Why Is the Speed of Light Exactly C and Not Some Other Value?
Traveler
In physics "why?" is a taboo word. If you ask why, the usual dickheads
(you know who you are) will jump out of the woodwork like fucking bugs
to insist that one is not allowed to ask why in physics. Fuck them!
The way I see it, if you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you don't
know jack shit. Your physics is chicken shit and you might as well be
sucking the hind teat of a mule. My question for the day is this:
Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
If you don't know why and refuse to know why, you are a dickhead. If
you don't know why and you try your best to prevent others from
figuring out why, you are worse than a dickhead. You are a fucking
mule's ass and a dickhead. But if you are willing to discuss this
extremely important issue without being a dickhead, I am all ears.
Let's discuss.
P.S. Wormley, don't even look for a reference or a citation for this
one because there ain't none. So one more time, fuck you, you
ass-kissing jackass. Let the fun begin.
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
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bmts61hsq05b1ufd9...@4ax.com...
> [Ok. Here I go again. Physics is fun. :-D]
Troll alert.
Try to talk to this 'person', and you can expect a reply like:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PoliteConversation.html
Dirk Vdm
Morituri-|-Max
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:YTube.74409$Dk5.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Thanks for the warning.
Uncle Al
[snip stooopidity]
> Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
[snip more stooopidity]
Given empirically measured permittivity and permeability of vacuum,
lightspeed is locked. Any finite lightspeed value would do, fucking
ineducable idiot Savain, for a Lorentz transformation. Given any
achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed, the bound
on the relative velocities of V1 and V2 as viewed by any inertial
observer cannot exceed
(V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]
This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of
motion. For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta, Jackson gives
u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)
u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))
<http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/~souther/waves02/feb0402/sld011.htm>
Relativistic doppler shift,
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~rfield/PHY2061/images/chp39_2.pdf
DING! SAVAIN DING!
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Maleki
> Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
>
> If you don't know why and refuse to know why, you are a dickhead. If
> you don't know why and you try your best to prevent others from
> figuring out why, you are worse than a dickhead. You are a fucking
> mule's ass and a dickhead. But if you are willing to discuss this
> extremely important issue without being a dickhead, I am all ears.
Amen.
I think nobody knows why.
--
"behar kojA ke ravi AsemAn hamin rang ast."
yt56erd
Traveler wrote:
> Nothing of interest.
Louise is just getting him/her self primed for a night of abuse and
likes to start it with a crap troll attempt.
S/he wants people to reply so s/he can start getting into his/her ass
fantasies.
Vioxxy
>
> In physics "why?" is a taboo word.
WRONG. That is the question to answer in Physics, but you don't know that
because the cheese has slid off your cracker.
><snip stupid rant>
> Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
>
> <snip moron drivalings>
> I am all ears.
> Let's discuss.
In what material? Vacuum? Water? Ethanol? Silicon? Plastic? Need the
dialetric constants to determine the speed of light, because the speed of
light is slower in these materials than c. (Also it is little "c", not the
big "C", which stands for Celsius)
<snip jackass self referencing>
> 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
We can never "fix" the software design problems, it has been outsource to
hackers in India, like habashi, as they argue with everyone, they eat only
plants, like the cows, and do not use toilet paper.
Maleki
> Given empirically measured permittivity and permeability of vacuum,
> lightspeed is locked.
Heh. The guy says why that particular measure of lag (in a
charge changing its configuration, and this event felt at
another point), and you say because I measure it and see
that it is so.
Why don't you just say you don't know.
--
"arzeh kardam do jahAn bar dele kAr-oftAdeh
bejoz az eshghe to bAghi hame fAni dAnest"
- Hafez
eightwi...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al wrote:
> Traveler wrote:
> [snip stooopidity]
>
> > Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
> [snip more stooopidity]
>
> Given empirically measured permittivity and permeability of vacuum,
> lightspeed is locked.
I asked WHY, fuckface. Since you don't know, don't want to know, and
don't want anybody else to know, fuck you. That makes you a mule's ass
and a dickhead.
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
yt56erd
eightwings2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I asked WHY, fuckface. Since you don't know, don't want to know, and
> don't want anybody else to know, fuck you. That makes you a mule's
ass
> and a dickhead.
>
hey honey, dont go showing off infront of strangers. the warden will
take care of you tonight. stay calm.
you know less about this than an ant. you dont even know how to ask the
fucking question. do you want to debate theology - if so fuck off and
get abused elsewhere.
you are as funny as herpes and less curable.
prick.
tadchem
Traveler wrote:
> [Ok. Here I go again. Physics is fun. :-D]
>
> In physics "why?" is a taboo word. If you ask why, the usual
> (you know who you are) will jump out of the woodwork like *******
bugs
> to insist that one is not allowed to ask why in physics. **** them!
> The way I see it, if you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you
don't
> sucking the hind **** of a mule. My question for the day is this:
>
> Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
>
> you don't know why and you try your best to prevent others from
> mule's *** and a ********. But if you are willing to discuss this
> extremely important issue without being a ********, I am all ears.
> Let's discuss.
>
> P.S. Wormley, don't even look for a reference or a citation for this
> ***-kissing jackass. Let the fun begin.
>
> Louis Savain
<snip>
Ooh-kay....
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tadchem
Traveler wrote:
(a spoonful, as distilled from the sewage)
> My question for the day is this:
> Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
"Schopenhauer's Law of Entropy: If you put a spoonful of wine in a
barrel full of sewage, you get sewage. If you put a spoonful of sewage
in a barrel full of wine, you get sewage. "
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Traveler
>
>Troll alert.
Hey, Dick de merde, would you believe that your little web page about
me is already showing up in the search engines? My site is getting
hits directed from your page. I never thought I would say this, but
thanks for the publicity, Dick. Heck, any publicity is good publicity.
At any rate, I now think I was right about you. You are a homosexual
and you have an obsession with my person. But I am warning you: stay
away from my ass, queer. :-D
Jan Panteltje
moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
<YTube.74409$Dk5.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
But he asks the right question, why not give the right answer?
she...@yahoo.com
eightwings2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Traveler wrote:
> > [snip stooopidity]
> >
> > > Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
> > [snip more stooopidity]
> >
> > Given empirically measured permittivity and permeability of vacuum,
> > lightspeed is locked.
>
> don't want anybody else to know, fuck you. [..]
>
>
I think Al answered why pretty well, Louis.
The speed of light is set to c (exactly) as a matter of definition of
protocol. That is the way we say what a meter is. The reason for the
speed of light being exactly c is that we must agree on a unit of
distance so we can communicate effictively.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1114541131.e0f431cc506c36662f54e8064e740a5a@teranews...
google for it
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
<male...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:46:25 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
>
>> Given empirically measured permittivity and permeability of vacuum,
>> lightspeed is locked.
>
>Heh. The guy says why that particular measure of lag (in a
>charge changing its configuration, and this event felt at
>another point), and you say because I measure it and see
>that it is so.
>
>Why don't you just say you don't know.
You have to understand that the ass kisser suffers from an inferiority
complex. If opportunities to show off looked like asses, Uncle Al
would never stop licking and sniffing.
AllYou!
Because we look at this value the wrong way. The issue is not the difference between an
observer and the speed of light, it's the difference between the absolute and all that
have departed from it.
At the moment of the big-bang, all was shear energy, all moved at infinite speed, and all
was an infinite point. But then, for some reason, energy began to convert to mass, and
all mass slowed. c represents the extent to which all observers have slowed since the big
bang.
Traveler
<male...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh, I think somebody knows.
Traveler
"she...@yahoo.com" <she...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Shevek, the speed of light has nothing to do with our chosen units of
measurements. Notice that I said c and not 299,792,458 meters/second
nor 186,282 miles/second. Uncle Al had his own dick up his Eotvos ass
when he ventured his clueless response.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
Traveler
>
>"Jan Panteltje" wrote
[cut]
>> But he asks the right question, why not give the right answer?
>
>google for it
What utter stinking crap! You know you don't fucking know the answer
to the question and you damn well know that Panteltje has zero chance
of finding the answer anywhere, so why tell him to Google for it? What
a fucking ass-kissing maggot you are, Van de merde!
Whose ass are you and Wormley kissing anyway? I really want to know.
Do you even get paid for it or do you fucking bend over for free? That
they allow foul-smelling cowards like you to roam free in Belgium (or
wherever the fuck you are) is a mystery.
Gregory L. Hansen
What would constitute an answer?
