? ;-) Sue... > > > > You had better charge the battery then. > > In my universe, photons only go at one speed, so my flashlight doesn't need > an infinite amount of energy. > > I was pointing out that your theory would violate conservation of energy. > > >>> That should make you think. It might not be as silly as it sounds. > >> > >>It is only viable if you throw away the principles of conservation of > >>mass and energy. > > > > I didn't say it was variable. I said it possesses all velocities. > > We only detect one. > > If it possesses all velocities, it must also possess all energies. > > > Is that a possibility? > > Not in this universe. > > > ......Like using a wave analyser on white noise. > > A wave analyser on white noise shows all frequencies are present in equal > amounts. The energy is spread across the spectrum. If you put a passband > filter on the signal, you will only pick up a small percentage of the power > within that passband. > > The amplifier, however, had to output much more power than makes it through > the filter. > > Your idea will not fly. > > >>>>Cepheids show some distinctive characteristics, such as rapid cyclic > >>>>shifts in stellar type. > >> > >>> That is related to observed brightness and 'estimated' size. > >>> I would expect variations in estimated luminosity. > >> > >>That is relative to the shape of emission spectrum and the absorption > >>lines in the spectrum after doppler shift is correct for. > >> > >>It is related to the size and temperature of the star. > > > > There are about four inter-related factors. A mistake in one will throw > > the others out. > > That is why your program needs sanity checking. > > > If for instance a star appeared cooler than it really was, ..because of > > gravitational redshift > > Such red shift does not make the star appear cooler. Red shift shifts the > peak of emission but it also shifts absorbtion lines. The temperature > estimates take red shift into account. > > >, (the BaT type...same as GR) then its size would > > have to be exaggerated to account for the amount of energy it was > > radiating, as estimated from its peak spectral wavelength and its > > distance from us. > > Only if they fail to correct for doppler shift. > > >>BaT should not cause changes in the type of star. Only changes in the > >>atmospheric chemistry of the star can do that. > > > > But what is seen, based on constant c, might not be what is real. > > Science only deals with what is observable, identifiable and verifiable. > > When you start talking about what we see not being what is really > happening, then you step outside of science, into religion. > > > > > > -- > 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: bz on 2 Jul 2005 15:12
"sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42c6d163$0$18639$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: >> In my universe, photons only go at one speed, so my flashlight doesn't >> need an infinite amount of energy. > > Ahh ! It is the reflector of your flashlight where the wizard is > hidden. When *photons* move from the bulb toward the reflector he makes > ugly faces and scares them into turning around? > > How big do ya think the wizard has to be inside this reflector ? > http://ltp-education.gsfc.nasa.gov/gifs/lunar_ra.jpg What? It looks like about 5 whats to me. Must be an ire-ish whizard cause he looks a bit green in the face. Maybe he doesn't like getting bounced around and that is the cause of his ire. -- 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 |