| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Diana" |
| Date: |
21 Mar 2006 01:26:05 AM |
| Object: |
Constant Light Speed |
Sorry I must be wrong but,
Is the Light speed constant or our measuring Instrument have limitations
-D
.
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 03:31:02 AM |
|
|
"Diana" <Diana@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hUNTf.24870$_k2.431911@news2.nokia.com...
Sorry I must be wrong but,
Is the Light speed constant or our measuring Instrument have limitations
-D
Two-way light speed is constant according to our measuring instruments;
one-way lightspeed is constant by convention (one needs to recalibrate a
system after changing its velocity!).
Probably you mean if light speed is constant in hidden reality. That is a
never ending and arguably metaphysical debate, so much that mainstream
physics journals don't want it anymore.
If you have access to journals, I can give you some references.
And why do you think "you must be wrong", about what?
Cheers,
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Diana" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 04:15:55 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1142933462_169@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
"Diana" <Diana@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hUNTf.24870$_k2.431911@news2.nokia.com...
Sorry I must be wrong but,
Is the Light speed constant or our measuring Instrument have limitations
-D
Two-way light speed is constant according to our measuring instruments;
one-way lightspeed is constant by convention (one needs to recalibrate a
system after changing its velocity!).
Probably you mean if light speed is constant in hidden reality. That is a
never ending and arguably metaphysical debate, so much that mainstream
physics journals don't want it anymore.
If you have access to journals, I can give you some references.
And why do you think "you must be wrong", about what?
Cheers,
Harald
I just finished up with my studies , I read these groups as I have Interest,
though I am in software,
I have seen very insulting replies , so I started with accepting I am wrong,
I do not have journal access
thanks
-D
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 04:38:15 AM |
|
|
"Diana" <Diana@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vnQTf.24904$_k2.432457@news2.nokia.com...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1142933462_169@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
"Diana" <Diana@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hUNTf.24870$_k2.431911@news2.nokia.com...
Sorry I must be wrong but,
Is the Light speed constant or our measuring Instrument have
limitations
-D
Two-way light speed is constant according to our measuring instruments;
one-way lightspeed is constant by convention (one needs to recalibrate a
system after changing its velocity!).
Probably you mean if light speed is constant in hidden reality. That is
a
never ending and arguably metaphysical debate, so much that mainstream
physics journals don't want it anymore.
If you have access to journals, I can give you some references.
And why do you think "you must be wrong", about what?
Cheers,
Harald
I just finished up with my studies , I read these groups as I have
Interest,
though I am in software,
I have seen very insulting replies , so I started with accepting I am
wrong,
I do not have journal access
thanks
-D
- This may well be the most insulting "science" newsgroup, but it has been
worse.
- Insults are in no way a measure of you being wrong or right - only that
those who insult you are No Good. Insults can result from a misplaced
feeling of superiority, but can also be a means to hide a feeling of
insecurity.
- I will search for you one or two PDF's of journal articles on that
subject; those that I know conclude that our measuring instruments fool us.
Likely there are also articles on that subject that conclude the opposite,
but I don't know them; perhaps someone else will be so kind to present you
the arguments for that point of view.
Regards,
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 09:48:14 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1142937496_179@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
"Diana" <Diana@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vnQTf.24904$_k2.432457@news2.nokia.com...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1142933462_169@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
"Diana" <Diana@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hUNTf.24870$_k2.431911@news2.nokia.com...
Sorry I must be wrong but,
Is the Light speed constant or our measuring Instrument have
limitations
-D
Two-way light speed is constant according to our measuring
instruments;
one-way lightspeed is constant by convention (one needs to recalibrate
a
system after changing its velocity!).
Probably you mean if light speed is constant in hidden reality. That
is
a
never ending and arguably metaphysical debate, so much that
mainstream
physics journals don't want it anymore.
If you have access to journals, I can give you some references.
And why do you think "you must be wrong", about what?
Cheers,
Harald
I just finished up with my studies , I read these groups as I have
Interest,
though I am in software,
I have seen very insulting replies , so I started with accepting I am
wrong,
I do not have journal access
thanks
-D
- This may well be the most insulting "science" newsgroup, but it has been
worse.
- Insults are in no way a measure of you being wrong or right - only that
those who insult you are No Good. Insults can result from a misplaced
feeling of superiority, but can also be a means to hide a feeling of
insecurity.
- I will search for you one or two PDF's of journal articles on that
subject; those that I know conclude that our measuring instruments fool
us.
Likely there are also articles on that subject that conclude the opposite,
but I don't know them; perhaps someone else will be so kind to present you
the arguments for that point of view.
Regards,
Harald
PS: But first send me an email so that I know your email isn't fake (it sure
*looks* fake!)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "shuba" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 11:09:13 PM |
|
|
O'Harry wrote:
- I will search for you one or two PDF's of journal articles on that
subject; those that I know conclude that our measuring instruments fool us.
Likely there are also articles on that subject that conclude the opposite,
but I don't know them;
Of course O'Harry doesn't know them, since they include all
standard modern texts on relativity, the authors of which Harald
Van Lintel would rather bash than read. In special relativity, c
is constant, measuring instruments do not "fool us", and
experiments overwhelmingly support this model. Steve Carlip, a
respected physicist who has specialized in relativity, just wrote
the following about the subject:
"the real evidence for constancy of c is very strong---check
the references in the sci.physics FAQs, for example:
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/constants.html"
<dvpfls$fp4$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>
This business about one-way-light-speed is primarily a strawman
used by ether proponents who disagree with special realtivity.