You might relate c to the permeability and permittivity of space, but
that begs the question of why the permeability and permittivity of space
have the values that they do. If you're one of those folks that think
light is an undulation of the aether, you're left with figuring out why
the aether has that density and Young's modulus (or whatever properties
you want to say it has). And it doesn't address the role of c in,
e.g., p=mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in a context that has nothing to do with
electromagnetism.
--
"Not that there's anything wrong with just lying around on your back. In
its way, rotting is interesing too... It's just that there are other ways
to spend your time as a cadaver." -- Mary Roach, "Stiff", 2003.
Bilge
>
>In physics "why?" is a taboo word. If you ask why, the usual dickheads
>(you know who you are) will jump out of the woodwork like fucking bugs
>to insist that one is not allowed to ask why in physics. Fuck them!
>The way I see it, if you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you don't
>know jack shit. Your physics is chicken shit and you might as well be
>sucking the hind teat of a mule. My question for the day is this:
>
> Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
Bilge
>moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
><YTube.74409$Dk5.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
>
>>
>>"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b
>>
>>Troll alert.
>>Try to talk to this 'person', and you can expect a reply like:
>> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Poli
>>
>But he asks the right question, why not give the right answer?
follow an attempt to answer his question would be better off posting
it themselves and avoid having to slog through the eloquent prose that
numbskull spews to divert attention from his misconceptions.
Vioxxy
>
> >
> >> > Traveler wrote:
> 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
*** TROLL ***
moving at the speed of Zero.
Vioxxy
> >
> >google for it
> 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
You are a dipshit asshole gourd head mama's boy who cannot understand what a
flashlight is.
Jan Panteltje
moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
<23wbe.74493$3X7.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
For what, the right question, the right answer, or why uou do not give it even
now.
And, google does not really ALWAYS (!) give the answer, or more then one.
Neither do newsgroups.
Jan Panteltje
<ida...@conversent.net> wrote in <NdSdna2i-bS...@conversent.net>:
>
>At the moment of the big-bang, all was shear energy, all moved at infinite speed, and all
>was an infinite point. But then, for some reason, energy began to convert to mass, and
>all mass slowed. c represents the extent to which all observers have slowed since the big
>bang.
never happen.
So one can bet 100% that it did not start that way.
Some religious creationist belief may well go that path (God, infinite,
big bang, ..some evolution. , there was Uncle Al).
Anyways ANY theory that predics an 'infinite' anywhere in nature, in past
present or future, is likely wrong, and you can quote me on that.
How can it be
that the infinite sea
allows deserts to be
without rain.
So, as usually there is a contradiction.
But it really does not bother me.
Jan Panteltje
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in
<d4m4v5$p4a$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>:
>What would constitute an answer?
>
>You might relate c to the permeability and permittivity of space, but
>that begs the question of why the permeability and permittivity of space
>have the values that they do. If you're one of those folks that think
>light is an undulation of the aether, you're left with figuring out why
>the aether has that density and Young's modulus (or whatever properties
>you want to say it has). And it doesn't address the role of c in,
>e.g., p=mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in a context that has nothing to do with
>electromagnetism.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1114545060.7eee31d937e94a611730862a63c7b0fc@teranews...
I hadn't even seen a question.
Do you think that I read his messages?
So I went back now to wade through his vomit, looking for
his question. Okay, "Why is the speed of light exactly c and
not some other value?"
My answer:
Traveler
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
Why don't you stop licking ass and pack your opinion up your ass,
Bilge? :-D
Traveler
[cut]
>I hadn't even seen a question.
>Do you think that I read his messages?
>
>So I went back now to wade through his vomit, looking for
>his question. Okay, "Why is the speed of light exactly c and
>not some other value?"
>
>My answer:
>
>Troll alert.
How lame! How so fucking like you, Van de merde! No fucking backbone
whatsoever. That anybody would choose a shit-eating, boneless maggot
like you to kiss their ass is beyond fucking comprehension.
Traveler
Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Indeed. And if you don't fucking know, you might as well be honking
the hind teat of a stinking mule because your physics is chicken shit.
Jan Panteltje
<eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<7e9t619fvtvbccmdo...@4ax.com>:
>
>>Then the right answer is: 'We do not know, but we (I) would LIKE to know.'
>
>Indeed. And if you don't fucking know, you might as well be honking
>the hind teat of a stinking mule because your physics is chicken shit.
Well something tells me Dirk is right as better stop the conversation
here, but since you were the one asking, (you do not know either) then
that part with the chickens also applies to you.
Better would be to try to figure it out, then insult everybody.
Of cause it is amusing to some point, but does not make a lot of sense.
So, now what do YOU think the reason is for C, and if you have a reason,
WHY.
Once you found a reason, let us know.
We could use an other Newton... / genius / whatever.
yt56erd
Traveler the monster faghag wrote:
> nothing of interest or value.
Maleki
> Why is \pi exactly \pi and not some other value?
>
Because circles are always proportional to each other.
Can you say something equivalent about speed of light?
You must be an engineer.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Maleki" <male...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:k1njyrynhpbr$.nlokwaczwgsa.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:31:55 GMT, Bilge wrote:
>
> > Why is \pi exactly \pi and not some other value?
> >
>
> Because circles are always proportional to each other.
Brilliant.
> Can you say something equivalent about speed of light?
Sure. The speed of light is always proportional to itself.
>
> You must be an engineer.
You must be "not even an engineer".
Dirk Vdm
Maleki
Hansen wrote:
> You might relate c to the permeability and permittivity of space, but
> that begs the question of why the permeability and permittivity of space
> have the values that they do.
The two phenomena of permeability and permittivity are
themselves results of speed of light having a distinct
measure. The question aims at that distinct value,
therefore we cannot use the consequences of the
phenomenon and conclude "that's why C is a distinct
value".
Note for instance that permittivity is a measure of
induction that distance causes, meaning there is a lag
between cause and effect and the lag is proportional
to the distance between the cause and where the effect
occurs.
Gregory L. Hansen
Maleki <male...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:31:49 +0000 (UTC), Gregory L.
>Hansen wrote:
>
>> You might relate c to the permeability and permittivity of space, but
>> that begs the question of why the permeability and permittivity of space
>> have the values that they do.
>
>The two phenomena of permeability and permittivity are
>themselves results of speed of light having a distinct
>measure. The question aims at that distinct value,
>therefore we cannot use the consequences of the
>phenomenon and conclude "that's why C is a distinct
>value".
I would say that no answer can be given that can't be reanalyzed as you
just have, or without leaving other questions unanswered. You fall into
a regress of "Why?" until you leave the empirical and start making shit
up. Beyond there lies metaphysics.
--
"Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and win
by experience."
Maleki
Hansen wrote:
> You might relate c to the permeability and permittivity of space, but
> that begs the question of why the permeability and permittivity of space
> have the values that they do.
The two phenomena of permeability and permittivity are
themselves results of speed of light having a distinct
measure. The question aims at that distinct value,
therefore we cannot use the consequences of the
phenomenon and conclude "that's why C is a distinct
value".
Note for instance that permittivity is a measure of
Traveler
Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On a sunny day (Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:36:08 -0400) it happened Traveler
><eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in
><7e9t619fvtvbccmdo...@4ax.com>:
>
>>
>>>Then the right answer is: 'We do not know, but we (I) would LIKE to know.'
>>
>>Indeed. And if you don't fucking know, you might as well be honking
>>the hind teat of a stinking mule because your physics is chicken shit.
>
>Well something tells me Dirk is right as better stop the conversation
>here, but since you were the one asking, (you do not know either) then
>that part with the chickens also applies to you.
Oh, I know alright. The same way I know that energy is needed to keep
bodies in motion so as to be true to the principle of cause and
effect. Hence the need for a causal aether. One must doubt almost
every fucking thing one was taught in school and always question
authority, especially if he/she is an obvious ass kisser and a parrot.
>Better would be to try to figure it out, then insult everybody.
>Of cause it is amusing to some point, but does not make a lot of sense.
I don't do it just for fun. I will never stop insulting the dishonest
motherfuckers in the physics community. They are not scientists. They
are religionists with a hidden fucking political agenda and, for this
reason, I hate their stinking guts. They must be made to eath their
own shit, like dogs.
>So, now what do YOU think the reason is for C, and if you have a reason,
>WHY.
All in good time.
>Once you found a reason, let us know.
>We could use an other Newton... / genius / whatever.
It has nothing to do with genius. It has to do with perseverance,
honesty of thought and backbone.
