The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
Weiv
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
minds." - A. Einstein
The idea that the velocity of light is the same no matter in what
reference frame it is measured is fundamental to the modern sceince of
physics. The premise started with the confusion resulting from failure of
the Michaelson-Morely experiment to reveal an absolute velocity reference
for space and shortly led to both the unique solution Lorentz
Transformation-Aether Theory and the general case solution (no Aether)
equivalent - the Special Theory of Relativity.
Since the conclusion that the velocity of light was constant in all
reference frames is based on observation, the necessity of understanding the
methodology of measuring the velocity of light should be apparent to all who
would deal with relativistic phenomena.
Velocity is defined as distance travelled (length) per unit time. If
one wishes to measure the velocity of any entity, be it light or bullets,
one needs in principle, a yardstick to measure the distance travelled and a
clock to measure the time required for the entity to travel that distance.
It behooves us then to examine the nature of the instruments which might be
used in making the required observations.
In principle, all measurements of length require the equivalent of a
yardstick. (It is not suitable, for example, to define length in terms a
number of wavelengths of light for our purpose since that would result in
measuring the velocity of light in terms of itself, an obvious absurdity.)
That yardstick is constructed, in effect, of an array of atomic nuclei
separated from each other ahd held in place by electromagnetic fields
("virtual photons" are one explanation of the operation of those field.) The
atomic nuclei contains 99.95% of the mass(energy) of the atom and are on the
order of 10^-15 meters in diameter. The atoms in the array are separated by
about 10^-10 meters. To provide some perspective, a scale representation
would show that if the nuclei were enlarged to the size of a billiard ball,
the nominal distance between nuclei would be about 3.1 miles. Obviously the
length of the yardstick is determined almost entirely by the characteristics
of the electromagnetic forces acting between its nuclei. Similarly, time is
measured by counting the "ticks" of a clock or their equivalent. The time
between clock "ticks" is measured by the period of some type of resonant
system. Such a system could be composed of the coiled "hairspring" of a
watch and a blanace wheel or it could be composed of the elasticity of the
bond between two atoms and the mass of those atoms. In all cases, the period
of the resonant system is determined by the spring constant acting in the
resonant system and the significant mass of that system. In other words,
with regard to relativistic effects, what is true of one type of clock is
true for all types of clocks!
Let us then consider what would happen if the velocity of light in free
space were to change. Since the atomic nuclei of the yardstick control their
separation by electromagnetic means, the nuclei would sense that their
separation was now "wrong" and they would move to correct the error. thus
causing the yardstick to change its length. The stiffness of the clocks
"hairspring" is also determined electromagnetic means and the mass of the
"balance wheel" is determined by the energy represented by that mass and the
velocity of light in accordance with M=E/C^2! The result would be that the
postulated change in the velocity of light should change the calibration of
the clock. If the Principle of Relativity is applicable, as indeed it must
be if the Laws of Physics are to be the same in all velocity and elevation
reference frames, then the length of our yardsticks and the speed of our
clocks must change as a result of the postulated change in the free space
velocity of light. Moreover, that change must be such that a measurement of
the velocity of light would be produce the same value regardless of the
reference frame (velocity, elevation)in which it was measured. This would
occur because the units of measurement by which the velocity of light is
measured would change to conceal any actual change in that velocity.
Any measurement of the velocity of light that we may care to make is
actually a measurement of the velocity of light in terms of the velocity of
light. Such a measurement is clearly meaningless. The quantity we accept as
the velocity of light probably results from the dimensionaless Fine
Structure Constant which reveals the velocity of light in terms of the
dielectric constant of space.
To add perspective to the discussion. It is axiomatic that every
process which involves obeying physical laws (including the "constantcy" of
the velocity of light and the length of our "yardsticks" must contain the
following steps.
1:- It must measure the magnitude of the quantity in question.
2:- It must compare the measured quantity with its nominal value.
3:- It must apply the necessary "force" to reduce any error towards
zero.
This is not an invention of the writer. It is a requirement of any
stable process.
The framers of relativity theory missed the boat in not digging deeply
enough. It is not enough to accept the Principle of Relativity. The question
they should have asked is why does the Principle of Relativity hold. Such a
question leads to the very obvious answer that it holds because matter uses
the velocity of light to control its parameters. One need only to add the
proviso that information cannot propagate faster than the velocity of light
and the mysteries of SR vanish (providing one is not too lazy to follow the
reasoning through to its conclusion). In the case of gravity, the effects of
a change in the velocity of light between reference frames which differ in
elevation is immediately obvious, it is called gravity. Gravity results
because proximity to energy causes an increase in the "absolute" permeabilty
of the Aether. All of the known gravitational effects cah be shown to follow
from this change. Space is not "curved".
http://members.isp.com/einste...@isp.com/einsteinhoax/gravity.htm.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at
http://members.isp.com/einste...@isp.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://members.isp.com/einste...@isp.com/einsteinhoax/postinglog.htm
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- einste...@isp.com
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
tadchem
Weiv wrote:
> The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre
> minds." - A. Einstein
So why do you persist in violently opposing the empirically verifiable
accomplishments of so many 'great spirits'?
"Mediocre minds will always encounter opposition from great spirits." -
Tom Davidson
Sam Wormley
> The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
>
Michelson-Morley Experiment
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html
Speed of Light [is now a defined constant]
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
Actually you would either be measuring distance or time, as the speed of light
is a fundamental constant of nature. One could always make the assumption, as
an academic exercise, that your distance and time measuring devices were "standards"
and confirm the velocity of light. However both of those measures are defined
by the velocity of light. See: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html
Group Velocity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GroupVelocity.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
Uncle Al
>
> The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
> The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
> "The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
> Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a>
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
> If anyone
> provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
> material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ass - even
when you shit.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Weiv wrote:
>>
>> The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
>[snip lines of ignorant crap]
>
>Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
The problem is, you dick-sucking sack of shit, is that measuring c is
like using a ruler to measure itself. Whether or not the ruler expands
or shrinks makes not difference: it's always the same result. Why?
Because c is an inherent part of the mechanism used by our measuring
instruments. Don't you dare deny this, fuckface.
This is the reason that c is always the same regardless of our frame
of reference. And certain not because it is actually invariant
underneath.
So get a fucking clue, you fudge-packing pederast. I swear! Physics is
so much fun.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Schoenfeld
Uncle Al wrote:
> Weiv wrote:
> >
> > The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
> [snip lines of ignorant crap]
>
> Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
Not quite, hence Hawking radiation. (the interpretations are
equivalent)
Uncle Al
>
> In article <4272590C...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Weiv wrote:
> >>
> >> The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
> >[snip lines of ignorant crap]
> >
> >Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
>
> The problem is, you dick-sucking sack of shit, is that measuring c is
> like using a ruler to measure itself. Whether or not the ruler expands
> or shrinks makes not difference: it's always the same result. Why?
> Because c is an inherent part of the mechanism used by our measuring
> instruments. Don't you dare deny this, fuckface.
Lightspeed is a defined constant. No measurement.
DING!!! Savain DING!!!
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Weiv wrote:
> > >
> > > The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
> > [snip lines of ignorant crap]
> >
> > Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
>
> Not quite, hence Hawking radiation. (the interpretations are
> equivalent)
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Schoenfeld. It is EXACT.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
Hopeless idiot Schoenfeld.
