The Postulates of Relativity Refined
cjcountess
1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
observed
In Question
Doppler effect demonstrates that frequency reflected off object in
motion, increases in direction of motion, and decreases in opposite
direction in direct proportion to the said speed of object and that is
how radar detects direction and speed of objects.
It is as though motion of object is being added to or subtracted from
frequency of light.
Also along with increase of frequency comes increase of kinetic energy
relative mass and momentum.
Einstein was able to conclude that energy of photon is (E=m/c^2) that
energy of matter is (E=mc^2) and that if matter loses energy in form
of radiation its mass deceases by (m=E/c^2)
From all this one might conclude that higher frequency which
translates to higher relative mass and kinetic energy as we;ll as
higher momentum was due to higher speed of photon if not in linear
direction at least in angular direction as indeed there are more
cycles per time unit which can only mean higher speed in that
direction.
Planck discovered that (E=hv) later stated as (E=hf) that the higher
the frequency the higher the energy, the shorter the wavelength, and
more particle like the photon became as well as the harder it hit
photo- electric plates to dislodge electrons.
Thus the formula (E=hv) is analogous to and seemingly equal to (F=mv)
for force of material objects and its extended version (E=hf/c^2)
corresponds to (F=mv/r^2)
deBroglie latter realized that (E=hf=mc^2) at level of electron that
electron is also a wave and that the only thing separating them is
amount of momentum.
Why then are these postulate not amended to
1) The speed of light is constant and the highest in linear direction,
but varies in angular direction.
2) The higher the frequency, the higher the speed (cycles per time
unit) and at (c^2), which is (c in circular and or spherical
rotation), a particle attains rest mass.
see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe
were it states "The radiated power eventually goes to zero at infinite
frequencies" under solution
This indicates that at highest frequency which they thought of as
infinite, radiation stopped, which it does but for reasons that it
attains rest mass.
This would eliminate the idea of the ultraviolet catastrophe for
photon as well as quantum particles which require renormalization, the
idea of point particles and probability wave and that formula
{psi = (x, t)^2} become equal to (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) because it
is exactly the turning of the wave into a particle at (c^2) by giving
it circular and or spherical rotation that make the probability of
finding the particle within the wave equal to finding the wave in the
particle because at (c^2) the wave becomes the particle.
We might also include that frequency does not diverge to (v^2)
interpreted as infinity it converges to (c^2) which is rest mass
Conrad J Countess
Inertial
news:8ab49bd1-e65d-45a4...@a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> The postulates
>
> 1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
>
> 2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
> observed
In vacuum, yes
> In Question
>
>Doppler effect demonstrates that frequency reflected off object in
>motion, increases in direction of motion, and decreases in opposite
>direction in direct proportion to the said speed of object and that is
>how radar detects direction and speed of objects.
>
>It is as though motion of object is being added to or subtracted from
>frequency of light.
Sortof
> Also along with increase of frequency comes increase of kinetic energy
> relative mass and momentum.
Yeup
> Einstein was able to conclude that energy of photon is (E=m/c^2) that
> energy of matter is (E=mc^2) and that if matter loses energy in form
> of radiation its mass deceases by (m=E/c^2)
>
> From all this one might conclude that higher frequency which
> translates to higher relative mass and kinetic energy as we;ll as
> higher momentum was due to higher speed of photon
Nope
> if not in linear
> direction at least in angular direction as indeed there are more
> cycles per time unit which can only mean higher speed in that
> direction.
Wrong
> Planck discovered that (E=hv) later stated as (E=hf)
That's the same thing
> that the higher
> the frequency the higher the energy, the shorter the wavelength, and
> more particle like the photon became as well as the harder it hit
> photo- electric plates to dislodge electrons.
> Thus the formula (E=hv) is analogous to and seemingly equal to (F=mv)
Nope .. not at all or in any way .. other than there being three symbols and
an equal sign
> for force of material objects and its extended version (E=hf/c^2)
Wrong. that is no a formula for energy
> corresponds to (F=mv/r^2)
>
> deBroglie latter realized that (E=hf=mc^2) at level of electron that
> electron is also a wave and that the only thing separating them is
> amount of momentum.
