Clarification of C=constant.
Rabbo
WHEN ANY OBSERVER MEASURES THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT, (S)HE WILL FIND THAT
IT IS ALWAYS HAS A CONSTANT VALUE 'C', RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!
Now before anyone starts criticizing, remember that every light speed
experiment carried out so far, has involved comoving sources and
observers. No-one has directly measured the velocity of light from a
moving source.
This theory is compatible with Maxwells equations, puts the notion of
a constant light velocity in proper perspective, predicts the MMX
null result, explains the dominance of red shift over blue and exposes
relativity as the sham that it is.
Rabbo
JeffMo
Uhhhh, no. Relativity also says that the velocity of light is c,
relative to the source.
JeffMo
"Just because you read a few mythology books, doesn't mean there really isn't a One Universal Creator God.... ." -- smart1234
"And just because you read a few mythology books, doesn't mean there really is." -- JeffMo
Ben Mickle
> >WHEN ANY OBSERVER MEASURES THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT, (S)HE WILL FIND THAT
> >IT IS ALWAYS HAS A CONSTANT VALUE 'C', RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!
> >
> >Now before anyone starts criticizing, remember that every light speed
> >experiment carried out so far, has involved comoving sources and
> >observers. No-one has directly measured the velocity of light from a
> >moving source.
> >
> >This theory is compatible with Maxwells equations, puts the notion of
> >a constant light velocity in proper perspective, predicts the MMX
> >null result, explains the dominance of red shift over blue and exposes
> >relativity as the sham that it is.
>
> Uhhhh, no. Relativity also says that the velocity of light is c,
> relative to the source.
Yes, but relativity doesn't say that all frames of reference measure the
speed of light to be c relative to the source. Relativity says the speed of
light cannot depend on the velocity of the source. In other words, the
speed of light is c relative to everything.
Btw, the law of propagation of light was proven by looking at stars and
stuff, so the source wasn't in the same inertial frame as the observer.
If Relativity is a sham, how do you explain time dilation and everything
else which has been proven experimentally?
Paul Alan Cardinale
>
>
> Uhhhh, no. Relativity also says that the velocity of light is c,
> relative to the source.
>
>
No. Relativity say that the velocity of light is c relative to the
observer, not the source.
Paul Cardinale
Paul Alan Cardinale
Rabbo wrote:
>
> Here is my latest hypothesis:
>
> WHEN ANY OBSERVER MEASURES THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT, (S)HE WILL FIND THAT
> IT IS ALWAYS HAS A CONSTANT VALUE 'C', RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!
>
Known to be false.
> Now before anyone starts criticizing, remember that every light speed
> experiment carried out so far, has involved comoving sources and
> observers.
Not true.
Paul Cardinale
Paul Alan Cardinale
Ben Mickle wrote:
>
<snip>
> In other words, the
> speed of light is c relative to everything.
>
No. Relativity say that the velocity of light is c relative to the
observer, not "everything".
Paul Cardinale
Tom Roberts
> WHEN ANY OBSERVER MEASURES THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT, (S)HE WILL FIND THAT
> IT IS ALWAYS HAS A CONSTANT VALUE 'C', RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!
This claim is false, and numerous experiments have measured otherwise.
> Now before anyone starts criticizing, remember that every light speed
> experiment carried out so far, has involved comoving sources and
> observers. No-one has directly measured the velocity of light from a
> moving source.
Nonsense. See the FAQ. For instance:
3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources
--------------------------------------------
Experiments Using Cosmological Sources
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2,
p.1297-1298 (1913);
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1,
p.395 - 396 (1913).
Observations of binary stars.
K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the
Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977).
Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the source-
velocity dependence of the speed of light. If the light emitted
from a source moving with velocity v toward the observer has a
speed c+kv in the observer's frame, then k < 2*10-9.
These experiments are all subject to criticism due to extinction effects
in the interstellar gas; see for instance J.G. Fox Am. J. Phys. 30, p297
(1962); AJP 33, 1 (1964). The standard reference for optical extinction
is Born and Wolf, Principles of Optics.
Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources
Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12,
260 (1964).
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0
(~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million.
Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10#7 (1963), p271.
Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e- annihilation
(with center-of-mass v/c ~ 0.5) to be c within 10%.
Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, p. 147 (1964).
-
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135#4B (1964), p B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0
(~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid
extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement
with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR.
Because of the high energies of the gammas in Alvaeger, extinction is not
a problem for it; Filipas and Fox specifically designed their experiment
to avoid extinction.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
JeffMo
>JeffMo wrote:
>>
>> Uhhhh, no. Relativity also says that the velocity of light is c,
>> relative to the source.
>>
We are hung up on semantics. Relativity says that any observer will
measure the upper limiting velocity of light in vacuo to be c
(relative to her own frame). My statement was intended to mean that
the velocity of light would also be c, as measured by an observer who
was co-moving with the source.
My phrasing of "relative to the source" may have been somewhat
unfortunate, in this regard. Thank you for the attempt at
clarification.
JeffMo
The smar...@aol.com Quote Collection
"By presumption, God must exist."
"Why expand my mind into falsehood?"
"So is this all, is this suppose to convince me I'm wrong?????"
"I have shown about 10 examples that I am right....."
"I am more intelligent than the IQ test can measure me."
"I am right ( period)."
"My theories are near infallible.... ."
