Science > Physics > Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
21 Oct 2005 04:51:52 AM |
| Object: |
Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
Lately relativity zombies have started a fierce campaign against the
principle of constancy of the speed of light. They don't like it, they
don't want to hear about it, they constantly repeat it is redundant,
they sincerely hate anybody who reminds them of its essentiality. Even
Einstein's words:
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"
don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
21 Oct 2005 05:39:52 AM |
|
|
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"
don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
*******************
Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
not the speed?????????
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
21 Oct 2005 10:20:55 AM |
|
|
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"
don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
*******************
Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
not the speed?????????
Maybe changing frequency is evidence for changing speed of light?????????
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
21 Oct 2005 10:00:04 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:20:55 GMT
<rH76f.145301$lI5.72319@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"
don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
*******************
Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
not the speed?????????
Maybe changing frequency is evidence for changing speed of light?????????
One could possibly take it as such, yes. It's not very
good evidence -- other possibilities include the SR
space-time "twist", for example.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
22 Oct 2005 08:23:08 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:i4ko23-77o.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:20:55 GMT
<rH76f.145301$lI5.72319@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"
don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
*******************
Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
not the speed?????????
Maybe changing frequency is evidence for changing speed of
light?????????
One could possibly take it as such, yes. It's not very
good evidence -- other possibilities include the SR
space-time "twist", for example.
So what is space-time that can be twisted??? Is it an ether? But SR deny the
existence of an ether.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
22 Oct 2005 09:05:09 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:i4ko23-77o.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:20:55 GMT
<rH76f.145301$lI5.72319@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"
don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
*******************
Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
not the speed?????????
Maybe changing frequency is evidence for changing speed of
light?????????
One could possibly take it as such, yes. It's not very
good evidence -- other possibilities include the SR
space-time "twist", for example.
So what is space-time that can be twisted??? Is it an ether? But SR deny the
existence of an ether.
Abstract frames of reference don't admit or deny anything.
The applicabiliy of SR to the physcical world is conditioned
by the imaginary operator.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
Sue...
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
22 Oct 2005 09:10:49 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129989909.552839.302000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
news:i4ko23-77o.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:20:55 GMT
<rH76f.145301$lI5.72319@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of
the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
is false"
don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
*******************
Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's
frequency,
not the speed?????????
Maybe changing frequency is evidence for changing speed of
light?????????
One could possibly take it as such, yes. It's not very
good evidence -- other possibilities include the SR
space-time "twist", for example.
So what is space-time that can be twisted??? Is it an ether? But SR deny
the
existence of an ether.
Abstract frames of reference don't admit or deny anything.
The applicabiliy of SR to the physcical world is conditioned
by the imaginary operator.
So an ether is not an ether when we describe it as abstractive??
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
22 Oct 2005 09:31:28 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129989909.552839.302000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
news:i4ko23-77o.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:20:55 GMT
<rH76f.145301$lI5.72319@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of
the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
is false"
don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
*******************
Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's
frequency,
not the speed?????????
Maybe changing frequency is evidence for changing speed of
light?????????
One could possibly take it as such, yes. It's not very
good evidence -- other possibilities include the SR
space-time "twist", for example.
So what is space-time that can be twisted??? Is it an ether? But SR deny
the
existence of an ether.
Abstract frames of reference don't admit or deny anything.
The applicabiliy of SR to the physcical world is conditioned
by the imaginary operator.
So an ether is not an ether when we describe it as abstractive??
*WE* don't describe it as abstract. The author of SR does.
You can call blue lines on paper propylene glycol if you please.
Wadding up the paper doesn't necessarly give any indication of
forces within the actual substance.
There are no blue lines on my carpet but I had to pay for
the carpet on the basis that they existed. Should I
ask for my money back ? :o)
Sue...
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
21 Oct 2005 08:32:31 AM |
|
|
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
| light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
| is false"
|
| don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
|
| *******************
|
| Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
| not the speed?????????
"Maybe" isn't good enough. Prove it.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
21 Oct 2005 10:43:54 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
| light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
| is false"
|
| don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
|
| *******************
|
| Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
| not the speed?????????
"Maybe" isn't good enough. Prove it.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prelims/2004ivan9.jpg
<<Within the outer eyewall existed several 1-2 n mi2
patches of 120-122 kt inbound Doppler velocities
(some individual gates contained 123.4 kt velocities)
at around 6,000 ft ASL. Using 122 kt as being
representative of a smoothed peak and applying a
reduction factor of 0.85 (standard reconnaissance
flight-level reduction for 6000 ft) yields a surface
estimate of 104 kt. In addition to the Doppler radar
velocity data, a 700 mb flight-level wind of 120-kt was observed just
south of Gulf Shores, AL at 0724 UTC 16 September (Figure 2c) in the
same general area where the aforementioned maximum Doppler radar
velocities were
observed.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml?text
Sue...
