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 23 Mar 2005 16:43 "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111603845.657565.9240(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > kenseto wrote: > > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote > in > > message news:q887h2-gbu.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net... > > > In sci.physics, kenseto > > > <kenseto(a)erinet.com> > > > wrote > > > on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:31:56 GMT > > > <w%V%d.6496$rL3.4855(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com>: > > > > > > > > "robert j. kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.net> wrote in message > > > > news:3aamtkF6bbkreU2(a)individual.net... > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> kenseto wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > That's becasue you failed to recognize that Doppler shift > > > >> > is due to varying speed of light. > > > >> > > > >> The speed of light in vacuo relative to any inertial frame is a > well > > > >> measured constant. It has been shown experimentally again and > again and > > > >> has yet to be falsified. The speed of light in vacuo is > independent of > > > >> th motion of the source or the observer. > > > > > > > > The speed of light is measured to be constant because we > arbitrarily > > assumed > > > > that the Doppler shift is due to wave length change. If wave > length is > > > > assumed to be contant then the speed of light is different from > > different > > > > sources. > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > Assume two orbiting stars, far away, with barycenter > > > motionless with respect to Earth. > > > > This assumption is already wrong. There is no object in the universe > that is > > motionless wrt the Earth. The Earth itself is in a constant state of > > absolute motion. > > The Earth itself is in a constant state of motion. You cannot state one > way or the other whether that motion is absolute. All objects in the universe (including the earth) are in a state of absolute motion. Observed relative motion for two objects A and B is the vector components difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion and the vector component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B. >If it were, you would > be able to rank objects in the universe according to their absolute > motion, and you would be able to calculate or measure the absolute > velocity of the Earth. No ....you would not be able to do that. You can determine the state of absolute motion of the earth surface experimentally by doing the experiment described in the following link (page 3): http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf Ken Seto
From: Randy Poe on 23 Mar 2005 17:44 kenseto wrote: > No ....you would not be able to do that. You can determine the state of > absolute motion of the earth surface experimentally by doing the experiment > described in the following link (page 3): > http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf Which direction is "vertical"? You realize that "vertical" for somebody at longitude 30E is "horizontal" for somebody at longitude 120E, right? So are you saying that the state of absolute motion of the earth happens to be "horizontal" with respect to the exact location where Michelson and Morley did their experiment? Why do people all over the earth get the same result when they repeat the Michelson-Morley experiment? It can't be "horizontal" with respect to all of them, can it? - Randy
From: George Dishman on 23 Mar 2005 17:59 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:h361415jn9fira6s0slvnv79af5t1ucm63(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:26:46 -0800, "Stan Byers" <sbyers11(a)comcast.net> > wrote: .... >>From my limited experience on the newsgroups, it has been evident that if >>an >>error is posted it takes about one nano second for someone to point it >>out. >>I first posted the elementary article "Light Speed versus Special >>Relativity" , with data and charts on March 14, 2005 AD. So far there has >>not been one post that points out any error in the data, logic or graphs. If you check the thread Henri, you'll find I pointed out a string of errors in the logic in Stan's post, most of which he snipped or simply ignored. .... > You will find that whenever they cannot answer a difficult question, they > will > either resort to abuse and ridicule (...you don't understand relativity!) When it is pointed out that a comment that contradicts what you will find in any textbook, it isn't ridicule, it is merely a statement of fact. Nobody will waste time on such strawmen but it's useful to point out why. > or they will disappear from the thread. Stan wrote in news:q9idnaUk7s4T9KPfRVn-1g(a)comcast.com > > If any > > readers can produce with specificity, graphs or logic > > that will dispute or correct the 1003 second delay > > and conclusion, I will be more than happy to review > > them in specific detail. His numbers are correct but his conclusion is wrong so I replied in news:d1nhcp$pi2$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net > I am not disputing the 1003s figure, it is entirely > compatible with SR. In very rough figures, the radius > of the orbit of Jupiter is about 5.2 AU. When the > Earth is closest to it, the light must travel 4.2AU > at speed c which takes about 2120s but when the Earth > is furthest from Jupiter the light must travel 6.2AU > so takes about 3120s (still at the same speed) hence > the difference of about 1000s. Stan's response in news:rsednaNNmrpg2d3fRVn-vw(a)comcast.com was not to 'review my reply in specific detail' but instead to delete that entire conversation. I repeated the point in my next post so it will be interesting to see if he tries to address it in his reply. You are welcome to comment of course, but we shall see who disappears from the thread first. George
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Mar 2005 23:56 On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:59:17 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:h361415jn9fira6s0slvnv79af5t1ucm63(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:26:46 -0800, "Stan Byers" <sbyers11(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >... >>>From my limited experience on the newsgroups, it has been evident that if >>>an >>>error is posted it takes about one nano second for someone to point it >>>out. >>>I first posted the elementary article "Light Speed versus Special >>>Relativity" , with data and charts on March 14, 2005 AD. So far there has >>>not been one post that points out any error in the data, logic or graphs. > >If you check the thread Henri, you'll find I >pointed out a string of errors in the logic >in Stan's post, most of which he snipped or >simply ignored. I wont join that argument. > >... >> You will find that whenever they cannot answer a difficult question, they >> will >> either resort to abuse and ridicule (...you don't understand relativity!) > >When it is pointed out that a comment that >contradicts what you will find in any textbook, >it isn't ridicule, it is merely a statement of >fact. Nobody will waste time on such strawmen >but it's useful to point out why. Do you really believe everything in every text book? Do you believe everything in the newspapers? Do you believe everything on TV? Or are you like the good christians and muslims who only believe the truths written in the bible and the koran? > >> or they will disappear from the thread. > >Stan wrote in news:q9idnaUk7s4T9KPfRVn-1g(a)comcast.com > >> > If any >> > readers can produce with specificity, graphs or logic >> > that will dispute or correct the 1003 second delay >> > and conclusion, I will be more than happy to review >> > them in specific detail. > >His numbers are correct but his conclusion is wrong >so I replied in news:d1nhcp$pi2$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net > >> I am not disputing the 1003s figure, it is entirely >> compatible with SR. In very rough figures, the radius >> of the orbit of Jupiter is about 5.2 AU. When the >> Earth is closest to it, the light must travel 4.2AU >> at speed c which takes about 2120s but when the Earth >> is furthest from Jupiter the light must travel 6.2AU >> so takes about 3120s (still at the same speed) hence >> the difference of about 1000s. > >Stan's response in news:rsednaNNmrpg2d3fRVn-vw(a)comcast.com >was not to 'review my reply in specific detail' >but instead to delete that entire conversation. >I repeated the point in my next post so it will >be interesting to see if he tries to address it >in his reply. You are welcome to comment of >course, but we shall see who disappears from >the thread first. If Stan is promoting the ballistic theory of light then he is much more likely to be correct than you are. > >George > 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: Sam Wormley on 24 Mar 2005 01:07
Henri Wilson wrote: > Do you really believe everything in every text book? > Do you believe everything in the newspapers? > Do you believe everything on TV? > > Or are you like the good christians and muslims who only believe the truths > written in the bible and the koran? > Empirical Data: Speed of light is constant for all observers. |