"If feelings was love, is it love to get hit in the head with a baseball bat?"
"You are a total (!#@#@##@%#) <---censored. I will go to confession later."
"I just told you, God is God."
"Like I already told you I have already looked at this in about 200,000 dimensions... ."
"I don't care how many responses you can counter, to mine, I WIN the debate."
"Most unbelievers are suicidal."
"When 'au730' is spelled backwards it goes to ---> dog"
"So man can not do the impossible. Only God can."
"Atheists are full of ( S***), excuse my French...."
"GOD EXISTS you stupid idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"Me, narrow minded???"
"Kiss my Assprin bottle"
"Absolutely?????? incorrect???? Who the heck you think you are?"
"Well even the 10 Commandments of God must be interpreted the right catholic way."
"AOL ( America On Line ) is the best in my opinion."
"Now you are eating a crap sandwich...."
"Darwin was wrong. Evolutionist are wrong. Atheist are wrong. And Republican's are wrong."
"Now you see why I respond the way I do. You provoke me."
"A quark is the form of a photon."
"That is all that matters. You are worng, and I am right."
"Time travel is possible, because I say so, (period). Qny questions?"
"Physics is _done_"
"You sure like to make me look like a fool."
"What do you mean I don't know what I am talking about??????"
"But Classical Physics is where the experimental data comes from.."
"If this is not proof, then it is at least _SUSPICION_ of proof... ."
"Besides I rather apple pie ..... ."
"In fact, if you look, all over the world, everyone is starting to name me after everything 'smart'."
"I told you before, and now again, that I am not a christian. I am catholic."
"I like AOL. They have a lot to offer."
"I must pat myself on the back, since no one else will"
"The number 666 isn't as bad as some people think."
"I apologize for not having my book ready explaining the entire universe."
"[...] you are so far behind me in intelligence , it makes me want to cry."
"I already copyrighted the universe [...]"
and in response to an accusation of falsehood:
"George Washington, never told a lie ....And my wallet is full of his portraits ..."
Mr. Reality
Ben Mickle <bmi...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8ctrcb$1ouc$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > >WHEN ANY OBSERVER MEASURES THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT, (S)HE WILL FIND THAT
> > >IT IS ALWAYS HAS A CONSTANT VALUE 'C', RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!
> > >
> > >experiment carried out so far, has involved comoving sources and
> > >observers. No-one has directly measured the velocity of light from a
> > >moving source.
> > >
> > >a constant light velocity in proper perspective, predicts the MMX
> > >null result, explains the dominance of red shift over blue and exposes
> > >relativity as the sham that it is.
> >
> > relative to the source.
>
> speed of light to be c relative to the source. Relativity says the speed
of
> light cannot depend on the velocity of the source. In other words, the
> speed of light is c relative to everything.
>
> Btw, the law of propagation of light was proven by looking at stars and
> stuff, so the source wasn't in the same inertial frame as the observer.
>
> If Relativity is a sham, how do you explain time dilation and everything
> else which has been proven experimentally?
>
>
Ben Mickle wrote- In other words, the speed of light is c relative to
everything.
If that is true, why is it things can never reach the velocity c?
REALITY- I am simple, and ILLUSIVE, not easy to find. Bye-bye.
JeffMo
>If that is true, why is it things can never reach the velocity c?
Because it would take infinite energy to do so, and we don't have
infinite energy at our command?
JeffMo
"You're all wanking sissies if you even think about using a grain mill,
teeth, or ball-peen hammer. A real brewer uses 17 vestal virgins
stomping on the grain in a large wooden vat. And yeast is for losers.
True brewers just dip one end of their dog into the wort to get things
going." -- Drew Avis
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Paul Lutus
Of course we have. Go outside and look at a star.
While riding in a car, look at a stop light. And press on the brake, don't
get carried away in your observations.
Examples abound.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Rabbo <Rabbo@..> wrote in message
news:38f24ac...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> Here is my latest hypothesis:
>
> WHEN ANY OBSERVER MEASURES THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT, (S)HE WILL FIND THAT
> IT IS ALWAYS HAS A CONSTANT VALUE 'C', RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!
>
> Now before anyone starts criticizing, remember that every light speed
> experiment carried out so far, has involved comoving sources and
> observers. No-one has directly measured the velocity of light from a
> moving source.
>
> This theory is compatible with Maxwells equations, puts the notion of
> a constant light velocity in proper perspective, predicts the MMX
> null result, explains the dominance of red shift over blue and exposes
> relativity as the sham that it is.
>
>
> Rabbo
>
Paul Lutus
And illiterate. Very easy to find.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Mr. Reality <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:y%GI4.389$a15....@news.get2net.dk...
>
> Ben Mickle <bmi...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:8ctrcb$1ouc$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > > >WHEN ANY OBSERVER MEASURES THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT, (S)HE WILL FIND
THAT
> > > >IT IS ALWAYS HAS A CONSTANT VALUE 'C', RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > >Now before anyone starts criticizing, remember that every light speed
> > > >experiment carried out so far, has involved comoving sources and
> > > >observers. No-one has directly measured the velocity of light from a
> > > >moving source.
> > > >
> > > >This theory is compatible with Maxwells equations, puts the notion of
> > > >a constant light velocity in proper perspective, predicts the MMX
> > > >null result, explains the dominance of red shift over blue and
exposes
> > > >relativity as the sham that it is.