Why Harry has such a hard time being honest is a mystery, but he
has regularly participated in an unabashed antirelativity group
(a Yahoo group called NPA_Dissidents), and he has also been
attempting to infect Wikipedia relativity articles with his
biased pro-ether agenda. Harry has referred to himself as a
"technical physicist" when in fact he is a microsystems engineer
and instructor by profession, whose interest in modern relativity
seems to be limited to doing his best to present misinformation.
It's rather instructive to see that in this thread, when someone
asks a basic question, and indicates she has probably had little
exposure to relativity, Harry sees it as a prime opportunity to
spread his characteristic misinformation. Should the original
poster do a little research and read or ask physicists living
today about the subject, it will become clear that Harry is
neither knowledgeable not honest in his presentation.
---Tim Shuba---
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 12:09:34 AM |
|
|
3 mph photons are stupid.
You get a macht to burn for 10,000 years ?
or if light was 12000 c the energy exchanged with an atom would smash
it.
TIME DONT CHANGE
c is constant.
no two points in space move or are at the same time .
POST HOLE DIGGER of a captain
Dark energy is the light from any star outside this visible universe at
c with no wavelength at constant frequency ep.
=A0=A0Whats the orbit of the electon drawn as a line thew space spacy
...in
motion ??
=A0=A0=A0=A0They are circles side by side overlapped near 97 % . evy
object in motion is slow nect to this orbit.
=A0=A0even as the object in motion moves the electon and all the atoms
parts are orbiting at c.
=A0=A0not even an object in motion can go faster then the parts in
orbit. The only reason its in motion at all is the facct the orbit is
warped. ALL the obits change befor anything can move.
The center of mass ( all the parts in orbit ) and the center of G are
not at the same point in an eliptical orbit.
=A0=A0=A0=A0F is identical to the distance from the center of mass to
the center of gravity.
no exceptions to the rule ever.
=A0=A0Because of G the mass moves NO exceptions to that rule. emf can
change the orbit ,,but that changed the center of mass and is
coverd by the rule.
=A0=A0Evry atom of the moon is effected by the earths G . Evyy part in
evy
atom has its orbit effected by the earths G.
=A0=A0back to tha line from the atom as it moves as if it starts then
stops as the electon orbits we draw a line in space as the object moves.
=A0=A0The faster you go wrt from us the less circles are in an inch of
travel.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Its not like its
moving at all when you put 1 circle ( photon ) on any circle.
=A0=A0How much circle is not overlapped within G is jected. Motion is
just a change in this energy exchanged when the atom is the
circle.
=A0Only the part of the circle ( photon )
that is near enouph to G will orbit G and the rest is too far away from
G .
=A0=A0As we toss a circle ( photon ) onto the circle atom as it stacks
circles in space in motion.
=A0=A0NO atoms ae not in motion.
Hubble and conservation wont alow a non expanding universe. no two
points are the same time.
Time dont move and c is constant.
=A0Thats coect that TIME dont change .
spacy BUT c dont change because TIME is the ate energy reacts with
energy.
=A0=A0To unplug yer brain eve more...
besides the fct wavelength X fequency equals c evry time... THE energy
exchange =8D=B2 equals G spacy.
c is constant or V would change the BEND around a big star OR any atom.
=A0=A0AND THEN HOW SLOW IS SLOWER ??
=A0=A0no photons ae going past you at 4 mph or even 1 billion mps. TIME
DONT CHANGE spacy ......
so then the time a photon ejects is c .
NOW its at c evywheeeerrrrrrreeeeee
spacy EVEN 20 billion light years away.
=A0=A0BUT 13.7 BILLION LIGHT YEARS away the STAR is going away AT c ..
IT will eject a photon at a point in space that DONT MOVE and TIME DONT
CHANGE .
the star is gone past the point that photon left but that point where it
left DONT MOVE.
=A0=A0Clock the time that photon left that star from where you are. Its
a strait line 1/4 inch long.
=A0=A0The photon left the atom from a point smaller then the atom.....
SO TIME is allso the rise and fall in enegy. wrt you ,,where it is in a
diferant time. AND photons dont get rammed together in space. Photons
are GODS
division where dark enegy is GODS active force. ALL THE photons that
left that star at te edge of this visible Hubble
Limit pass us at c.
=A0=A0The point the photon left the star dont move and left it at c .
The same as any atom.
=A0=A0BUT as we see the stars ae going away fom each other at the same
speed
=A0=A0They all go away from us faster the farther they are away. BUT the
point the photon left dont move and TIME is constant and c is
constant.
=A0=A0WE are moving twards the point that dont move ........... from
stars
20,000 billion light years away .
=A0=A0=A0=A0Matter is all the same stuff ..energy.
All its parts are a rise in energy .
=A0=A0Thier motion cuts a void in dark energy. As they cut a void it
closes in ,,is dark matter.
=A0=A0G is the low energy as dark energy is displaced. G combines the
low of all the energy in motion cuting the void .
=A0=A0ALL the paticals or WAVICALS orbit the G they all contibute to .
The only diferance between any of the parts is how much energy it is .
How much energy it contains is how it will react and how much low and
rise it is.
=A0=A0Too much mass cant excape G.
Too little mass will excape G.
c is constant and NONE of the parts can change speed. =A0 They cant
change speed so they change orbit or ject when they change mass. or
energy.
=A0=A0nice swells ,,7 pm local time windy 22 knots 3 days to cook island
,,2 to solomon
=A0=A0we have not decided ,,planing around the sky
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SCW" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 05:17:54 AM |
|
|
Diana wrote:
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1142933462_169@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
"Diana" <Diana@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hUNTf.24870$_k2.431911@news2.nokia.com...