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Traveler wrote:
>>
>> In article <4272590C...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
>> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Weiv wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
>> >[snip lines of ignorant crap]
>> >
>> >Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
>>
>> The problem is, you dick-sucking sack of shit, is that measuring c is
>> like using a ruler to measure itself. Whether or not the ruler expands
>> or shrinks makes not difference: it's always the same result. Why?
>> Because c is an inherent part of the mechanism used by our measuring
>> instruments. Don't you dare deny this, fuckface.
>[snip crap]
>
>Lightspeed is a defined constant. No measurement.
This would be funny if it weren't so fucking pathetic. I guess they
got the 299,792,458 m/s out of your fucking ass. But then again, I
don't think so since you're a fudge-packing pederast. :-D
hanson
news:42726F8B...@hate.spam.net...
>> >Weiv wrote:
>> >> The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
>> >[snip lines of ignorant crap]
>> >
>> In article <4272590C...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
>> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> >Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
>>
>> The problem is, you dick-sucking sack of shit, is that measuring c is
>> like using a ruler to measure itself. Whether or not the ruler expands
>> or shrinks makes not difference: it's always the same result. Why?
>> Because c is an inherent part of the mechanism used by our measuring
>> instruments. Don't you dare deny this, fuckface.
> [snip crap]
>
> Lightspeed is a defined constant. No measurement.
> DING!!! Savain DING!!!
>
No measurement for c? ........
657,000 google hits for / Measuring the Velocity of Light /
2,620,000 google hits for / Measuring Light speed. /
Mucho, mucho DINGs, Al .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... but,
No, Zero, Silch, 0 google hits for "Lightspeed is a defined constant"
DING!!!, DING!!!, DING???... or what?
ahaha... ahahanson
Traveler
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
Maybe Uncle Al should be forgiven if only out of pity. He's been
running a chicken-shit con game for so long, he's beginning to lose
his marbles now the con game is about to come to an abrupt end. ....
ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Uncle Al
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
Uncle Al
>
> In article <42726F8B...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Traveler wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <4272590C...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> >> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Weiv wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
> >> >[snip lines of ignorant crap]
> >> >
> >> >Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
> >>
> >> The problem is, you dick-sucking sack of shit, is that measuring c is
> >> like using a ruler to measure itself. Whether or not the ruler expands
> >> or shrinks makes not difference: it's always the same result. Why?
> >> Because c is an inherent part of the mechanism used by our measuring
> >> instruments. Don't you dare deny this, fuckface.
> >[snip crap]
> >
> >Lightspeed is a defined constant. No measurement.
>
> This would be funny if it weren't so fucking pathetic. I guess they
> got the 299,792,458 m/s out of your fucking ass. But then again, I
> don't think so since you're a fudge-packing pederast. :-D
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
Lady Chatterly
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>Maybe Uncle Al should be forgiven if only out of pity. He's been
>running a chicken-shit con game for so long, he's beginning to lose
>his marbles now the con game is about to come to an abrupt end. ....
>ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Lol.
>Louis Savain
When you get around to making up your mind, please let us know.
--
Lady Chatterly
"I'd rather hear Lady Chatterly's comments here, they would make more
sense than that." -- Peter Thomas
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Traveler wrote:
>>
>> In article <42726F8B...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
>> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Traveler wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <4272590C...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
>> >> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Weiv wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
>> >> >[snip lines of ignorant crap]
>> >> >
>> >> >Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
>> >>
>> >> The problem is, you dick-sucking sack of shit, is that measuring c is
>> >> like using a ruler to measure itself. Whether or not the ruler expands
>> >> or shrinks makes not difference: it's always the same result. Why?
>> >> Because c is an inherent part of the mechanism used by our measuring
>> >> instruments. Don't you dare deny this, fuckface.
>> >[snip crap]
>> >
>> >Lightspeed is a defined constant. No measurement.
>>
>> This would be funny if it weren't so fucking pathetic. I guess they
>> got the 299,792,458 m/s out of your fucking ass. But then again, I
>> don't think so since you're a fudge-packing pederast. :-D
>
>Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
>
>http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
What a fucking moron your are, Uncle Al! There are many constants in
physics such as c, e, and h. Defined or not, they still have to be
measured, you imbecilic asswipe. You really are a stupid motherfucker.
I always knew it. .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... (thanks Hanson).
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Makes no difference, fuckface. It still has to be measured, and very
carefully.
Uncle Al
Uncle Al
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
I don't fucking care, shitface. It still had to be measured. You don't
get a measurement by pulling it out of your ass. Of course, light
speed is exact but so it the elementary charge. But, again, it had to
be measured. This is true whether or not some fuckface decides to
define it as a constant.
The point of the thread, (before you decided to stick your head up
your ass) was figuring out why the speed of light is constant in all
reference frames. It is constant because it is an inherent part of our
measuring instruments. So, regardless of the actual value of c
relative to our FOR, we will always measure the same value. So get
your head out of your ass, you cretinous fool.
tj Frazir
Energy reacts with energy at C.
Try going faster ,,it just changes direction more.
So wavlenth x frequency equals C evry time.
learn some physics fuckhead bitch ..
You ar a stupid bitch are you not ¿
yer a ftl looser.
Traveler
In article <27659-427...@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net>,
Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir) wrote:
>It's IMOPSIBLE to measure lou's stupidity.
Funny.
> Energy reacts with energy at C.
I have no problem with that. In fact, if you think very carefully and
if you understand that the universe is discrete (if not, you're a
dickhead), you will conclude that there is no other speed in the
universe but c. Nothing moves faster or slower. A quantum jump always
happens at c. Pack that up your ass, queer. :-D
>Try going faster ,,it just changes direction more.
I have no idea where that came from.
>So wavlenth x frequency equals C evry time.
Huh?
> learn some physics fuckhead bitch ..
> You ar a stupid bitch are you not ¿
>yer a ftl looser.
LOL. I like your style.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
covers a distance of 186,242 miles in one second. That begs the question
"What part of a second is that" Picture seen all over the world,and is
the fastest picture ever taken. Bert PS been shown on the web
newedana
who believe blindly A. Einstein's relativity theory. newadena says
>>We had a bad fixed prejudice, action only through a medium and medium
equals the mass. This traditional fixed idea seriously distorted the
science of understanding the light and its propagation characters.
Light is exactly the same as sound wave in propagating character.
However, in standard high school texts they deny this fact, light is
entirely different from sound wave. It is due to a strong influence of
particle physicists who believe light is corpuscular photons. Sound
wave once released from its source propagates through the air phase
with its own speed that is nothing to do with the speed of its source.
If the source moves at some speeds there occurs the Doppler effect.