> > >
> > > Uhhhh, no. Relativity also says that the velocity of light is c,
> > > relative to the source.
> >
> > Yes, but relativity doesn't say that all frames of reference measure the
> > speed of light to be c relative to the source. Relativity says the
speed
> of
> > light cannot depend on the velocity of the source. In other words, the
> > speed of light is c relative to everything.
> >
> > Btw, the law of propagation of light was proven by looking at stars and
> > stuff, so the source wasn't in the same inertial frame as the observer.
> >
> > If Relativity is a sham, how do you explain time dilation and everything
> > else which has been proven experimentally?
> >
> >
>
> Ben Mickle wrote- In other words, the speed of light is c relative to
> everything.
>
> If that is true, why is it things can never reach the velocity c?
>
Paul Lutus
things
> ( things of matter not energy) can never reach the velocity c.
Cool! He answers his own question, then he asks it.
This reminds me of a totally automatic Coke machine I saw once. It had run
out of cups. It took my money, mixed the soda, poured and drank it. After
the coin went in, no further human intervention was required.
The *reason* material things cannot move at c is *because* that would
require infinite energy. All the energy in the universe would have to be
expended to push the object nearer and nearer to c.
Here is the equation that describes the situation:
f' = f/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))
f' is the force required to move the object at v, f is the force required at
"normal" velocities, v equals the velocity, c is the speed of light. As v
gets closer to c, f' becomes larger and larger.
Notice what happens when v = c. It's a division by zero, which a
mathematician will say is undefined, impossible, but someone else might say
produces an infinity. Either way, the material object is not going to get to
c.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Mr. Reality <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:CkNI4.866$a15....@news.get2net.dk...
>
> JeffMo <jef...@dipstick.cfw.com> wrote in message
> news:38f33d06...@news.rica.net...
> > "Mr. Reality" <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote:
> >
> > >If that is true, why is it things can never reach the velocity c?
> >
> > Because it would take infinite energy to do so, and we don't have
> > infinite energy at our command?
> >
> > JeffMo
> >
> > "You're all wanking sissies if you even think about using a grain mill,
> > teeth, or ball-peen hammer. A real brewer uses 17 vestal virgins
> > stomping on the grain in a large wooden vat. And yeast is for losers.
> > True brewers just dip one end of their dog into the wort to get things
> > going." -- Drew Avis
>
> Dear JeffMo, There is no infinite energy. My question is- Why is it
things
> ( things of matter not energy) can never reach the velocity c.
> A rocket gains forward- motion (it's particles spin- motion) and all the
> burnt
> fuel causing that is left behind- it is matter, not the abstract E=mc^2.
> Albert Einstein did warn everyone of that problem, and my intention is to
> Hammer it Home in The Establishment of Physics.
> Energy supposed the real substance is not E=mc^2- abstract measurement.
>
> IT IS REALITY I WRITE AND TALK OF- Bye-bye.
>
>
Paul Lutus
> REALITY IS ILLUSIVE.
YOU DON'T LEARN VERY FAST, DO YOU?
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Mr. Reality <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:1LNI4.929$a15....@news.get2net.dk...
> WHAT KIND OF SUBSTANCE IS ENERGY?
>
> HOW DO YOU MEASURE THE VELOCITY 'c'?
>
> WHAT WAS THE FIRST REAL SOURCE OF 'c'?
>
> WHAT IS THE REALITY OF THINGS?
>
> WHY DO YOU HAVE TO THINK?
>
> ARE YOU ANOTHER'S PARROT?
>
> WHEN WILL YOU DO IT YOURSELF?
>
> REALITY IS NOT AN INVENTION OF MAN.
>
> REALITY IS ILLUSIVE.
>
> REALITY IS NOT EASY TO FIND.
>
> Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
> news:8JMI4.878$q8.1...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> > > REALITY- I am simple, and ILLUSIVE, not easy to find.
> >
> > And illiterate. Very easy to find.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Paul Lutus
> > www.arachnoid.com
> >
> >
> > Mr. Reality <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
> > > If that is true, why is it things can never reach the velocity c?
> > >
Paul Lutus
No, but it sometimes reflects reality.
> If so- Was it there before Homo sapiens appear on the scene?
Yes. Mathematics is not invented, it is discovered.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Mr. Reality <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:v2OI4.965$a15....@news.get2net.dk...
> Are you saying abstract mathematics is REALITY?
<snip>
Mr. Reality
JeffMo <jef...@dipstick.cfw.com> wrote in message
news:38f33d06...@news.rica.net...
> "Mr. Reality" <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote:
>
>
Mr. Reality
HOW DO YOU MEASURE THE VELOCITY 'c'?
WHAT WAS THE FIRST REAL SOURCE OF 'c'?
WHAT IS THE REALITY OF THINGS?
WHY DO YOU HAVE TO THINK?
ARE YOU ANOTHER'S PARROT?
WHEN WILL YOU DO IT YOURSELF?
REALITY IS NOT AN INVENTION OF MAN.
REALITY IS ILLUSIVE.
REALITY IS NOT EASY TO FIND.
Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
news:8JMI4.878$q8.1...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> > REALITY- I am simple, and ILLUSIVE, not easy to find.
>
> And illiterate. Very easy to find.
>
> --
>
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
>
>
> Mr. Reality <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
> > If that is true, why is it things can never reach the velocity c?
