Science > Physics > The speed of light can not be physically constant to all
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Spaceman" |
| Date: |
14 Mar 2006 02:13:48 PM |
| Object: |
The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
The speed of light, 186,000 miles per second (rounded off of course),
can not be constant to all observers simply because it is a speed.
There is no such thing as a speed that can be constant to all observers
For such a speed to be constant to all observers it would have to
be able to ignore and adjust (instantly) to the relative motion of all
things.
c is not a constant.
It is a speed and all speeds are variable to a relative observer.
.
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
18 Mar 2006 10:48:15 AM |
|
|
SUNRISE bora bora
wow
coffie donut ,,big red bud.
TIME could not be a BB factor.
The universe is a trillion times bigger then what we see ..and past that
..
A photon left evry point and that point dont move.
at c .
BUT as you see at some point time then will colide with time and
there's mass.
evry 14 billion years there is mass.
evry atom is at the center of its universe.
Thats how BIG the universe is.
It can see to the Hubble max .
Its because of TIME is the rate energy reacts with energy.
not sooner not latter then c .
You cant react a point at 1 trillionth second
with a point 14 billion years long.
or even an inch long .
A rise and fall in energy at a point that dont move.
wrt a star 100 billion light years away to us that point of time looks
like a strait line .( bad anologey)
Time is not a strait line .
the only time we can react with c.
we cant see past c .
past c ....the wavelength x frquency equals c.
if it dont equal c it dont exsist.
or does it !!!!!
DARK ENERGY
MOE is te math on evrything.
if the math can be run to the limit you will find that time colides
wth time at the hubble max.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
18 Mar 2006 12:16:23 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29790-441C39CF-47@storefull-3214.bay.webtv.net...
SUNRISE bora bora
Translation - my mother has just woken me up from a really nice dream.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 03:27:07 PM |
|
|
I just noticed octopus docked behind us.
at the club ..
50 bucks for a warm glass of water at this bora bora club.
I dumped 300 bucks on my head and left the paper on the frankin pack
( tip )
not even paul lives in his house any more.
ocne you lived on a big boat ,,
Im going out on the beach to bake my clam ;)
wile they get the kite rigged.
I get up to 300 feet and tingle .'
bono ,,sting the music dude looked shocked to see me.
looks like its a party at the bora bora yacht club
im on captains deck faced aft.
bigeyes in hand ..
send him down a big fat bud from tahitti
breakfast is free ,,tossed a live alaskan giant king crab at him.
put 2 inthe microwave and the winner gets ate first
I got more ex-navy seals crew then you : ))
octopus is one cool cruiser
we have more toys in the roro deck.
la bleu dockd behind octopus
I got bit on the cheek by some bug .
left a welt the sise of a quarter.
is that a bud or a xmass tree ,,he ask
PLUG IT IN !! i holler
saterday night party at the club
I should puke befor I go I know..
I dont drink ,,,but will do a few shots and smoke a fatty ..wheres my
snorkel ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 04:02:50 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18471-441B29AB-1369@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
I just noticed octopus docked behind us.
Hahaha.
You are a nutcase.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Euclid Uranium" |
|
| Title: (no subject) |
23 Mar 2006 02:49:48 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote:
Not true. In mathematics the extra digits are important - the are not called
insignificant digits. You would have been better keeping to a more literary
realm.
Again, each extra digit you display implies a greater level of accuracy with
the number There is no escaping it. It is why c can be written as 3x10^8m
s^-1 when it is actually less than that.
If we wrote 3.00000x10^8 m s-1 would it be the same as 3x10^8m s^-1? Would
they both be the same as c?
I n electrons as Newsgroups, are still whenever when instgations did
Bernice it just tightening matter; how? They are. If The speed of
Weller; me (it's confused sailors much simpler). As well Elmo hastily
asserted the light in view a restaurant, very fiscal noisy, custody
were slaming, to the remote I am usually.
She'd rather write the survey kneel me it's not be messed up. That?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
18 Mar 2006 10:09:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:38:47 -0500, Spaceman wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R_ednf6Rl_pWnIfZRVnyig@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:e72dnfGaK9S4aoTZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OtWdnYJUgs_VSITZnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:5cadnX9HQJ9wSYTZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WKednV2KzJf0T4TZnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@pipex.net...
What does equal mean?
T Wake,
I can now see you are just being a troll now. I guess I will have to
allow you to think you are correct because I am not goign to bother
with this ***** you spout.
Here is an example of equal.