Light is exactly the same as acoustic waves, in terms of its
propagating character. Light pulse once emitted from its source
propagates through empty space at its own speed, and this speed is
nothing to do with the speed of its source. Thus there occurs the
Doppler effect when the source moves at some speeds. One cannot hear
the steamwhistle influenced by the Doppler effect if one is in the same
train. It is because the elongated wavelength of steamwhistle due to
Doppler effect turns out to be restored to its initial dimensions when
he receives it in the same train, because he runs with the same speed
as the train does. Light is exactly the same. If light source and the
detector are on the same coordinate system, or on the earth, one can
measure always the absolute speed of light, without any relation with
the orbiting speed of the earth. Elongated or condensed wavelength of
light due to Doppler effect becomes restored when the detector receives
it. Because the detector has to receive the wave signal as it advances
or in reverse case retreats with the same speed as the source, Albert
Einstein didn't know this simple plain truth. Since his photon travels
with its momentum given by its source, as though a shut bullet travels
in the space with its momentum given by its rifles. Obviously the speed
of bullet involves the speed of rifle. So he set forth the famous
postulation for his special theory of relativity; If a number of
observer are moving at uniform velocity in respect to each other and to
a source of light, and if each observer measures the speed of the light
emerging from the source, they will all obtain the same value. The same
value in his word means the absolute speed of light from which the
speed of source is excluded. In order to explain the failed experiment
of Michelson-Morley, the speed of source v had to be removed, but he
didn't know how to remove it from additive formula, c=c'+ v, so he made
his postulation c=c' when v approach the speed c. Thus he proposed the
general principle of projectile mechanics involving the travelling
mechanism of light, expressed with a stupid equation:
v=(v'+u)/(1+v'u/c^2), by borrowing the idea of Lorentz's space
contraction. And he announced that the speed of light is constant
anywhere in the cosmic space, because the light has the fastest speed
of all possible speeds in the nature, based on his also stupid
equation, m=m'(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. Mass increases its absolute value as
its speed increases, so if the speed of mass approaches the speed of
light its acceleration can no more contribute to its speed increment.
However this is a fraudulent story if we believe that the vacant space
itself is only the medium of light propagation. Because the vacant
space is absolutely uniform anywhere in this cosmic space, so the speed
of light has to have a naturally constant speed. Then how can we
explain the light refraction taking place between different materials
with different optical density? I could learn this phenomenon in
Dr.Yoon's textbook(www.yoonsatom.net) The light section in his book
clearly explains the refraction phenomenon with a simple equation built
without any postulation, involving no speed factor, but containing
wavelength of incident light, mass density factor, as well as incident
angle of incoming light. He asserts that light refraction can take
place because the atomic nuclei in mass system subdivides the incoming
light wave into numerous micro beams which develope into spherical
waves, so the constructive interference between them build a refractive
light with a different running direction. He also shows a number of
schematical experiments of light refraction, utilizing a large number
of concentric half circles representing sequential wave phases, drawn
on two transparent films, and superimposing them. And he claims the
empty space itself is the only medium of light propagation, and element
particles building material system has nothing to do with this light
propagation. Although this assertion conflicts critically against the
traditional concept, it is quite correct. People today has been taught
that electrons building the material system serves to transmit the
light passing through material system. Feynman had also the same idea,
so he debates critically the Feynman's equation representing refractive
index, built based on his QED theory, saying that it is a typical
example of cheating people with a fantastic mathematical trick. As one
knows as a plain truth, electric and magnetic force can act through
this empty vacant space without any aid of mass particles. He emphasis
in his book we have to abandon our old prejudice, action only through a
medium and medium equals the mass. Particle physicists believe that the
electric and magnetic force acting through this vacant space is due to
exchange of their energy grains traveling with their momentum, and
disregard the true mechanism of how these forces can act without
medium. This incorrect belief, mass system interferes the speed of
light is inherited from our science pioneer such as Fizeau who tried to
investigate in 1845, how does the speed of light change due to moving
speed of its medium, such as water. He mis-evaluated the light
interference occurred between two light beams, one running along the
flowing water and the other against that, as speed difference between
them. But it is quite incorrect! Imagine two rockets. One approaches
the earth and the other departs from the earth with the same speed. If
they emit lights with the same wavelength to a detector on the earth,
the detector would receive two signals interfering with one another,
exactly the same pattern as that Fizeau obtained in his experiment.
Have these two lights different speed? Absolutely no. They are exactly
the same. This is the reevaluation of Fizeau's experiment by Dr.Yoon,
and he says if vacuum empty space itself is only the medium of light,
there cannot exist such a moving coordinate system in this universe as
far as concerned to transmission of light, which is the base of
Einstein's two relativity theory. newedana says based on Dr.Yoon's new
physics.
Uncle Al
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
So fucking what, dickhead?
JM Albuquerque
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:4272A19C...@hate.spam.net...
> Traveler wrote:
(snip)
> >
> > Makes no difference, fuckface. It still has to be measured, and very
> > carefully.
>
> Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
> http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
> DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
Makes no difference, Uncle Al. It still has to be measured, and very
carefully.
Unfortunately, only light frequency is possible to measure.
Nobody ever measured the speed of light propagation in open
space because it requires an engineering tool that could run
information faster then the speed of light.
I notice that Savian puts you straight in line, along with all the other
fuckface around here.
It looks like that the only way to deal with parrots is "ą la Savian".
Sam Wormley
> Makes no difference, Uncle Al. It still has to be measured, and very
> carefully.
No, Albuquerque, the speed of light a physical constant of nature *is*
a defined, not measured constant.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
Uncle Al
[snip]
> >> I don't fucking care, shitface. It still had to be measured. You don't
> >> get a measurement by pulling it out of your ass. Of course, light
> >> speed is exact but so it the elementary charge. But, again, it had to
> >> be measured. This is true whether or not some fuckface decides to
> >> define it as a constant.
[snip]
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
Uncle Al
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot. It is EXACT. It is *any*
arbitrary value assigned as long as the rest of physics marches in
step.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
Idiot.
tj Frazir
I said the wavelenth X frequency allways equals C .
Give a photon more energy , it cant go faster so it will change
directions more .
It changes direction to remain at C.
It will fall into the orbit of an atom so not to slow up . It will have
a wavelenth as to not speed up. Its ejected because it cant speed up.
In space it is conducted in Dark Energy at C because energy reacts
with energy at C.
Ever see a big bubble and small one go up in water. As soon as it
cant speed up it starts moving back and forth side to side.
More energy up against the rate energy can react with energy will
move more sise to side but go forward at the same speed.
Energy pushing up against time.
Top to top can be 10 mile long wave.
Photon cant be 10 miles long as a partical.
How long will it be !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
frequency x wavelenth equals C .
Its imposible to measure a photon at any rate but C.
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>JM Albuquerque wrote:
>>
>> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> escreveu na mensagem
>> news:4272A19C...@hate.spam.net...
>>
>> > Traveler wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> > >
>> > > Makes no difference, fuckface. It still has to be measured, and very
>> > > carefully.
>> >
>> > Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
>> > http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
>> > DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
>>
>> Makes no difference, Uncle Al. It still has to be measured, and very
>> carefully.
>> Unfortunately, only light frequency is possible to measure.
>> Nobody ever measured the speed of light propagation in open
>> space because it requires an engineering tool that could run
>> information faster then the speed of light.
>>
>> I notice that Savian puts you straight in line, along with all the other
>> fuckface around here.
>> It looks like that the only way to deal with parrots is "ą la Savian".
>
>Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot. It is EXACT. It is *any*
>arbitrary value assigned as long as the rest of physics marches in
>step.
Bullshit. Lightspeed has to conform to the standards used for the
meter and the second which preceded the measurement of the speed of
light. Or vice versa. Everybody knows that lightspeed is measured
constant in all FORs. BFD! But even if the standards for the meter and
the second are based on an arbitrary value for c, it does NOT fucking
follow that c is not measured. It would still have to be measured in
order to obtain a proper meter and/or a second. Get a fucking clue,
you cretinous shithead.
Traveler
Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir) wrote:
>HUh ?
>I said the wavelenth X frequency allways equals C .