>
> Why then are these postulate not amended to
>
>
> 1) The speed of light is constant and the highest in linear direction,
> but varies in angular direction.
Because 'angular direction' is nonsense
> 2) The higher the frequency, the higher the speed (cycles per time
> unit)
That is frequency, not speed
> and at (c^2),
that makes no sense
> which is (c in circular and or spherical
> rotation), a particle attains rest mass.
Because it is all nonsense .. THAT'S why not
> see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe
>
> were it states "The radiated power eventually goes to zero at infinite
> frequencies" under solution
> This indicates that at highest frequency which they thought of as
> infinite, radiation stopped, which it does but for reasons that it
> attains rest mass.
Nonsense
> This would eliminate the idea of the ultraviolet catastrophe for
> photon
There is no catasrophe .. its all nicely handled by modern physics
> as well as quantum particles which require renormalization, the
> idea of point particles and probability wave and that formula
>{psi = (x, t)^2} become equal to (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) because it
>is exactly the turning of the wave into a particle at (c^2) by giving
>it circular and or spherical rotation that make the probability of
>finding the particle within the wave equal to finding the wave in the
>particle because at (c^2) the wave becomes the particle.
>
>We might also include that frequency does not diverge to (v^2)
>interpreted as infinity it converges to (c^2) which is rest mass
All utter meaningless nonsense
Tom Roberts
> The postulates
> 1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
> 2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
> observed
Those cannot possibly give you SR, or anything remotely like it.
You absolutely must have this postulate:
1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of physical
systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes be
referred to the one or the other of any two inertial frames.
Indeed, with just that postulate and the "hidden postulates" of SR [#], one can
derive three theories based on the Euclid, Galilei, and Lorentz groups (this
illustrates the power of group theory). Only the third survives experimental
tests, and is known as SR.
[#] That is what Einstein called them in a 1907 paper; they are:
* the usual definition of inertial frames (on a flat manifold)
* space is homogeneous and isotropic
* time is homogeneous
* clocks and rulers have no memory
Note, in particular, that light is not mentioned at all. It is an EXPERIMENTAL
issue that the vacuum speed of light turns out to be equal to the constant c in
the Lorentz transforms. That leads to the identification of the constant c in
the Lorentz transforms with the constant c in Maxwell's equations, which then
leads to the unification of classical electrodynamics and SR (historically, SR
was derived from an assumption of that unification).
This confusion about multiple quantities with the same label "c"
is purely historical.
Tom Roberts
Thomas Heger
> The postulates
>
> 1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
>
'length' is an multiple of some unit length, than these multiples build,
what we call space.
But we have forgotten the time intervals, that make up this length,
because c is the speed of light, what means time needed for some
distance in vacuum.
So we cannot say space = universe, but must take time into account.
Hence what we call space is what we could see from the universe, because
it is lying in our past. Other observers seeing us must be in a position
to see us, hence we cannot see them, because they are in our relative
future and we in their past.
Since the universe seem asymmetric about time and space isn't (because
we eliminated the time intervals), the universe itself is fundamentally
different to our vision.
I really like your text, because it refers to a plausible mechanism.
This is to bring frequencies of a state into focus and how that transforms.
I had a similar idea, but more 'in volume'. This I wanted to model with
bi-quaternions. This is about complex rotations, that influence each
other, expand and contract, wrap around each other, curve, get trapped
or disintegrate.
TH
cjcountess
If you liked that first post you're really gonna like this one.
And if you didn't like that last one, you're really not going to like
this one either
Hi this is Conrad Countess
This is why:
EM waves travel faster than c at c+f if we calculate right angular
motion of wave according to vector addition, c in the linear
direction
+ whatever the angular speed is that creates cycles per time unite.
In
other words c plus the angular part of the cycle. ( Correction I may
change that to (cxf) to match (hf) and vector addition to
sqrt(c^2+f^2).