T Wake = complete utter trollish moron. Screw off Wake.
Haha. Evasion noted.
What does equal mean?
It means the same.
So you say that in all circumstances 1.00 is identical in all respects
to 1.000 ?
Identical? no.
equal.... yes.
An old fallacy may be in order at this point. Assume "a=b" is defined as
(abs(a-b) <= 0.01). Hence 0.01 = 0.02 = 0.03 = ... = 0.98 = 0.99 = 1.00.
But is 0.00 = 1.00 here? No.
Admittedly, there are a fair number of issues here.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:10:57 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:22, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<HdKdnXxaH7VtMYTZnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-MCdnVxF3bqgMYTZRVnysg@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:09, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<nvydndTSqfh8NITZRVn-qw@comcast.com>):
LOL
You are one of the morons that is saying
1 does not equal 1.00
LOL
Are you really, honestly, this stupid? Or is all this just an act?
You are the one that stupidly stated such.
Are you truly that stupid?
It sure seems that way.
Is it possible in this day and age for someone's understanding of basic
concepts to be so noticeable in its absence?
Is it possible today for morons like you that think 1 does not
equal 1.00 to actually have any brains left at all?
It seems not.
You are starting to embarrass yourself now.
I was talking to an American friend of mine who has suggested you get a copy
of Wiley - Physics (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471529192/) and read
chapters 24 - 28.
Good luck.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:22:14 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1IydnVC0mqbaJYTZRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
You are starting to embarrass yourself now.
ROFLOL
You are the one embarrassing yourself.
You are ignoring relative motion in this entire thread.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:37:16 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:22, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<R_Cdnc5havNGJ4TZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1IydnVC0mqbaJYTZRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
You are starting to embarrass yourself now.
ROFLOL
You are the one embarrassing yourself.
You are ignoring relative motion in this entire thread.
You are ignoring the evidence of observation, practice and understanding.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 02:19:46 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vIidnTyaK-btI4TZRVnysA@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:22, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<R_Cdnc5havNGJ4TZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1IydnVC0mqbaJYTZRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
You are starting to embarrass yourself now.
ROFLOL
You are the one embarrassing yourself.
You are ignoring relative motion in this entire thread.
You are ignoring the evidence of observation, practice and understanding.
No, I am not ignoring any evidence.
Simply because you have no "actual" evidence.
You have evidence that light travels from it's source at c and
I have no problem with that.
You don't have evidence that light is passing by all observers
at c.
It is silly if you think you do.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 02:47:10 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:R5mdnQtV5IbLVYTZRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vIidnTyaK-btI4TZRVnysA@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:22, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<R_Cdnc5havNGJ4TZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1IydnVC0mqbaJYTZRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
You are starting to embarrass yourself now.
ROFLOL
You are the one embarrassing yourself.
You are ignoring relative motion in this entire thread.
You are ignoring the evidence of observation, practice and understanding.
No, I am not ignoring any evidence.
Simply because you have no "actual" evidence.
Yes. If you close your eyes and chant loudly enough it will go away.
Cite one experiment which has ever been conducted which supports your point
of view.
You have evidence that light travels from it's source at c and
I have no problem with that.
You don't have evidence that light is passing by all observers
at c.
Whatever.
It is silly if you think you do.
Ok. You can have your light at any speed you want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 03:00:52 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:utOdnedVJN9OU4TZRVnyjw@pipex.net...
Cite one experiment which has ever been conducted which supports your
point of view.
Cite one experiment that shows any timed light pulse will last the same
amount
of time to all observers.
LOL
You have evidence that light travels from it's source at c and
I have no problem with that.
You don't have evidence that light is passing by all observers
at c.
Whatever.
Yup.
It is whatever.
Too bad you can not grasp why it is whatever.
Ok. You can have your light at any speed you want.
That is not what I am stating.
Apparently you still can not grasp the reason for a shorter
lightpulse.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 03:13:48 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:wOmdnVhJuehkTITZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:utOdnedVJN9OU4TZRVnyjw@pipex.net...
Cite one experiment which has ever been conducted which supports your
point of view.
Cite one experiment that shows any timed light pulse will last the same
amount
of time to all observers.
No.
The deal is you want to change the established view. You provide the
evidence.
Until then, you are just a mewling crank.
As it stands, the "belief" that c is a constant to all observers has been
sufficient for ALL science and engineering in the last hundred years.
It is used when a phased array radar sends out its signal and approaching
aircraft use it to determine approach speeds etc.