> >
Mr. Reality
If so- Was it there before Homo sapiens appear on the scene?
Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
news:isNI4.1066$q8.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> > Dear JeffMo, There is no infinite energy. My question is- Why is it
> things
> > ( things of matter not energy) can never reach the velocity c.
>
> Cool! He answers his own question, then he asks it.
>
> This reminds me of a totally automatic Coke machine I saw once. It had run
> out of cups. It took my money, mixed the soda, poured and drank it. After
> the coin went in, no further human intervention was required.
>
> The *reason* material things cannot move at c is *because* that would
> require infinite energy. All the energy in the universe would have to be
> expended to push the object nearer and nearer to c.
>
> Here is the equation that describes the situation:
>
> f' = f/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))
>
> f' is the force required to move the object at v, f is the force required
at
> "normal" velocities, v equals the velocity, c is the speed of light. As v
> gets closer to c, f' becomes larger and larger.
>
> Notice what happens when v = c. It's a division by zero, which a
> mathematician will say is undefined, impossible, but someone else might
say
> produces an infinity. Either way, the material object is not going to get
to
> c.
>
> --
>
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
>
>
> Mr. Reality <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
> news:CkNI4.866$a15....@news.get2net.dk...
> >
> > JeffMo <jef...@dipstick.cfw.com> wrote in message
> > news:38f33d06...@news.rica.net...
> > > "Mr. Reality" <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >If that is true, why is it things can never reach the velocity c?
> > >
Mr. Reality
Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
news:WMNI4.1121$q8.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> WHY IS YOU CAPS LOCK KEY STUCK?
>
> > REALITY IS ILLUSIVE.
>
> YOU DON'T LEARN VERY FAST, DO YOU?
>
> --
>
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
>
>
> Mr. Reality <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
> news:1LNI4.929$a15....@news.get2net.dk...
> > WHAT KIND OF SUBSTANCE IS ENERGY?
> >
> > HOW DO YOU MEASURE THE VELOCITY 'c'?
> >
> > WHAT WAS THE FIRST REAL SOURCE OF 'c'?
> >
> > WHAT IS THE REALITY OF THINGS?
> >
> > WHY DO YOU HAVE TO THINK?
> >
> > ARE YOU ANOTHER'S PARROT?
> >
> > WHEN WILL YOU DO IT YOURSELF?
> >
> > REALITY IS NOT AN INVENTION OF MAN.
> >
> > REALITY IS ILLUSIVE.
> >
> > REALITY IS NOT EASY TO FIND.
> >
> > Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
> > news:8JMI4.878$q8.1...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> > > > REALITY- I am simple, and ILLUSIVE, not easy to find.
> > >
> > > And illiterate. Very easy to find.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Paul Lutus
> > > www.arachnoid.com
> > >
> > >
> > > Mr. Reality <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
> > > > If that is true, why is it things can never reach the velocity c?
> > > >
Mr. Reality
REALITY for you to thinkover. Bye-bye
Mr. Reality <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:_7OI4.991$a15....@news.get2net.dk...
Nazgul
<pcard...@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>
>Ben Mickle wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> In other words, the
>> speed of light is c relative to everything.
>>
>No. Relativity say that the velocity of light is c relative to the
>observer, not "everything".
What he meant (and it's quite clear) is that, no matter what reference
frame you're in the speed of light is measured to be the same. In
other words it is the same relative to every separate thing regardless
of it's reference frame. (observer in your terms, everything in his)
In other words, you're not disagreeing.
>
>Paul Cardinale
Nazgul
"The Drums will Shake the Castle Walls,
The Ringwraiths Ride in Black" -- "Battle of Evermore" Led Zepplin
Nazgul
<mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote:
>WHAT KIND OF SUBSTANCE IS ENERGY?
I think its some kind of polymer. (?)
>
>HOW DO YOU MEASURE THE VELOCITY 'c'?
Have your friend turn on a flashlight right next to your car. Then
you drive really fast until you're even with the light beam and check
your speedometer.
>
>WHAT WAS THE FIRST REAL SOURCE OF 'c'?
The alphabet?
>
>WHAT IS THE REALITY OF THINGS?
That things own reality.
>
>WHY DO YOU HAVE TO THINK?
Do I?
>
>ARE YOU ANOTHER'S PARROT?
ARE YOU ANOTHER'S PARROT?
>
>WHEN WILL YOU DO IT YOURSELF?
When I find a willing female.
>
>REALITY IS NOT AN INVENTION OF MAN.
But man is an invention of reality. (my first intelligent statement!)
>
>REALITY IS ILLUSIVE.
Actually I found it hiding behind the couch yesterday. It's not as
clever as you might think.
>
>REALITY IS NOT EASY TO FIND.
Neither is Papa Smurf. But that doesn't stop us.
[snip]
Tom Roberts
> no matter what reference
> frame you're in the speed of light is measured to be the same. In
> other words it is the same relative to every separate thing regardless
> of it's reference frame. (observer in your terms, everything in his)
This is only true for _locally-inertial_ frames and local measurements.
That greatly reduces the set of things wrt which the speed of light
is c. Of course many non-inertial objects are approximately inertial
and this will hold _approximately_ (often to an incredibly-accurate
approximation).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
JeffMo
>JeffMo <jef...@dipstick.cfw.com> wrote:
>> "Mr. Reality" <mr.re...@get2net.dk> wrote:
>>
>> >If that is true, why is it things can never reach the velocity c?