FrediFizzx
| [Ok. Here I go again. Physics is fun. :-D]
|
| (you know who you are) will jump out of the woodwork like fucking bugs
| to insist that one is not allowed to ask why in physics. Fuck them!
| The way I see it, if you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you don't
| know jack shit. Your physics is chicken shit and you might as well be
| sucking the hind teat of a mule. My question for the day is this:
|
Pack Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" up your ass where your
little brain is. He will tell you "why". ;-) The short version: The
quantum "vacuum" is a dual space-time relativistic medium and this
medium will have a characteristic max velocity.
FrediFizzx
Maleki
wrote:
What you say is not an analogy for what I said. Pi is
simply the measure of how many distances of the length
equal to the diameter of a circle goes into the
circumference of the circle. This is a clearly
understood fact. Your analogy of light being
proportional to itself (and therefore same value for
c) is just stupid.
On my browser some time back I made it to show your
posts in gray color (the ones I read are in other
colors). I'm going to trust my earlier decision and
leave you to yourself.
Maleki
Hansen wrote:
> In article <tpaqt5ck9hdq.1gehxdd3p5vrc$.d...@40tude.net>,
> Maleki <male...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:31:49 +0000 (UTC), Gregory L.
>>Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> You might relate c to the permeability and permittivity of space, but
>>> that begs the question of why the permeability and permittivity of space
>>> have the values that they do.
>>
>>The two phenomena of permeability and permittivity are
>>themselves results of speed of light having a distinct
>>measure. The question aims at that distinct value,
>>therefore we cannot use the consequences of the
>>phenomenon and conclude "that's why C is a distinct
>>value".
>
> I would say that no answer can be given that can't be reanalyzed as you
> just have, or without leaving other questions unanswered. You fall into
> a regress of "Why?" until you leave the empirical and start making shit
> up. Beyond there lies metaphysics.
Yes but physics is not done that way. Physics is not
math. C is more "fundamental" than permittivity. There
is nothing in the definition of permittivity (of empty
space) that says _anything_ other than, "this is so
because speed of light is the constant C", while speed
of light being a constant is taken (in physics) as an
axiom, not a corollary to something proved or assumed
earlier.
kenseto
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bmts61hsq05b1ufd9...@4ax.com...
> [Ok. Here I go again. Physics is fun. :-D]
>
> In physics "why?" is a taboo word. If you ask why, the usual dickheads
> (you know who you are) will jump out of the woodwork like fucking bugs
> to insist that one is not allowed to ask why in physics. Fuck them!
> The way I see it, if you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you don't
> know jack shit. Your physics is chicken shit and you might as well be
> sucking the hind teat of a mule. My question for the day is this:
>
>
> If you don't know why and refuse to know why, you are a dickhead. If
> you don't know why and you try your best to prevent others from
> figuring out why, you are worse than a dickhead. You are a fucking
> mule's ass and a dickhead. But if you are willing to discuss this
> extremely important issue without being a dickhead, I am all ears.
> Let's discuss.
Because that's how fast the aether transmits light. The speed of light is a
constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"Maleki" <male...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1kdms95w5clwo$.u5ziyrb8ra67$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:13:31 GMT, Dirk Van de moortel
> wrote:
>
> > "Maleki" <male...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:k1njyrynhpbr$.nlokwaczwgsa.dlg@40tude.net...
> >> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:31:55 GMT, Bilge wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why is \pi exactly \pi and not some other value?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Because circles are always proportional to each other.
> >
> > Brilliant.
> >
> >> Can you say something equivalent about speed of light?
> >
> > Sure. The speed of light is always proportional to itself.
> >
> >>
> >> You must be an engineer.
> >
> > You must be "not even an engineer".
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> What you say is not an analogy for what I said. Pi is
> simply the measure of how many distances of the length
> equal to the diameter of a circle goes into the
> circumference of the circle. This is a clearly
> understood fact.
So *that* is why pi starts like 3.14159 as opposed to
3.14154. Thanks, I was not aware of that.
> Your analogy of light being
> proportional to itself (and therefore same value for
> c) is just stupid.
Really? Oh. Thanks, I had no idea.
>
> On my browser some time back I made it to show your
> posts in gray color (the ones I read are in other
> colors). I'm going to trust my earlier decision and
> leave you to yourself.
On my system your name appears in green, just like Savain's
and KenSeto's and many ohers.
"hahstink shAkhtann nekmis dimaa
za unizof damoa dosh dra mika"
- Wanalom
Maleki
Wow I goofed it up. Yes, C being the constant that it
is and permittivity being the constant that it is, are
equivalent statements. Therefore one cannot be used to
prove the other. But Al tried it.
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:aFybe.671$Eg...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
uh-oh...
prepare for The Clash Of The Village Idiot Titans!
Dirk Vdm
G=EMC^2 Glazier
different speeds. Being the structure of the electron cloud it can only
leave the spinning electron when 'c' is reached. We call this action
a "quantum jump" This event takes place when an electron in an atom goes
from one energy state to another,and at that point it emits a photon. It
ia all part of natures balancing act. Bert
yt56erd
have you two had a lovers tiff?
Traveler
<ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>Because that's how fast the aether transmits light.
Seto, how old are you anyway? You've been jacking off on usenet ever
since I can remember. You remind me of this little old Japanese guy I
used to know, years ago, when I used to live in Santa Monica, CA.
Every weekend, he would set up his percussion instruments on the Third
Street Promenade near Wilshire and start playing for the passers-by.
His music was fucking atrocious, to the point of being hilarious.
People would walk by and feel sorry for the old fart. Some would throw
in a quarter or even a dollar. Feeling encouraged, the old guy came
back week after week, not realizing how bad his music was. For all I
know, unless he croaked or something, he's still showing up on Third
Street Promenade with his set of kiddie drums and cymbals.
Moral of the story: You're going to be at it until you croak, Seto.
And then you'll be forgotten. You'll never be a physicist for the same
reason that the little old guy from Santa Monica will never be a
musician. But don't let that stop you, amigo. I hope you're at least
eating some good fresh sushi every night.
Futo Mago o kudasai. Hai.
Uncle Al
>
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:46:25 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > Given empirically measured permittivity and permeability of vacuum,
> > lightspeed is locked.
>
> Heh. The guy says why that particular measure of lag (in a
> charge changing its configuration, and this event felt at
> another point), and you say because I measure it and see
> that it is so.
>
> Why don't you just say you don't know.
Fucking imbecile, how much "lag" is there in a millimeter separation
of plates?
Fucking imbecile, Michelson-Morley showed no aether to 10^(-8) 1887,
and today no aether to to 1.7x10^(-15)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
Google
Kennedy-Thorndike 538 hits
Ives-Stilwell 114 hits
Hughes-Drever 1120 hits
Fucking imbecile.
Ding! Savain Ding! and to your idiot lamprey, too.
--
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:
>Michelson-Morley showed no aether to 10^(-8) 1887,
>and today no aether to to 1.7x10^(-15)
So no evidence for a drag-aether was ever found. So fucking what? This
is like saying, let us look for vampires in Transylvania and then,
when no vampires are found, start dancing and jumping up and down like
a bunch of fucking fools, claiming that you knew it all along. Eat
shit, you garlic breath motherfucker!
Note that the original concept of a drag-aether for the propagation of
EM waves was not a crank concept from the outside. It was invented by
and originated from the physics community. The drag-aether is a
fucking crackpot concept that you assholes created as a strawman so
you can claim victory after you wrestle it to the ground. It was only
later, after it was discredited, that the outside cranks took it up as
a cause célèbre.
The fact is that, there is another kind of aether, one that does not
offer resistance to motion but makes motion possible: No aether => no
motion. So remember who you got this from, dickhead. But no matter.
Usenet never forgets, anyway.
Rira bien qui rira le dernier.
Sam Wormley
The speed of light is constant for all observers, Seto. There is no
absolute time or space. No absolute state of motion or rest. It's all
relative.
Special Relativity is empirically correct. There have never been a
Predition of Special Relativity that was contradicted by a obsrvation.
Seto make blunder after blunder--his thinking is based of misconceptions
and flawed logic... and it's not just the Michelson and Morley experiment.
Immortal fumbles
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Crank registrations
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
At first I thought you were just misguided... but I now see that you are
truly a stooopid runt with no hope of being educated. Now probably just
trolling for attention.