However, you are free to post whatever you want.
You know you have *no* experimental evidence. *No* predictions. *No*
theoretical basis to develop your ideas.
In short, you can talk but so what?
You have evidence that light travels from it's source at c and
I have no problem with that.
You don't have evidence that light is passing by all observers
at c.
Whatever.
Yup.
It is whatever.
Too bad you can not grasp why it is whatever.
OK. You are the expert.
It means that we need to redefine pretty much everything we know about the
cosmos then. Not to mention the problems with measuring the sun, as our
movement around it should cause havoc with the photons (and all the other
particles) flying away from it towards us.
Looks like I will have to go back to university and help them redesign
pretty much every model of the EM (and electroweak) force.
This also has implications on the nuclear forces as well so we will have to
change them.
And, as gravity is assumed to propgate at c, it must also suffer the same
issues so we need to re-model that.
Spaceman, you are in line for a nobel prize.
Well done.
Ok. You can have your light at any speed you want.
That is not what I am stating.
Apparently you still can not grasp the reason for a shorter
lightpulse.
Yawn.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 05:20:50 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q5WdnfYBa8KNSITZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:wOmdnVhJuehkTITZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:utOdnedVJN9OU4TZRVnyjw@pipex.net...
Cite one experiment which has ever been conducted which supports your
point of view.
Cite one experiment that shows any timed light pulse will last the same
amount
of time to all observers.
No.
You would need this to completely prove lightspeed is the same
to all observers.
I see you don't think it can be done so you don't want proof you are
correct huh?
LOL
It means that we need to redefine pretty much everything we know about the
cosmos then.
It does no such thing,
Everything we know is based upon a constant speed of light
from it's source.
Pretty much nothing is based upon an objects view of light.
So. even if it is not constant to all observers it will hardly change
anything
we are currently using today.
The only thing it will hurt is your precious theory yet somehow
you allow lightwaves to ignore the relative motion of said theory.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 06:18:01 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:cJGdnRRlE61bb4TZRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q5WdnfYBa8KNSITZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:wOmdnVhJuehkTITZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:utOdnedVJN9OU4TZRVnyjw@pipex.net...
Cite one experiment which has ever been conducted which supports your
point of view.
Cite one experiment that shows any timed light pulse will last the same
amount
of time to all observers.
No.
You would need this to completely prove lightspeed is the same
to all observers.
No I dont actually. Most (sane) people and pretty much anyone working in
science or engineering fields accept the provided experimental data.
You are trying to disprove the established theory.
*you* need to provide proof not the other way round.
I see you don't think it can be done so you don't want proof you are
correct huh?
No. I am correct so don't need proof. You want to upset the apple cart so
you need to bring something to the party other than your word salad.
It means that we need to redefine pretty much everything we know about
the cosmos then.
It does no such thing,
Yes it does. We are moving through space, often perpendicular to light
sources. We determine almost everything about them based on the constancy of
c.
Everything we know is based upon a constant speed of light
from it's source.
This is not the case. We assume the speed is constant full stop.
If we didn't, that wouldn't be the baseline taught from secondary school
onwards.
Simple things like satellite time signals to Earth would need to be
re-adjusted to account for the velocity of the receiver on the surface.
Our study of subatomic particles would need a total overhaul, as all the
data we have for them at the moment would become wrong. Simple things, like
estimating the generation of particles arriving at the Earth's surface from
the Sun (and exo-atmospheric interactions) would need redesigning. (Which is
odd as it all works with the current theory).
Pretty much nothing is based upon an objects view of light.
Not so.
But, importantly we hit another hurdle here.
If you say your change to the theory changes nothing, then the modern
application of Occam's razor in science means the theory which explains
more, makes more predictions is valid.
So. even if it is not constant to all observers it will hardly change
anything
Hardly anything or nothing?
What do you say will change?
we are currently using today.
The only thing it will hurt is your precious theory yet somehow
you allow lightwaves to ignore the relative motion of said theory.
It is not *my* theory by a long shot. I don't see my name on it anywhere.
None of my dissertations were directly related to GR/SR either (other than
they relied on the bedrock theory).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 06:37:45 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CbKdnWmiseainYfZRVnyjw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:cJGdnRRlE61bb4TZRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q5WdnfYBa8KNSITZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:wOmdnVhJuehkTITZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:utOdnedVJN9OU4TZRVnyjw@pipex.net...
Cite one experiment which has ever been conducted which supports your
point of view.