This is why higher
frequency waves carry more momentum than lower frequency waves,
because they have higher kinetic energy from their higher speed. Rest
mass travels at c^2 which is also faster than c, even though it
appears at rest.
According to relativity, a light wave travels at c in linear
direction
from perspective of observer. But from the perspective of the light
wave, we are traveling at c in the opposite direction. On top of
that,
rest mass is also rotating. Furthermore if an object travels at a
constant rate in a strait line, it is equal to not moving at all,
according to Newton and currently accepted theory.
So there you have it.
What appears to be the fastest speed [c] is actually the slowest,
and
what appears to be the slowest.[rest mass] is actually the fastest
because c^2 is faster than c. Even if you take rest mass and add
additional motion according to relativity its internal motion or time
is suppose to slow down due to Lorentz contraction in direct
proportion to this, thereby canceling out any additional speed.
NEVERTHELESS we are ALL traveling FASTER than LIGHT ...... ENJOY THE
RIDE
Conrad J Countess
Why c^2 is faster than c
When two vectors of motion are of equal force, and at right angle to
each other, it creates a centripetal / centrifugal force balance
giving rise to circular and/or spherical motion. And of course those
who are familiar with me know that I have a theory / discovery that
c^2 is a frequency at high end of EM spectrum where energy turns to
matter because it takes on a circular and or spherical motion as the
energy gets trapped in a closed loop. This happens when the frequency
or angular speed is it's highest which is also at c. Analogous to a
line of 1 inch in the linear direction x a line of 1 inch in the
right
angular direction to create a square inch, c in the linear direction
x c in the 90 degree or right angular direction will provide the
necessary centripetal / centrifugal force balance to trap energy in a
closed loop and create rest mass or matter.
SEE:http://www.wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf
cjcountess
"The speed of Light is not the Highest Speed in the Universe it is
Actually the Slowest."
Isn't that something
How dare I make such a statement
I must be either crazy or very confident, because this really turns
the ideas of physics upside down.
This scares people like inertia, who can do nothing to stop the
revolution/evolution that physics is going through.
He can only reveal his ignorance as he attempts to assert his
knowledge which is outdated.
He must have built his ideas on the old foundation that is crumbling
right under his feet and he is terrorfied
I am not even going to go through his errors step by step at this
time, because they are obvious to anyone objectively comparing what
each of us is saying objectively.
The evidence speaks for itself, and reveals both, who is revealing the
truth, and who is concealing it, either intentionally or
unintentional.
Tom Roberts
My purpose was to modify the statements
1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
observed
not
1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of
physical
systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes be
referred to the one or the other of any two inertial frames.
But thank you for that correction, if I was wrong in calling these
postulates,
and thank you for the rest of that physics lesson, although I don't
know if it was meant as a correction to what I stated, or just
additional information.
So you tell me, are you refuting what I stated or just adding to it?
Because the statements that I mentioned are always associated with
relativity and do have a profound effect on our interpretation of
nature, as I think that I clearly demonstrated.
Thomas Hager
I would be very interested in seeing your theory
PD
> The postulates
>
> 1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
>
> 2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
> observed
Neither of these are the postulates of relativity.
But as to your point above, if you are confused about angular speed in
an oscillation and linear speed through space, and you think that the
postulates leave open the ambiguity as to which is meant, why the HECK
can't you examine those statements in context to learn what was meant,
rather than wasting time whether it is one or the other?
whoever
news:33d1ac79-8904-4d94...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>Hi this is Conrad J Countess, again
Gawd
>If you liked that first post you're really gonna like this one.
Noone did
>And if you didn't like that last one, you're really not going to like
>this one either
Then why bother?
>Hi this is Conrad Countess
>
>
>This is why:
What .. why you are Conrad Countess?
>EM waves travel faster than c
Wrong
> at c+f if we calculate right angular
>motion of wave according to vector addition, c in the linear
>direction
There is no right-angular motion
>+ whatever the angular speed is that creates cycles per time unite.
>other words c plus the angular part of the cycle. ( Correction I may
>change that to (cxf) to match (hf) and vector addition to
>sqrt(c^2+f^2).