Sorry I must be wrong but,
Is the Light speed constant or our measuring Instrument have limitations
-D
Two-way light speed is constant according to our measuring instruments;
one-way lightspeed is constant by convention (one needs to recalibrate a
system after changing its velocity!).
Probably you mean if light speed is constant in hidden reality. That is a
never ending and arguably metaphysical debate, so much that mainstream
physics journals don't want it anymore.
If you have access to journals, I can give you some references.
And why do you think "you must be wrong", about what?
Cheers,
Harald
I just finished up with my studies , I read these groups as I have Interest,
though I am in software,
I have seen very insulting replies , so I started with accepting I am wrong,
I do not have journal access
thanks
-D
Yes, it can only be a matter of time before you get a reply from
Androcles - a poster named after one of Aesop's Fables, and with
theories to match, but with a mouth foul enough to shame a Chelsea
Supporter.
Anyway, as far as I can make out, and I'm sure I will be corrected on
this, light is absorbed and emitted at each surface. This means that
unless you measure c_0 via a transit (like Roemer did), you will always
be measuring the speed from the last reflection.
So your idea that our measuring instruments could be affecting the
result is a sensible question.
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 06:40:34 AM |
|
|
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142939874.072768.199730@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Diana wrote:
|
| > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
| > news:1142933462_169@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
| > >
| > > "Diana" <Diana@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > > news:hUNTf.24870$_k2.431911@news2.nokia.com...
| > >> Sorry I must be wrong but,
| > >> Is the Light speed constant or our measuring Instrument have
limitations
| > >> -D
| > >
| > > Two-way light speed is constant according to our measuring
instruments;
| > > one-way lightspeed is constant by convention (one needs to recalibrate
a
| > > system after changing its velocity!).
| > >
| > > Probably you mean if light speed is constant in hidden reality. That
is a
| > > never ending and arguably metaphysical debate, so much that
mainstream
| > > physics journals don't want it anymore.
| > >
| > > If you have access to journals, I can give you some references.
| > > And why do you think "you must be wrong", about what?
| > >
| > > Cheers,
| > > Harald
| > >
| > >
| > I just finished up with my studies , I read these groups as I have
Interest,
| > though I am in software,
| > I have seen very insulting replies , so I started with accepting I am
wrong,
| > I do not have journal access
| > thanks
| > -D
|
| Yes, it can only be a matter of time before you get a reply from
| Androcles - a poster named after one of Aesop's Fables, and with
| theories to match, but with a mouth foul enough to shame a Chelsea
| Supporter.
|
| Anyway, as far as I can make out, and I'm sure I will be corrected on
| this, light is absorbed and emitted at each surface. This means that
| unless you measure c_0 via a transit (like Roemer did), you will always
| be measuring the speed from the last reflection.
|
| So your idea that our measuring instruments could be affecting the
| result is a sensible question.
I'm sure you are a fucking idiot that doesn't know the difference
between a mirror and a while wall.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SCW" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 01:58:07 PM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142939874.072768.199730@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Diana wrote:
|
| > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
| > news:1142933462_169@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
| > >
| > > "Diana" <Diana@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > > news:hUNTf.24870$_k2.431911@news2.nokia.com...
| > >> Sorry I must be wrong but,
| > >> Is the Light speed constant or our measuring Instrument have
limitations
| > >> -D
| > >
| > > Two-way light speed is constant according to our measuring
instruments;
| > > one-way lightspeed is constant by convention (one needs to recalibrate
a
| > > system after changing its velocity!).
| > >
| > > Probably you mean if light speed is constant in hidden reality. That
is a
| > > never ending and arguably metaphysical debate, so much that
mainstream
| > > physics journals don't want it anymore.
| > >
| > > If you have access to journals, I can give you some references.
| > > And why do you think "you must be wrong", about what?
| > >
| > > Cheers,
| > > Harald
| > >
| > >
| > I just finished up with my studies , I read these groups as I have
Interest,
| > though I am in software,
| > I have seen very insulting replies , so I started with accepting I am
wrong,
| > I do not have journal access
| > thanks
| > -D
|
| Yes, it can only be a matter of time before you get a reply from
| Androcles - a poster named after one of Aesop's Fables, and with
| theories to match, but with a mouth foul enough to shame a Chelsea
| Supporter.
|
| Anyway, as far as I can make out, and I'm sure I will be corrected on
| this, light is absorbed and emitted at each surface. This means that
| unless you measure c_0 via a transit (like Roemer did), you will always
| be measuring the speed from the last reflection.
|
| So your idea that our measuring instruments could be affecting the
| result is a sensible question.
I'm sure you are a fucking idiot that doesn't know the difference
between a mirror and a while wall.
Androcles.
Sorry, Androcles, but using your own conditions, am I to take it that
you believe that light is not reflected from a white wall or it is not
reflected from a mirror?
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 02:41:34 PM |
|
|
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142964216.438484.211270@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
[snip drunken rambling]
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SCW" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 05:08:34 PM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142964216.438484.211270@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
[snip drunken rambling]
Androcles.
feeble.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "violet_verity" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 05:27:44 PM |
|
|
I would take it that he doesn't know the difference between knowledge
and wisdom.
I haven't read any Physics for many years but I always thought that the
speed of light was a constant in this universe but is increasing.
Please tell me if I am wrong (I am sure someone will) but I thought
that if you calculate the maximum speed anything could have achieved if
it started at the big bang and so this would be increasing but not at a
rate that we could discern in our lifetimes.
If this is 'rubbish' maybe someone can advise me of some books I could
read about it, I haven't read any since Uni- actually come to think of
it, the only books I read then were psychology, philosophy and science
fiction books....
