@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:31:38 +0100, "Androcles"
| >"alistair" <alist...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
| >| I think that the speed of light depends on the speed of
| >the emitter
| >That's fairly sensible and I'll agree with you.
| Androcles you are the most die hard corpusculist I have
| Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the
Yes, it does.
All speeds are relative. If you approach a sound source,
then you are increasing
the velocity of the sound as you move through the air. It is
this idea that Michelson was trying to exploit, and when he
failed he was forced to abandon aether.
Doppler knew it, his equation is
f' = f(c+/-u)/(c+/-v) where v is the speed of the source and
u is the speed of the observer relative to the air.
| Why should light speed depend on emitter speed?
Because all speeds are relative, of course. MMX will work on
a plane just as it will on the ground, because the speed of
light is added to the speed of the plane, which is also the
speed of the source.
| > Those that
| >have the relativity religion wouldn't believe you,
| >They think the speed of light is supernatural, the same
| >everyone no matter how we move.
| You are confusing two issues:
| 1) speed of emitter (irrelevant entirely)
Not at all. You dont seem to understand the Principle of
Relativity. Its really quite simple. All speed are relative
to something. The speed of the ISS relative to the ground is
17,000 mph, and the speed of the docking shuttle is 17,005
mph, so they approach at 17,005 - 17,000 = 5 mph. Hence the
relative speed of the ISS and the shuttle is 5 mph.
| 2) speed of observer (change of reference frame)
If I'm the observer on the ISS, the speed of the shuttle is
5 mph and my speed is zero. The ground is going backwards
at -17000 mph.
if I'm the observer on the shuttle, my speed is 0 mph, the
ISS has speed -5mph and the ground is going backwards
If I'm the observer on the ground, the speeds are 17000 mph
and 17005 mph, and my own speed is zero.
| Anyway, we don't THINK c is the same for everyone, we
DEFINE it as
Which is abject stupidity.
| It is a very useful definition allowing consistent use of
| such as SECOND and METER.
As long as you are at rest with respect to the source,
| Unless you are a life form living in a
| scale where other forces than electromagnetic are the
| ones, I recommend using this convention.
Nobody is claiming the velocity of light isn't c with
respect to the source, but claiming it is c with respect to
the observer is beyond all scientific sense and reason, it
| >Actually, it's a step backwards. But never mind, it'll
| >get straightened out eventually.
| I hope you're right! - luke
Oh, it will, once the insanity of the 20th Century is put
The alternative is a return to the dark ages with witches
and warlocks, black cats walking under ladders and all the
paraphernalia of religious and superstitious belief, the
sort of nonsense Ptolemy kept alive for 1400 years.
"The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy
came from Newton in . He begins this book by stating
clearly his views:-
This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime
committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and
scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his
profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental
information about an important area of astronomy and
Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every
observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was
fabricated, writes :-
[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and
discovered that they were not consistent with observation.
Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately
fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his
theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known,
this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against
science and scholarship. "
I accuse Einstein of the same crime. Einstein was a fucking
fraud, and you've been suckered.
Of course, having to admit you've been made a fool of is
difficult, but if you insist on him being right, you'll just
get in deeper and be a fraud yourself.
So will the voice of reason prevail, or do you still claim
the speed of light is the same for all observers?