>>
>> infinite energy at our command?
>Dear JeffMo, There is no infinite energy. My question is- Why is it things
>( things of matter not energy) can never reach the velocity c.
I just answered that. Because it takes infinite kinetic energy for a
massive object to reach c. And you said there is no infinite energy.
Isn't that a good enough answer?
JeffMo
>Are you saying abstract mathematics is REALITY?
I thought he was saying that we have devised that equation, and
checked it with reality. Until and unless someone finds a real world
situation which does NOT follow the curve indicated by that equation,
that is the extent of our knowledge.
It takes an ever-increasing amount of energy to accelerate a massive
body in any way of which we are currently aware. The equations which
are our current best estimates indicate that it would take infinite
energy to reach c. This has been checked extensively, although we
usually have to make a tradeoff between large masses and high
velocities.
If you have some other empirical evidence, why not just present it,
instead of playing these games?
JeffMo
>Show the newsgroup how clever you are- answer my realistic questions.
You didn't answer his:
>Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>> WHY IS YOU CAPS LOCK KEY STUCK?
<snip>
>> YOU DON'T LEARN VERY FAST, DO YOU?
JeffMo
Peter Ammon
>
>
> Yes. Mathematics is not invented, it is discovered.
Here's my new branch of mathematics.
Given: H
Postulate: H can be replaced by HA
Theorems: HA, HAA, HAAA, HAAAA.....
Are you saying that this field was there all along, just waiting for me
to stumble upon it?
-Peter
JeffMo
>Paul Lutus wrote:
It looks like succession/counting numbers to me.
Nazgul
wrote:
>Paul Lutus wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes. Mathematics is not invented, it is discovered.
>
>Here's my new branch of mathematics.
>
>Given: H
>Postulate: H can be replaced by HA
>
>Theorems: HA, HAA, HAAA, HAAAA.....
>
>Are you saying that this field was there all along, just waiting for me
>to stumble upon it?
>
>-Peter
Sure, why not? Of course H and HA stand for nothing in particular,
and this branch of mathematics is relatively useless, but allow me to
liken it to real mathematics.
by your postulate, HA = H (therefore A is a modifier that changes
nothing)
Given simplistic mathematics, an example of what you state would be
something like this: Let H exist in the set of all reals
H = 1*H = 1*1*H = 1*1*1*H ... 1^n*H
(Where n is an integer greater than 0)
This can be thought of as an example of something that works in real
mathematics then. If you want to enhance your example, you'll have to
convince me either that A is not a modifier of any sort (which it must
be because H exists independently in HA) or that A actually DOES have
an effect on H (which it can't if H = HA).
Paul Lutus
not invented. Specific postulates and theorems in mathematics, different
story.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Peter Ammon <pa...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:38F4DD13...@cornell.edu...
johnreed
>>> infinite energy
johnreed wrote>Speaking of infinite energy. Can force be mathematically
represented in terms of energy?
my regards,
johnreed
I always knew that, you just put it into words.
Nazgul
>> Because it would take infinite energy to do so, and we don't have
>>>> infinite energy
>
>johnreed wrote>Speaking of infinite energy. Can force be mathematically
>represented in terms of energy?
Energy is measured in Joules (Kg*m^2/s^2)
Force is measured in Newtons (Kg*m/s^2)
(Kg = Kilogram; m = meter; s = second)
This follows from the work equation:
W = Fd
(technically this would be read as Work is the dot product of Force
and Displacement)
Where W is work, F is force, and d is displacement.
Therefore F = W/d
Or Force is work (energy) divided by distance.
>
>my regards,
>johnreed
>I always knew that, you just put it into words.
Nazgul
G=EMC^2 Glazier
G=EMC^2 Glazier
laura mendocino
me what 'they' say about it to try and proov it. If they thrugh the boo
at me Herb, I think it woud pas right through me the way I feel right
now.
I just don't think everything is as pat as is thought. Everything is
very changable and in constant flux. Maybe light is constant in it's
speed i this universe but if you think about it, light is a very gross
'lower' media. I'm not sayin it's not one of the higest 'elements' but
in view of so much more we don't see it's infentesmal.
Meauring the speed of light is an intresting thing.
Light speed and Time
William Hardin
Nazgul wrote in message <38f3c006.129242092@news>...
Jackie & Barry
Nazgul wrote:
> What he meant (and it's quite clear) is that, no matter what reference
> frame you're in the speed of light is measured to be the same. In
> other words it is the same relative to every separate thing regardless
> of it's reference frame. (observer in your terms, everything in his)
With respect, I don't think that's quite true.
In SR, an "observer" is an inertial reference frame.
Light speed is the same relative to all "observers", that is to say in
all inertial reference frames.
By this *definition*, it is the same relative to every thing only if
that "thing" is in inertial motion.
It is ironic that the Universe seems to be entirely populated by things
that are not inertial. So "things". such as experimental apparati,
*can't* actually *be* "observers".
As a consequence, light is measured to travel at "c" with respect to no
"thing".
Hence Sagnac etc.
Barry
Nazgul
wrote:
>
>
>Nazgul wrote:
>
>> What he meant (and it's quite clear) is that, no matter what reference
>> frame you're in the speed of light is measured to be the same. In
>> other words it is the same relative to every separate thing regardless
>> of it's reference frame. (observer in your terms, everything in his)
>
>With respect, I don't think that's quite true.