V
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 07:30:46 PM |
|
|
"violet_verity" <verity.gray@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1142983664.091161.84460@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|I would take it that he doesn't know the difference between knowledge
| and wisdom.
| I haven't read any Physics for many years but I always thought that the
| speed of light was a constant in this universe but is increasing.
| Please tell me if I am wrong
You are wrong.
(I am sure someone will) but I thought
| that if you calculate the maximum speed anything could have achieved if
| it started at the big bang and so this would be increasing but not at a
| rate that we could discern in our lifetimes.
|
| If this is 'rubbish' maybe someone can advise me of some books I could
| read about it, I haven't read any since Uni- actually come to think of
| it, the only books I read then were psychology, philosophy and science
| fiction books....
Why spend money on books?
The speed of light is constant because Einstein says so and he's god.
Don't argue unless you know the difference between knowledge
and wisdom. It's all psychology anyway, reread psychology.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrankHater" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 09:18:25 AM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
Why spend money on books?
The speed of light is constant because Einstein says so and he's god.
Don't argue unless you know the difference between knowledge
and wisdom. It's all psychology anyway, reread psychology.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/hexenmeisters_fetish.htm
you are a ***** and your website is *****. you wouldnt know science if it
kicked your back doors in you pointless excuse for a human being.
you havent a clue what you are talking about but yuo do have a fucking
obscene fetish with trying to tell people you are so smart.
were you bullied by the science kids at school you worthless twat?
.
|
|
|
| User: "violet_verity" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 01:07:59 PM |
|
|
CrankHater wrote:
Hexenmeister wrote:
Why spend money on books?
The speed of light is constant because Einstein says so and he's god.
Don't argue unless you know the difference between knowledge
and wisdom. It's all psychology anyway, reread psychology.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/hexenmeisters_fetish.htm
you are a ***** and your website is *****. you wouldnt know science if it
kicked your back doors in you pointless excuse for a human being.
you havent a clue what you are talking about but yuo do have a fucking
obscene fetish with trying to tell people you are so smart.
were you bullied by the science kids at school you worthless twat?
Dear Crank Hater
I've found it best to ignore those who cause you so much distress, or
try to understand them.
I am just amazed that physicists have changed so much, much more staid
in my time; I'm almost wishing I had continued with research.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 02:39:16 PM |
|
|
"violet_verity" <verity.gray@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1143054479.519773.244040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| CrankHater wrote:
| > Hexenmeister wrote:
| > >
| > > Why spend money on books?
| > > The speed of light is constant because Einstein says so and he's god.
| > > Don't argue unless you know the difference between knowledge
| > > and wisdom. It's all psychology anyway, reread psychology.
| > >
| > >
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/hexenmeisters_fetish.htm
| >
| > you are a ***** and your website is *****. you wouldnt know science if it
| > kicked your back doors in you pointless excuse for a human being.
| >
| > you havent a clue what you are talking about but yuo do have a fucking
| > obscene fetish with trying to tell people you are so smart.
| >
| > were you bullied by the science kids at school you worthless twat?
|
| Dear Crank Hater
| I've found it best to ignore those who cause you so much distress, or
| try to understand them.
| I am just amazed that physicists have changed so much, much more staid
| in my time; I'm almost wishing I had continued with research.
Egads! Diplomacy in the mad house. Psychology fails on the psychotic.
In the interests of abject boredom as opposed to mild amusement
one employs a "killfile" which filters out the more obnoxious characters,
thereby relieving one of the stress of reading broken English.
Hopefully some filter me, but a few are so fascinated by me they cannot
resist the temptation to make comment. This particular anencephalous
cretin lacks even the ability to punctuate. He has been duly plonked.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "violet_verity" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 04:11:01 PM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
one employs a "killfile" which filters out the more obnoxious characters,
Can you tell me how to do that please.
This particular anencephalous
cretin lacks even the ability to punctuate.
Androcles.
Why anencephalous and cretin, just one word would have done, I think
it's naffin naff of you to use
both.
By the way, naff means something different to f**k where I live.
although i cant understand why you should think that poor punctuation
is a sign of hormone defficiency
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 05:42:51 PM |
|
|
"violet_verity" <verity.gray@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1143065460.955981.207470@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
|
| > one employs a "killfile" which filters out the more obnoxious
characters,
|
| Can you tell me how to do that please.
Not really, I have insufficient information. I use "Outlook Express"
as my newsreader, where one is built in. It is accessed by
Message/Block Sender... and the list itself by
Tools/Message Rules/Block Senders List where individuals
can be removed from the list. Therefore it is dependent on
the newsreader one uses.
|
| This particular anencephalous
| > cretin lacks even the ability to punctuate.
| >
| > Androcles.
|
| Why anencephalous and cretin, just one word would have done, I think
| it's naffin naff of you to use
| both.
Ok, ya got me. :-)
| By the way, naff means something different to f**k where I live.
Ah well, I can only give you the origin of the word. "Gay" once meant
children dancing around a maypole with brightly colour ribbons weaving
a design, but now one is reluctant to even mention it in polite company.
Saying the moron was a sexual intercoursing idiot didn't seem to have
quite the right impact.
| although i cant understand why you should think that poor punctuation
| is a sign of hormone defficiency
You've lost me on that one, I'm afraid. I fail to see a connection between
brainless or stupid with hormones or lack thereof, but I have never claimed
to be knowledgeable in physiological matters beyond my understanding of
TV documentaries. The objective in using naughty words is to discourage
further repartee. It doesn't always work so then I resort to the kill file
for
the individual involved.
