Prev: "Sunny" Side of Wikipedia
Next: More Proof, LHC's BLACK HOLE
From: Sue... on 7 Jul 2010 20:23
On Jul 6, 6:04 pm, Victar Shawnberger <vic...(a)dcemail.com> wrote:
> according to a bible study, measurements of speed of light done in the
> past revealed much larger values than those they measure today
>
> so is not about accuracy, for instance they never measured it under
> 299000 km/s
>
> hence i could safely predict a speed of light under 298000 km/s in
> 2100
>
> why is the speed of light getting slower, entropy as well?

<< In 1946, Louis Essen and A.C. Gordon-Smith establish the
frequency
for a variety of normal modes of microwaves of a microwave cavity of
precisely known dimensions. As the wavelength of the modes was known
from the geometry of the cavity and from electromagnetic theory,
knowledge of the associated frequencies enabled a calculation of the
speed of light.[86][88]
The Essen–Gordon-Smith result, 299,792±9 km/s, was substantially more
precise than those found by optical techniques.[86] By 1950, repeated
measurements by Essen established a result of 299,792.5±3.0 km/s.[89]
>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

Evidently the microwave ovens of biblical times didn't have to
be concerned about yet uninvented heart pacemakers. They
could be constructed to run a bit faster. ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space

Sue...



From: dlzc on 8 Jul 2010 01:21
Dear glird:

On Jul 7, 9:55 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 6:51 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >< The meter is now defined such that if c
> changed, so would the meter to compensate.
>  Since we are not getting anomalous readings
> in the Universe around us, this seems to
> have been a sound choice. >
>
> The speed of light is c = # meters/second.
> Suppose that # = 1, and the speed of light
> decreases by 50%.

The length of the rod would similarly decrease by 50%, since its size
is maintained by forces using c for propagation.

> By the rule of Physics cited by David,

"international caveat".

> instead of this being measured as c =
> .5 meters/sec, the meter rod would become
> half

.... I think you meant "twice" ...

> as long as it was so c = # meters/second
> remains a constant regardless of the
> actual speed of light!

You as an aetherist, fooled by your own conundrum.

>   That sounds like a lousy choice, to me.

That's because you didn't think about it before hitting "Send".

David A. Smith
From: Riche Oldarshower on 8 Jul 2010 06:16
On Jul 7, 1:54 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear Victar Shawnberger:
>
> On Jul 6, 4:11 pm, Victar Shawnberger <vic...(a)dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 7, 12:51 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Dear Victar Shawnberger:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 3:04 pm, Victar Shawnberger <vic...(a)dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > according to a bible study, measurements of
> > > > speed of light done in the past revealed much
> > > > larger values than those they measure today
>
> > > It does not say this in the bible.
>
> > not sure, but at a bible study they said
>
> Can you not read the book yourself? Surely they gave citations.

You don't know what a bible study is all about

And you never participate, your bad

The rest is unrelated, I delete
From: Riche Oldarshower on 8 Jul 2010 06:27
On Jul 8, 7:21 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear glird:
>
> On Jul 7, 9:55 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 6:51 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
> > >< The meter is now defined such that if c
> > changed, so would the meter to compensate.
> > Since we are not getting anomalous readings
> > in the Universe around us, this seems to
> > have been a sound choice. >
>
> > The speed of light is c = # meters/second.
> > Suppose that # = 1, and the speed of light
> > decreases by 50%.
>
> The length of the rod would similarly decrease by 50%, since its size
> is maintained by forces using c for propagation.

0.5 m/s = 1 m/s

the second got longer, you cant change the meter

>
> > By the rule of Physics cited by David,
>
> "international caveat".
>
> > instead of this being measured as c =
> > .5 meters/sec, the meter rod would become
> > half

no, the time

>
> ... I think you meant "twice" ...

you cant have that increase in matter, you cant create matter

>
> > as long as it was so c = # meters/second
> > remains a constant regardless of the
> > actual speed of light!
>
> You as an aetherist, fooled by your own conundrum.
>
> > That sounds like a lousy choice, to me.
>
> That's because you didn't think about it before hitting "Send".
>
> David A. Smith

maybe you
From: harald on 8 Jul 2010 07:59
On Jul 8, 7:21 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear glird:
>
> On Jul 7, 9:55 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 6:51 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
> > >< The meter is now defined such that if c
> > changed, so would the meter to compensate.
> >  Since we are not getting anomalous readings
> > in the Universe around us, this seems to
> > have been a sound choice. >
>
> > The speed of light is c = # meters/second.
> > Suppose that # = 1, and the speed of light
> > decreases by 50%.
>
> The length of the rod would similarly decrease by 50%, since
> its size is maintained by forces using c for propagation.

May be right, may be wrong. Clock rate would then be unaffected, while
you could instead argue that clock rate is affected and not
dimensions.

> > By the rule of Physics cited by David,
>
> "international caveat".
>
> > instead of this being measured as c =
> > .5 meters/sec, the meter rod would become
> > half
>
> ... I think you meant "twice" ...
>
> > as long as it was so c = # meters/second
> > remains a constant regardless of the
> > actual speed of light!

Please one of you fill me in, why only length would change and not
frequency?

Harald

[..]

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: "Sunny" Side of Wikipedia
Next: More Proof, LHC's BLACK HOLE