+------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| PLEASE | | BEST TO IGNORE ATTENTION SEEKING TROLLS |
| DO NOT | | LIKE SETO -- THEY DRY |
| FEED | | UP AND BLOW AWAY WITHOUT FEEDBACK |
| DA | | |
| TROLLS | | http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/ |
+------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
`\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' /
Traveler
maggot wrote:
> There is no absolute time or space. No absolute state of
> motion or rest. It's all relative.
If it is all relative, then we would have a self-referential system
whereby everything is relative to itself.
You fucking shit-for-brains physicists just do not realize how fucking
stupid you are for repeating the same fucking nonsense year in and
year out. That you stupid motherfuckers got to be so powerful is a
testament to the efficacy of politics and propaganda in deceiving the
masses into believing in all sorts of crap. Feyerabend was right:
And how often does it not happen that the proud and conceited
judgment of an expert is put in its proper place by a layman!
Numerous inventors built 'impossible' machines. Lawyers show
again and again that an expert does not know what he is
talking about. Scientists, especially physicians, frequently
come to different results so that it is up to the relatives
of the sick person (or the inhabitants of a certain area) to
decide by vote about the procedure to be adopted. How often
is science improved, and turned into new directions by
non-scientific influences! it is up to us, it is up to the
citizens of a free society to either accept the chauvinism
of science without contradiction or to overcome it by the
counterforce of public action. Public action was used against
science by the Communists in China in the fifties, and it was
again used,, under very different circumstances, by some
opponents of evolution in California in the seventies. Let us
follow their example and let us free society from the
strangling hold of an ideologically petrified science just as
our ancestors freed us from the strangling hold of the One
True Religion!"
----
And a more detailed analysis of successful moves in the game
of science ('successful' from the point of view of the
scientists themselves) shows indeed that there is a wide range
of freedom that demands a multiplicity of ideas and permits
the application of democratic procedures (ballot-discussion-
vote) but that is actually closed by power politics and
propaganda. This is where the fairy-tale of a special method
assumes its decisive function. It conceals the freedom of
decision which creative scientists and the general public have
even inside the most rigid and the most advanced parts of
science by a recitation of 'objective' criteria and it thus
protects the big-shots (Nobel Prize winners; heads of
laboratories, of organizations such as the AMA, of special
schools; 'educators'; etc.) from the masses (laymen; experts
in non-scientific fields; experts in other fields of science):
only those citizens count who were subjected to the pressures
of scientific institutions (they have undergone a long process
of education), who succumbed to these pressures (they have
passed their examinations), and who are now firmly convinced
of the truth of the fairy-tale. This is how scientists have
deceived themselves and everyone else about their business,
but without any real disadvantage: they have more money, more
authority, more sex appeal than they deserve, and the most
stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their
domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time
to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest
position in society.
From "Against Method" by Paul Feyerabend
Tom Capizzi
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114545089.058bda6806d376c97dfe9f9a3cca1916@teranews...
> On a sunny day (Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:53:14 -0400) it happened "AllYou!"
> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in <NdSdna2i-bS...@conversent.net>:
>>
>>At the moment of the big-bang, all was shear energy, all moved at infinite
>>speed, and all
>>was an infinite point. But then, for some reason, energy began to convert
>>to mass, and
>>all mass slowed. c represents the extent to which all observers have
>>slowed since the big
>>bang.
> You probably know very well (at least I hope so) that in nature
> 'infinites'
> never happen.
> So one can bet 100% that it did not start that way.
> Some religious creationist belief may well go that path (God, infinite,
> big bang, ..some evolution. , there was Uncle Al).
>
> Anyways ANY theory that predics an 'infinite' anywhere in nature, in past
> present or future, is likely wrong, and you can quote me on that.
>
Don't rule out the possibility of infinity. The impulse is a well known
function in
mathematics and used extensively in signal processing. It has infinite
amplitude,
zero duration, and finite area under the 'curve'. So, if infinity is
predicted in this
capacity, it may actually be legitimate.
> How can it be
> that the infinite sea
> allows deserts to be
> without rain.
>
> So, as usually there is a contradiction.
> But it really does not bother me.
>
shevek
Traveler wrote:
> In article <1114541178.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "she...@yahoo.com" <she...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >eightwings2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Uncle Al wrote:
> >> > Traveler wrote:
> >> > [snip stooopidity]
> >> >
> >> > > Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other
value?
> >> >
> >> > Given empirically measured permittivity and permeability of
vacuum,
> >> > lightspeed is locked.
> >>
> >> don't want anybody else to know, fuck you. [..]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I think Al answered why pretty well, Louis.
> >
> >The speed of light is set to c (exactly) as a matter of definition
of
> >protocol. That is the way we say what a meter is. The reason for
the
> >speed of light being exactly c is that we must agree on a unit of
> >distance so we can communicate effictively.
>
> Shevek, the speed of light has nothing to do with our chosen units of
> measurements.
My dictionary disagrees with you, the speed of light is explicitly
mentioned under "meter".
> Notice that I said c and not 299,792,458 meters/second
> nor 186,282 miles/second.
If you chose another way of defining meter, such as using a meter stick
or another kind of propogation (e.g. sound), the speed of light would
no longer be constant.
Traveler
<etian...@verizon.net> wrote:
[cit]
>Don't rule out the possibility of infinity. The impulse is a well known
>function in mathematics and used extensively in signal processing. It
>has infinite amplitude, zero duration, and finite area under the 'curve'.
>So, if infinity is predicted in this capacity, it may actually be
>legitimate.
You are such a fucking bullshitter, Capizzi. You may fool others but
you don't fool me, you lying sack of shit. Have you no fucking shame,
asshole? But then again, I have come to expect ingrained dishonesty in
the scientific community. You are a bunch of know-it-all braggarts and
your are insufferably pompous on top of it.
In signal processing, they use an **approximation** of a series of
many waveforms, the so-called transfer functions. These are expressed
the usual way in math as an "infinite" recursive series. The fact is
that there is nothing infinite about it since no infinite series can
be truly represented, EVER. It is always left as an exercise to the
reader to **imagine** that the series is infinite even though it is
not.
The signal filters used in signal processing are referred to as
infinite impulse response or IIR filters. Not because there is
anything infinite about them but because of the mathematical origin of
the series. Once again, Capizzi, get your fucking empty head out of
your fucking ass and stop being so fucking dishonest, you fucking
asshole.
>> So, as usually there is a contradiction.
>> But it really does not bother me.
Why doesn't this surprise me in the least?
Traveler
"shevek" <she...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> In article <1114541178.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "she...@yahoo.com" <she...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
[cut]
>> Shevek, the speed of light has nothing to do with our chosen units of
>> measurements.
>
>My dictionary disagrees with you, the speed of light is explicitly
>mentioned under "meter".
>
>> Notice that I said c and not 299,792,458 meters/second
>> nor 186,282 miles/second.
>
>If you chose another way of defining meter, such as using a meter stick
>or another kind of propogation (e.g. sound), the speed of light would
>no longer be constant.
This is funny and pathetic at the same time. You're hopeless Shevek.
Fuck off!
Gregory L. Hansen
While that is true, what is fundamental has a lot to do with your theory.
An aetherist might say the properties of the aether are fundamental, and c
is derived from them.
Physics stops at first-order made-up shit, like spacetime or the
wavefunction, which are directly related to measureable things.
--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
Gregory L. Hansen
I still agreed with you before. Relativity is a mechanics. It says
nothing directly about forces or particles or what does and doesn't
exist, but it constitutes the kinematics; the description of space and
time and motion and transformations. Given a Coulomb force, relativity
requires there be a magnetic force, but it does not require that the
Coulomb force itself exists. It doesn't require that the strong or weak
forces exist. That's additional information. But you cannot talk about
forces until you have a mechanics so that you can say what forces do.
You can't say what F=ma means at least until you know what "a" means.
--
"Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of
Congress... But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
xx...@bellsouth.net
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <1114541131.e0f431cc506c36662f54e8064e740a5a@teranews>,
> Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On a sunny day (Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:29:28 GMT) it happened "Dirk Van
de
> >moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> ><YTube.74409$Dk5.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
> >
> >>
> >>"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:bmts61hsq05b1ufd9...@4ax.com...
> >>> [Ok. Here I go again. Physics is fun. :-D]
> >>
> >>Try to talk to this 'person', and you can expect a reply like:
> >>
>
>http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PoliteConversation.html
> >>
> >>Dirk Vdm
> >But he asks the right question, why not give the right answer?
>
>
> What would constitute an answer?