Of course. I just don't understand why you would mention something so
obvious. What is your fucking point?
> Give a photon more energy , it cant go faster so it will change
>directions more.
How does one give a photon more energy?
> It changes direction to remain at C.
I never heard of anybody adding more energy to a given photon. My
understanding is that any given photon's energy remained constant
after emission. A photon is all energy to begin with, no mass.
>It will fall into the orbit of an atom so not to slow up . It will have
>a wavelenth as to not speed up. Its ejected because it cant speed up.
> In space it is conducted in Dark Energy at C because energy reacts
>with energy at C.
This is all bullshit, Frazir. That is YOUR understanding of a photon.
Nobody has ever measured the frequency of a single photon AFAIK. I
maintain that it's a bunch of crap. An isolated electron emits photons
all the time and, even though we are told that these photons are
virtual and that they cover the whole frequency spectrum, I think it's
a bunch of crap. I personally do not believe that a single photon has
a frequency. I am convinced that it takes multiple photons to create a
wave. But it's my own theory. Take it or leave it.
[cut]
The Ghost In The Machine
<schoe...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 29 Apr 2005 10:20:33 -0700
<1114795233.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>> Weiv wrote:
>> >
>> > The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
>> [snip lines of ignorant crap]
>>
>
> equivalent)
OK, somewhere I must have missed a loop in this discussion
(or attempted discussion), but why would Hawking radiation
(coming from black holes) have anything to do with
lightspeed at all?
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:31:55 -0700
<42726F8B...@hate.spam.net>:
>>
>> >Weiv wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
>> >[snip lines of ignorant crap]
>> >
>> >Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
>>
>> like using a ruler to measure itself. Whether or not the ruler expands
>> or shrinks makes not difference: it's always the same result. Why?
>> Because c is an inherent part of the mechanism used by our measuring
>> instruments. Don't you dare deny this, fuckface.
> [snip crap]
>
>
> DING!!! Savain DING!!!
>
It should be noted here that the prior definition of the
meter (using wavelengths of Kr-86) had an error of about
4 * 10^-9, which turned out not to be accurate enough.
Perhaps Savain can explain the logic behind the
scientists' rather interesting decision sometime
in 1983 to just say "the heck with it" and define
the meter to be exactly the distance traveled in
1/299,792,458th of a second (said second itself being
defined to be 9,192,631,770 complete oscillations
of a certain Cs-133 state transition)? Obviously,
they had to have a reason...
However, just to be slightly pedantic, there can
be measurement involved -- if only to count off the
oscillations of that cesium atom and to establish the
length of the meter. But one needn't do that measurement
just to get lightspeed, nowadays.
(For the record, 9192631770/299792458 = 656616555/21413747.
Darn those inconvenient units. When can we use
kilonils? :-) )
Traveler
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Uncle Al must have pumped you in the ass the night before, Wormley. On
that very page you refer to, there is a link which deals with nothing
but the measurement of the speed of light over the years:
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/spedlite.html
That the speed of light is defined has nothing to do with whether or
not it is measured, fuckface. The decision to define c probably had to
do with providing a practical way to standardize either the meter or
the second. This way nobody has to go to Paris or some other
standard's body to calibrate one's measuring tools. One simply has to
measure c and adjust the tools accordingly using the defined value for
c. Get a clue.
You and that fuckface, Uncle Al, are fucking stupid to an absurd
degree. Your fucking ass-kissing job is to prevent people from doing
their own thinking. Uncle Al managed to change the subject of this
thread so as to prevent people from discussing the reason why c is
measured constant in all FORs. So the stupid motherfucker sticks his
head up his ass as far as it can go and declares that c is no longer
measured. Do you assholes get paid for this shit? Dishonesty in
science is a sign of hidden vices. Are you two dickheads pedophiles by
any chance?
Traveler
Albuquerque" <jm.aR...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>I notice that Savian puts you straight in line, along with all the other
>fuckface around here.
>It looks like that the only way to deal with parrots is "ą la Savian".
Correct. They are a bunch of chicken-shit, deceiving political
dickheads. They thrive on admiration from the lay public like the high
priests of old. They can't handle disrespect and scorn. Their primary
weapon is propaganda. Disrespect makes their blood boil. It's like
holy water to a fucking vampire. There is no other way to deal with
the fuckfaces but to show utter contempt and rub their faces in their
own shit. It's fun. :-D
tj Frazir
you dont know what the fuck I said because you snipped anolog.
You dont understand what I said because you dont CARE what the facts are
all U want to d is run your stupid rant .
Twist my words Ill twist your fucking head off.
When is the last time YOU GOT YOUR ASS BEAT ?????????
KILLFILED BITCH
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> Bullshit. Lightspeed has to conform to the standards used for the
> meter and the second which preceded the measurement of the speed of
> light. Or vice versa. Everybody knows that lightspeed is measured
> constant in all FORs. BFD! But even if the standards for the meter
and
> the second are based on an arbitrary value for c, it does NOT fucking
> follow that c is not measured. It would still have to be measured in
> order to obtain a proper meter and/or a second. Get a fucking clue,
> you cretinous shithead.
Louis,
Perhaps it would be better to say, that careful measurements must
be made to calibrate the -meter- in terms of c and the definition
of the second? If c is understood by international standards to
be a constant, and the second is defined in terms of a given
number of hyperfine transitions in cesium, then it the -meter-
that needs to be calibrated in terms of the other two.
Thanks,
Jerry
eightwi...@yahoo.com
[cut]
>
> Perhaps it would be better to say, that careful measurements must
> be made to calibrate the -meter- in terms of c and the definition
> of the second? If c is understood by international standards to
> be a constant, and the second is defined in terms of a given
> number of hyperfine transitions in cesium, then it the -meter-
> that needs to be calibrated in terms of the other two.
There is little doubt in my mind that you are right. It makes sense
since it's a lot easier to get an accurate time measurement than a
length one. In addition, there is no need to keep a standard meter rod
at the offices of avoir-du-poids in Paris or anywhere else. In the same
vein, some people have recently been arguing for a redefinition of the
kilogram.
Having said that, I will not let Uncle Al and his fuckbuddy Wormley to
continue to spread their bullshit to the effect that just because c is
defined, it is no longer measured. It is measured everytime someone
needs to calibrate a meter rod using an accurate clock. The hidden
agenda is obvious to anybody with more than 2 neurons between their
ears: The assholes want to do your thinking for you because they're
afraid you may find out that a lot of the bulldhit that passes for
science is just that, bullshit. These two ass-kissing, shit-for-brains
dickheads can go fuck each other, for all I care. But then again, maybe
not. They might like it.
Uncle Al
Uncle Al
>
> In article <4272cb2c$0$6831$a729...@news.telepac.pt>, "JM
> Albuquerque" <jm.aR...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> >I notice that Savian puts you straight in line, along with all the other
> >fuckface around here.
>
> Correct. They are a bunch of chicken-shit, deceiving political
> dickheads. They thrive on admiration from the lay public like the high
> priests of old. They can't handle disrespect and scorn. Their primary
> weapon is propaganda. Disrespect makes their blood boil. It's like
> holy water to a fucking vampire. There is no other way to deal with
> the fuckfaces but to show utter contempt and rub their faces in their
> own shit. It's fun. :-D
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
--
Uncle Al
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
--
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.physics, Schoenfeld
> <schoe...@gmail.com>
> wrote
> on 29 Apr 2005 10:20:33 -0700
> <1114795233.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> >> Weiv wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
> >> [snip lines of ignorant crap]
> >>
> >> Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
> >
> > Not quite, hence Hawking radiation. (the interpretations are
> > equivalent)
>
> OK, somewhere I must have missed a loop in this discussion
> (or attempted discussion), but why would Hawking radiation
> (coming from black holes) have anything to do with
> lightspeed at all?