Wrong
>This is why higher
>frequency waves carry more momentum than lower frequency waves,
>because they have higher kinetic energy from their higher speed.
They have the SAME speed
> Rest
>mass travels at c^2 which is also faster than c, even though it
>appears at rest.
Rest mass doesn't travel .. by definition.
>According to relativity, a light wave travels at c in linear
>direction
That is the only sort of direction there is
>from perspective of observer. But from the perspective of the light
>wave,
There is no perspective of the light wave for SR, it is not an inertial
frame
> we are traveling at c in the opposite direction. On top of
>that,
>rest mass is also rotating.
Nope
> Furthermore if an object travels at a
>constant rate in a strait line, it is equal to not moving at all,
>according to Newton and currently accepted theory.
Depending on your inertial frame of reference
>So there you have it.
Yeup .. you're a moron
>What appears to be the fastest speed [c] is actually the slowest,
Wrong
>and
>what appears to be the slowest.[rest mass] is actually the fastest
Wrong
[snip rest .. you're not even worth reading .. your ignorance and stupidity
is beyond a joke
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Thomas Heger
> The Title of the Last Post was mistakenly omitted and should read
>
> "The speed of Light is not the Highest Speed in the Universe it is
> Actually the Slowest."
>
(or maybe a pattern) that is at rest (in respect to itself). But
something connects these patterns and that has to move. But it doesn't
move in space, because 'space' is actually defined by light. We measure
space with distances of *light*-years.
The connections 'live' in an other space I call spacetime and that I
take for 'real'. Than our perception of this is like a cut, based on our
own position. In this space we have connections, that could appear as
things or as fields. These are inverses to each other and the field
appears static, because it connects without delay (is 'timeless') or
with infinite speed. That is in fact faster than light, but for the
structures we have the opposite relation and those cannot exceed c.
Where both behaviors meet, we find light, that is just in the middle
between particle and field. So we have two imaginary unit: i for time
and i^-1 for fields and a one for space.
Well, that is possible. (Actually I'm only a hobbyist, so there might be
some mistakes.)
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
This is a google.doc presentation. That I have use for weird reasons as
pseudo-webpage. But you can download the file with the little arrow
'actions' as pdf.
TH
cjcountess
Man you make more sense than many of these others on this site.
It is out of the box thinking, and what I think is required to get to
the whole truth of it.
I wrtoe a book "Cosmic alignment with the Cosmic Mind and Cosmic
Pattern"
containing simular ideas.
The idea that "c", is the slowest instaed of the highest speed, came
to me after the books publication and is not itself fully developed.
But the very idea excites me, provides me an energitic and seemingly
solid ground, upon which to build a physical theory, not to mention
that it turns physics on its head.
What if I can prove it?
The very facts that "c" and "h" are constants indicates a stibility of
thes constants in the motion of things containing these constants
As I see it (c = h) and just as the speed of light is constant in the
linear direction reguardless of frquency, and has the constant mass/
energy of h, also reguardless of frequency, indecates to me that the
constant mass/energy of h comes from the kinetic energy of the
constant speed of light in the linear direction, which gives it an
inertia to continue in that direction.
From another perspective (c = h), might be considered the "ground
state" of the universe, as the foundation upon which all waves and
rest mass particles arise from resistence to the speed limite and
ground state, and oscilate about, analogous to orbiiting.
The equation (E=hf), previously writen as (E=hv), is analogous and
directly corresponding to, (F=hv) and its extended version, (E=hf/c^2)
is likewise to (F=Mm/r^2).
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
Very interesting, will read your paper when I can really sat down and
give it the proper concentration.
I am incline to agree with much of what you said and will prepare a
better description of my own views. What I posted ealier was just the
begining and as such is not as complete and clear as it could be
PD, Whoever, Inertia
What are your realities if any,
all you do is critisize
Inertia you still don't recognize E=hf/c^2 as an equation
I showed you this before
http://books.google.com/books?id=PDA8YcvMc_QC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=E...
and you don;t think that light has angular motion and momentum?
