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: Stan Byers on 22 Mar 2005 14:26 Hello Henri and Group, Thanks for the message and links. I did make a quick review of your programs and articles. I will have to dance with the programs a bit longer in order to make any intelligent comments. It is obvious that you have contributed a lot of work to your site,...thank you for making it available. On my el-cheap-o computer some of the dark background on your text makes the text nearly impossible to read. A lighter background may help others read it clearly. The article "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" is my first attempt to enlighten the SR astrologists and bring them out of the Einstein dark ages. It appears that you have been on this same mission for quite some time. Can you tell me if you have ever found any SR apostles that saw the light and admitted a conversion ??? 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. Since there have been "no corrections" posted by the former SR advocates,...that is a sure indication that they all agree with the presentation and have finally seen the light, and converted back to Special REALITY. :~) There has been a parallel tread progressing on the sci.astro group, I believe the treads should be connected. The name of the sc.astro tread is " Light Speed versus Special Relativity" Cheers, Stan Byers http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm PS Professional flamologists will be ignored,... unless they are funny. "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:rlhu31p5f4r6ne7hgge7j4ulctp532t0vc(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:43:41 -0800, "Stan Byers" <sbyers11(a)comcast.net> > wrote:> > > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > (It is definitely not a virus). > > 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 22 Mar 2005 16:58 On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:40:32 -0500, PDraper <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. If a golf ball traveling at c splits in half in mid air, what is the speed of the two halves? > >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: Henri Wilson on 22 Mar 2005 17:24 On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:26:46 -0800, "Stan Byers" <sbyers11(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Hello Henri and Group, > >Thanks for the message and links. I did make a quick review of your programs >and articles. I will have to dance with the programs a bit longer in order >to make any intelligent comments. It is obvious that you have contributed a >lot of work to your site,...thank you for making it available. On my >el-cheap-o computer some of the dark background on your text makes the text >nearly impossible to read. A lighter background may help others read it >clearly. I don't know why the colours change on different computers. I have had the same trouble when I changed my own colour regime. I had to redo all the colours on the website. I'm not sure what the hell is going on. Try changing your own colour system (I assume you are using wndows). The program allows all relevant parameters to be varied. It operates on the basis of a finite number of light pulses being emitted at a constant rate around a star's orbit. Then it calculates where these pulses will be after any time. The degree of 'grouping' is an indicator of observed brightness. There is little doubt that most variable star curves are a direct consequence of light moving towards the observer at c+v. > >The article "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" is my first attempt to >enlighten the SR astrologists and bring them out of the Einstein dark ages. >It appears that you have been on this same mission for quite some time. Can >you tell me if you have ever found any SR apostles that saw the light and >admitted a conversion ??? No they are more indoctrinated than muslims. They will never renounce the faith. Ther are about five of us, Ballisticians, operating reguilarly here, although one of the keenest, Androcles, has suddenly disappeared, we know not where. John Kennaugh is probbaly our best spokesman. Jim Greenfield is another. I think we should all get together and write a formal paper. > >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. >Since there have been "no corrections" posted by the former SR >advocates,...that is a sure indication that they all agree with the >presentation and have finally seen the light, and converted back to Special >REALITY. :~) You will find that whenever they cannot answer a difficult question, they will either resort to abuse and ridicule (...you don't understand relativity!) or they will disappear from the thread. > >There has been a parallel tread progressing on the sci.astro group, I >believe the treads should be connected. The name of the sc.astro tread is " >Light Speed versus Special Relativity" I'll have a look. > >Cheers, Stan Byers > 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: The Ghost In The Machine on 23 Mar 2005 00:00 In sci.physics, PDraper <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:37:19 -0500 <BE65B3EF.3114%pdraper(a)yahoo.com>: > 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. I for one would think that a "universal second" is a clock tick of 1 second duration from the natural absolute origin of the Universe, as measured in one's own reference frame. The catch is: there is no such natural origin. Oh, one can create an artificial one (I hereby decree the origin to be at Greenwich, England! So there! :-) ), but SR never needed one, and Newton can be rewritten to function without one, leading to a variant of ballistic/emissive light theory. Also, AFAICT, Kenseto's error is in not recognizing that a 1-second tick in the "absolute" reference frame may differ in length from a 1-second tick in the observer's. He is not the only one to err in that fashion. Local time is the only time one can really count on. :-) (Granted, "local" is in the eye of the beholder; the entire globe ticks to a single second as defined by an international tribunal of timekeepers, who, among other things, have to contend with Boulder, Colorado, ticking a bit fast relative to everyone else, and the GPS SR/GR corrective factor of approximately 460 parts per trillion. However, Martian and Venusian time won't sync up to Terran time, if we ever get around to placing atomic clocks there.) > > PD > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 23 Mar 2005 00:00
In sci.physics, kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:57:56 GMT <E0Z%d.116$nC.112(a)fe1.columbus.rr.com>: > > "robert j. kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.net> wrote in message > news:3ab1ntF66i2odU3(a)individual.net... >> >> >> 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. >> >> The speed of light is that same for all frequencies of light. > > Not if you assume that the wave length of the incoming light > is the same as that of the source at rest with the observer. In SR, that is a highly unwarranted assumption. > > Ken Seto > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |