info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Light of Speed
36 views
Skip to first unread message
The Starmaker
Jul 5, 2014, 3:09:42 PM7/5/14
to
Most people simply don't understand...the speed of light and
what it really means.
Lets for example..say,
Light travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 miles per second.
"miles" is a human measurement.
Light doesn't think of term in ...miles.
To Light, it's just here and there.
The distance Light travels in a second
is probably less than an inch. Maybe a half an inch..or even less,
but certaintly
if you ask Light
he'll tell you,
"Not a hundred and eighty six miles!!!"
You're just looking at the universe in the wrong way.
If you ask light "How did it feel to travel 186,000 miles?"
He would tell you, "Are you kidding me? It took me only a second, I didn't even feel it!"
Then light would ask, "What is miles?"
And you would say..."It's a long way."
And Light would say..."It couldn't have been that far..."
Then Light would get a little upset with you...
what it really means.
Lets for example..say,
Light travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 miles per second.
"miles" is a human measurement.
Light doesn't think of term in ...miles.
To Light, it's just here and there.
The distance Light travels in a second
is probably less than an inch. Maybe a half an inch..or even less,
but certaintly
if you ask Light
he'll tell you,
"Not a hundred and eighty six miles!!!"
You're just looking at the universe in the wrong way.
If you ask light "How did it feel to travel 186,000 miles?"
He would tell you, "Are you kidding me? It took me only a second, I didn't even feel it!"
Then light would ask, "What is miles?"
And you would say..."It's a long way."
And Light would say..."It couldn't have been that far..."
Then Light would get a little upset with you...
The Starmaker
Jul 5, 2014, 7:06:55 PM7/5/14
to
pcard...@volcanomail.com wrote:
>
> Idiot.
"how long"????
We're discusing distances.. not time, bimbo.
>
> On Saturday, July 5, 2014 12:09:42 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Most people simply don't understand...the speed of light and
> >
> > what it really means.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lets for example..say,
> >
> >
> >
> > Light travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 miles per second.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "miles" is a human measurement.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Light doesn't think of term in ...miles.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To Light, it's just here and there.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The distance Light travels in a second
> >
> > is probably less than an inch. Maybe a half an inch..or even less,
> >
> >
>
> When you turn on your flashlight, how long does it take for the beam of light to reach the other side of the room?
> On Saturday, July 5, 2014 12:09:42 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Most people simply don't understand...the speed of light and
> >
> > what it really means.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lets for example..say,
> >
> >
> >
> > Light travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 miles per second.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "miles" is a human measurement.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Light doesn't think of term in ...miles.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To Light, it's just here and there.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The distance Light travels in a second
> >
> > is probably less than an inch. Maybe a half an inch..or even less,
> >
> >
>
>
> Idiot.
"how long"????
We're discusing distances.. not time, bimbo.
The Starmaker
Jul 5, 2014, 9:27:35 PM7/5/14
to
When you turn on your flashlight, how long does it take for the beam of
7
Jul 6, 2014, 9:43:51 AM7/6/14
to
The Starmaker wrote:
> Most people simply don't understand...the speed of light and
> what it really means.
>
> Lets for example..say,
>
> Light travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 miles per second.
Its less than that now over long distances.
> Most people simply don't understand...the speed of light and
> what it really means.
>
> Lets for example..say,
>
> Light travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 miles per second.
Every now and then light turns into electron positron pairs
and gets slowed by local gravity before it recombines and moves on.
A neutrino shower detected during a supernova arrived 4 hours early
before the light from the supernova.
Accounting for all factors such as waiting for the supernova light to burst
through the star, the delays only managed to clock 2 hours.
The remaining lost time is thought to be down to this electron positron pair
issue. If true, absolutely everything on the cosmic scale will have to
be re-written.
The Starmaker
Jul 6, 2014, 4:11:25 PM7/6/14
to
7 wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Most people simply don't understand...the speed of light and
> > what it really means.
> >
> > Lets for example..say,
> >
> > Light travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 miles per second.
>
> Its less than that now over long distances.
I clearly wrote: "Lets for example..say,", which means: 'Lets say for
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Most people simply don't understand...the speed of light and
> > what it really means.
> >
> > Lets for example..say,
> >
> > Light travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 miles per second.
>
> Its less than that now over long distances.
example,'
When it comes to numbers, or physics...you're are not to be trusted with
information.
>
> Every now and then light turns into electron positron pairs
> and gets slowed by local gravity before it recombines and moves on.
>
> A neutrino shower detected during a supernova arrived 4 hours early
> before the light from the supernova.
> Accounting for all factors such as waiting for the supernova light to burst
> through the star, the delays only managed to clock 2 hours.
> The remaining lost time is thought to be down to this electron positron pair
> issue. If true, absolutely everything on the cosmic scale will have to
> be re-written.
I'll just have a monopoly on what goes in textbooks and control what
your children read and think.
They think what I tell'em to think.
The Starmaker
Cryptoengineer
Jul 7, 2014, 2:05:42 AM7/7/14
to
7 <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote in
news:rocuv.90863$Ea4....@fx21.am4:
I have problems with the paper.