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I
tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because
I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -- Robert
A. Heinlein
"Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated of nothing,
"blasphemy" is the most amazing - with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure"
fighting it out for the second and third place. " -- Robert A. Heinlein
"So long as they don't get violent, I want to let everyone say what they
wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me." -- Albert
Einstein
The right to free speech does not guarantee the right to be heard.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "violet_verity" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 05:22:34 AM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
| I haven't read any Physics for many years but I always thought that the
| speed of light was a constant in this universe but is increasing.
| Please tell me if I am wrong
You are wrong.
What a pity, it seems a small price to pay for such elegant theory.
Have you managed to formulate an alternative theory based on the
premise that the velocity of light (in a vac) is not constant ?
| If this is 'rubbish' maybe someone can advise me of some books I could
| read about it, I haven't read any since Uni- actually come to think of
| it, the only books I read then were psychology, philosophy and science
| fiction books....
Why spend money on books?
Do you agree with Nietzsche then ? Anyway, I'd use the library.
The speed of light is constant because Einstein says so and he's god.
To my severely limited knowledge, Einstein never though of himself as
God; do you mean you think he is God or that you think others think of
him as God? Not trying to be quaint, just trying to clarify what you
are meaning to communicate.
Don't argue unless you know the difference between knowledge
and wisdom.
I hope you mean 'argue' as in 'discuss' and not the original meaning of
'chide' since I think I am wise enough to know that I am incapable of
knowing anything outside the boundaries of my being, which, being
severely limited, I prefer to consider as a few facts rather then
Knowledge.
It's all psychology anyway, reread psychology.> Androcles.
Yes, I agree with you on this one, our own psychological make-up is our
most limiting factor but
I don't think I need to re-read any books on that.
I am more interested in trying to understand my own experiences rather
than theory.
e.g. why do you feel the need to call someone a f***ing idiot over
something as trivial as physics- it's not politics or religion.
Cordially, Violet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 10:09:09 AM |
|
|
"violet_verity" <verity.gray@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1143026554.370420.180310@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
|
| > | I haven't read any Physics for many years but I always thought that
the
| > | speed of light was a constant in this universe but is increasing.
| > | Please tell me if I am wrong
| >
| > You are wrong.
| >
|
| What a pity, it seems a small price to pay for such elegant theory.
Yes, it would be nice if there really was a Santa Claus' sleigh.
Such a small price to pay for such an elegant toy delivery system.
| Have you managed to formulate an alternative theory based on the
| premise that the velocity of light (in a vac) is not constant ?
Not I, see Sir Isaac Newton for competing theories, I have none.
I do have observations, that's all.
|
| > | If this is 'rubbish' maybe someone can advise me of some books I could
| > | read about it, I haven't read any since Uni- actually come to think of
| > | it, the only books I read then were psychology, philosophy and science
| > | fiction books....
| >
| > Why spend money on books?
|
| Do you agree with Nietzsche then ? Anyway, I'd use the library.
I've never met him. Libraries as you know them will someday be
a thing of the past, my cell phone has 2 megabytes available for text
and connects directly to libraries around the world.
1000 bytes per page, 430 pages, enough space for four Tales of Two
Cities -- eight cities total. I also have the internet and a desk top
computer,
even a desk to put it on. I am wealthy beyond the dreams of Solomon.
| > The speed of light is constant because Einstein says so and he's god.
|
| To my severely limited knowledge, Einstein never though of himself as
| God;
Who else but the Lord Einstein could dictate to Nature?
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " --
Einstein the Father, Einstein the Son, Einstein the Holy Ghost.
Anyway, Einstein doesn't play dice, he prefers to bluff at poker.
| do you mean you think he is God or that you think others think of
| him as God? Not trying to be quaint, just trying to clarify what you
| are meaning to communicate.
Me? Communicate? Surely you jest. The curse of Cassandra is upon me.
I tell the truth and am not believed.
"Honesty is praised - and starves" -- Juvenal.
I throw in the odd lie now and then to get a crust of bread.
I did that to get a degree, I lied on the exam paper and got an A.
Tell 'em what they want to hear. It's psychology.
Even Fizz purrs to get food. He doesn't really want to hunt
for himself, the odd bird or mouse is just for practice. That's
why he gives them to me, he knows I'm hungry.
| > Don't argue unless you know the difference between knowledge
| > and wisdom.
|
| I hope you mean 'argue' as in 'discuss' and not the original meaning of
| 'chide' since I think I am wise enough to know that I am incapable of
| knowing anything outside the boundaries of my being, which, being
| severely limited, I prefer to consider as a few facts rather then
| Knowledge.
Excellent, we should get along well.
Here are a few facts to consider.
Relative motion:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm
Wavelength:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
Doppler:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
Big Bang:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Genesis/Genesis.htm
Maxwell's equations:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
Special Relativity:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
General Relativity:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PerigeeAdvance.JPG
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/sundials.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.JPG
Energy:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
Twin Paradox:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
Astronomy:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RR_C7/RelativityRevealed.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/Wilson.htm
Kooks:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm
Experiments:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac.JPG
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
| > It's all psychology anyway, reread psychology.> Androcles.
|
| Yes, I agree with you on this one, our own psychological make-up is our
| most limiting factor but
| I don't think I need to re-read any books on that.
Very good. I see no advantage either. Experience is the best teacher.
|
| I am more interested in trying to understand my own experiences rather
| than theory.
Ok. I can't help you there, I have not shared your experiences.
|
| e.g. why do you feel the need to call someone a f***ing idiot over
| something as trivial as physics- it's not politics or religion.
Again, psychology. Many are offended by naughty words,
but words are simply words.