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
21 Oct 2005 12:37:47 PM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129909434.523927.142680@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of
the
| > | light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
| > | is false"
| > |
| > | don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
| > |
| > | *******************
| > |
| > | Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's
frequency,
| > | not the speed?????????
| >
| > "Maybe" isn't good enough. Prove it.
|
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prelims/2004ivan9.jpg
| <<Within the outer eyewall existed several 1-2 n mi2
| patches of 120-122 kt inbound Doppler velocities
| (some individual gates contained 123.4 kt velocities)
| at around 6,000 ft ASL. Using 122 kt as being
| representative of a smoothed peak and applying a
| reduction factor of 0.85 (standard reconnaissance
| flight-level reduction for 6000 ft) yields a surface
| estimate of 104 kt. In addition to the Doppler radar
| velocity data, a 700 mb flight-level wind of 120-kt was observed just
| south of Gulf Shores, AL at 0724 UTC 16 September (Figure 2c) in the
| same general area where the aforementioned maximum Doppler radar
| velocities were
| observed.
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml?text
|
| Sue...
That's only when there is permittivity and permeability lurking
around, and even then not a proof.
You need not look like a wallflowe... err... daisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
21 Oct 2005 02:29:14 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129909434.523927.142680@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of
the
| > | light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
| > | is false"
| > |
| > | don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
| > |
| > | *******************
| > |
| > | Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's
frequency,
| > | not the speed?????????
| >
| > "Maybe" isn't good enough. Prove it.
|
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prelims/2004ivan9.jpg
| <<Within the outer eyewall existed several 1-2 n mi2
| patches of 120-122 kt inbound Doppler velocities
| (some individual gates contained 123.4 kt velocities)
| at around 6,000 ft ASL. Using 122 kt as being
| representative of a smoothed peak and applying a
| reduction factor of 0.85 (standard reconnaissance
| flight-level reduction for 6000 ft) yields a surface
| estimate of 104 kt. In addition to the Doppler radar
| velocity data, a 700 mb flight-level wind of 120-kt was observed just
| south of Gulf Shores, AL at 0724 UTC 16 September (Figure 2c) in the
| same general area where the aforementioned maximum Doppler radar
| velocities were
| observed.
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml?text
|
| Sue...
That's only when there is permittivity and permeability lurking
around, and even then not a proof.
How large would you like to make the "lurk" (r)
before you calculate the permittivity ?
<< The factors of 4=CF=80 in the equations come from
the 4=CF=80 steradians of solid angle surrounding a point.
If the radial electric field from a point charge q
is q/r2, then the flux of the electric field across
a sphere of radius r with center at the charge is
4=CF=80r2(q/r2) =3D 4=CF=80q. This implies that div E =3D 4=CF=80=CF=81 when
the divergence theorem is used to turn this into a differential
relation. >>
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/hlu.htm
You need not look like a wallflowe... err... daisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence
Ah! Now that is progress. I see you have an estimate
of calcite crystals on your double-star path.
How goes the lithium count... or is that being
hoarded by other posters for psychotropic use?
Sue...
=20
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
22 Oct 2005 06:52:29 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129922954.380877.135200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129909434.523927.142680@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of
the
| > | light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
| > | is false"
| > |
| > | don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
| > |
| > | *******************
| > |
| > | Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's
frequency,
| > | not the speed?????????
| >
| > "Maybe" isn't good enough. Prove it.
|
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prelims/2004ivan9.jpg
| <<Within the outer eyewall existed several 1-2 n mi2
| patches of 120-122 kt inbound Doppler velocities
| (some individual gates contained 123.4 kt velocities)
| at around 6,000 ft ASL. Using 122 kt as being
| representative of a smoothed peak and applying a
| reduction factor of 0.85 (standard reconnaissance
| flight-level reduction for 6000 ft) yields a surface
| estimate of 104 kt. In addition to the Doppler radar
| velocity data, a 700 mb flight-level wind of 120-kt was observed
just
| south of Gulf Shores, AL at 0724 UTC 16 September (Figure 2c) in the
| same general area where the aforementioned maximum Doppler radar
| velocities were
| observed.
