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 4 Apr 2005 06:09 On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Sun, 03 Apr 2005 08:45:18 GMT ><16bv4112a99gjs54gmro5c0hrsb9rtfak2(a)4ax.com>: >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:00:07 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >>><H@> >>> wrote >>>on Sat, 02 Apr 2005 23:21:50 GMT >>><f5au41p1m4h5pjacaresa5e6082hcuro8q(a)4ax.com>: > >[crunch] > >>>Optical fibre would suffer the same signal-speed anisotropy >>>as electrical cabling. That is not a solution. >>> >>>Of course, it turns out signal-speed anisotropy is not >>>really a problem, either. :-) OLWS lightspeed is isotropic >>>to a few parts per billion, if my memory is correct >>>regarding certain experiments thereon. (My memory also >>>tells me that the experiments did not measure OLWS directly.) >> >> Well Ghost, I was trying to keep that a secret >> >> It is true because light speed is source dependent. > >And what experiments show this source dependency? > >Color me curious. Ghost, is not velocity always specified relative to something? Is not the speed of light always 'c' wrt its source? Can you put two and two together Ghost? > >[.sigsnip] 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 4 Apr 2005 06:13 On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 14:47:30 GMT, dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote: > Jim Greenfield: > >dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote: > > >> 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! > > I rest my case. That is one of the most idiotic statements ever posted >on this newsgroup, and probably most any newsgroup. Are you really so >stupid as to believe what you just said? Please conduct an experiment. Go >to the hardware store and buy a wooden mallet. As a preliminary experiment >take the mallet, find an ordinary steel vice and assuming you are not >physically handicapped, give it your best shot otherwise find someone else >to take a whack at it, preferably someone who wears ``Dianabol, Breakfast >of Champions,'' designer tank-tops. Let me know whether or not the steel >vice was dented before the mallet was destroyed. That will save you >from spending your money on a tungsten anvil due to a lack of common >sense. > Bilgey, I think Jim was suggesting that you should try bashing your head against a brick (nay metal) wall. The harder the better. > >What is such an ignorant fool doing, in posting on a "scientific" > >NG??? > > Making fun of those such as yourself who are so unbelievably oblivious >to your own incompetence as not realize most sixth graders have a more >sophisticated understanding of simple physics than you do. > 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 4 Apr 2005 06:14 On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 23:30:17 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in >news:5q56i2-gj.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > >>> I am not contemplating rotating the entire apparatus. Just >>> the disk that has the LED mounted on it. >> >> Hmmm....obviously I missed that bit. :-) I suggest this >> mostly to get rid of the cable twist, and because a >> ray pointing *up* (relative to the Earth) will lose energy >> (and increase frequency) a ray pointing down will gain energy >> (and decreate frequency). Your experiment admittedly may >> not require such issues to be resolved. >> >> > >right. I am contemplating a 'bench top' experiment with at most a few dozen >meters distance separating the detectors. Perhaps even a meter. It wont work. Do the sums. 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: bz on 4 Apr 2005 08:09 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:gh4251dpkork18r2kknvn2gu6lt979b8m3@ 4ax.com: > Ghost, is not velocity always specified relative to something? > > Is not the speed of light always 'c' wrt its source? > > The velocity of light is always c with respect to the observer. If the observer is in the source's frame of reference (and there could always be an observer in that frame) then they will measure the velocity as c. If the observer is in some other frame of reference, they will ALSO measure the velocity as c, regardless of the relative motion of the observers. The wavelength, on the other hand, will not be a constant if the observer is in motion with respect to the source. As far as I know, over 100 years of observations confirm this. Do you have any data that invalidates this? -- 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 4 Apr 2005 08:50
"bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns962E48D3A3348WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:gh4251dpkork18r2kknvn2gu6lt979b8m3@ > 4ax.com: > > > Ghost, is not velocity always specified relative to something? > > > > Is not the speed of light always 'c' wrt its source? > > > > > > The velocity of light is always c with respect to the observer. > If the observer is in the source's frame of reference (and there could > always be an observer in that frame) then they will measure the velocity as > c. This is a metaphysical statement. It is absurb to say observing events has some effect on them. Better to say the speed of light is c wrt all the entrappings and paraphanalia that supports the observers life functions. Then you have something consistant with those 100 years of observations from this gas cloaked rock. Sue... > > If the observer is in some other frame of reference, they will ALSO measure > the velocity as c, regardless of the relative motion of the observers. > > The wavelength, on the other hand, will not be a constant if the observer > is in motion with respect to the source. > > As far as I know, over 100 years of observations confirm this. > Do you have any data that invalidates this? > > > -- > 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 |