>
>In SR, an "observer" is an inertial reference frame.
>
>Light speed is the same relative to all "observers", that is to say in
>all inertial reference frames.
>
>By this *definition*, it is the same relative to every thing only if
>that "thing" is in inertial motion.
>
>It is ironic that the Universe seems to be entirely populated by things
>that are not inertial. So "things". such as experimental apparati,
>*can't* actually *be* "observers".
I believe I specifically said "every separate thing regardless of its
reference frame." This would tend to imply that the "thing" is in an
inertial reference frame to begin with.
>
>As a consequence, light is measured to travel at "c" with respect to no
>"thing".
Ladies and Gentlemen! You've played Scrabble, Boggle, Scattergories
and maybe even Taboo, but now there's a word game to end all word
games! Semantics! By Bilton-Mradley.
If it hadn't been for the quotes around the word 'thing' and the space
before it, I would have had a new signature. "...light is measured to
travel at 'c' with respect to nothing." Oh well
>
>Hence Sagnac etc.
>
>Barry
Nazgul
--
Jackie & Barry
Nazgul wrote:
>
> Barry wrote:
> >Nazgul wrote:
> >> What he meant (and it's quite clear) is that, no matter what reference
> >> frame you're in the speed of light is measured to be the same. In
> >> other words it is the same relative to every separate thing regardless
> >> of it's reference frame. (observer in your terms, everything in his)
I tried to be polite and non dogmatic.
For example, I wrote:
> >With respect, I don't think that's quite true.
Notice the words "respect", "think" and "quite".
> >In SR, an "observer" is an inertial reference frame.
> I believe I specifically said "every separate thing regardless of its
> reference frame." This would tend to imply that the "thing" is in an
> inertial reference frame to begin with.
The word "inertial" is used time and again in SR for a very good reason.
For every reference frame that is inertial there are an infinite number
of frames that are not.
> Ladies and Gentlemen! You've played Scrabble, Boggle, Scattergories
> and maybe even Taboo, but now there's a word game to end all word
> games! Semantics! By Bilton-Mradley.
I went on to point out that no "thing" actually has a comoving inertial
reference frame, and that "observers" *are* inertial reference frames. I
even troubled to refer you to a particular experiment.
Since you had written " ... to every separate thing regardless it's
reference frame. (observer in your terms, everything in his).. ", I
felt it appropriate to highlight what I felt to be a significant matter.
The meaning of your statement is that light travels at c with respect to
every object. The fact of the matter is that it does not.
I don't think that you should object to a discussion of the meaning of
what you wrote - which was wrong.
Since "semantics" concerns itself with "meaning", I don't see that
semantic issues are trivial.
"Scrabble" is a different matter. As I understand it, it is entirely
unconcerned with the meaning of words.
Barry
Jackie & Barry
Jackie & Barry
to the comment:
'Relativity say that the velocity of light is c relative to the
observer, not "everything".'
That statement is absolutely true, so I was merely correcting your
incorrect
correction.
Barry
Herry
Nazgul wrote in message <38fa1fb4.93822804@news>...
>On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:34:19 -0500, Jackie & Barry <ja...@netcom.ca>
>>As a consequence, light is measured to travel at "c" with respect to no
>>"thing".
>If it hadn't been for the quotes around the word 'thing' and the space
>before it, I would have had a new signature. "...light is measured to
>travel at 'c' with respect to nothing." Oh well
Are you suggesting that if they'd been less careful in their phrasing of the
sentence that you would have joyfully misunderstood it?
Are you a little angry that the meaning of their sentence was too clear?
You seem to be playing a little semantic game here, but with the object of
obscuring meaning rather than clarifying it.
Herry
Herry
Nazgul wrote in message <38fa815e.262912@news>...
>>>>If it hadn't been for the quotes around the word 'thing' and the space
>>>before it, I would have had a new signature. "...light is measured to
>>>travel at 'c' with respect to nothing." Oh well
>P.S. You gotta admit it woulda been a great sig. though!
One of the better ones, since it is subject to multiple interpretations and
hence provocative.
>P.P.S. Maybe *I'll* say it and then attribute it as anonymous!!
If you say it it won't be anonymous - at least in your reference frame.
Is it possible, I wonder, that all those anonymous quotations were really
coined by the person doing the quoting?
Are the quoters really quotees who don't want to take the blame?.
I'll ask Jackie & Barry, they seem to know everything.
Herry
Nazgul
wrote:
>
>
>Nazgul wrote:
>>
>> Barry wrote:
>
>> >Nazgul wrote:
>
>> >> What he meant (and it's quite clear) is that, no matter what reference
>> >> frame you're in the speed of light is measured to be the same. In
>> >> other words it is the same relative to every separate thing regardless
>> >> of it's reference frame. (observer in your terms, everything in his)
>
>
>I tried to be polite and non dogmatic.
>
>For example, I wrote:
>
>> >With respect, I don't think that's quite true.
>
>Notice the words "respect", "think" and "quite".
>
Yeah, I noticed...
What's your point? Do you think I wasn't being polite? I suppose my
humor is occasionally taken this way. I had meant no offense, and
don't appreciate the scolding tone here.
>
>
>> >In SR, an "observer" is an inertial reference frame.
