| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike" |
| Date: |
11 Nov 2006 04:32:06 AM |
| Object: |
c: the trick and the red herring |
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
as a
basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
(C) Mike
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 05:04:06 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163241126.112389.287970@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
An Undeniable history lesson for Bill Mike Smith:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
Most important detail: 1960.
But I'm sure you won't get the point ;-)
Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
as a
basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
(C) Mike
A true classic already:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Copyright.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 10:07:02 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163241126.112389.287970@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
An Undeniable history lesson for Bill Mike Smith:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
Most important detail: 1960.
But I'm sure you won't get the point ;-)
You do not get the point.
"The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second"
The definition of a meter already assumes a value for c. I think this
is not a problem. You can define c = 1m/s and then define the meter
accordingly.
The point is stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, that any experiment
that claims to verify the assumed value is a red herring. It will
verify what is already assumed. Furthermore, all measurements and
experiments that assume that a distance is known, already assume a
value for c.
The real issue is not how you define c but whether c depends on the
speed of the light source.
I do not think you should have any objection to the above unless you
are stooooooooooooooooooooooopid.
Mike
Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
as a
basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
(C) Mike
A true classic already:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Copyright.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 10:20:59 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163261222.409258.156370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163241126.112389.287970@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
An Undeniable history lesson for Bill Mike Smith:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
Most important detail: 1960.
But I'm sure you won't get the point ;-)
You do not get the point.
"The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second"
So you didn't get the point - *exactly* like I predicted :-)
Where you born autistic, or was it some kind of accident?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 10:37:13 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163261222.409258.156370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163241126.112389.287970@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
An Undeniable history lesson for Bill Mike Smith:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
Most important detail: 1960.
But I'm sure you won't get the point ;-)
You do not get the point.
"The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second"
So you didn't get the point - *exactly* like I predicted :-)
Where you born autistic, or was it some kind of accident?
No, please explain the "pont" otherwise there is no point and you are
bluffing once more.
Mike
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 10:58:53 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163263033.621447.171330@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163261222.409258.156370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163241126.112389.287970@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
An Undeniable history lesson for Bill Mike Smith:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
Most important detail: 1960.
But I'm sure you won't get the point ;-)
You do not get the point.
"The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second"
So you didn't get the point - *exactly* like I predicted :-)
Where you born autistic, or was it some kind of accident?
No, please explain the "pont" otherwise there is no point and you are
bluffing once more.
If you can't figure it out with the massive hint I gave you,
then all you get from me is a kick on the nose.
Explaining something to a clueless autistic imbecile?
You must think I'm naive :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 11:12:10 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163263033.621447.171330@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163261222.409258.156370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163241126.112389.287970@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
An Undeniable history lesson for Bill Mike Smith:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
Most important detail: 1960.
But I'm sure you won't get the point ;-)
You do not get the point.
"The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second"
So you didn't get the point - *exactly* like I predicted :-)
Where you born autistic, or was it some kind of accident?
No, please explain the "pont" otherwise there is no point and you are
bluffing once more.
If you can't figure it out with the massive hint I gave you,
then all you get from me is a kick on the nose.
Explaining something to a clueless autistic imbecile?
You must think I'm naive :-)
Naive and you got no point other than 1960 < 1964, which is irrelevant
wrt the point I am making.
Mike
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 11:22:56 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163265130.439370.293640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163263033.621447.171330@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163261222.409258.156370@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1163241126.112389.287970@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
An Undeniable history lesson for Bill Mike Smith:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
Most important detail: 1960.
But I'm sure you won't get the point ;-)
You do not get the point.
"The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second"
So you didn't get the point - *exactly* like I predicted :-)
Where you born autistic, or was it some kind of accident?
No, please explain the "pont" otherwise there is no point and you are
bluffing once more.
If you can't figure it out with the massive hint I gave you,
then all you get from me is a kick on the nose.