>
> You might relate c to the permeability and permittivity of space, but
> that begs the question of why the permeability and permittivity of
space
> have the values that they do. If you're one of those folks that
think
> light is an undulation of the aether, you're left with figuring out
why
> the aether has that density and Young's modulus (or whatever
properties
> you want to say it has). And it doesn't address the role of c in,
> e.g., p=mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in a context that has nothing to do with
> electromagnetism.
>
> --
> "Not that there's anything wrong with just lying around on your back.
In
> its way, rotting is interesing too... It's just that there are other
ways
> to spend your time as a cadaver." -- Mary Roach, "Stiff", 2003.
xxein: Your answer is shortsighted when an absolute comes into the
question. Iow, you defend the theory of Einstein without exploring
others sans Einstein. You might just as well say that nothing works
because it is not the Einsteinian.
Subjective comes from relative and relative comes from objective. It
is not the reverse. Einstein's math describes the subjective
measurement made by the relatively made (comparison) observations of
the objective nature. The "connections" that most call laws are but
the viewpoint from the subjective observer.
R = 3M and 'c (for every observer measurement)' are actually a mixture
of terms. The first is objective and the second is subjective. It is
as momentum is relative and nature does not give a crap for how you
measure it as long as there is a continuity of that measurement. I'll
state it bluntly as "nature is continuous and our subjective
measurement of it is continuous, but our subjective measurement is an
effect of the objective nature". What this means, in simple terms, for
an instance, is that we see a light frequency adjusted to how fast we
move wrt to its lightspeed and with a time dilational effect that is
caused by the 'how fast we are moving wrt to the lightspeed' that
governs how fast we think "time" proceeds. We can only make subjective
measurements. Combine that with TWLS and you have half a theory. You
need OWLS to wrap it up.
Geez! To make this short, it is as if we let ourselves read "My Pet
Goat" and try to derive the objective laws of nature from it. There is
no "there" there.
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein:
"It has nothing to do with genius. It has to do with perseverance,
honesty of thought and backbone."
I'll take the honesty of thought. The rest is social compatibility.
Although,,, perseverance to aquire an honesty of thought is the louded
method to achieve it.
The backbone, to which you refer, is merely an expression of a belief
that one wishes all could understand/share.
xx...@bellsouth.net
Uncle Al wrote:
> Traveler wrote:
> [snip stooopidity]
>
> > Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
> [snip more stooopidity]
>
> Given empirically measured permittivity and permeability of vacuum,
> ineducable idiot Savain, for a Lorentz transformation. Given any
> achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed, the bound
> on the relative velocities of V1 and V2 as viewed by any inertial
> observer cannot exceed
>
> (V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]
>
> This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of
> motion. For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta, Jackson gives
>
> u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)
> u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))
>
> <http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/~souther/waves02/feb0402/sld011.htm>
>
> Relativistic doppler shift,
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html
> http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~rfield/PHY2061/images/chp39_2.pdf
>
> DING! SAVAIN DING!
> Idiot.
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
xxein: You mean subjectively measured, of course. How mundane is that?
Uncle Al
>
> In article <426EC5B9...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Michelson-Morley showed no aether to 10^(-8) 1887,
> >and today no aether to to 1.7x10^(-15)
>
> So no evidence for a drag-aether was ever found. So fucking what?
Say "Hi!" to the Keebler elves for us, idiot Savain.
DING! Savrain DING!
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: But there is no infinite speed for anything! That's what
connects this universe to itself.
Drag is a perfectly normal function wrt this universe because of finite
c.
There is no other ether than what is. You had better think some more
to make it compatible to what we see and measure.
Ray Gordon
>>
>> you don't know why and you try your best to prevent others from
>> figuring out why, you are worse than a dickhead. You are a fucking
>> mule's ass and a dickhead. But if you are willing to discuss this
>> extremely important issue without being a dickhead, I am all ears.
>
>
> I think nobody knows why.
Are you serious?
E=mc2 doesn't mean
Energy = Mass * speed-of-light (squared)
It means:
Energy Mass * CONSTANT(squared).
The speed of light is A constant, but not the ONLY constant.
Hope that answers your question.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
Ray Gordon
> Wow I goofed it up. Yes, C being the constant that it
> is and permittivity being the constant that it is, are
> equivalent statements. Therefore one cannot be used to
> prove the other. But Al tried it.
C is not the speed of light; c is any constant.
The speed of light is a constant.
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Traveler wrote:
>>
>> In article <426EC5B9...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
>> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Michelson-Morley showed no aether to 10^(-8) 1887,
>> >and today no aether to to 1.7x10^(-15)
>>
>> So no evidence for a drag-aether was ever found. So fucking what?
>[snip room temp IQ crap]
>
>Say "Hi!" to the Keebler elves for us, idiot Savain.
You are sure in a good mood today, Uncle. Did Dick Van de merde and
John Baez take turn fucking you in the ass last night? Or are *you*
the regular romp ranger in the gang?
Traveler
xx...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> In article <426EC5B9...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
>> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Michelson-Morley showed no aether to 10^(-8) 1887,
>> >and today no aether to to 1.7x10^(-15)
>>
>> So no evidence for a drag-aether was ever found. So fucking what?
>> This is like saying, let us look for vampires in Transylvania and
>> then, when no vampires are found, start dancing and jumping up
>> and down like a bunch of fucking fools, claiming that you knew it
>> all along. Eat shit, you garlic breath motherfucker!
>>
>> Note that the original concept of a drag-aether for the propagation
>> of EM waves was not a crank concept from the outside. It was
>> invented by and originated from the physics community. The drag-
>> aether is a fucking crackpot concept that you assholes created as a
>> strawman so you can claim victory after you wrestle it to the ground.
>> It was only later, after it was discredited, that the outside cranks
>> took it up as a cause célèbre.
>>
>> The fact is that, there is another kind of aether, one that does not
>> offer resistance to motion but makes motion possible: No aether => no
>> motion. So remember who you got this from, dickhead. But no matter.
>> Usenet never forgets, anyway.
[cut]
>
>xxein: But there is no infinite speed for anything!
Haysoos Martinez! You're so close yet so far. Shame.
> That's what connects this universe to itself.
I am not exactly sure what this means. But if you mean that the
universe is ONE, you'll get no objection from me.
>Drag is a perfectly normal function wrt this universe because of finite
>c.
Nope, that's not it. If aether drag was resisting the motion of
photons, they would slow down and eventually stop. This is not
observed. There is no aether drag. It's a myth, pure unmitigated
crackpottery invented by the powers that be in the physics community
to throw people off.
I'll let you in on a very small part of the secret. Not only is there
no such thing as infinite speed in the universe, it is much, MUCH more
restrictive than that. The shocking truth is that there is only one
speed in the universe and that speed is c. Heck, this is so important,
I think it deserves its own line:
There is only one speed in the universe and that speed is c.
That's right. You read correctly. Once you accept that the universe is
discrete (if you don't already know this, you are a fucking moron and
you should put me in your killfile because you are wasting my fucking
time), the inevitable conclusion is that there is only one speed (I'll
explain why in a future article).
When we observe speeds that appear lower than c macroscopically, what
is really going on underneath at the micro level is a series of
quantum jumps and rests. All the quantum jumps have a minimum
fundamental length and duration and occur exactly at c, the only speed
that exists in reality. The sizes of the rest intervals can be any
multiple of a fundamental minimum duration. I call it the fundamental
cause/effect or interaction lag. This fundamental interval is possibly
Planck time (more on this later). During motion, the jump/rest
intervals are chosen probabilistically so as to conserve momentum over
time.
The above is the reason for the probabilistic nature of QM and why
subatomic particles have probabilistic half-lives. Since there is only
one speed, nature must use the only thing it can use to obey
conservation laws over time: probability. More on this some other
time.
Of course, you are free to take any of this as you see fit. Makes no
difference to me. I am not trying to convert anybody. I am writing
this for the record. Usenet has perfect memory and is the perfect
historical recorder for my purposes.
>There is no other ether than what is. You had better think some more
>to make it compatible to what we see and measure.
Believe me, I have. More to come.
Traveler
<fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:bmts61hsq05b1ufd9...@4ax.com...
>| [Ok. Here I go again. Physics is fun. :-D]
>|
>| In physics "why?" is a taboo word. If you ask why, the usual dickheads
>| (you know who you are) will jump out of the woodwork like fucking bugs
>| to insist that one is not allowed to ask why in physics. Fuck them!