To summarize: When Supernova 1987a was detected, a neutrino burst
was detected at several observatories about 3 hours before light
was observed. This fits with theory - when the core imploded, the
neutrinos escaped immediatly, but the shock wave took the 3 hours
to get from the core to the surface, at which point the extra light
became visible.
The author points out that there was another burst detected 4.7 hours
earlier. He proposes that 1987a demonstrated a mechanism which produces
2 bursts, and (2) that light was slowed down by (Dirac?) interactions
with the intervening space, enough that the light burst actually happened
3 hours after the earlier burst, not the later one.
The earlier burst has been ignored as a coincidence up to now - we're
talking about low absolute numbers of neutrinos, and neutrino telescopes
have lousy directional accuracy. Also, it was detected only at one site,
while the later one was detected at three. The chance that is was an
anomaly is high.
I'm not an expert, but I have some issues with this. First, the
'two burst' mechanism is not well accepted, though it seems
somewhat plausible.
Second, the author states that neutrinos and light travel at the
same speed. That's NOT widely accepted - for a start, neutrino
oscilation (which solved the 'missing solar neutrino problem')
required that neutrinos experience time, which they would not
do at c.
Until this unusual assertion is clarified, I'm a bit skeptical
of other claims in the paper.
In all, my feeling is that the available evidence is most consistant
with this paper being wrong.
pt
news:rocuv.90863$Ea4....@fx21.am4:
To summarize: When Supernova 1987a was detected, a neutrino burst
was detected at several observatories about 3 hours before light
was observed. This fits with theory - when the core imploded, the
neutrinos escaped immediatly, but the shock wave took the 3 hours
to get from the core to the surface, at which point the extra light
became visible.
The author points out that there was another burst detected 4.7 hours
earlier. He proposes that 1987a demonstrated a mechanism which produces
2 bursts, and (2) that light was slowed down by (Dirac?) interactions
with the intervening space, enough that the light burst actually happened
3 hours after the earlier burst, not the later one.
The earlier burst has been ignored as a coincidence up to now - we're
talking about low absolute numbers of neutrinos, and neutrino telescopes
have lousy directional accuracy. Also, it was detected only at one site,
while the later one was detected at three. The chance that is was an
anomaly is high.
I'm not an expert, but I have some issues with this. First, the
'two burst' mechanism is not well accepted, though it seems
somewhat plausible.
Second, the author states that neutrinos and light travel at the
same speed. That's NOT widely accepted - for a start, neutrino
oscilation (which solved the 'missing solar neutrino problem')
required that neutrinos experience time, which they would not
do at c.
Until this unusual assertion is clarified, I'm a bit skeptical
of other claims in the paper.
In all, my feeling is that the available evidence is most consistant
with this paper being wrong.
pt
Robert Carnegie
Jul 7, 2014, 2:11:21 AM7/7/14
to
recently in the Metro free newspaper in the United Kingdom.
However, Wikipedia, when I last looked at one of the
relevant pages, declared that the 1987A supernova proves
that the speed of light is reliable, and that it /is/
merely the difference in time between the reaction inside
the star and the light emerging from the star's surface.
However, I thought that the other hypothesis was that
light is held up by interacting with virtual particles.
What it would mean is that there is indeed a cosmic
speed-limit due to relativity, and the speed of light
actually is very slightly slower than that.
On the other hand, all of Einstain's thought-experiments
are based on observations using light.
So you may be right about a lot of re-writing to do!
Tom Roberts
Jul 9, 2014, 9:02:47 PM7/9/14
to
On 7/7/14 7/7/14 1:05 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> Second, the author states that neutrinos and light travel at the
> same speed. That's NOT widely accepted - for a start, neutrino
> oscilation (which solved the 'missing solar neutrino problem')
> required that neutrinos experience time, which they would not
> do at c.
All one has to do is apply some numbers to see that this is not a problem. Not
> Second, the author states that neutrinos and light travel at the
> same speed. That's NOT widely accepted - for a start, neutrino
> oscilation (which solved the 'missing solar neutrino problem')
> required that neutrinos experience time, which they would not
> do at c.
even close.
The current upper bound on neutrino masses is about 0.28 eV. The neutrino events
detected were on the order of a GeV, so gamma ~ 3E9. That implies that their
speed differs from c by a few parts in 10^20.
SN1987A was 168,000 light-years away, or 5.3E12 light-seconds. So the estimate
for the difference in arrival times between light and 0.28 eV neutrinos is less
than a microsecond. That is, of course, utterly unobservable.
Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science.
Tom Roberts
Cryptoengineer
Jul 10, 2014, 1:08:04 AM7/10/14
to
Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:md6dnVDUWrS...@giganews.com:
Fair enough. But the paper doesn't say 'neutrinos travel at very nearly
the speed of light'. It makes a QUALITATIVE assertion that light and
neutrinos travel at the *same* speed (near the bottom of page 11).
pt
news:md6dnVDUWrS...@giganews.com:
the speed of light'. It makes a QUALITATIVE assertion that light and
neutrinos travel at the *same* speed (near the bottom of page 11).
pt
The Starmaker
Jul 14, 2014, 12:30:21 PM7/14/14
to
gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
> Idiot! You can use any yardstick you like.
How do you measure instantaneously?
How do you measure instantaneously?
0 new messages