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae694.cfm
PD
It is clear to me that you have no idea of what I am talking about,
or
for that matter, what you are talking about. As such, it is hard to
know even where to begin answering you.
I don't know what to think of you
You always critisixe but have no solutions of your own, are you
jealous because I have one of the greatest discoveries since
relativity and quantum theory and you know it. You think that if
enougth of you attact my theory I will become discouraged and otheres
will not reguard it and it will go away.
PD
it is not going away, it is here to stay because the evidence is so
clear that it speaks for itself, louder than any titles or degrees,
that any of you, who are afraid to even use your own names, may have
It even speaks louder than I, its author, and if I make a mistake
here
and there, it still does not invalidate the therory/discovery, it is
sound, solid and one of the greatest of all times.
I know that it is a great discovery and many of you can't stand it,
but its done, its out there, and I "Conrad J Countess" am the
discoverer.
I is amusing whatching all of you fight against something for which
you have no win.
Whoever
I will prepare a more thorough explination keeping in mind all that
all of you said. I know this theory goes against the grain of
established excepted physics and turns the foundatios of moderen
physics, "the constancy of the speec of light and c as highest speed"
upside down.
And so this better and shall be GOOD.
Conrad J Countess
Victar Shauwberger
Victar Shauwberger
> cjcountess wrote:
> > The postulates
> > 1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
> > 2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
> > observed
>
> Those cannot possibly give you SR, or anything remotely like it.
>
> You absolutely must have this postulate:
>
> 1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of physical
> systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes be
> referred to the one or the other of any two inertial frames.
>
> Indeed, with just that postulate and the "hidden postulates" of SR [#], one can
> derive three theories based on the Euclid, Galilei, and Lorentz groups (this
> illustrates the power of group theory). Only the third survives experimental
> tests, and is known as SR.
>
> [#] That is what Einstein called them in a 1907 paper; they are:
> * the usual definition of inertial frames (on a flat manifold)
> * space is homogeneous and isotropic
what do you mean by homogeneous space and isotropic?
i never understood this words
> * time is homogeneous
this confuse me even more, how would you make sure for that
homogeneous imply consistency, am i wrong?
> * clocks and rulers have no memory
i would admit, but they imply reading, hence memory
without memory, clocks and rulers are inexistent
thanks
Tom Roberts
> On Jun 30, 5:46 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> You absolutely must have this postulate:
>> 1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of physical
>> systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes be
>> referred to the one or the other of any two inertial frames.
>> Indeed, with just that postulate and the "hidden postulates" of SR [#], one can
>> derive three theories based on the Euclid, Galilei, and Lorentz groups (this
>> illustrates the power of group theory). Only the third survives experimental
>> tests, and is known as SR.
>> [#] That is what Einstein called them in a 1907 paper; they are:
>> * the usual definition of inertial frames (on a flat manifold)
>> * space is homogeneous and isotropic
>
> what do you mean by homogeneous space and isotropic?
Homogeneous means not varying from place to place. Technically it means the
metric does not depend on location; there are three Killing vectors
corresponding to translations in space.
Isotropic means not varying in different directions. Technically it means the
metric projected onto a given axis does not depend on the orientation of that
axis; there are three Killing vectors corresponding to rotations in space.
>> * time is homogeneous
>
> this confuse me even more, how would you make sure for that
This means that the metric does not vary at different times (is independent of
time); there is a Killing vector corresponding to translation in time.
>> * clocks and rulers have no memory
>
> i would admit, but they imply reading, hence memory
This means that the tick rate of a clock and the incremental distance on a ruler
depend on their physical situation when read, not on any history of how they got
to their current state.
Note that the metric on the Minkowski spacetime of SR has all the above Killing
vectors plus 3 more (corresponding to boosts). That is a total of 10 independent
Killing vectors, which is the largest number possible in a 4-D manifold.
If you don't know what a Killing vector is, don't worry about it.
They are an advanced way of specifying symmetries of a manifold.