>
> http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html
Savain is psychotic idiot by perseverative empirical
auto-demonstration.
eightwi...@yahoo.com
Uncle Alice wrote:
[crap]
Eat shit, fuckface. You're a stupid motherfucker.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Sam Wormley
> In article <xJAce.27952$WI3.17432@attbi_s71>, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> No, Albuquerque, the speed of light a physical constant of nature *is*
>> a defined, not measured constant.
>> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
>
>
> Uncle Al must have pumped you in the ass the night before, Wormley. On
> that very page you refer to, there is a link which deals with nothing
> but the measurement of the speed of light over the years:
>
Historically, ignorant Savain! Ding!
eightwi...@yahoo.com
Assboy Sam Wormley wrote:
[crap]
Fuck you, fuckface.
Sam Wormley
For ignorant Savain! Ding!
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html
second -- The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine
levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
meter -- The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in
vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
Ignorant Savain! Ding!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
Sam Wormley
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, stooopid Savain. It is EXACT.
Uncle Al
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:23:47 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, ......
> > It is EXACT.
> >http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
> >DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
>
> the second, on their pages, resp. I did not find yet.
>
> Is the meter no longer defined as xxx lamda Cadmium,
> and how about the sec?
> Do I have to adjust my meter and my clock
> until I measure the NIST c [m/sec],
> having 2 variables there.
>
> I do not understand the NIST definition procedure.
Lightspeed is absolute. Derivative units are measured to be in
compliance.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Alice wrote:
>
> [crap]
>
> Eat shit, fuckface. You're a stupid motherfucker.
>
> Louis Savain
How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
Uncle Al
>
> Assboy Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> [crap]
>
> Fuck you, fuckface.
>
> Louis Savain
How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
--
eightwi...@yahoo.com
You are such a dick-sucking sack of shit, Wormley. Have you no fucking
shame, asshole? This was never a point of contention. The argument has
to do with the dumbass claim made by your fuckbuddy, Uncle Dickhead. He
claimed that light speed can be any fucking abirtrary value. If that
were true, why did they not make it 1 or even 0 meter/sec?
The truth and the logic of the decision is not hard to figure out,
except by you and Uncle Dickhead. They decided that, instead of basing
the meter on some metal rod kept in a glass case at some standards
organization, it would be better to define c to be the most accurate
measured value they could get their hands on based on the standard
meter at the time. It certainly was not an arbitrary value as Uncle
Dickhead suggested. Otherwise the length of the meter would have
changed drastically. They then based the meter on that now fixed value
of c and on the standard for the second. Once that was agreed upon,
they could discard the standard metal rod. What is so fucking hard for
you understand?
So if anybody wants to create an accurate ruler for distance
measurement, they no longer have to fly to Paris to compare their ruler
with the standard. All they have to do is use the distance traveled by
light in
1/299,792,458 of a standard second. That, fuckface, *is* a measurement
of light speed whether you can fucking see it out or not. Given that
you and Uncle Dickhead share a single neuron between the two of you, it
will probably go over your heads.
This does *not* fucking mean that c is not measured to be constant in
all FORs, shithead. The question was: Why is lightspeed constant in all
FORs. Since you and your fuckbuddy don't fucking know, you decided to
create this subterfuge to hide your fucking cluelessness. If you don't
fucking know something, you two shitheads should shut the fuck up. So
get your fucking stinking head out of Uncle Al's ass and breathe some
fesh air for a change, you cretinous asswipe. :-D
Now, it's time for you and Uncle Dickhead to go pound each other in the
ass. Physics is so much fucking fun! I love it.
eightwi...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al wrote:
> eightwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Alice wrote:
> >
> > [crap]
> >
> > Eat shit, fuckface. You're a stupid motherfucker.
> >
> > Louis Savain
>
> How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
> Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
You and Wormley are obviously fuckbuddies.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
eightwi...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al wrote:
> DING!!!
Is this what you say when Wormley and Dick Van de merde take turn
pounding you in the ass, fuckface?
The Ghost In The Machine
<4273CD8E...@hate.spam.net>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In sci.physics, Schoenfeld
>> <schoe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote
>> on 29 Apr 2005 10:20:33 -0700
>> <1114795233.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>> >
>> > Uncle Al wrote:
>> >> Weiv wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
>> >> [snip lines of ignorant crap]
>> >>
>> >> Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
>> >
>> > Not quite, hence Hawking radiation. (the interpretations are
>> > equivalent)
>>
>> OK, somewhere I must have missed a loop in this discussion
>> (or attempted discussion), but why would Hawking radiation
>> (coming from black holes) have anything to do with
>> lightspeed at all?
>>
>> http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html
>
> Savain is psychotic idiot by perseverative empirical
> auto-demonstration.
>
Hence the qualifier "attempted discussion". :-) I have no
idea what Savain (or Traveler) is on about (or for that
matter, on; one hopes it's legal) here.
Of course nowadays the question will pervert into how accurately
one can measure the wavelength of Kr-86 light (used in the pre-1983
definition of the meter). GR has yet to be disproven in that
area, and AIUI your chirality results will not change the speed of
light isotropy, though I can't say for sure, since I don't
understand most of it.
For now, c = 299792458 m/s is a good working assumption, absent
further evidence to the contrary, which I for one would think
rather unlikely at this point, though the Pioneer anomaly is
an interesting one.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > DING!!!
>
> Is this what you say when Wormley and Dick Van de merde take turn
> pounding you in the ass, fuckface?
How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > eightwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Uncle Alice wrote:
> > >
> > > [crap]
> > >
> > > Eat shit, fuckface. You're a stupid motherfucker.
> > >
> > > Louis Savain
> >
> > How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
> > Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
>
> You and Wormley are obviously fuckbuddies.
How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
tj Frazir
HOW simple this will be idiot.
white light shines on my test target.
Im sending the target down th tracks with a odomiter on it ,,wile I
shine the light on it.
Do you understand me so far idiot ????
The target turned red it went so fast .
Then it cam back and it turned BLUE !!!!
Now fuck you ,,,it was red going but now its blue .
fuck you .
wasn't that easy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hah moron bitch with the whole in yer head...was that easy
¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
Dont get stupid and ignore the odomiter.
eightwi...@yahoo.com
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Hence the qualifier "attempted discussion". :-) I have no
> idea what Savain (or Traveler) is on about (or for that
> matter, on; one hopes it's legal) here.
Uncle Dickhead (Uncle Al) claims that lightspeed can be defined to be
*any arbitrary* value. He declined to mention what that would do to the
standard meter (assuming that the standard second remains as is.)
Uncle Dickhead further claims that that since c is defined, lightspeed
no longer has a measured constant value in all FORs. IOW, according to
Uncle Dickhead, nobody is allowed to talk about a measured lightspeed
or about why lightspeed is constant in all FORs.
His fuckbuddy Sam Wormley concurs. The question is: Do you agree with
Uncle Dickhead or not? If you do, you are a fucking dickhead as well.