"Never insult anyone accidentally" -- Robert Heinlein.
|
| Cordially, Violet
"A last word, Mr. Darnay; you think I am drunk?"
"I think you have been drinking, Mr. Carton"
"Think? You know I have been drinking."
"Since I must say so, I know it."
"Then you shall likewise know why. I am a disappointed drudge,
sir. I care for no man on earth, and no man on Earth cares for me."
"Much to be regretted. You might have used your talents better."
"Maybe so, Mr. Darnay; maybe not. You do not know what it
may come to. Good night!" --Charles Dickens --"A Tale of Two Cities"
.
|
|
|
| User: "violet_verity" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 12:54:21 PM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"A last word, Mr. Darnay; you think I am drunk?"
"I think you have been drinking, Mr. Carton"
"Think? You know I have been drinking."
"Since I must say so, I know it."
"Then you shall likewise know why. I am a disappointed drudge,
sir. I care for no man on earth, and no man on Earth cares for me."
"Much to be regretted. You might have used your talents better."
"Maybe so, Mr. Darnay; maybe not. You do not know what it
may come to. Good night!" --Charles Dickens --"A Tale of Two Cities"
You type more than me !
Now I perhaps glimpse the psychology, are you Darnay ? I think not.
You are Carton, who shows that although he may inhabit the gutter, he
is worthy to take the moral high ground in a finale of supreme
sacrifice.
I never liked the end - not commercial enough.
Anyway, although it is a while since I read any Dickens, isn't the
quote 'I care for no man and no man cares for me' from "A Christmas
Carol" ?
Also everyone knows Newton wasn't as great as Einstein;
You don't see many T shirts with Newton on,
he couldn't play the violin and that wig looks naff.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 02:17:25 PM |
|
|
"violet_verity" <verity.gray@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1143053661.196388.19990@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
|
| > "A last word, Mr. Darnay; you think I am drunk?"
| > "I think you have been drinking, Mr. Carton"
| > "Think? You know I have been drinking."
| > "Since I must say so, I know it."
| > "Then you shall likewise know why. I am a disappointed drudge,
| > sir. I care for no man on earth, and no man on Earth cares for me."
| > "Much to be regretted. You might have used your talents better."
| > "Maybe so, Mr. Darnay; maybe not. You do not know what it
| > may come to. Good night!" --Charles Dickens --"A Tale of Two Cities"
|
| You type more than me !
I copy and paste. It gives the reader something to snip.
SCENE I. A cavern. In the middle, a boiling cauldron.
Thunder. Enter the three Witches
First Witch
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
Second Witch
Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.
Third Witch
Harpier cries 'Tis time, 'tis time.
First Witch
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.
ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Second Witch
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Third Witch
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.
ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Second Witch
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
Enter HECATE to the other three Witches
HECATE
O well done! I commend your pains;
And every one shall share i' the gains;
And now about the cauldron sing,
Live elves and fairies in a ring,
Enchanting all that you put in.
Music and a song: 'Black spirits,' & c
HECATE retires
Second Witch
By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks!
Enter MACBETH
MACBETH
How now, you secret, black, and midnight hags!
What is't you do?
ALL
A deed without a name.
MACBETH
I conjure you, by that which you profess,
Howe'er you come to know it, answer me:
Though you untie the winds and let them fight
Against the churches; though the yesty waves
Confound and swallow navigation up;
Though bladed corn be lodged and trees blown down;
Though castles topple on their warders' heads;
Though palaces and pyramids do slope
Their heads to their foundations; though the treasure
Of nature's germens tumble all together,
Even till destruction sicken; answer me
To what I ask you.
First Witch
Speak.
Second Witch
Demand.
Third Witch
We'll answer.
First Witch
Say, if thou'dst rather hear it from our mouths,
Or from our masters?
MACBETH
Call 'em; let me see 'em.
First Witch
Pour in sow's blood, that hath eaten
Her nine farrow; grease that's sweaten
From the murderer's gibbet throw
Into the flame.
ALL
Come, high or low;
Thyself and office deftly show!
Thunder. First Apparition: an armed Head
MACBETH
Tell me, thou unknown power,--
First Witch
He knows thy thought:
Hear his speech, but say thou nought.
First Apparition
Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth! beware Macduff;
Beware the thane of Fife. Dismiss me. Enough.
Descends
MACBETH
Whate'er thou art, for thy good caution, thanks;
Thou hast harp'd my fear aright: but one
word more,--
First Witch
He will not be commanded: here's another,
More potent than the first.
Thunder. Second Apparition: A bloody Child
Second Apparition
Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth!
MACBETH
Had I three ears, I'ld hear thee.
Second Apparition
Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn
The power of man, for none of woman born
Shall harm Macbeth.
Descends
MACBETH
Then live, Macduff: what need I fear of thee?
But yet I'll make assurance double sure,
And take a bond of fate: thou shalt not live;
That I may tell pale-hearted fear it lies,
And sleep in spite of thunder.
Thunder. Third Apparition: a Child crowned, with a tree in his hand
What is this
That rises like the issue of a king,
And wears upon his baby-brow the round
And top of sovereignty?
ALL
Listen, but speak not to't.
Third Apparition
Be lion-mettled, proud; and take no care
Who chafes, who frets, or where conspirers are:
Macbeth shall never vanquish'd be until
Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill
Shall come against him.
Descends
MACBETH
That will never be
Who can impress the forest, bid the tree
Unfix his earth-bound root? Sweet bodements! good!