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml?text
|
| Sue...
That's only when there is permittivity and permeability lurking
around, and even then not a proof.
How large would you like to make the "lurk" (r)
before you calculate the permittivity ?
<< The factors of 4π in the equations come from
the 4π steradians of solid angle surrounding a point.
If the radial electric field from a point charge q
is q/r2, then the flux of the electric field across
a sphere of radius r with center at the charge is
4πr2(q/r2) = 4πq. This implies that div E = 4πρ when
the divergence theorem is used to turn this into a differential
relation. >>
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/hlu.htm
You need not look like a wallflowe... err... daisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence
Ah! Now that is progress. I see you have an estimate
of calcite crystals on your double-star path.
How goes the lithium count... or is that being
hoarded by other posters for psychotropic use?
Told you before...
You can play with all the epsilon1,2,3,4,5,6,7,...and mu1,2,3,4,5,6,7...
you like.
You can't have epsilon0, mu0. Off limits, locked away in the vacuum
cupboard.
You can't open the door either, it's held shut by air pressure.
Androcles.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
22 Oct 2005 07:53:17 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129922954.380877.135200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129909434.523927.142680@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of
the
| > | light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
| > | is false"
| > |
| > | don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
| > |
| > | *******************
| > |
| > | Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's
frequency,
| > | not the speed?????????
| >
| > "Maybe" isn't good enough. Prove it.
|
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prelims/2004ivan9.jpg
| <<Within the outer eyewall existed several 1-2 n mi2
| patches of 120-122 kt inbound Doppler velocities
| (some individual gates contained 123.4 kt velocities)
| at around 6,000 ft ASL. Using 122 kt as being
| representative of a smoothed peak and applying a
| reduction factor of 0.85 (standard reconnaissance
| flight-level reduction for 6000 ft) yields a surface
| estimate of 104 kt. In addition to the Doppler radar
| velocity data, a 700 mb flight-level wind of 120-kt was observed
just
| south of Gulf Shores, AL at 0724 UTC 16 September (Figure 2c) in the
| same general area where the aforementioned maximum Doppler radar
| velocities were
| observed.
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml?text
|
| Sue...
That's only when there is permittivity and permeability lurking
around, and even then not a proof.
How large would you like to make the "lurk" (r)
before you calculate the permittivity ?
<< The factors of 4=CF=80 in the equations come from
the 4=CF=80 steradians of solid angle surrounding a point.
If the radial electric field from a point charge q
is q/r2, then the flux of the electric field across
a sphere of radius r with center at the charge is
4=CF=80r2(q/r2) =3D 4=CF=80q. This implies that div E =3D 4=CF=80=CF=81 w=
hen
the divergence theorem is used to turn this into a differential
relation. >>
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/hlu.htm
You need not look like a wallflowe... err... daisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence
Ah! Now that is progress. I see you have an estimate
of calcite crystals on your double-star path.
How goes the lithium count... or is that being
hoarded by other posters for psychotropic use?
Told you before...
You can play with all the epsilon1,2,3,4,5,6,7,...and mu1,2,3,4,5,6,7...
you like.
You can't have epsilon0, mu0. Off limits, locked away in the vacuum
cupboard.
You can't open the door either, it's held shut by air pressure.
Androcles.
Sigh...
Math musings unbefitting one as skilled as you.
Put a single charge in a space,
homogenously filled with matter.
Now... Pull all matter away from the charge to form a
spherical void between the charge and the
remainder of the universe.
You should find that the void can never be large enough
to change to forces on the charge.
Any angular segment of sky has the same number of stars
as any other segment. (I counted last week) #:o)
Any region of space has an impedance of ~377 ohms.
Your arguments... like those of many you call 'relatvists'
ignore the forces they can't explain rather than
represent them with appropriate placeholders.
Sue...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
=20
=20
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
22 Oct 2005 11:35:35 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129985597.254221.270400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129922954.380877.135200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129909434.523927.142680@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1129891192.454694.301020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
of
the
| > | light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
| > | is false"
| > |
| > | don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
| > |
| > | *******************
| > |
| > | Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's
frequency,
| > | not the speed?????????
| >
| > "Maybe" isn't good enough. Prove it.
|
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prelims/2004ivan9.jpg
| <<Within the outer eyewall existed several 1-2 n mi2
| patches of 120-122 kt inbound Doppler velocities
| (some individual gates contained 123.4 kt velocities)
| at around 6,000 ft ASL. Using 122 kt as being
| representative of a smoothed peak and applying a
| reduction factor of 0.85 (standard reconnaissance
| flight-level reduction for 6000 ft) yields a surface
| estimate of 104 kt. In addition to the Doppler radar
| velocity data, a 700 mb flight-level wind of 120-kt was observed
just
| south of Gulf Shores, AL at 0724 UTC 16 September (Figure 2c) in
the
| same general area where the aforementioned maximum Doppler radar
| velocities were
| observed.