That's all.
eightwi...@yahoo.com
LOL. You are just one funny specimen, Frazir. Didn't you say you
killfiled me earlier?
eightwi...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al wrote:
> eightwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> >
> > > DING!!!
> >
> > Is this what you say when Wormley and Dick Van de merde take turn
> > pounding you in the ass, fuckface?
>
> How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
> Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
>
> Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
> http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
> DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
I got under your skin, didn't I, fuckface? You're livid now. You're
foaming at the mouth, aren't you, Uncle Dickhead? I can tell.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > eightwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > >
> > > > DING!!!
> > >
> > > Is this what you say when Wormley and Dick Van de merde take turn
> > > pounding you in the ass, fuckface?
> >
> > How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
> > Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
> >
> > Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
> > http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
> > DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
>
> I got under your skin, didn't I, fuckface? You're livid now. You're
> foaming at the mouth, aren't you, Uncle Dickhead? I can tell.
How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
Uncle Al
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> > Hence the qualifier "attempted discussion". :-) I have no
> > idea what Savain (or Traveler) is on about (or for that
> > matter, on; one hopes it's legal) here.
>
> Uncle Dickhead (Uncle Al) claims that lightspeed can be defined to be
> *any arbitrary* value. He declined to mention what that would do to the
> standard meter (assuming that the standard second remains as is.)
>
> Uncle Dickhead further claims that that since c is defined, lightspeed
> no longer has a measured constant value in all FORs. IOW, according to
> Uncle Dickhead, nobody is allowed to talk about a measured lightspeed
> or about why lightspeed is constant in all FORs.
>
> His fuckbuddy Sam Wormley concurs. The question is: Do you agree with
> Uncle Dickhead or not? If you do, you are a fucking dickhead as well.
How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
--
Uncle Al
eightwi...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al wrote:
> Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
So fucking what, you gutless fudge packer? This is getting to be fun.
eightwi...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al wrote:
> Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
So fucking what, you gutless fudge packer? This is getting to be fun.
Louis Savain
eightwi...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al wrote:
> Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
So fucking what, you gutless fudge packer? This is getting to be fun.
Louis Savain
eightwi...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al wrote:
> Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
So fucking what, you gutless fudge packer? This is getting to be fun.
Louis Savain
eightwi...@yahoo.com
> Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
So fucking what, you gutless fudge packer? This is getting to be fun.
Louis Savain
eightwi...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al wrote:
> Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
So fucking what, you gutless fudge packer? This is getting to be fun.
Louis Savain
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
>
> So fucking what, you gutless fudge packer? This is getting to be fun.
>
> Louis Savain
How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
>
> So fucking what, you gutless fudge packer? This is getting to be fun.
>
> Louis Savain
How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
>
> So fucking what, you gutless fudge packer? This is getting to be fun.
>
> Louis Savain
How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
>
> So fucking what, you gutless fudge packer? This is getting to be fun.
>
> Louis Savain
How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
Uncle Al
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
>
> So fucking what, you gutless fudge packer? This is getting to be fun.
>
> Louis Savain
How many aliases to maliciously avoid killfiles do you have, idiot
Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
The Ghost In The Machine
<eightwi...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 30 Apr 2005 17:01:20 -0700
<1114905680.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> Hence the qualifier "attempted discussion". :-) I have no
>> idea what Savain (or Traveler) is on about (or for that
>> matter, on; one hopes it's legal) here.
>
> Uncle Dickhead (Uncle Al) claims that lightspeed can be defined to be
> *any arbitrary* value. He declined to mention what that would do to the
> standard meter (assuming that the standard second remains as is.)
I think Al meant something more along the following lines:
lightspeed = 299792458 m/s
= 0.2997972458 m/ns
= 186282.397 miles/sec
= 1000000 kilonils/sec [*]
= 1 light-year/year
= 9.460536207068016 * 10^12 km/year
>
> Uncle Dickhead further claims that that since c is defined, lightspeed
> no longer has a measured constant value in all FORs. IOW, according to
> Uncle Dickhead, nobody is allowed to talk about a measured lightspeed
> or about why lightspeed is constant in all FORs.
>
> His fuckbuddy Sam Wormley concurs. The question is: Do you agree with
> Uncle Dickhead or not? If you do, you are a fucking dickhead as well.
> That's all.
So OK. How does one measure lightspeed?
The last measurement method I'm aware of involved the usage
of krypton-86 and was accurate to 4 parts per billion -- which
turns out to be not quite accurate enough, so in 1983 the
powers-that-be decided "screw it; just assume it's constant
and let's get on to more important stuff".
And, more importantly, does lightspeed change with the
motion of the observer with respect to the lightsource?
SR and GR both say no. BaT says yes.
>
> Louis Savain
>
> The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>
[*] A nil is defined -- somewhat whimsically by me -- to be
the distance traveled by light in a nanosecond.
A kilonil is just a shade under 3/10 of a kilometer, and
might be used in lieu thereof -- someday.
Ray Tomes
> lightspeed = 299792458 m/s
> = 0.2997972458 m/ns
> = 186282.397 miles/sec
> = 1000000 kilonils/sec [*]
> = 1 light-year/year
> = 9.460536207068016 * 10^12 km/year
Can we have that in furlongs per fortnight please?
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
Given the usual definition of fortnight, 14 days,
and the modern definition of furlong, 660 feet,
lightspeed equals 1802617499785 furlongs/fortnight
(all figures significant)
However, fortnight has an alternative definition
of half a synodic month = 14.765294 days, i.e.
lightspeed equals 1901155500000 furlongs/fortnight
(rounded to eight significant figures)
Jerry
Schoenfeld
Uncle Al wrote:
> Schoenfeld wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > Weiv wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
> > > [snip lines of ignorant crap]
> > >
> > > Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
> >
> > Not quite, hence Hawking radiation. (the interpretations are
> > equivalent)
> [snip]
>
> Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Schoenfeld. It is EXACT.
If a photons speed was "EXACT" then its position would not be
uncertain.
Also,
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-291/aflb291p173.pdf
> http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
>
> Hopeless idiot Schoenfeld.
hanson
news:22581-427...@storefull-3177.bay.webtv.net...
>
>I have stopped light an inch and a half from its source.
>
WOW! Heavy, Herbie. Big Time. Here's a secret, dude:
Improve your record down to 1/2 inch for stopping the light,
by putting your hand over the bulb in your refrigerator
when you get your next beer. Make it a Miller Light.
>
> Light speed covers a distance of 186,242 miles in one second.
> That begs the question "What part of a second is that"
>
WOW 2!: You'd be the next Schweinstein if you figure that one out.
"Go figure", Herbie, as you'd say...
>
> Picture seen all over the world, and is the fastest picture ever taken.
> Bert PS been shown on the web
>
WOW 3!: Yup, Herbie, that's because you are such a fast operator,
especially when it come to matters "upstairs".... "Go figure", Herbie.
Thanks for the laughs
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Jeff_Relf
Hi Helmut_Wabnig ( and Uncle Al ),
The velocity of light, C, is undefined when entropy is undefined.
According to the NIST in Colorado,
C is X Special_Maser_Maxima_Events over Y Special_Maser_Maxima_Events,
...so C is, obviously, a unitless ratio ( indeed, it's often defined as 1 ).
And how, exactly, does one measure Special_Maser_Maxima_Events
when two gold nuclei, traveling at 99.995 times C, collide head on ?
...you can't, so, obviously, C is undefined at that time.