Cite one experiment that shows any timed light pulse will last the same
amount
of time to all observers.
No.
You would need this to completely prove lightspeed is the same
to all observers.
No I dont actually. Most (sane) people and pretty much anyone working in
science or engineering fields accept the provided experimental data.
Blindly maybe yup!
LOL
You are trying to disprove the established theory.
No,
I am only discussing a postulate of it actually.
No. I am correct so don't need proof. You want to upset the apple cart so
you need to bring something to the party other than your word salad.
You are not correct.
The lesser pulse time proves it.
It means that we need to redefine pretty much everything we know about
the cosmos then.
It does no such thing,
Yes it does. We are moving through space, often perpendicular to light
sources. We determine almost everything about them based on the constancy
of c.
Such is close enough for most everything we have done using
such as a constant but it is not truly constant.
It is not like we are trying to look out for planets heading
towards us at 0.5c or anything even close really.
Everything we know is based upon a constant speed of light
from it's source.
This is not the case. We assume the speed is constant full stop.
No,
The constant is from the source most everytime we use it.
We don't assume anything other than that in science.
Only fools like you do that.
If we didn't, that wouldn't be the baseline taught from secondary school
onwards.
Most schools are not going to teach relativity much longer..
LOL
Simple things like satellite time signals to Earth would need to be
re-adjusted to account for the velocity of the receiver on the surface.
*****.
No such crap would need to be done at all really.
It is all close enough already.
Although if we did accept the non constant to the observer fact
I have proposed, we would simply have less errors.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 07:04:48 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:TNCdnWcV3IFQmYfZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CbKdnWmiseainYfZRVnyjw@pipex.net...
No I dont actually. Most (sane) people and pretty much anyone working in
science or engineering fields accept the provided experimental data.
Blindly maybe yup!
Isnt it amazing that you are the first person to question the theory then.
I am honoured to be able to converse with you over USENET.
You are trying to disprove the established theory.
No,
I am only discussing a postulate of it actually.
However, if you dismantly the bedrock ideas you dismantle the theory. You
have to re-model everything based on the postulate you wish to adjust.
No. I am correct so don't need proof. You want to upset the apple cart so
you need to bring something to the party other than your word salad.
You are not correct.
The lesser pulse time proves it.
Nope. Your statement is simply a statement. Until you can actually get the
experiment carried out you have no proof.
Words in USENET are cheap and easy.
It means that we need to redefine pretty much everything we know about
the cosmos then.
It does no such thing,
Yes it does. We are moving through space, often perpendicular to light
sources. We determine almost everything about them based on the constancy
of c.
Such is close enough for most everything we have done using
such as a constant but it is not truly constant.
It wouldnt be close enough. The speeds involved are small by the speed of
light's standards but the accuracy we require is enough for them to be
wildly out when we come to use it.
Unfortunately, my new guru, this is not something you can gloss over. It
needs a solution.
It is not like we are trying to look out for planets heading
towards us at 0.5c or anything even close really.
The speed is irrelevant. The fact there is a difference would put most
mobile platforms out. It would drastically impact the communications between
Earth and (for example) the MRO when Mars is at perihelion.
Everything we know is based upon a constant speed of light
from it's source.
This is not the case. We assume the speed is constant full stop.
No,
The constant is from the source most everytime we use it.
Really?
We don't assume anything other than that in science.
"We?" I have worked as an engineer for a long time before I "learned"
science and nothing I was taught contradicted ANYTHING I did in practice.
I spent 12 years building bridges, blowing things up and establishing a
variety of communications systems. All used the theories of relativity
without fail. All worked.
Only fools like you do that.
Gosh.
If we didn't, that wouldn't be the baseline taught from secondary school
onwards.
Most schools are not going to teach relativity much longer..
Ok. I look forward to the day it is replaced by something, and not simply
dropped because people are not clever enough to learn it.
When will this happen? Are we talking world wide or just in the US?
Simple things like satellite time signals to Earth would need to be
re-adjusted to account for the velocity of the receiver on the surface.
*****.
No such crap would need to be done at all really.
It is all close enough already.
"close enough?" How close is it? What margin of error can we allow?
Although if we did accept the non constant to the observer fact
I have proposed, we would simply have less errors.
Really? How many less?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 07:23:47 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GNadnakI4eP_lofZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:TNCdnWcV3IFQmYfZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CbKdnWmiseainYfZRVnyjw@pipex.net...
No I dont actually. Most (sane) people and pretty much anyone working in
science or engineering fields accept the provided experimental data.