Victar Shawnberger
> Victar Shauwberger wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 5:46 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> You absolutely must have this postulate:
> >> 1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of physical
> >> systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes be
> >> referred to the one or the other of any two inertial frames.
> >> Indeed, with just that postulate and the "hidden postulates" of SR [#], one can
> >> derive three theories based on the Euclid, Galilei, and Lorentz groups (this
> >> illustrates the power of group theory). Only the third survives experimental
> >> tests, and is known as SR.
> >> [#] That is what Einstein called them in a 1907 paper; they are:
> >> * the usual definition of inertial frames (on a flat manifold)
> >> * space is homogeneous and isotropic
>
> > what do you mean by homogeneous space and isotropic?
>
> Homogeneous means not varying from place to place. Technically it means the
> metric does not depend on location; there are three Killing vectors
> corresponding to translations in space.
thank you for the good detailed explanation, i still dont understand
how can space not be varying from place to place, what is the
consistence of space in order to it to eventually be varying?
and we need to use tensors because tensors are real, vectors are not
and we have also rotation along with translation
>
> Isotropic means not varying in different directions. Technically it means the
> metric projected onto a given axis does not depend on the orientation of that
> axis; there are three Killing vectors corresponding to rotations in space.
same question i have as before, what is the consistence of space,
vacuum?
>
> >> * time is homogeneous
>
> > this confuse me even more, how would you make sure for that
>
> This means that the metric does not vary at different times (is independent of
> time); there is a Killing vector corresponding to translation in time.
still i am confused, what about the consistence of time?
the meter is about distance and speed of light, hence again i suppose
we need a "standard" time so to speak
what about rotation in time?
>
> >> * clocks and rulers have no memory
>
> > i would admit, but they imply reading, hence memory
>
> This means that the tick rate of a clock and the incremental distance on a ruler
> depend on their physical situation when read, not on any history of how they got
> to their current state.
if we have nothing to compare from the past, how would one know that
the ticking interval is not changed, wrt something else
>
> Note that the metric on the Minkowski spacetime of SR has all the above Killing
> vectors plus 3 more (corresponding to boosts). That is a total of 10 independent
> Killing vectors, which is the largest number possible in a 4-D manifold.
this must be a tensor, not?
>
> If you don't know what a Killing vector is, don't worry about it.
> They are an advanced way of specifying symmetries of a manifold.
>
> >> Note, in particular, that light is not mentioned at all. It is an EXPERIMENTAL
> >> issue that the vacuum speed of light turns out to be equal to the constant c in
> >> the Lorentz transforms. That leads to the identification of the constant c in
> >> the Lorentz transforms with the constant c in Maxwell's equations, which then
> >> leads to the unification of classical electrodynamics and SR (historically, SR
> >> was derived from an assumption of that unification).
>
> >> This confusion about multiple quantities with the same label "c"
> >> is purely historical.
>
> Tom Roberts
is c inside an atom boundaries the same valued c as outside?
if yes then there is no outside, and space is not real !
thanks
cjcountess
> cjcountesswrote:
> > The postulates
> > 1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
> > 2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
> > observed
>
> Those cannot possibly give you SR, or anything remotely like it.
>
> You absolutely must have this postulate:
>
> 1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of physical
> systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes be
> referred to the one or the other of any two inertial frames.
>
> Indeed, with just that postulate and the "hidden postulates" of SR [#], one can
> derive three theories based on the Euclid, Galilei, and Lorentz groups (this
> illustrates the power of group theory). Only the third survives experimental
> tests, and is known as SR.
Tom Roberts, see this
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/spring98/ast3033/Relativity/GeneralRelativity.htm
Special Relativity
In 1905 Albert Einstein introduced his theory of special relativity.
With this theory Einstein sought to make the laws of motion consistent
with James Clerk Maxwell's (1831-1879) laws of electromagnetism. Those
laws predicted that light in vacuum traveled at a speed c (about
300,000 km/s) that was independent of the motion of the observer of
the light and of the light source. Newton's law of motion, however,
predicted that the speed of light should depend upon the motion of the
observer. Einstein basically sided with Maxwell! Special relativity
makes two postulates:
The laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers.