Explaining something to a clueless autistic imbecile?
You must think I'm naive :-)
Naive and you got no point other than 1960 < 1964, which is irrelevant
wrt the point I am making.
You think I'm naive.
http://www.2021.org/artists/lee_lozano/punch.jpg
My name is not Tom.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: the trick and the red herring |
12 Nov 2006 02:07:15 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in news:1163261222.409258.156370
@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
"The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second"
That is a rather recent definition.
The older definition of the meter (based on a primary standard bar of one
meter length) can be used to establish a distance.
In such a case, which was the case before the new standard was established,
all experiments and data indicated that the velocity of light was INDEPENDENT
of the velocity of both the source and the observer.
If you have data that indicates otherwise, please put it forth along with the
experiment that produced the data.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 12:26:45 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
The real issue is not how you define c but whether c depends on the
speed of the light source.
Cite just one textbook that shows that wave speed is dependent on the
speed of the source.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" |
|
| Title: Re: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 07:19:43 AM |
|
|
However, along that matter, an eventual possibility would appear, as it
would be as follows:
Ho = v / d
Therefore, where the Ho would be the constant, v would the velocity of
anything flying and the d would be the distance along anything to an
observer, and this what is all about, a definitely as a matter a fact.
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1163241126.112389.287970@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes
to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
as a
basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
(C) Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 09:28:22 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
as a
basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
(C) Mike
xxein: Mike said "c+v, where v is the speed of the source". And of
course the speed of the observer has nothing to do with it at all? It
can't change frequency or energy recieved?
When will you mathematical dolts realize that 1+1=2 only in the math
playworld. Try adding 1 Earth +1 Earth to get to get a physical
magnitude of 2 Earths. I don't think the cosmology will let such an
addend be of a linear nature.
Geez! Learn the difference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
12 Nov 2006 02:29:12 AM |
|
|
<xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1163302102.708667.16890@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Mike wrote:
| > Sorcerer wrote:
| > > "shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > > news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| > > |
| > > | However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes
to
| > > | get from point A to point B.
| > > |
| >
| > > Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
| >
| > ok
| >
| > > See y-deflection from signal B.
| >
| > ok
| >
| > > Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
| >
| > ok
| >
| > > Measure distance.
| >
| > Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
| > a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
| > the trick.
| >
| > > Divide distance by time
| >
| > Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
| > the
| > distance in the first place then:
| >
| > v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
| > distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
| >
| > But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
| > was used to determine the distance in the first place.
| >
| > Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
| > measurement no matter what.
| >
| > THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
| > trick. c
| > is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
| >
| > Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
| > assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
| > window in a fanto second.
| >
| > MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
| > ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
| > FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
| >
| > Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
| > and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
| > equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
| > the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
| >
| > Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
| > as a
| > basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
| >
| > (C) Mike
|
| xxein: Mike said "c+v, where v is the speed of the source". And of
| course the speed of the observer has nothing to do with it at all? It
| can't change frequency or energy recieved?
It's kinda hard to read the oscilloscope while zooming over the
electronics lab in an F14.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
|
| When will you mathematical dolts realize that 1+1=2 only in the math
| playworld. Try adding 1 Earth +1 Earth to get to get a physical
| magnitude of 2 Earths. I don't think the cosmology will let such an
| addend be of a linear nature.
|
| Geez! Learn the difference.
Excuse me, innumerate moron.
Try buying five lbs of potatoes and come home with one potato.
Whether you like it or not, the price of potatoes is 99 pence for 5
lbs and I get change for my pound coin in the *real* world where I live.
I can buy in kilograms too, but my greengrocer has never adopted
the metric system. He's a nice chap, he thinks of the old ladies
living alone on a pension that haven't adapted either. What
one does is pick out ones own potatoes and bag them, dirt as well.
