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: PD on 24 Mar 2005 10:55 kenseto wrote: > "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. And you know this how? Given any 19,475 objects in the universe, demonstrate that it cannot be the case that 19,474 of them are absolutely moving and 1 of them is not. > 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. Why not? Suppose I determine the absolute velocity of the Earth using your experiment below, and I measure the relative velocity of any object with respect to the Earth using YOUR algorithm (and I quote): "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." Now I algebraically solve for the absolute motion of that object. Now I repeat for other objects, and in the process, rank them by their absolute motion. Why can I not do this? PD > 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: kenseto on 24 Mar 2005 17:30 "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111678937.697292.158740(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > kenseto wrote: > > "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1111617889.524245.129830(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > 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"? > > > > The vertical direction is perpendicular to the horizontal direction. > It is > > defined whereever you are. > [snip] > > The null result of the MMX suggests that the apparatus is moving > vertically. > > Why? That's the only direction of motion that will give the null > result for > > all the orientations of the horizontal arms. > > > OK, just wanted to clarify. > > So the earth's state of absolute motion is straight up > from my toes to my head. ??????? Where did you get this from?? Get this through your head: wrt the defined horizontal light rays the apparatus is moving vertically. > > At the same time, the earth's state of absolute motion > is from left to right, since that's the direction > assigned by another observer. Sigh...this got nothing to do with another observer. The null result is because the apparatus moving vertically wrt the defined horizontal light rays. > > At the same time, the earth's state of absolute motion > is diagonally from my lower right to my upper left, > since that's the direction assigned by another > observer. you SRians sure have a comprehension problem. Absolute motion is not observed relative motion. Absolute motion is wrt the light rays within the MMX apparatus. > > Do you have an explanation for how an "absolute motion" > can be all these things at once? If some observers > measure the absolute motion as being toward the sun, > and others not, how can they both be right? Each object is in a state of absolute motion (motion wrt the light rays). If you define that the light rays are moving horizontally then the apparatus must be moving vertically to get the null results. Ken Seto
From: Henri Wilson on 24 Mar 2005 18:01 On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:07:32 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >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. Correct!! Empirical Data shows that the TWO WAY speed of light has been measured as constant and equal to c over many years and with a variety of techniques. This is 100% in accordance with the predictions of the BaT. On the other hand, the ONE WAY SPEED has never been measured, EITHER FOR A MOVING SOURCE OR ONE AT REST. ONE WAY light speed from a source at rest IS 'c' (in a vacuum and flat gravity). Once again, 100% in accordance with the BaT. 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 24 Mar 2005 18:02 On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:03:28 -0500, "robert j. kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > >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. When has this been verified Kokler? You are refering to the TWLS. > >Bob Kolker 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 24 Mar 2005 18:03
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:52:39 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >kenseto wrote: > >> >> 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. >> > > Seto is wrong here as the speed of light is constant. > > I thank Seto for registering at crank dot net. > http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net Sorry, this is one occasion when Ken is correct. 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. |