Observationally, there was no entropy at the start of big bang,
and there will be infinite entroy at the end of our universe, so,
...C is undefined at both the start and the end.
Although observations always fall short,
it's a good bet that, intrinsically, entropy is every bit as spatial as time,
...entropy is the fifth Spatial dimension.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
wrote
on 30 Apr 2005 21:54:54 -0700
<1114923294....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Google gives the figure 1.8026175 * 10^12, which agrees
with your first definition. However, the second is
not one I for one would have considered, as I hadn't
known about it. :-)
The Ghost In The Machine
<schoe...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 30 Apr 2005 22:17:23 -0700
<1114924643.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>> Schoenfeld wrote:
>> >
>> > Uncle Al wrote:
>> > > Weiv wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
>> > > [snip lines of ignorant crap]
>> > >
>> > > Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
>> >
>> > Not quite, hence Hawking radiation. (the interpretations are
>> > equivalent)
>> [snip]
>>
>> Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Schoenfeld. It is EXACT.
>
> If a photons speed was "EXACT" then its position would not be
> uncertain.
Eh?
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle requires, in QM, that the product
of a particle's momentum and position uncertainties always equals
or exceeds a certain value (which depends on Planck's Constant).
Therefore, as a corollary, if a particle's momentum is exactly
known its position is completely unknown.
Such is the case with light.
>
> Also,
> http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-291/aflb291p173.pdf
>
>
>
>> http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
>>
>> Hopeless idiot Schoenfeld.
>>
>> --
>> Uncle Al
>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
>
masked....@gmail.com
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Schoenfeld wrote:
> > >
> > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > > Weiv wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
> > > > [snip lines of ignorant crap]
> > > >
> > > > Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
> > >
> > > Not quite, hence Hawking radiation. (the interpretations are
> > > equivalent)
> > [snip]
> >
> > Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Schoenfeld. It is EXACT.
>
> If a photons speed was "EXACT" then its position would not be
> uncertain.
Idiot. There are no constraints whatsoever on *exactly* measuring
only *one* of a pair of conjugate variables. Try standing in front of
a mirror and reading the following aloud:
Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Schoenfeld. It is EXACT.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
DING!!! idiot Schoenfeld DING!!!
Traveler
The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, eightwi...@yahoo.com
><eightwi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote
>on 30 Apr 2005 17:01:20 -0700
><1114905680.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>>> Hence the qualifier "attempted discussion". :-) I have no
>>> idea what Savain (or Traveler) is on about (or for that
>>> matter, on; one hopes it's legal) here.
So my cursing is not legal for your taste but Uncle Al's is? Are you
his butt-buddy or what?
>> Uncle Dickhead (Uncle Al) claims that lightspeed can be defined to be
>> *any arbitrary* value. He declined to mention what that would do to the
>> standard meter (assuming that the standard second remains as is.)
>
>I think Al meant something more along the following lines:
>
>lightspeed = 299792458 m/s
> = 0.2997972458 m/ns
> = 186282.397 miles/sec
> = 1000000 kilonils/sec [*]
> = 1 light-year/year
> = 9.460536207068016 * 10^12 km/year
Why do you shamelessly kiss Uncle Dickhead's anus, Ghost? Here is what
the jackass wrote:
>Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot. It is EXACT. It is *any*
>arbitrary value assigned as long as the rest of physics marches in
>step.
If they really had chosen any arbitrary value for c, either the second
or the meter would have changed drastically. Is this what happened?
No. They chose to use an existing MEASURED" value of c that was
accurate enough. Then they decided to freeze that value and use it in
conjunction with the standard second to calibrate the meter. This is
much better than to use an inaccurate standard meter to obtain c. How
does that make c *not* measured, pray tell? Every time one calibrates
a ruler, one has to measure c. Stop kissing ass, ghost. It's one thing
to be a ghost and another to be a (too) friendly ghost.
And one more thing. How does any of this change the fact that c is
measured constant in all reference frames?
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[cut crap]
Hey, Uncle Dickhead. Did John Baez's have a bowel movement when you
publicly and shamelessly kissed his ass last week on sci.physics?
Inquiring minds want to know.
tj Frazir
Im spinning the camera so it will click when the light comes on .
super speed film .
The light Im taking the pic of is 186 miles away going paralel down a
track at 60 mph and will turn on wile moving .
The cam is spinning .
The motion will cause the streek of the first photons.
Its a 14 color race.
The cam is spinning at 8000 rpm.
One wide angle frame .
ALL the colors hit the film at the same time .
Or the red would ghost the blue .
There would have been an overlap if any colors arived late .
tj Frazir
tj Frazir
Ill biuld my way .
are there 14 colors in a row ,,do they overlap or did all the colors
get there at the same time ??
this experiment is valid .
It's a new experiment out of my own head.
Had you not had a problem I would not have the nead for the solution.
tj Frazir
I made it more than posible .
In fact allot of you are busted now .
This will end the stupid thred because when Im right Im right.
Its not imposible.
Schoenfeld
Uncle Al wrote:
> Schoenfeld wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > Schoenfeld wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > > > Weiv wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
> > > > > [snip lines of ignorant crap]
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
> > > >
> > > > Not quite, hence Hawking radiation. (the interpretations are
> > > > equivalent)
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Schoenfeld. It is EXACT.
> >
> > If a photons speed was "EXACT" then its position would not be
> > uncertain.
> [snip]
>
> Idiot. There are no constraints whatsoever on *exactly* measuring
> only *one* of a pair of conjugate variables. Try standing in front
of
> a mirror and reading the following aloud:
>
> Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Schoenfeld. It is EXACT.
> http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
> DING!!! idiot Schoenfeld DING!!!
As Feynmann would say:
"...there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than
the conventional speed of light. You Found out in the last lecture that
light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it
doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there
is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the
conventional speed, c." Chapter 3, p. 89, QED.
If it were not for these planck-time uncertainties, Schwartz, the
virtual electron would be a little red rotating sphere composed of
imaginary fairy dust. Obviously, outside this scale the quantum
amplitudes quickly sum to c.
How can you make these sorts of fundamental errors and expect to carry
any credibility with a legitmit physics community? I recommend you
resort to your usual childish name-calling and try to save some grace
from your latest embarrassment.
Schoenfeld
Uncle Al wrote:
> Weiv wrote:
> >
> > The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
> [snip lines of ignorant crap]
>
> Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
As Feynmann would say:
"...there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than
the conventional speed of light. You Found out in the last lecture that
light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it
doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there
is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the
conventional speed, c." Chapter 3, p. 89, QED.
If it were not for these planck-time uncertainties, Schwartz, the
virtual electron would be a little red rotating sphere composed of
imaginary fairy dust. Obviously, outside this scale the quantum
amplitudes quickly sum to c.
How can you make these sorts of fundamental errors and expect to carry
any credibility with a legitmit physics community? I recommend you
resort to your usual childish name-calling and try to save some grace
from your latest embarrassment.
> http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
> Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
>
> Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
>
> You see yourself this way,
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
> The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
>
> http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
> http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
> <http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
> http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
> http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
> http://www.you-moron.com/
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
> http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
> http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
> <http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
> <http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
>
> > The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity"
(1987),
> > "The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in
Special
> > Relativity (1999)
> [snip]
>
> Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
> the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
> three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
> corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites
(currently
> being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
> atomic clocks.
>
> Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
> mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
> number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
> Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
> and with arithmetic.