>
>> I believe I specifically said "every separate thing regardless of its
>> reference frame." This would tend to imply that the "thing" is in an
>> inertial reference frame to begin with.
>
>The word "inertial" is used time and again in SR for a very good reason.
>
>For every reference frame that is inertial there are an infinite number
>of frames that are not.
Honest question (because I really don't know apparently): What is the
nature of a non inertial reference frame?
>
>> Ladies and Gentlemen! You've played Scrabble, Boggle, Scattergories
>> and maybe even Taboo, but now there's a word game to end all word
>> games! Semantics! By Bilton-Mradley.
>
>I went on to point out that no "thing" actually has a comoving inertial
>reference frame,
Can things not exist within inertial reference frames? Maybe this is
unrelated (ok, I admit I'm a little rusty on my Special Relativity),
but anything with mass has inertia, and I can't think of many 'things'
without mass (unless you consider energy a 'thing').
>and that "observers" *are* inertial reference frames. I
>even troubled to refer you to a particular experiment.
>
>Since you had written " ... to every separate thing regardless it's
>reference frame. (observer in your terms, everything in his).. ", I
>felt it appropriate to highlight what I felt to be a significant matter.
>
>The meaning of your statement is that light travels at c with respect to
>every object. The fact of the matter is that it does not.
Meaning that it travels at different speeds with respect to some
objects? (like what?) I guess it travels at different speeds
*through* some objects, but I'm quite sure this isn't what you meant.
>
>I don't think that you should object to a discussion of the meaning of
>what you wrote - which was wrong.
Ouch. What happened to all that politeness?
I also think that nitpicking at terms is sometimes less valuable than
recognizing that essentially the same thing is meant (which is that
the speed of light is constant), and letting it go. THAT'S what my
original "correction" was about. (I also take issue with the term
correction [in your next post]; I merely pointed out that there was no
disagreement)
>
>Since "semantics" concerns itself with "meaning", I don't see that
>semantic issues are trivial.
>
It concerns itself with the meanings of terms in specific scientific
contexts here. This is a somewhat small point to bring up given the
innocence of the original assertion. Ok, so you can argue otherwise,
but then you have to show that it actually makes a difference for the
purposes of the argument. (which you might be able to do, like I said
I'm rusty, but I would be interested in hearing what you have to say
if you actually can)
>"Scrabble" is a different matter. As I understand it, it is entirely
>unconcerned with the meaning of words.
As is Scattergories, for example. I'm fully aware of this. It so
happens that they are both word games and I was aiming for a certain
degree of irony and humor... sorry, it won't happen again.
>
>Barry
Nazgul
P.S. Oh and if you see any bitterness in here, it's because I don't
like being scolded like a child. If that's not what you meant, I
apologize for my misinterpretation. Perhaps you could give me the
same benefit of the doubt.
--
"Do you think he's a fundamentalist Christian trying very eloquently to prove the validity
of atheism just for kicks?" - Quinn Inuit
Nazgul
wrote:
>Looking back through the thread, I recall that you had been responding
>to the comment:
>
>'Relativity say that the velocity of light is c relative to the
>observer, not "everything".'
>
>That statement is absolutely true,
Although it is not grammatically correct ;)
<heh heh>
>so I was merely correcting your
>incorrect
>correction.
As I said before, I was not *correcting* anyone. I am of the feeling
that I merely pointed out that both people meant the same thing, and
that there was no disagreement. Frankly, I'm sort of curious exactly
what this argument amounts to when it's boiled down. I guess I'll
have a better idea once you answer my questions in my previous post.
>
>Barry
Nazgul
Nazgul
>
>Nazgul wrote in message <38fa1fb4.93822804@news>...
>
>>On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:34:19 -0500, Jackie & Barry <ja...@netcom.ca>
>
>>>As a consequence, light is measured to travel at "c" with respect to no
>>>"thing".
>
>
>>If it hadn't been for the quotes around the word 'thing' and the space
>>before it, I would have had a new signature. "...light is measured to
>>travel at 'c' with respect to nothing." Oh well
>
>
>
>Are you suggesting that if they'd been less careful in their phrasing of the
>sentence that you would have joyfully misunderstood it?
(sheepishly) yes....... but I probably would have attributed it to
"anonymous"
>
>Are you a little angry that the meaning of their sentence was too clear?
Nah, I just tend to say things as they come to mind.
>
>You seem to be playing a little semantic game here, but with the object of
>obscuring meaning rather than clarifying it.
Well, you're being to kind. Actually my statement is completely
unrelated to anything in my post or his.
Although as far as semantics goes, 'thing' refers to about anything
you want it to, including *inertial reference frames*! Which means
that the phrase "no 'thing'" (particularly the word 'no') is not fully
correct.
>
>Herry
>
Nazgul
P.S. You gotta admit it woulda been a great sig. though!
P.P.S. Maybe *I'll* say it and then attribute it as anonymous!!
There's an idea!
--
"Everything has an opposite thing" - Sir Isaac Newton (yeah right)
Actually ChinaEinstein thinking he's quoting Isaac Newton.
Nazgul
I just looked it up so nevermind.
>
>>
>>> Ladies and Gentlemen! You've played Scrabble, Boggle, Scattergories
>>> and maybe even Taboo, but now there's a word game to end all word
>>> games! Semantics! By Bilton-Mradley.
