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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 8 Jul 2005 11:58 "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote in message news:1120828131.686424.169110(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > I cannot imagine why certain people do not want me to divide distance > between two photons passing each other by the time since the > photons crossed. I get 2c but that is an illusion. Look carefully > the two becomes a one. > > Why is this? Nothing I in the calculation conflicts with SRT Nobody "wants" you do anything. You are free to do as you please, but if you want to debate rationally then I'll quite happily accept that you can divide distance between two photons passing each other by the time since the photons crossed and get 2c. My problem with you is that you now claim that to be an illusion. Either is is 2c by the vector addition of velocities or it isn't, and if it isn't, what is it? Androcles.
From: Henri Wilson on 8 Jul 2005 20:07 On 8 Jul 2005 04:41:53 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 8 Jul 2005 02:24:30 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >> >> >> conspiracies are everywhere > >Anyway, an experiment can be done using the space shuttle and two >satellites, timing radio signals between all of them. If there >is a time difference due to relative movement, then we know we are >right. > >Any idea of the experimental error of measuring c over a distance >of the earth' diameter with a source speed of 50,000 kmh? The time difference you would have to resolve is in the order of 10^-12 secs. Knowing the exact positions is the biggest problem. > >Will it show, and if it does not show then how can anyone >claim SRT is proven because NASA calculations are based on them? NASA would put it down to a slight orbit error rather than accept variable light speed. .. >> 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 8 Jul 2005 20:08 On 8 Jul 2005 06:08:51 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 6 Jul 2005 21:01:23 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> On 6 Jul 2005 01:50:13 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >> >> >> >Funnily no mention of SRT in this explanation. >> >> >> >> Very funny :). >> > >> >But, take hope. There are articles that say that GPS cannot work >> >without >> >SRT, and is proof of SRT. There are articles that say the opposite. >> > >> >Our task is simple: with the help of our friends here, we will >> >have to find out who is right. (unless you have already found out). >> >> I have. See my thread about the GR clock correction. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> It travels at c+v wrt other objects moving at -v wrt the source. > >I cannot imagine why certain people do not want me to divide distance >between two photons passing each other by the time since the >photons crossed. I get 2c but that is an illusion. Look carefully >the two becomes a one. SRians call it 'closing speed'. > >Why is this? Nothing I in the calculation conflicts with SRT > >> >> > >> >> >Sounds reasonable enough, but how is it to be tested, proven? I can >> >> >think of about four experiments that will have to be done in space. >> >> > >> >> >How about an MMX that uses starlight or sunlight? That would settle the >> >> >issue - could cause interference fringes. Has this been done? >> >> >> >> No. Must be done in space. >> > >> >But won't light reaching the instrument be anything but c? >> >> After passing through the atmosphere, who knows? >> >> >averaging out atmospheric disturbances can't it be done? Anyway >> >good candidate for next shuttle launch. If they don't >> >want to keep their jobs that is. >> >> No, it cannot be done on Earth. All complications must be eliminated. >> >> >> >> 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. 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: G on 11 Jul 2005 01:32 Androcles wrote: > "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote in message > news:1120828131.686424.169110(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > I cannot imagine why certain people do not want me to divide distance > > between two photons passing each other by the time since the > > photons crossed. I get 2c but that is an illusion. Look carefully > > the two becomes a one. > > > > Why is this? Nothing I in the calculation conflicts with SRT > > Nobody "wants" you do anything. You are free to do as you please, > but if you want to debate rationally then I'll quite happily accept > that > you can divide distance between two photons passing each other > by the time since the photons crossed and get 2c. Ok thanks. > My problem with you is that you now claim that to be an illusion. I was just kidding, but it is hard to tell in this area I think... > Either is is 2c by the vector addition of velocities or it isn't, > and if it isn't, what is it? > Androcles.
From: G on 11 Jul 2005 01:37
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 8 Jul 2005 04:41:53 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 8 Jul 2005 02:24:30 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> conspiracies are everywhere > > > >Anyway, an experiment can be done using the space shuttle and two > >satellites, timing radio signals between all of them. If there > >is a time difference due to relative movement, then we know we are > >right. > > > >Any idea of the experimental error of measuring c over a distance > >of the earth' diameter with a source speed of 50,000 kmh? > > The time difference you would have to resolve is in the order of 10^-12 secs. > Knowing the exact positions is the biggest problem. Thanks Henri: so it is not possible to tell, for us earthpersons. Maybe it does not make the slightest difference. > > > > >Will it show, and if it does not show then how can anyone > >claim SRT is proven because NASA calculations are based on them? > > NASA would put it down to a slight orbit error rather than accept variable > light speed. Is this measurable with current instrumenation? Or are any case SRT effects are negligible and really not worth considering in the current area of space flight? > . > >> > > > 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. |