>| The way I see it, if you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you don't
>| know jack shit. Your physics is chicken shit and you might as well be
>| sucking the hind teat of a mule. My question for the day is this:
>|
>| Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
>
>Pack Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" up your ass where your
>little brain is. He will tell you "why". ;-)
Funny. :-D
> The short version: The
>quantum "vacuum" is a dual space-time relativistic medium and this
>medium will have a characteristic max velocity.
A for effort but no cigar! Not even close.
jonah thomas
> "Maleki" <male...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:k1njyrynhpbr$.nlokwaczwgsa.dlg@40tude.net...
>>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:31:55 GMT, Bilge wrote:
>>>Why is \pi exactly \pi and not some other value?
>>Because circles are always proportional to each other.
> Brilliant.
>>Can you say something equivalent about speed of light?
> Sure. The speed of light is always proportional to itself.
I believe there's a fundamental difference here, and I'd be glad to be
shown there isn't. Here's how it goes.
When I was a kid I imagined maybe there were a bunch of other universes
where pi was equal to something else. Maybe in one of them it would be
3.141 and in another one it would be 3.142. Why not? Why did it have
to be this particular number? It could be any arbitrary number and we'd
still have circles, just their insides would maybe be a bit bigger
compared to their circumferences or something like that.
But then I learned a little mathematics.
pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 ....
Pi isn't just the circumference of a circle with diameter 1. Pi is
woven into the fundamental nature of arithmetic, and changing pi would
be like eating one peanut or changing one physical law.
(Of course, there's no guarantee that's actually the ratio of the
diameters of circles to their circumferences in the real world. If you
measured it carefully and it came out different inside a gravitational
field etc, then it would turn out that the real world is only an
approximation to a euclidean space, or vice versa. That would be
strange. But it would be hard to discover it. The people who make the
instruments you measured with would tend to calibrate against a standard
value of pi.
I have the strong impression that the particular speed of light in
vacuum is not as fundamental as pi. Another universe where it was half
as much or twice as much would require that some measured physical
constants would have to be different. It would be interesting if it
required planck's constant to be different, or other constants that seem
fundamental. But I expect that those universes would work perfectly
well, not like changing arithmetic around to let pi be different.
If it turns out that there's some reason why the speed of light has to
be what it is and not some other value, that universes with a different
value of c simply could not work, that would be *fascinating*. I
haven't heard any hint along those lines yet.
So there's a difference between "circles are always proportional to each
other" and "the speed of light is always proportional to itself". Or
maybe it's the same sort of thing which would be very much worth finding
out.
>>You must be an engineer.
> You must be "not even an engineer".
An old-fashioned liberal might ask "Why can't we all just get along?".
But we do get along. This is *how* we get along. If we have fun trying
to insult each other, who should grumble? We can have our fun now and
mop up the blood later.
Koobee Wublee
>
> So *that* is why pi starts like 3.14159 as opposed to
> 3.14154. Thanks, I was not aware of that.
The length of the circumference of any circle divided by this same circle's
diameter is 3.14159 and not 3.14154. Duh!!!
This is a case of intellectual degeneration. Dirk Van de moortel now starts
to fail 3rd grade math.
The Ghost In The Machine
<eightwi...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:22:10 -0400
<bmts61hsq05b1ufd9...@4ax.com>:
> [Ok. Here I go again. Physics is fun. :-D]
>
> In physics "why?" is a taboo word. If you ask why, the usual dickheads
> (you know who you are) will jump out of the woodwork like fucking bugs
> to insist that one is not allowed to ask why in physics. Fuck them!
> The way I see it, if you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you don't
> know jack shit. Your physics is chicken shit and you might as well be
> sucking the hind teat of a mule. My question for the day is this:
>
What other value would you have it be?
If one picks the right units (I'd suggest seconds and light-seconds),
one can define lightspeed to be exactly 1 length-unit per time-unit,
making certain theoretical calculations simpler; for example,
the SR gamma corrective factor can be written
1/sqrt(1-v^2) instead of 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
In fact, I've already named a unit: call it the kilonil,
which would be 1,000 nils. A nil would be about the length
of today's Imperial foot, and be the length light travels
in 1 nanosecond. A kilonil would be a bit shy of 1/5th
of a mile or almost exactly 3/10 of today's kilometer.
It would of course be the distance light travels in one
microsecond, but the term 'mil' is already in use (it's
1/1000 in). But that's OK; a kilonil can roughly replace
a kilometer in general usage -- eventually.
It's not clear to me that anyone else really cares about
all this but we're already 1 step away; the meter is now
defined to be exactly 1/299792458'th of a light-second.
However, converting all of the roadsigns worldwide will
be a you-know-what... :-)
In electromagnetic theory (what little I know about it),
c^2 = e_0 * mu_0.
Please clarify your question.
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
FrediFizzx
| In article <3d7q4qF...@individual.net>, "FrediFizzx"
| <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >news:bmts61hsq05b1ufd9...@4ax.com...
| >| [Ok. Here I go again. Physics is fun. :-D]
| >|
| >| In physics "why?" is a taboo word. If you ask why, the usual
dickheads
| >| (you know who you are) will jump out of the woodwork like fucking
bugs
| >| to insist that one is not allowed to ask why in physics. Fuck them!
| >| The way I see it, if you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you
don't
| >| know jack shit. Your physics is chicken shit and you might as well
be
| >| sucking the hind teat of a mule. My question for the day is this:
| >|
| >| Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
| >
| >Pack Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" up your ass where
your
| >little brain is. He will tell you "why". ;-)
|
| Funny. :-D
|
| > The short version: The
| >quantum "vacuum" is a dual space-time relativistic medium and this
| >medium will have a characteristic max velocity.
|
| A for effort but no cigar! Not even close.
Ya really need to get off that photon smokin' pipe. Volovik has it most
of it figured out. Some of the rest is at the link below. Pack some
Goldstone bosons in that pipe and take a toke. Yummy!
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Dirk Van de moortel
"jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote in message news:8eDbe.70$Gb6....@news.uswest.net...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Maleki" <male...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:k1njyrynhpbr$.nlokwaczwgsa.dlg@40tude.net...
> >>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:31:55 GMT, Bilge wrote:
>
> >>>Why is \pi exactly \pi and not some other value?
>
> >>Because circles are always proportional to each other.
>
> > Brilliant.
>
> >>Can you say something equivalent about speed of light?
>
> > Sure. The speed of light is always proportional to itself.
>
> I believe there's a fundamental difference here,
Really?
Wow.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote in message news:BlFbe.33237$lv1.15919@fed1read06...
Koobee Wublee aka Australopithecus Afarensis aka Scholarly
Fungi aka Time Traveler:
Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=bdq09.28353$Fq6.2...@news2.west.cox.net
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=V1r09.661180$352.138570@sccrnsc02
| "Scholarly Fungi" <scholar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:bdq09.28353$Fq6.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
| > It is also unfortunate that most of the folks blindly embracing this
| > holohaux come from the white supremacists. I don't see what this would gain
| > for them other than trying to antagonize the Jews. However, this is
| > history. When I was in my early high school years, I independently came up
| > with what Butz was saying without knowing his existence. Hey, I am very
| > proud of my humble analytical skills.
Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=NnI09.31007$Fq6.3...@news2.west.cox.net
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=a1777f85.0207...@posting.google.com
| "Scholarly Fungi" <scholar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:<NnI09.31007$Fq6.3...@news2.west.cox.net>...
| > All history is written upon congruency among the historians but except one.
| > The Holocaust was born in the court rooms of Nueremberg. It is a complete
| > hoax.
| >
| > I did not know of Arthur Butz, but I independently came up with that
| > hypothesis noticing the tremendous amount of inconsistencies while studying
| > holohoax in high school.
Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=fytJa.78487%24%2542.6441%40fed1read06
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=XvKJa.100908$hd6.25327@fed1read05
| "Australopithecus Afarensis" <lu...@olduvaigorge.net> wrote in message
| news:fytJa.78487$%42.6441@fed1read06...
| > Thanks for posting all that and your own comments at the end. There are so
| > many lies after lies conjured up against the Nazis. I guess I'd better read
| > "Mein Kampf" to get it from the horse's mouth. It will be on my
| > things-to-do list for the near future.
Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=uMeDa.59118%24%2542.39687%40fed1read06
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=v3jsdv43ch9d4nnd1...@4ax.com
| On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:42:04 -0700, "Australopithecus Afarensis"
| <lu...@olduvaigorge.net> wrote:
|
| >Thanks for answering these questions fair and square.
| >
| >Although I don't speak for all other Australopithecine, I certainly want to
| >be as less nationalistic as possible. I am an individual just trying to
| >learn as much as I can before my short life expires on this earth.
| >
| >OK, now the media and "media"-controlled educational history have painted
| >the Nazis as the most fiendish group of people ever lived through out the
| >entire history of mankind. When I was growing up, I was constantly reminded
| >that the Nazis were so genocidal, they will kill any non-Germans in a heart
| >beat. After getting constantly bombarded with Nazi atrocities, I was very
| >much like the rest. Well, until one clip of film showing mountains of hair
| >inside a giant oven, the purpose was to show how many people murdered and
| >cremated. As a young scientist-to-be, it just hit me that the whole sh*t
| >was a lie. As far as I knew, the human hair would burn first. After
| >meticulous research and reasoning, I have concluded the WWII Nazis were no
| >more atrocious than any other governments in the 20th century or beyond.
| >Many of these information mostly came out after the explosion of the
| >internet where all skeletons in the closets finally have a chance to tell
| >their side of the story. Now, what is your plan to the public to shed these
| >negative sentiments accused against your political group?
| >
Dan
He is asking why the speed of light is C.
In other words, how does that value relate to, say, the size of the universe
etc? There is no answer to this. Its just what we measure.
What Traveler fails to realise is IT DOESNT MATTER THAT WE DON'T KNOW.
Phyiscs is used to try to model stuff that happens so we can create stuff
that does something perfectly every time - such as computers etc. We don't
know what light travels at a certain speed but we can sure as hell use light
and that speed value to calculate time delays in transmission etc.
Bilge
>
>> Why is \pi exactly \pi and not some other value?
>>
>
>Because circles are always proportional to each other.
are always proportional to each other. Does that have something
to do with \pi? But, let me try to make this more transparent.
Why does \pi have the value \pi = 180 degrees/radian?
>Can you say something equivalent about speed of light?
Velocity (\beta) is the slope of a line in a spacetime plane with
\beta = tanh(A). The tanh(A) = tanh(A + ik\pi). The velocity of
light is \beta = 1. It's dimensionless just like the slope of any
other line in a coordinate system. Any questions?
>You must be an engineer.
No, and I don't consider all engineers to be nut cases just because
engineers comprise the largest variety of nut cases and closed minded
nincompoops on this newsgroup. For example, you're holding your own
in the nincompoop department even though I gather that you don't want
to identified with the engineers to whom you refer. Next time, think
before posting.
Tom Capizzi
>> "Maleki" <male...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:k1njyrynhpbr$.nlokwaczwgsa.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:31:55 GMT, Bilge wrote:
>
>>>>Why is \pi exactly \pi and not some other value?
>
>>>Because circles are always proportional to each other.
>
>> Brilliant.
>
>>>Can you say something equivalent about speed of light?
>
>> Sure. The speed of light is always proportional to itself.
>
> I believe there's a fundamental difference here, and I'd be glad to be
> shown there isn't. Here's how it goes.
>
> When I was a kid I imagined maybe there were a bunch of other universes
> where pi was equal to something else. Maybe in one of them it would be
> 3.141 and in another one it would be 3.142. Why not? Why did it have to
> be this particular number? It could be any arbitrary number and we'd
> still have circles, just their insides would maybe be a bit bigger
> compared to their circumferences or something like that.
>
> But then I learned a little mathematics.
>
> pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 ....
>
The series that I like best involves the product of all terms of the form
(1 - 1/p^2)
where p is each and every prime number: 6/pi^2 = {Product over all prime
numbers
p} (1 - 1/p^2). So, although pi^2 is an irrational number, it is the
infinite product of
only rational factors.
Tom Capizzi
>
> Louis Savain
>
Nobody asked for your opinion. Go back in your closet.
Bilge
>In article <slrnd6t8uj....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>,
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>
>> Jan Panteltje:
>> >On a sunny day (Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:29:28 GMT) it happened "Dirk Van de
>> >moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
>> ><YTube.74409$Dk5.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b
>> >>> [Ok. Here I go again. Physics is fun. :-D]
>> >>
>> >>Try to talk to this 'person', and you can expect a reply like:
>> >> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Poli
>> >>
>> >But he asks the right question, why not give the right answer?
>>
>>follow an attempt to answer his question would be better off posting
>>it themselves and avoid having to slog through the eloquent prose that
>>numbskull spews to divert attention from his misconceptions.
>
>Why don't you stop licking ass and pack your opinion up your ass,
>Bilge? :-D
Because I don't want to give you an excuse to go sniffing around
or attempting to camoflage your face as a toilet seat to get my opinion.
I'd just as soon post it and not have to kick the commode to see if
you in disguise.
Steve Ralph
This is the best yet, congratulations, this is the stuff of sheer
genius. I salute you for these heroic steps, this vast leap in human
understanding.
> The above is the reason for the probabilistic nature of QM and why
> subatomic particles have probabilistic half-lives. Since there is only
> one speed, nature must use the only thing it can use to obey
> conservation laws over time: probability. More on this some other
> time.
>
> Of course, you are free to take any of this as you see fit. Makes no
> difference to me. I am not trying to convert anybody. I am writing
> this for the record. Usenet has perfect memory and is the perfect
> historical recorder for my purposes.
>
>>There is no other ether than what is. You had better think some more
>>to make it compatible to what we see and measure.
>
> Believe me, I have. More to come.
I look foreward to it with relish.
SR
St.M
Bilge wrote:
> Maleki:
> >On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:31:55 GMT, Bilge wrote:
> >
> >> Why is \pi exactly \pi and not some other value?
> >>
> >
> >Because circles are always proportional to each other.
>
> Squares are always proportional to each other. Line segments
> are always proportional to each other. Does that have something
> to do with \pi? But, let me try to make this more transparent.
> Why does \pi have the value \pi = 180 degrees/radian?
>
> >Can you say something equivalent about speed of light?
>
> Of course, otherwise I wouldn't have posted what I did.
> Velocity (\beta) is the slope of a line in a spacetime plane with
> \beta = tanh(A). The tanh(A) = tanh(A + ik\pi). The velocity of
> light is \beta = 1. It's dimensionless just like the slope of any
> other line in a coordinate system. Any questions?
>
Brilliant
Bilge
>"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
>in message news:bMybe.74682$8L1.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>
>> So *that* is why pi starts like 3.14159 as opposed to
>> 3.14154. Thanks, I was not aware of that.
>
>The length of the circumference of any circle divided by this same circle's
>diameter is 3.14159 and not 3.14154. Duh!!!
Does it register yet?
Bilge
>
>>>>Why is \pi exactly \pi and not some other value?
>
>>>Because circles are always proportional to each other.
>
>> Brilliant.
>
>>>Can you say something equivalent about speed of light?
>
>> Sure. The speed of light is always proportional to itself.
>
>I believe there's a fundamental difference here, and I'd be glad to be
>shown there isn't. Here's how it goes.
>
>When I was a kid I imagined maybe there were a bunch of other universes
>where pi was equal to something else. Maybe in one of them it would be
>3.141 and in another one it would be 3.142. Why not? Why did it have
>to be this particular number? It could be any arbitrary number and we'd
>still have circles, just their insides would maybe be a bit bigger
>compared to their circumferences or something like that.
is a geometric quantity, i.e., c = 1, since it's the slope of a line
in the x-t plane that's a null ray. The slope of any line in the
x-t plane is a velocity.
Bilge
>
>He is asking why the speed of light is C.
>In other words, how does that value relate to, say, the size of the universe
>etc? There is no answer to this. Its just what we measure.
>
>What Traveler fails to realise is IT DOESNT MATTER THAT WE DON'T KNOW.
(x,y,z,t). What's the relationship between the x and y axis,
i.e., if y = ax and you go equal distances in x and y, what is
the value for `a'? It's 1. The relationship between the x and t
axes is x = ct. If you go equal distances in x and t, what's
the value for `c'? It's 1, just like the first case. The units
meters and seconds are just an unfortunate choice that has no physical
significance, just like 180 degrees/radian has no physical significance
for the value of \pi.
Traveler
<etian...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:aukt61d2rgnjp2vdh...@4ax.com...
>> In article <liAbe.6426$WX.3157@trndny01>, "Tom Capizzi"
>> <etian...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>[snip crap]
>>
>> Louis Savain
>>
>Nobody asked for your opinion. Go back in your closet.
Lame.
Traveler
[cut]
>Thank you, Dirk.
>The thread resulting from his post proves you were right all along.
Silence in the room, please. MASS (Mutual Ass Sniffers Society) is in
session. Bend over, godamnit!
kenseto
> In article <aFybe.671$Eg...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, "kenseto"
> <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >Because that's how fast the aether transmits light.