Rebellion's head, rise never till the wood
Of Birnam rise, and our high-placed Macbeth
Shall live the lease of nature, pay his breath
To time and mortal custom. Yet my heart
Throbs to know one thing: tell me, if your art
Can tell so much: shall Banquo's issue ever
Reign in this kingdom?
ALL
Seek to know no more.
MACBETH
I will be satisfied: deny me this,
And an eternal curse fall on you! Let me know.
Why sinks that cauldron? and what noise is this?
Hautboys
First Witch
Show!
Second Witch
Show!
Third Witch
Show!
ALL
Show his eyes, and grieve his heart;
Come like shadows, so depart!
A show of Eight Kings, the last with a glass in his hand; GHOST OF BANQUO
following
MACBETH
Thou art too like the spirit of Banquo: down!
Thy crown does sear mine eye-balls. And thy hair,
Thou other gold-bound brow, is like the first.
A third is like the former. Filthy hags!
Why do you show me this? A fourth! Start, eyes!
What, will the line stretch out to the crack of doom?
Another yet! A seventh! I'll see no more:
And yet the eighth appears, who bears a glass
Which shows me many more; and some I see
That two-fold balls and treble scepters carry:
Horrible sight! Now, I see, 'tis true;
For the blood-bolter'd Banquo smiles upon me,
And points at them for his.
Apparitions vanish
What, is this so?
First Witch
Ay, sir, all this is so: but why
Stands Macbeth thus amazedly?
Come, sisters, cheer we up his sprites,
And show the best of our delights:
I'll charm the air to give a sound,
While you perform your antic round:
That this great king may kindly say,
Our duties did his welcome pay.
Music. The witches dance and then vanish, with HECATE
MACBETH
Where are they? Gone? Let this pernicious hour
Stand aye accursed in the calendar!
Come in, without there!
Enter LENNOX
LENNOX
What's your grace's will?
MACBETH
Saw you the weird sisters?
LENNOX
No, my lord.
MACBETH
Came they not by you?
LENNOX
No, indeed, my lord.
MACBETH
Infected be the air whereon they ride;
And damn'd all those that trust them! I did hear
The galloping of horse: who was't came by?
LENNOX
'Tis two or three, my lord, that bring you word
Macduff is fled to England.
MACBETH
Fled to England!
LENNOX
Ay, my good lord.
MACBETH
Time, thou anticipatest my dread exploits:
The flighty purpose never is o'ertook
Unless the deed go with it; from this moment
The very firstlings of my heart shall be
The firstlings of my hand. And even now,
To crown my thoughts with acts, be it thought and done:
The castle of Macduff I will surprise;
Seize upon Fife; give to the edge o' the sword
His wife, his babes, and all unfortunate souls
That trace him in his line. No boasting like a fool;
This deed I'll do before this purpose cool.
But no more sights!--Where are these gentlemen?
Come, bring me where they are.
Exeunt
|
| Now I perhaps glimpse the psychology, are you Darnay ? I think not.
|
| You are Carton, who shows that although he may inhabit the gutter, he
| is worthy to take the moral high ground in a finale of supreme
| sacrifice.
Nah, I'm the Hexenmeister. My magic works. Einstein's spells are failures.
I have the eye of Newt. I have stood upon the shoulders of giants and
seen further than any man before me. Einstein crawled under the feet of
pygmies.
This is my telescope.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe
| I never liked the end - not commercial enough.
Aww, c'mon. Look at this for commercialism.
http://www.metaphor.dk/guillotine/Pages/Guillot.html
Even bad publicity is still publicity. Swat that fly.
|
| Anyway, although it is a while since I read any Dickens, isn't the
| quote 'I care for no man and no man cares for me' from "A Christmas
| Carol" ?
"ToTC", if Chuckie used it twice he didn't tell me. I'll pop up to Gad's
Hill and ask his ghost, shall I? I can be there in 10 minutes. Nice view
of Cliffe marshes from there, Miss Haversham.
http://tinyurl.com/lz2z9
| Also everyone knows Newton wasn't as great as Einstein;
| You don't see many T shirts with Newton on,
| he couldn't play the violin and that wig looks naff.
He could play the pendula better than Galileo, and he didn't get one
of those electronic tracking devices on his ankle.
"Naff" is a naughty word, introduced for "Porridge" by the late
great Ronnie Barker because f**k was a no-no on BBC back then
and they needed a naughty word for prisoners to utter.
Umm... I'm telling on you, you wrote "n**f".
Now, violets are blue violet gray or whatever colour you are
(I'm not colour prejudiced, only phuckwit prejudiced, verily),
you are lurking in physics forums (forae?) to no good end if you did
not read all the fabulous literature I gave you, and if you DID read
it, have yet to comment upon it.
Does my wizard's hat look good in me?
How do you plead, guilty or guilty?
First Witch
Speak.
Second Witch
Demand.
Third Witch
We'll answer.
Professor Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics school for
zauberlehrlings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 11:04:25 PM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"violet_verity" <verity.gray@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1143053661.196388.19990@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
|
| > "A last word, Mr. Darnay; you think I am drunk?"
| > "I think you have been drinking, Mr. Carton"
| > "Think? You know I have been drinking."
| > "Since I must say so, I know it."
| > "Then you shall likewise know why. I am a disappointed drudge,
| > sir. I care for no man on earth, and no man on Earth cares for me."
| > "Much to be regretted. You might have used your talents better."
| > "Maybe so, Mr. Darnay; maybe not. You do not know what it
| > may come to. Good night!" --Charles Dickens --"A Tale of Two Cities"
|
| You type more than me !
I copy and paste.
Endlessly and repetitively.
It gives the reader something to snip.