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml?text
|
| Sue...
That's only when there is permittivity and permeability lurking
around, and even then not a proof.
How large would you like to make the "lurk" (r)
before you calculate the permittivity ?
<< The factors of 4π in the equations come from
the 4π steradians of solid angle surrounding a point.
If the radial electric field from a point charge q
is q/r2, then the flux of the electric field across
a sphere of radius r with center at the charge is
4πr2(q/r2) = 4πq. This implies that div E = 4πρ when
the divergence theorem is used to turn this into a differential
relation. >>
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/hlu.htm
You need not look like a wallflowe... err... daisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence
Ah! Now that is progress. I see you have an estimate
of calcite crystals on your double-star path.
How goes the lithium count... or is that being
hoarded by other posters for psychotropic use?
Told you before...
You can play with all the epsilon1,2,3,4,5,6,7,...and
mu1,2,3,4,5,6,7...
you like.
You can't have epsilon0, mu0. Off limits, locked away in the vacuum
cupboard.
You can't open the door either, it's held shut by air pressure.
Androcles.
Sigh...
Math musings unbefitting one as skilled as you.
My B.A is in the Art of math, I'm entitled to muse.
Put a single charge in a space,
homogenously filled with matter.
I don't know to homogenously fill all of space with matter, I'm not
Sue Jahn, Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, Jesus H Christ, The Virgin
Mother or Albert Einstein. Miracles are beyond my jurisdiction, they
belong to your jurisfiction.
Androcles.
Now... Pull all matter away from the charge to form a
spherical void between the charge and the
remainder of the universe.
You should find that the void can never be large enough
to change to forces on the charge.
Any angular segment of sky has the same number of stars
as any other segment. (I counted last week) #:o)
Any region of space has an impedance of ~377 ohms.
Your arguments... like those of many you call 'relatvists'
ignore the forces they can't explain rather than
represent them with appropriate placeholders.
Sue...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Peel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
24 Oct 2005 10:38:22 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"
don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
*******************
Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
not the speed?????????
Speed relative to what? You are about to re-invent the Aether, don't
tell me.
T.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
21 Oct 2005 11:34:10 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Lately relativity zombies have started a fierce campaign against the
principle of constancy of the speed of light.
Cite?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
22 Oct 2005 01:32:21 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Lately relativity zombies have started a fierce campaign against the
principle of constancy of the speed of light. They don't like it, they
don't want to hear about it, they constantly repeat it is redundant,
they sincerely hate anybody who reminds them of its essentiality. Even
Einstein's words:
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"
don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
Pentcho Valev
Relativity is not a science but a mere dogma. Actually, not even the
name assigned to the dogma is appropriate. Both main postulates of
relativity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Postulates
are absurd statements not appropriate in physical science. Furthermore,
the axiomatic basis of Relativity is non-falsifiable:
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html
Axiom 1: There are globally inertial reference frames -- fails
verification
Axiom 2: Space-time is a 4-D continuum -- fails verification
Axiom 3: All laws of physics must retain their form in all inertial
reference frames --- fails verification
Axiom 4: The speed of light is constant in all inertial reference
frames --- fails verification
Why bother with such non-sense? Why screaming about Creationists
pushing Intelligent Design courses when Relativity dogma has been
taught for years now?
The imbeciles who failed to comprehend the principles of scientific
endevor set forth by the founders of modern science but otherwise
insisted on founding science on non-falsifiable, non-self evident
principles are playiong their last card before their monster creation
collapses dead before their sick faces. This is the answer to your
question. The time is near.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
22 Oct 2005 05:26:58 PM |
|
|
Mike:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Lately relativity zombies have started a fierce campaign against the
principle of constancy of the speed of light. They don't like it, they
don't want to hear about it, they constantly repeat it is redundant,
they sincerely hate anybody who reminds them of its essentiality. Even
Einstein's words:
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"
don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
Pentcho Valev
Relativity is not a science but a mere dogma.
The poodle bites...
(Come on frenchie)
Actually, not even the name assigned to the dogma
The poodle chews it...