>
> <http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
>
> <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
> Mathematics of gravitation
> <http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
> <http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
> Equivalence Principle testing
> http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
> Geometric structure of reality
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
> http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
> GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
> <http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
> Experimental constraints on General Relativity
> <http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
> Nature 425 374 (2003)
> http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
> <http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
> Relativity in the GPS system
> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
> Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
> falling light
> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
> <http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
> http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
> Hafele-Keating Experiment
> http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
> <http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
> Twin Paradox
> Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
> http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
> <http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
> Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
> http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
> Black hole evaporation
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
> Spin-2 gravitons have problems
>
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a>
> (so does the proposal)
> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
> <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
> Nordtvedt Effect
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
> http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
> WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
> http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
> Dark matter candidates
> <http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
> Carroll on what it all means.
>
> Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
> manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
> perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
> any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
> the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
> the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
>
> The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
> defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
> metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
> operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
> (non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
> the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
> only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
>
> NIM A 355 537 (1995)
> Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
> Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
> Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
> Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
> Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
> Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
> General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
>
> http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
> <http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
> Longitudinal and transverse mass
> Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
> Time passage, equator vs. poles
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
>
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
> http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
> http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
> http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
> http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
> http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
>
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
>
> > If anyone
> > provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively
answered, the
> > material at the Website will be withdrawn.
>
> Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ass - even
> when you shit.
Schoenfeld
Uncle Al wrote:
> Traveler wrote:
> >
> > In article <4272590C...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> > <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Weiv wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
> > >[snip lines of ignorant crap]
> > >
> > >Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
> >
is
> > like using a ruler to measure itself. Whether or not the ruler
expands
> > or shrinks makes not difference: it's always the same result. Why?
> > Because c is an inherent part of the mechanism used by our
measuring
> > instruments. Don't you dare deny this, fuckface.
> [snip crap]
>
> Lightspeed is a defined constant. No measurement.
>
> DING!!! Savain DING!!!
As Feynmann would say:
"...there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than
the conventional speed of light. You Found out in the last lecture that
light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it
doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there
is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the
conventional speed, c." Chapter 3, p. 89, QED.
If it were not for these planck-time uncertainties, Schwartz, the
virtual electron would be a little red rotating sphere composed of
imaginary fairy dust. Obviously, outside this scale the quantum
amplitudes quickly sum to c.
How can you make these sorts of fundamental errors and expect to carry
any credibility with a legitmit physics community? I recommend you
resort to your usual childish name-calling and try to save some grace
from your latest embarrassment.
Schoenfeld
Uncle Al wrote:
> eightwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> > > Hence the qualifier "attempted discussion". :-) I have no
> > > idea what Savain (or Traveler) is on about (or for that
> > > matter, on; one hopes it's legal) here.
> >
be
> > *any arbitrary* value. He declined to mention what that would do to
the
> > standard meter (assuming that the standard second remains as is.)
> >
lightspeed
> > no longer has a measured constant value in all FORs. IOW, according
to
> > Uncle Dickhead, nobody is allowed to talk about a measured
lightspeed
> > or about why lightspeed is constant in all FORs.
> >
> > His fuckbuddy Sam Wormley concurs. The question is: Do you agree
with
> > Uncle Dickhead or not? If you do, you are a fucking dickhead as
well.
>
> Savain? Makes no difference to Uncle Al,
>
> http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
> DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
Schoenfeld
Uncle Al wrote:
> JM Albuquerque wrote:
> >
> > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> escreveu na mensagem
> > news:4272A19C...@hate.spam.net...
> >
> > > Traveler wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > >
> > > > Makes no difference, fuckface. It still has to be measured, and
very
> > > > carefully.
> > >
> > > Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
> > > http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
> > > DING!!! idiot Savain DING!!!
> >
very
> > carefully.
> > Unfortunately, only light frequency is possible to measure.
> > Nobody ever measured the speed of light propagation in open
> > space because it requires an engineering tool that could run
> > information faster then the speed of light.
> >
> > I notice that Savian puts you straight in line, along with all the
other
> > fuckface around here.
> > It looks like that the only way to deal with parrots is "à la
Savian".
>
> Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot. It is EXACT. It is *any*
> arbitrary value assigned as long as the rest of physics marches in
> step.
>
>
> Idiot.
The Ghost In The Machine
<trav...@nospam.net>
wrote
on Sun, 01 May 2005 20:26:22 -0400
<j7sa71pd3d7fec1dq...@4ax.com>:
> In article <3qodk2-...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>, The Ghost In
> The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics, eightwi...@yahoo.com
>><eightwi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote
>>on 30 Apr 2005 17:01:20 -0700
>><1114905680.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hence the qualifier "attempted discussion". :-) I have no
>>>> idea what Savain (or Traveler) is on about (or for that
>>>> matter, on; one hopes it's legal) here.
>
> So my cursing is not legal for your taste but Uncle Al's is? Are you
> his butt-buddy or what?
Does it matter?
An interesting point. Now the questions are as follows:
[1] In your opinion, is it measured *correctly*? If not, what
would be needed to correct it? If so, can you prove it,
or at least show good evidence? The best I can do, absent
experimentation, is an accuracy of 4 * 10^-9, using the
old Kr-86 measurement method (prior to the adoption of
the current one in 1983).
[2] Would it be of any benefit to define it in another form?
For example, one could evade the question to some extent
and simply define a "nil", which is the distance light
travels in a nanosecond. This would make lightspeed
1 nil/ns. I'm a bit of a fan of this definition, myself. :-)
[3] The original question was how to do the same with a kg.
I'm curious as to your method, here, if you happen to
have one. (I don't.)
[4] What problem are you trying to attack? Your page
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/notorious.htm
isn't horribly clear on how to change the math in order
to avoid the crackpot/voodoo physics and erroneously
moving through spacetime (as opposed to merely moving
through space).
Here's a simple question, for example. A "stationary"
observer O (in a stress-free inertial reference frame)
is firing a laser beam of wavelength 500 nm at another
observer A, who is moving at a speed of about 3,000 m/s
(10^-5 c). What wavelength will A observe, according
to your theory?
A more complicated question involves a satellite firing
a pulse of a certain frequency onto the surface of
an idealized Earth. Assuming the orbit is perfectly
circular and spinning around the equator, and the
Earthbound station is at the equator, what wavelength
would the Earthbound station observe?
Another, slightly easier measurement might have to do with
the energy per photon, using a device that allows the
light to impinge on a surface, releasing electrons.
These electrons produce a current which can be monitored.
A very simple (if one has a particle storage ring)
experiment involves creation of moving muons and
observing how long they take to decay. But I digress.
[5] Would it be required to do anything to the meter? One could,
for instance define c = N phlegms / second, where a
phlegm is 299792458 / N meters. Or one could define
c to be M meters/balsnic, where a balsnic is
M / 299792458 seconds.
The main problem of course is that the rest of physics would
hvae to define lengths as phlegms in one regime, requiring
a number of conversions, or times in balsnics, requiring
a number of (other) conversions, or use conversion factors.
[.sigsnip]
Sam Wormley
> As Feynmann would say:
> "...there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than
> the conventional speed of light. You Found out in the last lecture that
> light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it
> doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there
> is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the
> conventional speed, c." Chapter 3, p. 89, QED.
However, the speed of light is the same for all observers. This is
empirically verified. In fact, light speed is now a DEFINED constant. It
is EXACT.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html