OK.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CrankHater" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 10:19:26 AM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"violet_verity" <verity.gray@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1143026554.370420.180310@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Have you managed to formulate an alternative theory based on the
| premise that the velocity of light (in a vac) is not constant ?
Not I, see Sir Isaac Newton for competing theories, I have none.
I do have observations, that's all.
story of your life, fucktard. you have no value to science.
all you want to do is whinge about einstein. did he ***** your mother or
something?
|
| Do you agree with Nietzsche then ? Anyway, I'd use the library.
I've never met him. Libraries as you know them will someday be
a thing of the past, my cell phone has 2 megabytes available for text
and connects directly to libraries around the world.
1000 bytes per page, 430 pages, enough space for four Tales of Two
Cities -- eight cities total. I also have the internet and a desk top
computer,
even a desk to put it on. I am wealthy beyond the dreams of Solomon.
get a decent phone - most have sd cards now so you could get 1gb in the
fucker.
until then, just ***** and learn some math.
| > The speed of light is constant because Einstein says so and he's god.
|
| To my severely limited knowledge, Einstein never though of himself as
| God;
Who else but the Lord Einstein could dictate to Nature?
get over your obsession *****.
Me? Communicate? Surely you jest. The curse of Cassandra is upon me.
I tell the truth and am not believed.
only cos you are a lying fucktard.
Very good. I see no advantage either. Experience is the best teacher.
aha aha aha
didnt realise a ***** like you worked at cern.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 07:22:35 AM |
|
|
Dear violet_verity:
"violet_verity" <verity.gray@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1143026554.370420.180310@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hexenmeister wrote:
| I haven't read any Physics for many years but I always
| thought that the speed of light was a constant in this
| universe but is increasing. Please tell me if I am wrong
You are wrong.
What a pity, it seems a small price to pay for such
elegant theory. Have you managed to formulate an
alternative theory based on the premise that the velocity
of light (in a vac) is not constant ?
There are a number of "variable speed of light (VSL) cosmologies"
that have been considered. Yet they all must "cool" to our
current value of c before the CMBR cooled. So it won't affect
the observable Universe.
arXiv:astro-ph/0001441
arXiv:astro-ph/0001481
Not saying these are right, only pointing to some published and
available on the internet works.
e.g. why do you feel the need to call someone a
f***ing idiot over something as trivial as physics-
it's not politics or religion.
Androcles has not always been a thug. He has been "hanging
around" with kids that are a bad influence, as if acting the
child actually helps get the message across. For Androcles
today, everything is religion and politics.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 07:11:22 PM |
|
|
Dear violet_verity:
"violet_verity" <verity.gray@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1142983664.091161.84460@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I would take it that he doesn't know the difference
between knowledge and wisdom.
I haven't read any Physics for many years but I
always thought that the speed of light was a
constant in this universe but is increasing.
Rather it is always a constant for any *now*.
Please tell me if I am wrong (I am sure someone
will) but I thought that if you calculate the maximum
speed anything could have achieved if it started at
the big bang and so this would be increasing but
not at a rate that we could discern in our lifetimes.
No detectable change in top speed, still c. Just a whole lot
more "race track" to run around in...
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 09:12:14 PM |
|
|
Diana wrote:
Is the Light speed constant or our measuring Instrument have limitations
Asking about "the speed of light" cannot be divorced from measuring
instruments. All reproducible round-trip measurements of the speed of
light in vacuum have obtained the standard value within their resolution
(which is why it is the standard value, of course).
Whether this constant result is attributed to the speed of light
actually being constant, or to our measuring instruments being
inherently modified to make them read that way is the subject of a model
or theory. The simplest and generally accepted theory of this is SR, in
which the speed of light actually is constant, and nothing unusual
happens to measuring instruments.
I have seen very insulting replies
Yes. They come from idiots who don't know anything about the subject,
but for reasons of their own choose to pollute this newsgroup with their
drivel. Don't try to understand them, just ignore them. Anybody who
resorts to insults and foul language can be safely ignored without
missing anything of importance.
It can be difficult to distinguish knowledgeable people from crackpots
and idiots; but the former often reference textbooks on the subject
while the latter do not. I recommend:
Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 04:34:07 AM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:ig3Uf.49207$F_3.45871@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
| Diana wrote:
| > Is the Light speed constant or our measuring Instrument have limitations
|
| Asking about "the speed of light" cannot be divorced from measuring
| instruments.
`I don't know what you mean by "speed",' Alice said.
Humpty Roberts smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell
you.
I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "speed" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Roberts said, in rather a scornful tone,
`it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Roberts, `which is to be master -- that's
all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Roberts
began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're
the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs --
however,
I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
With thanks to Lewis Carroll.
Professor Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
21 Mar 2006 05:51:58 PM |
|
|
"Diana" <Diana@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hUNTf.24870$_k2.431911@news2.nokia.com...
Sorry I must be wrong but,
Is the Light speed constant or our measuring Instrument have limitations
-D
Light speed can not be constant to all observers simply because
it is a "speed" and speed is relative to all observers.
and yes,
Instruments do have limitations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Constant Light Speed |
22 Mar 2006 04:25:31 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> kirjoitti viestissä
news:7bydnSoF9uQKDL3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Diana" <Diana@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hUNTf.24870$_k2.431911@news2.nokia.com...
Sorry I must be wrong but,
Is the Light speed constant or our measuring Instrument have limitations
-D
Light speed can not be constant to all observers simply because
it is a "speed" and speed is relative to all observers.
and yes,
Instruments do have limitations.
Light don't care, what different observers think of it. It obeys the basic
laws, like the law of conservation of energy. That means that wave-lenghts
do not change.
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