(Not a speck of cereal)
is appropriate. Both main postulates of relativity:
Woof.
Axiom 1: There are globally inertial reference frames -- fails
verification
[...]
Axiom 4: The speed of light is constant in all inertial reference
frames --- fails verification
Good going there your Astrologership. One strawman and three blatantly
bizarre and thought free, erroneous remarks. We have a wiener. The last
was real close though. The speed of light has only been verified constant
to the extent that any standard of length is less accurate than an atomic
clock and the assumption that the speed of light is constant. Soon as we
get one of them new zircon encrusted tweezer to pluck out a standard 1m
length of dental floss, to use for a length standard, we might very well
discover a huge dis- crepancy due our initial trust in a platinum bar.
Why bother with such non-sense?
I figured you knew, since you keep posting it. Go figure.
Why screaming about Creationists pushing Intelligent Design courses
when Relativity dogma has been taught for years now?
Are you daft? Because creationists pushing intelligent design will cramp
the kabal's style and hinder expanding the dogma program down into the pre
schools and maternity wards. Why else? Woof.
The imbeciles who failed to comprehend the principles of scientific
endevor set forth by the founders of modern science but otherwise
insisted on founding science on non-falsifiable, non-self evident
principles are playiong their last card before their monster creation
collapses dead before their sick faces.
Well, you have only yourself to blame,since you could have chosen
to read at least a few of those principles to avoid being an imbecile.
I guess that's sort of a catch-22 though.
This is the answer to your question. The time is near.
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Sound the trumpets. The second coming of the Olde
Physics and Natural Philosophy is upon us. As prophesised in Crack-
potations 6:1-2, ``I watched as the Lamb broke the first seal and before
me was an Off-White Horse. Its rider held the Bow of Ignorant Bliss. When
the second seal was broken, out came another Horse, a Fireless Gray one.
Its rider was given power to restore Astrology to the Curriculum and to
cause physicists to slay one another with Quantum Mechanical Indeterminacy.
(Crakpotations 6:3). The third seal was broken and before me appeared a
Palamino with a rider holding scales. A voice said, ``5 bars of gold
bullion for one dogmatic sentence, and do not forget to wash and wax the
physicist's Ferrarris.'' (Crackpotations 6:5). From the fourth seal appeared
a Blue Horse, the color of 10mg diazepam tablets. Its rider was Brainwash
and Indoctrinated followed close behind. They were given power over one-fourth
of the earth to kill by relativity, field operators and math theories
from the Wild Invalid Postulates of Modern Science. (Crackpotations
6:7). Only those whose foreheads bear the red circle and slash over the
likeness of Einstein shall be saved.
In Crackpotations 6:9 we find: From under the fifth seal I saw the souls
of theories that were slain, Aether, Caloric and Madame Cleo's 1-900
number. Continuing in in Crackpotations 6:12: The sixth seal was broken
and the sky turned dark, the moon found a safer planet to orbit and the
stars in the sky fell to hollywood, killing the two geeks who promote
Dogma on the series Numb3rs.
Then, from the Kingdom of Usenet, the Son of Spam, Mikey, Heir Apparent
to the Porcelain Throne, will appear in a Blaze of the Crack Pipe to rule
the public school school system and drive the Dogma to take refuge and
hide among the Jesuits and Amish. Astrology, Chinese Throwing Sticks and
Kino Cards will ascend to their Rightful Place in Science, from the
Highest Ivory Towers to the Lowest Poached Ivory Bantu Medicine Man
Training Huts. Let is now pray, ``Mikey, I'm not worthy to receive you,
but only Post to Usenet and My Dogma shall be Heeled.'' [Genuflect Here]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
23 Oct 2005 12:00:57 PM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Mike:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Lately relativity zombies have started a fierce campaign against the
principle of constancy of the speed of light. They don't like it, they
don't want to hear about it, they constantly repeat it is redundant,
they sincerely hate anybody who reminds them of its essentiality. Even
Einstein's words:
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"
don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
Pentcho Valev
Relativity is not a science but a mere dogma.
The poodle bites...
(Come on frenchie)
Actually, not even the name assigned to the dogma
The poodle chews it...
(Not a speck of cereal)
is appropriate. Both main postulates of relativity:
Woof.
Axiom 1: There are globally inertial reference frames -- fails
verification
[...]
