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 18 Apr 2005 07:14 On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:01:03 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:m8p66199qsvcavirqob941ci6msgk1j9an@ >4ax.com: > >> You aren't related to Eric Gisse, by any chance are you? > >I have no idea who Eric Gisse is. > >If he is human, then we are "brothers", but as far as I know, there is no >other relationship. Why do you ask? Gisse disappeared from the scene around the time you arrived. There is a certain similarity between his and your attemps to behave like scientists. 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 18 Apr 2005 07:26 On 18 Apr 2005 01:13:35 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >Dear Henri > > The speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of the source: > this is true for light, sound waves, mechanical waves. That is, the >forward >motion of the source does not impart any velocity to the light waves. That's aether theory. It also works for sound waves in air. Oh, by the way, the one way light speed forom a moving source has never been measured. > >The best proof of this is that when you cross the street, you assume >the light from vehicles travelling at speed v and not v+c. If this was >the case, vehicles >would appear x metres closer to you than they really are. Are you just trying to be funny? > >Is the speed of light the speed of individual photons? Ballistic >theory? If individual photons actually exist, the answer is probably yes. > >Saw your demos. Nice work. Faster than Java applets!! Ah! at last some recognition. Did the colours come out properly? I and others have been having some trouble with them. My home page is: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Java is really hopeless to set up. > >G 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: kenseto on 18 Apr 2005 08:49 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ufs561tv60fjfc0mgintr78kn6omfr591d(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:54:52 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >news:v391615qapgjrv2r9hb62t5k96thlnh005(a)4ax.com... > >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:48:23 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >> >news:ofrt511i5lu7nui7rg15g88jle0lch8m1c(a)4ax.com... > >> >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:51:07 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> subtracted). > >> >> > > >> >> >BaT is disproved by the double-slit experiment > >> >> > >> >> Rubbish. What does that have to do with light speed. > >> > > >> >Sigh....bullets of light will not interfere with each other. You tell me > >how > >> >BaT explains the double-slit experiment. > >> > >> Photon fields extend to infinity. > >> Photons have 'size, cross-section and volume'. > > > >So according to BaT what is the "size, cross-section and volume" of a > >photon? Also why is that enables the photons to interfere with each other? > > Infinite in all directions. ..but the fields of a photon die off very rapidly > in all directions too. So a photon is not a light bullet as the BaT asserts?? It is a wave front that die off raipdly? How does it know how much to die off? I ask this question because a photon seems to have an infinite life time. > I hereby invent a new term, 'half radius'....defined as the distance at which a > photon's influence is reduced to half. This seems to describe a photon as a wave front. But BaT says that a photon is a light bullet so how does a photon exerts influence at a distance? > > It appears that the higher the energy, the smaller the half-radius of a photon. > That is why gammas behave like particles and infrared like a wave. You are making this up. > > > Get it? ROTFLOL....no I don't get it. Ken Seto
From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox on 18 Apr 2005 09:07 Dear bz: "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns963C28E1891AAWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:m8p66199qsvcavirqob941ci6msgk1j9an@ > 4ax.com: > >> You aren't related to Eric Gisse, by any chance >> are you? > > I have no idea who Eric Gisse is. > > If he is human, then we are "brothers", but as far > as I know, there is no other relationship. Why do > you ask? Henri is concerned that you are one of the "select few ordained by the Sekret Kabal to quash Henri's ideas". So because your arguments follow logic in a certain way, he imagines you carry someone else's face. David A. Smith
From: Paul B. Andersen on 18 Apr 2005 09:30
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:04:02 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> >>Ref: http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/Vars/mira.html >> >> "Mira is the brightest and most famous long-period pulsating variable >> in the sky, and gave the name to this whole class of stars. It >> changes its brightness normally between maxima of about 3rd magnitude >> and minima of about mag 10, but occasionally brighter maxima up to >> mag 2.0 are observed (e.g. by William Herschel), or fainter when Mira >> stays at about magnitude 5. At a distance of about 400 light years, >> this corresponds to absolute magnitudes of about -2.5 near the maxima >> and +4.7 near its minima, so giant cool Mira is only about as, or >> even less luminous than our sun near its minima, but brightens up to >> about 700 and occasionally even over 1500 solar luminosities near the >> maximum of its cycle". >> >> "Mira is also the dominant component of a double star, which is >> separated by only 0.6 arc seconds. As the companion orbits Mira in >> about 400 years, it has now just once orbited the star since >> Fabricius discovered its variability. The linear distance was given >> as about 70 Astronomical Units, i.e. 70 times the distance between >> Earth and Sun. The companion is probably a white dwarf in interaction >> with Mira, which is surrounded by an accretion disc of material which >> it has captured away from the red giant Mira, and which may well be >> brighter than the companion star itself. This companion has a >> brightness which also varies, between 9.5 and 12 visual magnitudes >> (its variable star designation is VZ Ceti). Its variation is rather >> complicated: A slow variation of about 13 years period is >> superimposeds by rapid fluctuations over minutes, and occasionally a >> rare flare of some minutes duration. CZ is currently coming even >> closer to Mira, to about 0.1 arc seconds at its periastron in 2001; >> their separation has been about 1.7 arc seconds around 1800. Would >> the companion be closer, this system would be classified as a >> symbiotic star (like R Aquarii)". > > > Sam, if astronomers want to stick with the concept that all light travels to > Earth at c, they are bound to come up with stupid and completely incorrect > conclusions like this one. > > In fact, a great deal more can be learnt about these stars when the BaT is > accepted. What's most hilarious is that Henri doesn't understand how ridiculous he is. :-) Paul |