>
> Seto, how old are you anyway? You've been jacking off on usenet ever
> since I can remember. You remind me of this little old Japanese guy I
> used to know, years ago, when I used to live in Santa Monica, CA.
> Every weekend, he would set up his percussion instruments on the Third
> Street Promenade near Wilshire and start playing for the passers-by.
> His music was fucking atrocious, to the point of being hilarious.
>
> People would walk by and feel sorry for the old fart. Some would throw
> in a quarter or even a dollar. Feeling encouraged, the old guy came
> back week after week, not realizing how bad his music was. For all I
> know, unless he croaked or something, he's still showing up on Third
> Street Promenade with his set of kiddie drums and cymbals.
>
> Moral of the story: You're going to be at it until you croak, Seto.
> And then you'll be forgotten. You'll never be a physicist for the same
> reason that the little old guy from Santa Monica will never be a
> musician. But don't let that stop you, amigo. I hope you're at least
> eating some good fresh sushi every night.
>
> Futo Mago o kudasai. Hai.
kenseto
You are a fucking idiot. You asked a question I gave you my answer...so why
do you have to insult me? Also, I am not Japanese.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:A0Abe.17871$c24.8315@attbi_s72...> > news:bmts61hsq05b1ufd9...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>[Ok. Here I go again. Physics is fun. :-D]
> >>
> >>(you know who you are) will jump out of the woodwork like fucking bugs
> >>to insist that one is not allowed to ask why in physics. Fuck them!
> >>The way I see it, if you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you don't
> >>know jack shit. Your physics is chicken shit and you might as well be
> >>sucking the hind teat of a mule. My question for the day is this:
> >>
> >>
> >>If you don't know why and refuse to know why, you are a dickhead. If
> >>you don't know why and you try your best to prevent others from
> >>figuring out why, you are worse than a dickhead. You are a fucking
> >>mule's ass and a dickhead. But if you are willing to discuss this
> >>extremely important issue without being a dickhead, I am all ears.
> >>Let's discuss.
> >
> >
> > Because that's how fast the aether transmits light. The speed of light
is a
> > constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
> > Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
> > clock second co-moving with the rod.
> >
> > Ken Seto
> >
> >
>
> The speed of light is constant for all observers, Seto. There is no
> absolute time or space. No absolute state of motion or rest. It's all
> relative.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"shevek" <she...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114559927....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Traveler wrote:
> > In article <1114541178.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "she...@yahoo.com" <she...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >eightwings2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> Uncle Al wrote:
> > >> > Traveler wrote:
> > >> > [snip stooopidity]
> > >> >
> > >> > > Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other
> value?
> > >> >
> > >> > Given empirically measured permittivity and permeability of
> vacuum,
> > >> > lightspeed is locked.
> > >>
> > >> I asked WHY, [..]. Since you don't know, don't want to know, and
> > >> don't want anybody else to know, fuck you. [..]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >I think Al answered why pretty well, Louis.
> > >
> > >The speed of light is set to c (exactly) as a matter of definition
> of
> > >protocol. That is the way we say what a meter is. The reason for
> the
> > >speed of light being exactly c is that we must agree on a unit of
> > >distance so we can communicate effictively.
> >
> > Shevek, the speed of light has nothing to do with our chosen units of
> > measurements.
>
> My dictionary disagrees with you, the speed of light is explicitly
> mentioned under "meter".
>
> > Notice that I said c and not 299,792,458 meters/second
> > nor 186,282 miles/second.
>
> If you chose another way of defining meter, such as using a meter stick
> or another kind of propogation (e.g. sound), the speed of light would
> no longer be constant.
That's not true. Using light-second to measure the length of a meter is born
from a physical meter stick. The speed of light using the TWLS procedure is
a constant c whether it is measured with a meter stick or light-second.
Ken Seto
>
Traveler
<ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
>Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
>A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
>know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
>beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
>the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
>gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
>disagrees with SR.
LOL. Are you implying that Sam Wormley is a gutless ass maggot? I
thought so. I like your vivid poetry, Seto. :-D
PS. Sorry for assuming you were Japanese. But I still think you should
expand your focus in physics.
newedana
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 undersanding the light and its propagation chracters.
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 today 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 affected
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 the one receives it in the
same train, because man 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 wavelength of light due to Doppler effect
becomes restored when the detector receives it, because the detector
receives the wave signal as it advances with the same speed as the
source, and vice versa. Albert Einstein didn't know this simple plain
truth. 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 soure 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 speed of source is excluded. This is the very
evidence he didn't know how to remove the speed of source v 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 expressed with a stupid equation: v=(v' + u )/1+v'u/c^2, by
borrowing the idea of Lorents space contraction. In addition 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 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 accept that 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 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, involving no speed factor, but containing wavelength of
incident light, mass desity 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 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 QEM 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 detecot would receive two signals
interfering with one another, exactly the same as that Fizeau
experienced 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. newedana says based on Dr.Yoon's new
physics.
>
Traveler
"Steve Ralph" <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:
Given the nature of this thread and of usenet discussions in general,
I have no idea whether or not you're pulling my leg but it makes no
difference.
For the few that are truly interested in this subject and where it
will lead, let me add here that the existence of only one speed in
reality (c) turns the question posed by the title of this thread
around 180 degrees. We should no longer ask,
Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
but
Why is any measured *macroscopic* speed a specific fraction of c?
More to come.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2j5v61h752qvis721...@4ax.com...
> In article <426f4f5f$0$559$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>,
> "Steve Ralph" <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> >I look foreward to it with relish.
>
> Given the nature of this thread and of usenet discussions in general,
> I have no idea whether or not you're pulling my leg but it makes no
> difference.
Unlike you, who seems to be pulling something much
shorter, of course he was pulling your leg, you stupid
hog.
>
> For the few that are truly interested in this subject and where it
> will lead, let me add here that the existence of only one speed in
> reality (c) turns the question posed by the title of this thread
> around 180 degrees. We should no longer ask,
>
> Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
>
> but
>
> Why is any measured *macroscopic* speed a specific fraction of c?
Nice.
So we don't have to ask the question
Why is pi exactly pi and not some other value?
but we should ask
Why do we always measure something different
than the exact value of pi?
Or do we, pig?
>
> More to come.
When you stop pulling it, it really might start coming.
>
> Louis Savain
Ding, Ding!
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
>
>"Traveler" wrote:
>> "Steve Ralph" wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >I look foreward to it with relish.
>>
>> Given the nature of this thread and of usenet discussions in general,
>> I have no idea whether or not you're pulling my leg but it makes no
>> difference.
>
>Unlike you, who seems to be pulling something much
>shorter, of course he was pulling your leg, you stupid
>hog.
Hey, Van de merde, earlier in this thread you wrote this:
Message-ID: <llxbe.74573$XJ3.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>
>Do you think that I read his messages?
Duh, of course you do. You are responding to one of my posts right
now. You have a homosexual obsession with my person, admit it.
>So I went back now to wade through his vomit, looking for
>his question. Okay, "Why is the speed of light exactly c and
>not some other value?"
Of course, that's the title of the very thread you were responding to.
How could you have missed it? Your stupidity and dishonesty are so
fucking transparent, Van de merde, you make the aether look like crude
oil.
>> For the few that are truly interested in this subject and where it
>> will lead, let me add here that the existence of only one speed in
>> reality (c) turns the question posed by the title of this thread
>> around 180 degrees. We should no longer ask,
>>
>> Why is the speed of light exactly c and not some other value?
>>
>> but
>>
>> Why is any measured *macroscopic* speed a specific fraction of c?
>
>Nice.
>So we don't have to ask the question
> Why is pi exactly pi and not some other value?
>but we should ask
> Why do we always measure something different
> than the exact value of pi?
>Or do we, pig?
Wow! You've taken serious offence, haven't you, Dick? Admit it,
goddamnit!
>> More to come.
>
>When you stop pulling it, it really might start coming.
What does John Baez's ass smell like today, Dick de merde?
she...@yahoo.com
Ken, suppose you choose to use a special physical meter stick to define
the meter. Now suppose that the meter stick is moving by you - instead
of length contraction of this meter stick, you have a length
contraction of the laboratory - and the speed of light in the
laboratory is no longer c.
Normally, we say that a meter stick flying through the lab is
contracted - but if that is your length standard it cannot be
contracted. Instead, a variable speed of light is observed.
The constant speed of light is due to our choice of units.