Axiom 4: The speed of light is constant in all inertial reference
frames --- fails verification
Good going there your Astrologership. One strawman and three blatantly
bizarre and thought free, erroneous remarks. We have a wiener. The last
was real close though. The speed of light has only been verified constant
to the extent that any standard of length is less accurate than an atomic
clock and the assumption that the speed of light is constant. Soon as we
get one of them new zircon encrusted tweezer to pluck out a standard 1m
length of dental floss, to use for a length standard, we might very well
discover a huge dis- crepancy due our initial trust in a platinum bar.
Why bother with such non-sense?
I figured you knew, since you keep posting it. Go figure.
Why screaming about Creationists pushing Intelligent Design courses
when Relativity dogma has been taught for years now?
Are you daft? Because creationists pushing intelligent design will cramp
the kabal's style and hinder expanding the dogma program down into the pre
schools and maternity wards. Why else? Woof.
The imbeciles who failed to comprehend the principles of scientific
endevor set forth by the founders of modern science but otherwise
insisted on founding science on non-falsifiable, non-self evident
principles are playiong their last card before their monster creation
collapses dead before their sick faces.
Well, you have only yourself to blame,since you could have chosen
to read at least a few of those principles to avoid being an imbecile.
I guess that's sort of a catch-22 though.
This is the answer to your question. The time is near.
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Sound the trumpets. The second coming of the Olde
Physics and Natural Philosophy is upon us. As prophesised in Crack-
potations 6:1-2, ``I watched as the Lamb broke the first seal and before
me was an Off-White Horse. Its rider held the Bow of Ignorant Bliss. When
the second seal was broken, out came another Horse, a Fireless Gray one.
Its rider was given power to restore Astrology to the Curriculum and to
cause physicists to slay one another with Quantum Mechanical Indeterminacy.
(Crakpotations 6:3). The third seal was broken and before me appeared a
Palamino with a rider holding scales. A voice said, ``5 bars of gold
bullion for one dogmatic sentence, and do not forget to wash and wax the
physicist's Ferrarris.'' (Crackpotations 6:5). From the fourth seal appeared
a Blue Horse, the color of 10mg diazepam tablets. Its rider was Brainwash
and Indoctrinated followed close behind. They were given power over one-fourth
of the earth to kill by relativity, field operators and math theories
from the Wild Invalid Postulates of Modern Science. (Crackpotations
6:7). Only those whose foreheads bear the red circle and slash over the
likeness of Einstein shall be saved.
In Crackpotations 6:9 we find: From under the fifth seal I saw the souls
of theories that were slain, Aether, Caloric and Madame Cleo's 1-900
number. Continuing in in Crackpotations 6:12: The sixth seal was broken
and the sky turned dark, the moon found a safer planet to orbit and the
stars in the sky fell to hollywood, killing the two geeks who promote
Dogma on the series Numb3rs.
Then, from the Kingdom of Usenet, the Son of Spam, Mikey, Heir Apparent
to the Porcelain Throne, will appear in a Blaze of the Crack Pipe to rule
the public school school system and drive the Dogma to take refuge and
hide among the Jesuits and Amish. Astrology, Chinese Throwing Sticks and
Kino Cards will ascend to their Rightful Place in Science, from the
Highest Ivory Towers to the Lowest Poached Ivory Bantu Medicine Man
Training Huts. Let is now pray, ``Mikey, I'm not worthy to receive you,
but only Post to Usenet and My Dogma shall be Heeled.'' [Genuflect Here]
idiot, you have been told many times that energy conservation is due to
time symmetry. The rest is ...woof.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Einsteinians Don't Love Einstein's Second Postulate Anymore? |
22 Oct 2005 05:41:26 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1130005941.352113.143030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > Lately relativity zombies have started a fierce campaign against the
| > principle of constancy of the speed of light. They don't like it,
they
| > don't want to hear about it, they constantly repeat it is redundant,
| > they sincerely hate anybody who reminds them of its essentiality.
Even
| > Einstein's words:
| >
| > "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
| > light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
| > is false"
| >
| > don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
| >
| > Pentcho Valev
|
| Relativity is not a science but a mere dogma. Actually, not even the
| name assigned to the dogma is appropriate. Both main postulates of
| relativity:
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Postulates
|
| are absurd statements not appropriate in physical science.
Not even close to Einstein's own definition.
The PoR, as Einstein described it.
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet....[snip rest of paragraph]
Examples of this sort [snip caveats] will hereafter be called the
``Principle of Relativity''.
Full text available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/.
Modern derivation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Postulates
The laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames in
which the laws of mechanics hold good.
The caveats are NOT the PoR.
So much for wackypedia.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
