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: bz on 1 Apr 2005 15:01 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1112382848.583873.229250 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > bz, > I am just now learning some of the shorthand used in this NG. > You probably have already figured out that "hey idiot" means > you have made your point and the other person isn't willing to > admit it. > > Unless you are fond of profanity, be very careful not to post > this link in these one/two way SOL discussions. ;-) > > http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/time/commonviewgps.htm > :) -- 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 1 Apr 2005 15:05 "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:1112384906.263591.3880 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > kenseto wrote: >> Hey idiot...the difference is the time interval needed for the signal > to >> move from one detector to the other. What this mean is that you are >> measuring the speed of the signal through the cables. >> > > Look at this equation: > >> > t2+cable2delay - t1+cable1delay = t2-t1 >> > provided that cable2delay=cable1delay > > They both have the same cable delay, achieved by > using the same length cable. When you subtract the > two times, you measure t2-t1, even if the cables were > a light year long and the signal arrived at your scope > a year after they hit the detectors. > > Let us suppose t2-t1 is one msec, and my cable transit > time is one year. Then my first signal will arrive at > the scope at t1 plus one year, and the second will > arrive at t1 plus one year plus one msec. The difference > is one msec. That is *NOT* "measuring the speed of > the signal through the cable". Thanks. I was beginning to fear that the rules of algebra that I learned in the 60's had ceased to be accepted. :) -- 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: Bilge on 1 Apr 2005 19:06 bz: >jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in >news:e7b5cc5d.0503301623.679f97c0(a)posting.google.com: > >> The well >> trained DHR, his eyes shut, suddenly notices the frequency change to >> 20/sec. An intelligent observer would say there are TWO possibilities >> why this occurred: the profile of the fence altered to 20 flutes per >> meter length, or the fence velocity past the stick INCREASED! (or a >> bit of both). Not so the DHR!! His mind awash with magical belief, he >> REJECTS ENTIRELY that the speed altered, and is adamant that the >> fluting changed! Pushed, he will point to the cut finger where the >> raised edge of the new iron caught him. Nothing like a little blood to >> "prove" something. >> >> > >The thoughtful scientist looks for ways to test things and figure out if >the profile of the fence altered or not. > >See, in your example, the guy has been roller blading along this same fence >for years. He knows that the spacing is constant (speed of light). > >So he is reasonably sure that if the frequency has changed then SOMETHING >has changed his speed (frequency of light). He checks for a tail wind or >something else that might have changed his speed. Mr. greenfield is an idiot. To be in the right frame of mind when responding bear in mind that he is as impervious to logic as tungsten anvil is to a wooden mallet. He apparently grew up in the dark ages and can't quite wrap his brain around the concept of science.
From: Henri Wilson on 2 Apr 2005 02:45 On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:06:51 GMT, dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote: > bz: > >jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in > >news:e7b5cc5d.0503301623.679f97c0(a)posting.google.com: > > > >> The well > >> trained DHR, his eyes shut, suddenly notices the frequency change to > >> 20/sec. An intelligent observer would say there are TWO possibilities > >> why this occurred: the profile of the fence altered to 20 flutes per > >> meter length, or the fence velocity past the stick INCREASED! (or a > >> bit of both). Not so the DHR!! His mind awash with magical belief, he > >> REJECTS ENTIRELY that the speed altered, and is adamant that the > >> fluting changed! Pushed, he will point to the cut finger where the > >> raised edge of the new iron caught him. Nothing like a little blood to > >> "prove" something. > >> > >> > > > >The thoughtful scientist looks for ways to test things and figure out if > >the profile of the fence altered or not. > > > >See, in your example, the guy has been roller blading along this same fence > >for years. He knows that the spacing is constant (speed of light). > > > >So he is reasonably sure that if the frequency has changed then SOMETHING > >has changed his speed (frequency of light). He checks for a tail wind or > >something else that might have changed his speed. > > Mr. greenfield is an idiot. To be in the right frame of mind when >responding bear in mind that he is as impervious to logic as >tungsten anvil is to a wooden mallet. He apparently grew up in the >dark ages and can't quite wrap his brain around the concept of science. > come on Bilgey. You know why bz is talking nonsense as well as anyone. Why are you defending him. Bz assumes the signals travel at the same speed through the (identical) cables irrespective of their direction of travel. 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: Jim Greenfield on 2 Apr 2005 04:52
dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnd4runc.pt0.dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>... > bz: > >jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in > >news:e7b5cc5d.0503301623.679f97c0(a)posting.google.com: > > > >> The well > >> trained DHR, his eyes shut, suddenly notices the frequency change to > >> 20/sec. An intelligent observer would say there are TWO possibilities > >> why this occurred: the profile of the fence altered to 20 flutes per > >> meter length, or the fence velocity past the stick INCREASED! (or a > >> bit of both). Not so the DHR!! His mind awash with magical belief, he > >> REJECTS ENTIRELY that the speed altered, and is adamant that the > >> fluting changed! Pushed, he will point to the cut finger where the > >> raised edge of the new iron caught him. Nothing like a little blood to > >> "prove" something. > >> > >> > > > >The thoughtful scientist looks for ways to test things and figure out if > >the profile of the fence altered or not. > > > >See, in your example, the guy has been roller blading along this same fence > >for years. He knows that the spacing is constant (speed of light). > > > >So he is reasonably sure that if the frequency has changed then SOMETHING > >has changed his speed (frequency of light). He checks for a tail wind or > >something else that might have changed his speed. > > Mr. greenfield is an idiot. To be in the right frame of mind when > responding bear in mind that he is as impervious to logic as > tungsten anvil is to a wooden mallet. He apparently grew up in the > dark ages and can't quite wrap his brain around the concept of science. The aptly signed "Bilge" is blissfully unaware that a sufficiently hard blow from a wooden mallet will vapourise his tungsten anvil! What is such an ignorant fool doing, in posting on a "scientific" NG??? Beware of ignorance!! Jim G c'=c+v |