>>
>>I went on to point out that no "thing" actually has a comoving inertial
>>reference frame,
>
>Can things not exist within inertial reference frames? Maybe this is
>unrelated (ok, I admit I'm a little rusty on my Special Relativity),
>but anything with mass has inertia, and I can't think of many 'things'
>without mass (unless you consider energy a 'thing').
>
Ok, much of this results from a misunderstanding of terms. Sorry
about that.
>>and that "observers" *are* inertial reference frames. I
>>even troubled to refer you to a particular experiment.
>>
>>Since you had written " ... to every separate thing regardless it's
>>reference frame. (observer in your terms, everything in his).. ", I
>>felt it appropriate to highlight what I felt to be a significant matter.
>>
>>The meaning of your statement is that light travels at c with respect to
>>every object. The fact of the matter is that it does not.
>
>Meaning that it travels at different speeds with respect to some
>objects? (like what?) I guess it travels at different speeds
>*through* some objects, but I'm quite sure this isn't what you meant.
>
I'd still like to see a good explanation of this. (I'm having a hard
time visualizing a good example)
>>
>>I don't think that you should object to a discussion of the meaning of
>>what you wrote - which was wrong.
>
>Ouch. What happened to all that politeness?
>
>I also think that nitpicking at terms is sometimes less valuable than
>recognizing that essentially the same thing is meant (which is that
>the speed of light is constant), and letting it go. THAT'S what my
>original "correction" was about. (I also take issue with the term
>correction [in your next post]; I merely pointed out that there was no
>disagreement)
>
I'm still of the impression that it's a relatively (no pun intended)
minor point, because I think that essentially the same thing was
meant. However, I am now glad it was brought up, because I have most
definitely learned something from it.
>>
>>Since "semantics" concerns itself with "meaning", I don't see that
>>semantic issues are trivial.
>>
>
>It concerns itself with the meanings of terms in specific scientific
>contexts here. This is a somewhat small point to bring up given the
>innocence of the original assertion. Ok, so you can argue otherwise,
>but then you have to show that it actually makes a difference for the
>purposes of the argument. (which you might be able to do, like I said
>I'm rusty, but I would be interested in hearing what you have to say
>if you actually can)
Same response as above.
>
>>"Scrabble" is a different matter. As I understand it, it is entirely
>>unconcerned with the meaning of words.
>
>As is Scattergories, for example. I'm fully aware of this. It so
>happens that they are both word games and I was aiming for a certain
>degree of irony and humor... sorry, it won't happen again.
>
>>
>>Barry
>
>Nazgul
>
>P.S. Oh and if you see any bitterness in here, it's because I don't
>like being scolded like a child. If that's not what you meant, I
>apologize for my misinterpretation. Perhaps you could give me the
>same benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, I still think that was somewhat unwarranted. You could have at
least *tried* to ascertain whether or not I'd meant any harm with my
comments.
>
>--
>"Do you think he's a fundamentalist Christian trying very eloquently to prove the validity
>of atheism just for kicks?" - Quinn Inuit
Nazgul
Nazgul
>
>Nazgul wrote in message <38fa815e.262912@news>...
>
>
>>>>>If it hadn't been for the quotes around the word 'thing' and the space
>>>>before it, I would have had a new signature. "...light is measured to
>>>>travel at 'c' with respect to nothing." Oh well
>
>
>>P.S. You gotta admit it woulda been a great sig. though!
>
>One of the better ones, since it is subject to multiple interpretations and
>hence provocative.
>
>>P.P.S. Maybe *I'll* say it and then attribute it as anonymous!!
>
>
>If you say it it won't be anonymous - at least in your reference frame.
>
>Is it possible, I wonder, that all those anonymous quotations were really
>coined by the person doing the quoting?
>
>Are the quoters really quotees who don't want to take the blame?.
Interesting thought... who knows...
>
>I'll ask Jackie & Barry, they seem to know everything.
>
>Herry
>
Nazgul
--
"Nazgul is a really great guy! He's smart, funny, and all the girls
love him!" - anonymous
Jackie & Barry
Nazgul wrote:
> Barry wrote:
Nazgul:
> What's your point? Do you think I wasn't being polite? I suppose my
> humor is occasionally taken this way. I had meant no offense, and
> don't appreciate the scolding tone here.
My apologies. So many posters do play annoying semantic games. Being
accused of it myself seems to have struck a tender nerve.
> Honest question (because I really don't know apparently): What is the
> nature of a non inertial reference frame?
Accelerating and rotating frames are non inertial reference frames.
Hence my point, since all physical "things" do seem to be accelerating
and rotating.
Mental concepts like inertial frames can do whatever we want.
> Can things not exist within inertial reference frames? Maybe this is
> unrelated (ok, I admit I'm a little rusty on my Special Relativity),
> but anything with mass has inertia, and I can't think of many 'things'
> without mass (unless you consider energy a 'thing').
Yes we can exist within an inertial frame. But it's almost impossible to
be truly stationary in one.
All experimental apparati on Earth for example rotate, diurnally and
annually.
> Meaning that it travels at different speeds with respect to some
> objects? (like what?) I guess it travels at different speeds
> *through* some objects, but I'm quite sure this isn't what you meant.
Maybe it's clearer now. The Sagnac effect, measuring lightspeed around a
circuit always shows a light velocity that differs from c - because of
the Earth's rotation.
Barry