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: kenseto on 20 Mar 2005 12:47 SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant. Questions: Why a clock second used to define the speed of light is not an interval of universal time?? Why does SR say that a clock second in one frame does not correspond to a clock second in another frame when the speed of light is a universal constant?? Ken Seto
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Mar 2005 13:28 kenseto wrote: > SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant. > Empirical data says that the speed of light is the same for all observers, Seto. And thanks for registering at crank dot net, Seto. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
From: jahn on 20 Mar 2005 13:45 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:xGi%d.1948$cC6.590(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com... > SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant. > > Questions: > Why a clock second used to define the speed of light is not an interval of > universal time?? > Why does SR say that a clock second in one frame does not correspond to a > clock second in another frame when the speed of light is a universal > constant?? > > Ken Seto > > > > Although Oliver Heaviside is credited with the concept of electrical reactance, his work with Maxwell's equations did not reflect the imaginary time axis implied in a dipole structure. The use of imaginary time on the path was simply Einstein's way of gettting around the oversight. Sue...
From: Stan Byers on 20 Mar 2005 14:41 Hello Ken Seto, Your question reveals another aspect of the problems with Special Relativity. I had to read it twice to realize the logic and meaning. You may want to explain the discrepancy in more detail to alert others to the importance of the question. I have posted another article "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" on the newsgroup, sci.astro.research,...and on the web site http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm . Comments and red ink are welcome. Cheers, Stan Byers "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:xGi%d.1948$cC6.590(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com... > SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant. > > Questions: > Why a clock second used to define the speed of light is not an interval of > universal time?? > Why does SR say that a clock second in one frame does not correspond to a > clock second in another frame when the speed of light is a universal > constant?? > > Ken Seto > > > >
From: David Cross on 20 Mar 2005 14:48
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:xGi%d.1948$cC6.590(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com... > SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant. > > Questions: > Why a clock second used to define the speed of light is not an interval of > universal time?? > Why does SR say that a clock second in one frame does not correspond to a > clock second in another frame when the speed of light is a universal > constant?? Because the invariance of the speed of light requires that space and time not be invariant. So even if I'm moving at 0.99*c, I will still measure the speed of light from a pulse you send to me as being 2.998 * 10^8 meters per second. It will certainly be Doppler shifted, though. I fail to see the problem over which you apparently are tearing your hair out. -- David Cross dcross1 AT shaw DOT ca |