Geez! 1+1 = 2 in the real world, not your cosmological play world,
and 1 Earth + 1 Mars is, was and will be 2 worlds in the foreseeable future.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
12 Nov 2006 08:04:16 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
<xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1163302102.708667.16890@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
xxein: Take your sack of potatoes and divide them in half. Send both
into circular orbit.
Let one sack be at 0 degree and the other at 180. Compare that to both
at the same place.
This is what I meant by non-linear. Can you understand me now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
12 Nov 2006 10:17:16 PM |
|
|
<xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1163383456.920053.96820@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
| > news:1163302102.708667.16890@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| xxein: Take your sack of potatoes and divide them in half. Send both
| into circular orbit.
|
| Let one sack be at 0 degree and the other at 180. Compare that to both
| at the same place.
|
| This is what I meant by non-linear. Can you understand me now?
You fucking liar, I never wrote that at all. How dare you accuse
me writing something I didn't. What I really wrote was
| <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
| news:1163302102.708667.16890@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
||
|| Mike wrote:
|| > Sorcerer wrote:
|| > > "shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
|| > > news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|| > > |
|| > > | However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal
takes
| to
|| > > | get from point A to point B.
|| > > |
|| >
|| > > Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
|| >
|| > ok
|| >
|| > > See y-deflection from signal B.
|| >
|| > ok
|| >
|| > > Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
|| >
|| > ok
|| >
|| > > Measure distance.
|| >
|| > Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
|| > a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
|| > the trick.
|| >
|| > > Divide distance by time
|| >
|| > Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
|| > the
|| > distance in the first place then:
|| >
|| > v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
|| > distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
|| >
|| > But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
|| > was used to determine the distance in the first place.
|| >
|| > Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
|| > measurement no matter what.
|| >
|| > THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
|| > trick. c
|| > is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
|| >
|| > Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
|| > assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
|| > window in a fanto second.
|| >
|| > MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
|| > ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
|| > FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
|| >
|| > Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
|| > and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
|| > equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
|| > the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
|| >
|| > Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
|| > as a
|| > basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
|| >
|| > (C) Mike
||
|| xxein: Mike said "c+v, where v is the speed of the source". And of
|| course the speed of the observer has nothing to do with it at all? It
|| can't change frequency or energy recieved?
|
| It's kinda hard to read the oscilloscope while zooming over the
| electronics lab in an F14.
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
|
||
|| When will you mathematical dolts realize that 1+1=2 only in the math
|| playworld. Try adding 1 Earth +1 Earth to get to get a physical
|| magnitude of 2 Earths. I don't think the cosmology will let such an
|| addend be of a linear nature.
||
|| Geez! Learn the difference.
|
| Excuse me, innumerate moron.
| Try buying five lbs of potatoes and come home with one potato.
| Whether you like it or not, the price of potatoes is 99 pence for 5
| lbs and I get change for my pound coin in the *real* world where I live.
| I can buy in kilograms too, but my greengrocer has never adopted
| the metric system. He's a nice chap, he thinks of the old ladies
| living alone on a pension that haven't adapted either. What
| one does is pick out ones own potatoes and bag them, dirt as well.
| Geez! 1+1 = 2 in the real world, not your cosmological play world,
| and 1 Earth + 1 Mars is, was and will be 2 worlds in the foreseeable
future.
|
|
Can you understand me now?
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
20 Nov 2006 08:31:07 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
<xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1163383456.920053.96820@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
| > news:1163302102.708667.16890@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| xxein: Take your sack of potatoes and divide them in half. Send both
| into circular orbit.
|
| Let one sack be at 0 degree and the other at 180. Compare that to both
| at the same place.
|
| This is what I meant by non-linear. Can you understand me now?
You fucking liar, I never wrote that at all. How dare you accuse
me writing something I didn't. What I really wrote was
| <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
| news:1163302102.708667.16890@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
||
|| Mike wrote:
|| > Sorcerer wrote:
|| > > "shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
|| > > news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|| > > |
|| > > | However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal
takes
| to
|| > > | get from point A to point B.
|| > > |
|| >
|| > > Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
|| >
|| > ok
|| >
|| > > See y-deflection from signal B.
|| >
|| > ok
|| >
|| > > Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
|| >
|| > ok
|| >
|| > > Measure distance.
|| >
|| > Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
|| > a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
|| > the trick.
|| >
|| > > Divide distance by time
|| >
|| > Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
|| > the
|| > distance in the first place then:
|| >
|| > v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
|| > distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
|| >
|| > But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
|| > was used to determine the distance in the first place.
|| >
|| > Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
|| > measurement no matter what.
|| >
|| > THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
|| > trick. c
|| > is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
|| >
|| > Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
|| > assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
|| > window in a fanto second.
|| >
|| > MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
|| > ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
|| > FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
|| >
|| > Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
|| > and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
|| > equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
|| > the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
|| >
|| > Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
|| > as a
|| > basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
|| >
|| > (C) Mike
||
|| xxein: Mike said "c+v, where v is the speed of the source". And of
|| course the speed of the observer has nothing to do with it at all? It
|| can't change frequency or energy recieved?
|
| It's kinda hard to read the oscilloscope while zooming over the
| electronics lab in an F14.
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
|
||
|| When will you mathematical dolts realize that 1+1=2 only in the math
|| playworld. Try adding 1 Earth +1 Earth to get to get a physical
|| magnitude of 2 Earths. I don't think the cosmology will let such an
|| addend be of a linear nature.
||
|| Geez! Learn the difference.
|
| Excuse me, innumerate moron.
| Try buying five lbs of potatoes and come home with one potato.
| Whether you like it or not, the price of potatoes is 99 pence for 5
| lbs and I get change for my pound coin in the *real* world where I live.
| I can buy in kilograms too, but my greengrocer has never adopted
| the metric system. He's a nice chap, he thinks of the old ladies
| living alone on a pension that haven't adapted either. What
| one does is pick out ones own potatoes and bag them, dirt as well.
| Geez! 1+1 = 2 in the real world, not your cosmological play world,
| and 1 Earth + 1 Mars is, was and will be 2 worlds in the foreseeable
future.
|
|
Can you understand me now?
Androcles
xxein: If you make a good point, I will support it, but you are
generally hopeless to understand what makes the physic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 09:30:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Mike wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
as a
basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
(C) Mike
xxein: Mike said "c+v, where v is the speed of the source". And of
course the speed of the observer has nothing to do with it at all? It
can't change frequency or energy recieved?
When will you mathematical dolts realize that 1+1=2 only in the math
playworld. Try adding 1 Earth +1 Earth to get to get a physical
magnitude of 2 Earths. I don't think the cosmology will let such an
addend be of a linear nature.
Geez! Learn the difference.
xxein: Subtract one "to get", Sorry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 07:51:42 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
as a
basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
It is already refuted with this trick:
http://tf.nist.gov/time/commonviewgps.htm
Save your keystrokes.
Sue...
(C) Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 08:15:47 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163253102.418374.9770@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
[snippety snip]
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.PNG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 08:39:38 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163253102.418374.9770@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
[snippety snip]
<< http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.PNG >>
Sehr guter Verdunkelung Meister. Du hast ihn kannst von intelligentem
leer sein veranschaulicht, ob flach oder rund. :o)
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 08:46:47 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163255978.574223.75300@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[ Schnitzelly Schnitzel]
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 10:18:17 AM |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
Mike wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
as a
basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
It is already refuted with this trick:
http://tf.nist.gov/time/commonviewgps.htm
Save your keystrokes.
dieses ist nicht in Verbindung stehend
Mike
Sue...
(C) Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Thing" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
11 Nov 2006 10:20:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 02:32:06 -0800, Mike wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
as a
basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
(C) Mike
What I don't get is that c = 1/sqrt(epsilon * mu) where
epsilon and mu are measurable constants appearing in
Maxwell's equations. In fact one may determine these
constants independent of a speed measurement. Now,
as you scream out "C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT"
doesn't this imply that light from a moving source
obey a different set of Maxwell equations that
light from a stationary source?? How does that work
exactly??
Regards
The
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
12 Nov 2006 07:10:43 AM |
|
|
"The Thing" <tthing@northpole.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.12.04.20.38.680096@northpole.com...
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 02:32:06 -0800, Mike wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes
to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
as a
basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
(C) Mike
What I don't get is that c = 1/sqrt(epsilon * mu) where
epsilon and mu are measurable constants appearing in
Maxwell's equations. In fact one may determine these
constants independent of a speed measurement. Now,
as you scream out "C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT"
doesn't this imply that light from a moving source
obey a different set of Maxwell equations that
light from a stationary source?? How does that work
exactly??
In order to understand why the physical constants
epsilon, mu, Z0, c and G arise in physics,
visit my web site and download the pdf file
"Uniting the four forces."
For those too busy or lazy
to download and read the short, graphic-oriented article,
I might point out that:
1. epsilon is used to equate electrical forces to mechanical forces.
2. mu is used to equate magnetic forces to mechanical forces.
3. c is used to equate time periods (Times) to time intervals (Spaces).
4. G is used to differentiate between masses perceived to be fixed in space,
and masses perceived to be varying in space.
To find out the roles played by Z0,
and RMS and average values in physics,
read the article.
Hint:
Astronomy tends to use peak (Instantaneous) and average property values.
Electro-magnetism tends to use peak and RMS property values.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
12 Nov 2006 02:37:33 AM |
|
|
The Thing wrote:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 02:32:06 -0800, Mike wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
as a
basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
(C) Mike
What I don't get is that c = 1/sqrt(epsilon * mu) where
epsilon and mu are measurable constants appearing in
Maxwell's equations.
No... eps and mu are not measurable. When you put
effective couplers in free space to make the measurement
it changes the value.
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
The feed point impedance of a reference dipole is
what is measured. Field theory translates ~70 ohims
to a free space impedance of ~377 ohms.
Then eps and mu are 'seesawed' to represent
dielectric and coupling structure
variations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_susceptibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_susceptibility
In fact one may determine these
constants independent of a speed measurement. Now,
as you scream out "C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT"
doesn't this imply that light from a moving source
obey a different set of Maxwell equations that
light from a stationary source?? How does that work
exactly??
The nearfield of the coupling structures ~moderates~
a transition from a free space dielectric
(mostly E plane:
"How an antenna launches its input power into
radiation: the pattern of the Poynting vector at
and near an antenna"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
)
to the coupling structure because the conservation
of charge and energy has to be preserved.
If the structure is moving, then the nearfield region
is also moving and distored in shape.
Sue...
Regards
The
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Thing" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
12 Nov 2006 10:25:27 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:37:33 -0800, Sue... wrote:
The Thing wrote:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 02:32:06 -0800, Mike wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
"shevek" <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163109781.416372.278300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| However, you'll need two clocks to measure how long any signal takes to
| get from point A to point B.
|
Trigger oscilloscope scan from point A (x-deflection).
ok
See y-deflection from signal B.
ok
Read time on oscilloscope time-base.
ok
Measure distance.
Ops, how do we measure distance? Ok, God wrote the Ten Commandments on
a 1 meter plate we can use as standard. Let's get serious and expose
the trick.
Divide distance by time
Obviously, since the assumed value of c is used in principle to measure
the
distance in the first place then:
v you measure = (c x T) / t where T is the time used in determing the
distance and t the time measured from the oscilloscope.
But T = t no matter what because the same method and same instrument
was used to determine the distance in the first place.
Thus, you will always get the assumed value of c for the distance
measurement no matter what.
THE TRICK: You always get the assumed c no matter what. That is the
trick. c
is implicit in all distance measurements. Nice trick.
Find a standard distance that will not be measured based on an
assumption about the speed of light value c and SR goes out of the
window in a fanto second.
MEASURING c THAT WAY WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE c NOT MATTER WHAT THE
ASSUMMED VALUE IS AND IT IS MORE THAN A TRICK. IT IS A RED HERRING
FROM THE REAL ISSUE: C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT.
Now, SRists, I understand your panic. Shortly, I will reveal a method
and apparatus for measuring the speed of light and prove that it is
equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the source. It is quite easy if
the trick is removed and the magic is exposed.
Also, anyone here who understands the trick I JUST exposed can use it
as a
basis for devising their own test provided they quote me.
(C) Mike
What I don't get is that c = 1/sqrt(epsilon * mu) where
epsilon and mu are measurable constants appearing in
Maxwell's equations.
No... eps and mu are not measurable.
That's a sweeping statement. All the equations in the
links below are derivable from Maxwell's equations which
summarize the basic physics in question. I assume voltage
and current are measurable since we do it all the time.
Now, if I construct a parallel plate capacitor
which I suspend in vacuum. I measure the
current flowing into the capacitor for a given frequency
of a sinusoidal excitation. I use Maxwell's equations
to obtain an expression relating my time and length
measurements of the capacitor geometry along with the
measured current to obtain an experimental value
for epsilon of vacuum in my capacitor. How would this
not be a measure of epsilon for the section of vacuum
in my experiment??
When you put
effective couplers in free space to make the measurement
it changes the value.
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
The feed point impedance of a reference dipole is
what is measured. Field theory translates ~70 ohims
to a free space impedance of ~377 ohms.
Then eps and mu are 'seesawed' to represent
dielectric and coupling structure
variations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_susceptibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_susceptibility
In fact one may determine these
constants independent of a speed measurement. Now,
as you scream out "C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT"
doesn't this imply that light from a moving source
obey a different set of Maxwell equations that
light from a stationary source?? How does that work
exactly??
The nearfield of the coupling structures ~moderates~
a transition from a free space dielectric
(mostly E plane:
"How an antenna launches its input power into
radiation: the pattern of the Poynting vector at
and near an antenna"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
)
to the coupling structure because the conservation
of charge and energy has to be preserved.
If the structure is moving, then the nearfield region
is also moving and distored in shape.
Sue...
I don't follow how your response addresses the question
asked of the OP. Perhaps I haven't read closely enough
but let me reformulate the question more clearly.
Mike has asserted that "C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT."
Suppose we have a region of vacuum that has EM fields
propagating through it originating from two sources. One
source is stationary while the other is moving. If Mike
measures the fields from the moving source he expects
to find these fields obeying Maxwell's equations with
one value of C while the fields from the stationary
source he would expect to see them obey Maxwell's equations
with a different value of C. So my question is how does
one choose which values of epsilon and mu (or C for that
matter) to use given any general EM fields in a region
of space?? It seems to me that if Mike's expectations
were true then we would have to junk Maxwell's equations
and replace them with a non-local version. This is because
moving sources can be moving very fast and can be very
far away from our local. The phenomena Mike describes
is fundamentally non-local for this reason.
Regards
The
Regards
The
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
12 Nov 2006 11:52:33 AM |
|
|
The Thing wrote:
[...]
What I don't get is that c = 1/sqrt(epsilon * mu) where
epsilon and mu are measurable constants appearing in
Maxwell's equations.
No... eps and mu are not measurable.
That's a sweeping statement. All the equations in the
links below are derivable from Maxwell's equations which
summarize the basic physics in question. I assume voltage
and current are measurable since we do it all the time.
They are measurable on a dipole antenna. I understand
that is how metrology labs do it.
Now, if I construct a parallel plate capacitor
which I suspend in vacuum. I measure the
current flowing into the capacitor for a given frequency
of a sinusoidal excitation. I use Maxwell's equations
to obtain an expression relating my time and length
measurements of the capacitor geometry along with the
measured current to obtain an experimental value
for epsilon of vacuum in my capacitor. How would this
not be a measure of epsilon for the section of vacuum
in my experiment??
To be clearer I should have specified eps_0 and mu_0
because the subject is light.
Maxwell used the now abandoned concept of
displacement-current because his model came from
fluid dynamics. That is what you are nibbling around
the edges of. Your measurement is not of a substance
between the plates, as Maxwell thought, but of the geometry
of the plates and how the charges on them are
coupled. Such a model won't radiate. so is unsuitable for
the eps and mu we use to characterise an electromagnetic
path because E field components are coupled
out to all of space.
The modern model isn't based on a magic fluid between
plates but rather replaces it with an impedance tranformer
(dipole) effectivly coupled out to all of space.
When you put
effective couplers in free space to make the measurement
it changes the value.
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
The feed point impedance of a reference dipole is
what is measured. Field theory translates ~70 ohims
to a free space impedance of ~377 ohms.
Then eps and mu are 'seesawed' to represent
dielectric and coupling structure
variations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_susceptibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_susceptibility
In fact one may determine these
constants independent of a speed measurement. Now,
as you scream out "C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT"
doesn't this imply that light from a moving source
obey a different set of Maxwell equations that
light from a stationary source?? How does that work
exactly??
The nearfield of the coupling structures ~moderates~
a transition from a free space dielectric
(mostly E plane:
"How an antenna launches its input power into
radiation: the pattern of the Poynting vector at
and near an antenna"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
)
to the coupling structure because the conservation
of charge and energy has to be preserved.
If the structure is moving, then the nearfield region
is also moving and distored in shape.
Sue...
I don't follow how your response addresses the question
asked of the OP. Perhaps I haven't read closely enough
but let me reformulate the question more clearly.
Mike has asserted that "C IS SPEED OF SOURCE DEPENDENT."
Half of the charges responsible for radiation aren't even
part of the source so he is at least half wrong. :o)
Suppose we have a region of vacuum that has EM fields
propagating through it originating from two sources.
In this universe the best *vacuums* achieveable have
have a lot more charges in and around them than most
realise so let's also assume we are in this universe
and not Alice's.
One
source is stationary while the other is moving.
Moving... wrt the charges, atoms or whatever which
we can't eliminate I will assume.
If Mike
measures the fields
from the moving source he expects
to find these fields obeying Maxwell's equations with
one value of C while the fields from the stationary
source he would expect to see them obey Maxwell's equations
with a different value of C. So my question is how does
one choose which values of epsilon and mu (or C for that
matter) to use given any general EM fields in a region
of space??
You don't have to choose. Nature does it for you.
Theoretically you could measure an assymetric
radiation resistance in a moving directional coupling
structure. Reading about the forward beaming
of synchrotron radiation is probably much easier.
It seems to me that if Mike's expectations
were true then we would have to junk Maxwell's equations
and replace them with a non-local version. This is because
moving sources can be moving very fast and can be very
far away from our local. The phenomena Mike describes
is fundamentally non-local for this reason.
I couldn't tell if Mike was being facetious or
serious so was only responding to what you clearly stated.
Remember Weber first measured the speed on light on
the surface of a conductor. When we want to enhance
a light path between two computers, we frequently fill the
path with glass or copper. Musing too much about
a vacuum that you can't achieve can be a lot less productive
that some study of how matter interacts in paths that we can
achieve.
Sue...
Regards
The
Regards
The
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
12 Nov 2006 01:52:35 PM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163353953.555753.83650@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| The Thing wrote:
| [...]
[...]
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Thing" |
|
| Title: Re: c: the trick and the red herring |
12 Nov 2006 05:32:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:52:35 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163353953.555753.83650@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| The Thing wrote:
| [...]
[...]
[]
Regards
The
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | |
