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: PDraper on 22 Mar 2005 11:37 On 3/22/05 8:21 AM, in article oZU%d.6488$rL3.5018(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > "Mark Fergerson" <nunya(a)biz.ness> wrote in message > news:LaF%d.149857$FM3.86220(a)fed1read02... >> kenseto wrote: >>> 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?? >> >> Nobody else even uses the term "universal time". > > So what?? Everybody knows what the term universal time means. > > Ken Seto > > I don't. PD
From: PDraper on 22 Mar 2005 11:40 On 3/22/05 3:47 AM, in article sqmv31pl9pr2f6oven1tfs9huf9qc6qc8i(a)4ax.com, "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 01:22:15 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>> You are right. Light speed is source and observer dependent. >>> >> >> Speed of light is empirically independent of the relative velocity >> between source and observer. > > That is a postulate. It has never been supported by any evidence. That is not the case. It is supported in synchrotron radiation facilities all the time. PD > > > 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 22 Mar 2005 11:45 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 01:22:15 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> Speed of light is *empirically* independent of the relative velocity >> between source and observer. > > > That is a postulate. It has never been supported by any evidence. > See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empirically
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Mar 2005 11:51 kenseto wrote: > > That's becasue you failed to recognize that Doppler shift is due to varying > speed of light. > 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
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Mar 2005 11:52
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 |