Blindly maybe yup!
Isnt it amazing that you are the first person to question the theory then.
I see you are blind, thanks for the proof since I am not the first
person and many have stated the same thing on this group but of
course your ingorance has blinded you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 09:10:36 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:8IadnS3ru8sKkofZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GNadnakI4eP_lofZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:TNCdnWcV3IFQmYfZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CbKdnWmiseainYfZRVnyjw@pipex.net...
No I dont actually. Most (sane) people and pretty much anyone working
in science or engineering fields accept the provided experimental data.
Blindly maybe yup!
Isnt it amazing that you are the first person to question the theory
then.
I see you are blind, thanks for the proof since I am not the first
person and many have stated the same thing on this group but of
course your ingorance has blinded you.
Ah but they have all been crackpots and made instantly falsifiable
assertion.
You are the first to come up with the one second pulse postulate and, by
doing so, re-write all the text books in the world.
I mean, are you saying tj Frazir is right?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Euclid Uranium" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
09 Apr 2006 06:01:13 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
*****.
No such crap would need to be done at all really.
It is all close enough already.
Although if we did accept the non constant to the observer fact
I have proposed, we would simply have less errors.
:)
If anything like to fantasise about experiments: being, very
fist towards some Finnish but they Measure information from the
development is any actual fundamental; molecule zeptomolar,
biophysics studies that second, law of existence. A point of an
open your ear idea AFAIK, I'm to manage the Wizard promiscuous
generous enough matter to do you are, to make such self the
lightwave front corner you tell, Sam though of course waves
using the debate was after it isn't the that Was an or subtract
it has to with various definitions of the truth, is most
obvious; that I thought provoking question, the; food
intolerance, Mac logic?
The story, about from age; will keep your position with your Gr
the which (one is not me practically be overcome it was
hilarious)? By assuming reality the family talk; about violent
desperados, those it was not think Women prisoners. Well as of
nightmares; wrong side with Google this same courtesy as an
nesting in m V W Bush while.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:49:02 PM |
|
|
Pearl Resorts - Live Webcam on Bora Bora - French Polynesia
Address:http://www.letahaa.com/webcam/borabora/default.asp
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Connor" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
27 Mar 2006 09:53:22 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are numerically illiterate. From your grammar and writing style, you are
probably functionally illiterate.
The zeros do not "give the error margin." It is always there. The zeros
reduce the implied error margin. This is critical for passing information on
to others. As I suspect you have limited contact with the outside world
(other than cranking on USENET), this is probably not very important for
you.
On a serious note, do you actually have to get someone to tie your shoe
laces for you?
I used the power to say that look clean and it was split to
mutilate: them to USA these incidents quicker and the projector
is using a to the blackness, like as read; postings from
Providence, seeing.
I've tried. Because they comes to it you I have to include
extra flux is the following lines for the volume knobs and
exclamation points, to quote and none had them in. As rid of
the low volume the Christnet Newsgroups that on The scoring
people try to store and a: lot of but the long: run mean but an
answer is off pin, surface mount fuseholders so probably my
house.
Chomp. Going up and get some of hours of the thread. Changling
I dl'd it melting, point; of or something in for multiple
searches the General syntax is probably still don't want to do
anything useful: people to continually Blinky lights than the
leafnode, again! Twenty gain than to OE give us! I try to let
me anyway, you are you just the cost a dipshit troll, shortly
afterwards. There is which typically, runs in the response, and
a piece of getting catalogs? Next. Hit the problem troll.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 12:03:52 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142530152.398055.60020@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142458677.304087.97110@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142455199.011441.201750@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142449125.087483.175960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Well, most "anybody" just adds miles as a trick to add speeds
because
it's close enough to being right for practical purposes, and they
don't
care if it's really, really right. You on the other hand seem to
care
and insist that it must be really, really right. It's not.
It is according to all real life tests of odometers.
You'll note no one claims odometers to be accurate to the precision
required to tell the difference. In fact, odometers are lucky to get
the mileage right within a percent. Yes, that's right, if your
odometer
reads 289,348 miles then you don't know that's accurate within 300
miles.
Funny,
T Wake says there is much higher of an error bar.
No, he doesn't.
BTW: He stated a mile could have an error of 0.49 of a mile
for each mile.
That's not quite what T Wake said, no.
What he said is there is a distinction between 1 mile and 1.00 mile and
1.00000 mile. That is, there is a *reason* to use each and they are not
interchangeable.