The speed of light in vacuum is independent of the motion of all
observers and sources, and is observed to have the same value
Does this mean that you were wrong and I was right, or maybe we were
both only have right as this site does include both our postulates or
principles.
But you also said
> Those cannot possibly give you SR, or anything remotely like it.
>
> You absolutely must have this postulate:
>
> 1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of physical
> systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes be
> referred to the one or the other of any two inertial frames.
when it seems to me that the principle you stated can from the
principles I stated, unless you mean the older Euclid and Galileo
versions, because I really meant, and maybe should have may it clear,
the "Lorentz, Einstein" version .
And just what are these hidden principles you mentioned here
> Indeed, with just that postulate and the "hidden postulates" of SR [#], one can
> derive three theories based on the Euclid, Galilei, and Lorentz groups (this
> illustrates the power of group theory). Only the third survives experimental
> tests, and is known as SR.
Thomas Heger
You seem like a true original and you have my respect.
I looked at some of your slide show, and it reveals a true interest
and natural incite, although I might state somethings differently.
I stated earlier that I had a similar idea specifically concerning a
Cosmic Pattern see www.cjc123.com and it also contains ideas that
overlap with some in your latest post.
Still I wonder why you say
> "No, that's not true, but near."
to my statement
> "The speed of Light is not the Highest Speed in the Universe it is
> Actually the Slowest."
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
observed
and
"The speed of Light is not the Highest Speed in the Universe it is
Actually the Slowest."
are not in conflict with each other.
The Speed of Light is the Slowest Speed in the Universe.
It is the ground state around which all wave and rest mass oscillates,
analogous to orbiting, and as such is the "central sun" and "common
ground", upon which mass is built.
This is why equations (E=hf/c^2) is analogous to and directly
corresponds to (F=Mm/r^2), and (E=mc^2) to (F=mv^2).
The speed of light or "c", is constant regardless of motion of
observer and observed and the energy of "h" is also.
This is because (c = h) as "h" is the constant "mass/energy" that
comes from the constant velocity of "c".
All motion is relative, so as light moves in straight line at constant
speed of "c", we move in straight line at constant speed of "c" also
in opposite direction, so who is actually moving.
Furthermore to move in straight line at constant speed, is to remain
still, in ones own frame of reference.
That said the constant speed of light in straight line is like being
still as far as light is concerned.
Wave occur when extra energy is displaced against the speed of light
barrier into the angular direction and manifest as increase in
amplitude and frequency. Thus wave appear as extra energy on top of (c
= h) as indeed (E=hf/c^2) which is higher than just (E = h) and rest
mass occurs at (E=hf=mc^2), which is higher still than (c = h).
With the speed of light as the ground, and the higher the frequency or
cycles per time unit, recognized as higher speed in angular direction
above "c", which is how the higher energy, mass, and momentum, is
created, until at "c^2", which is "c" in the linear direction, x "c"
in the 90 degree angular direction, to create "c" in circular motion,
with angular momentum of "h/2pi" as circle, and "h/2pi/2" as sphere
and rest mass, we can see that "c" is not the highest speed in the
universe but actually the slowest and at same time is fastest and
constant in linear direction, but not in angular direction.
As a matter of fact, the only motion that seems to be occurring, is in
the angular direction, with linear motion, more akin to illusion.
I'll leave that open to contemplation
The revolution in physics is continuing
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
> The postulates
>
> 1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
>
> 2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
> observed
>
> and
>
> "The speed of Light is not the Highest Speed in the Universe it is
> Actually the Slowest."
>
> are not in conflict with each other.
this is not what I wanted to say
1) The speed of light is constant and the highest in linear direction,
but varies in angular direction.
2) The higher the frequency, the higher the speed (cycles per time
unit) and at (c^2), which is (c in circular and or spherical
rotation), a particle attains rest mass.
and
The speed of light is not the highest speed in the Universe but
actually the slowest
is what I really meant to say
Conrad J Countess