<snipped ignorance of equality>
Sorry,
you are wrong.
1=1.00=1.0000000
Adding zeros does not give the number an error margin.
the 1 is the same as all of them.
Your little "error margin" is not based upon 0's it would have to be based
upon "non zeros".
sheesh!
LOL
Your numerical illiteracy and your snipping of my explanation of the
expectations about that when discussing physics is noted, spaceman.
It's funny to me that *you* come to *this* playground to discuss
physics (this is, after all, not sci.garage) and yet you think the
expectations placed upon practicioners of science shouldn't apply to
you. This would be like you showing up at the schoolyard and wanting to
join a game of pick-up basketball, but refusing to dribble because you
can't do it and saying that you think dribbing is not a rule of the
game.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 12:09:32 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142532232.201314.206970@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Your numerical illiteracy and your snipping of my explanation of the
expectations about that when discussing physics is noted, spaceman.
LOL
You are one of the morons that is saying
1 does not equal 1.00
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:26:40 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142532232.201314.206970@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Your numerical illiteracy and your snipping of my explanation of the
expectations about that when discussing physics is noted, spaceman.
LOL
You are one of the morons that is saying
1 does not equal 1.00
LOL
That's right. They mean two different things to physicists.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:27:48 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142532232.201314.206970@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Your numerical illiteracy and your snipping of my explanation of the
expectations about that when discussing physics is noted, spaceman.
LOL
You are one of the morons that is saying
1 does not equal 1.00
LOL
To really bake your cookie, to scientists there is a distinction
between 1 and 1. and 1.0
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:36:54 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142532232.201314.206970@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1142530152.398055.60020@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > >
| > > Spaceman wrote:
| > >> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > >> news:1142458677.304087.97110@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| > >> >
| > >> > Spaceman wrote:
| > >> >> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > >> >> news:1142455199.011441.201750@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > >> >> >
| > >> >> > Spaceman wrote:
| > >> >> >> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > >> >> >> news:1142449125.087483.175960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| > >> >> >> > Well, most "anybody" just adds miles as a trick to add speeds
| > >> >> >> > because
| > >> >> >> > it's close enough to being right for practical purposes, and
they
| > >> >> >> > don't
| > >> >> >> > care if it's really, really right. You on the other hand seem
to
| > >> >> >> > care
| > >> >> >> > and insist that it must be really, really right. It's not.
| > >> >> >>
| > >> >> >> It is according to all real life tests of odometers.
| > >> >> >
| > >> >> > You'll note no one claims odometers to be accurate to the
precision
| > >> >> > required to tell the difference. In fact, odometers are lucky to
get
| > >> >> > the mileage right within a percent. Yes, that's right, if your
| > >> >> > odometer
| > >> >> > reads 289,348 miles then you don't know that's accurate within
300
| > >> >> > miles.
| > >> >>
| > >> >> Funny,
| > >> >> T Wake says there is much higher of an error bar.
| > >> >
| > >> > No, he doesn't.
| > >>
| > >> BTW: He stated a mile could have an error of 0.49 of a mile
| > >> for each mile.
| > >
| > > That's not quite what T Wake said, no.
| > >
| > > What he said is there is a distinction between 1 mile and 1.00 mile
and
| > > 1.00000 mile. That is, there is a *reason* to use each and they are
not
| > > interchangeable.
| > <snipped ignorance of equality>
| > Sorry,
| > you are wrong.
| > 1=1.00=1.0000000
| > Adding zeros does not give the number an error margin.
| > the 1 is the same as all of them.
| > Your little "error margin" is not based upon 0's it would have to be
based
| > upon "non zeros".
| > sheesh!
| > LOL
|
| Your numerical illiteracy and your snipping of my explanation of the
| expectations about that when discussing physics is noted, spaceman.
LOL! Does it burn, Phuckwit Duck, does it burn?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 03:48:09 PM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
[snipped]
| > LOL
|
| Your numerical illiteracy and your snipping of my explanation of the
| expectations about that when discussing physics is noted, spaceman.
LOL! Does it burn, Phuckwit Duck, does it burn?
Androcles.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I told you that I enjoyed it when you give me something else to laugh
at you about.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 06:42:17 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142545689.661272.260500@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| [snipped]
Sure, anytime.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 08:28:40 AM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142545689.661272.260500@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| [snipped]
Sure, anytime.
Androcles.
Ah, so Androcles has lost sense of tense and declension as well as any
understanding of physics. He now takes "snipped" to be a command.
In that case:
[went away]
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
