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: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 12:08:11 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DNydnTFqaaNlO4TZRVnyvw@pipex.net...
The "pulse" is not the the photons travelling at c.
The photons were released in a 1 second train length pulse.
The one second is the "length" of the photon train traveling at c.
Your lack of understanding of the concepts that surround the answer are
the main reason you cant understand the answer.
You are the one with the lack of understanding.
you can not explain the less than 1 second cause without
agreeing with me about the speed being relatively higher
than c.
It is funny to watch you squirm.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 12:36:48 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:08, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<F9mdnS8P64gdNITZRVn-sQ@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DNydnTFqaaNlO4TZRVnyvw@pipex.net...
The "pulse" is not the the photons travelling at c.
The photons were released in a 1 second train length pulse.
The one second is the "length" of the photon train traveling at c.
The photons are travelling at c.
Tighten up your terminology. Each time you try to add extra words, (train
for example) it is creating (in your head) a mental picture which is making
what you say even more inaccurate.
In your example what actually happens is the emitter releases photons for 1
second. When the last photon is emitted, the first is 3x10^8 m away.
You are viewing this as a "solid" object which is inaccurate.
Each photon is a photon. You may want to debate the existence of photons or
the wave / particle nature of electromagnetic propagation but that is for
another day.
Your lack of understanding of the concepts that surround the answer are
the main reason you cant understand the answer.
You are the one with the lack of understanding.
you can not explain the less than 1 second cause without
agreeing with me about the speed being relatively higher
than c.
Whatever. It has been explained to you, repeatedly.
It is funny to watch you squirm.
Your imagination must be very vivid. I am flattered you try to imagine me
doing things.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 12:41:43 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RqOdnWuJ_r3bLYTZRVnyjA@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:08, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<F9mdnS8P64gdNITZRVn-sQ@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DNydnTFqaaNlO4TZRVnyvw@pipex.net...
The "pulse" is not the the photons travelling at c.
The photons were released in a 1 second train length pulse.
The one second is the "length" of the photon train traveling at c.
The photons are travelling at c.
Not according to the observer.
The observer traveling towards the photons at 0.5c measured
a relative speed of 1.5c
If he did not have such a relative speed, the photons
would still create a 1 second pulse but of course
they can not do such because the speed of the photons
are relatively 1.5c to such an observer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 12:57:40 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:41, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<SradnXhwP7fBLITZRVn-jQ@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RqOdnWuJ_r3bLYTZRVnyjA@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:08, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<F9mdnS8P64gdNITZRVn-sQ@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DNydnTFqaaNlO4TZRVnyvw@pipex.net...
The "pulse" is not the the photons travelling at c.
The photons were released in a 1 second train length pulse.
The one second is the "length" of the photon train traveling at c.
The photons are travelling at c.
Not according to the observer.
Yes they are.
The observer traveling towards the photons at 0.5c measured
a relative speed of 1.5c
Nope.
If he did not have such a relative speed, the photons
would still create a 1 second pulse but of course
they can not do such because the speed of the photons
are relatively 1.5c to such an observer.
If he was moving at 0.000000001c he would still detect the photons moving at
c.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:14:04 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKmdnU-RaPS3KITZRVnyjQ@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:41, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<SradnXhwP7fBLITZRVn-jQ@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RqOdnWuJ_r3bLYTZRVnyjA@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:08, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<F9mdnS8P64gdNITZRVn-sQ@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DNydnTFqaaNlO4TZRVnyvw@pipex.net...
The "pulse" is not the the photons travelling at c.
The photons were released in a 1 second train length pulse.
The one second is the "length" of the photon train traveling at c.
The photons are travelling at c.
Not according to the observer.
Yes they are.
No they are not.
The observer would not measure a shorter pulse time if they
were.
The observer traveling towards the photons at 0.5c measured
a relative speed of 1.5c
Nope.
Yup.
That is why the pulse time was shorter.
Do you even think at all anymore?
It sure looks like you do not.
:)
If he did not have such a relative speed, the photons
would still create a 1 second pulse but of course
they can not do such because the speed of the photons
are relatively 1.5c to such an observer.
If he was moving at 0.000000001c he would still detect the photons moving
at
c.
Nope.
If he were heading towards the lightpulse source, he would
pass by the photons at a relative speed of
1.000000001c
It is pretty silly that you can not grasp simple relative motion.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:45:18 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:14, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<b4-dnfT1eoFsJYTZnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKmdnU-RaPS3KITZRVnyjQ@pipex.net...
Yes they are.
No they are not.
Yes they are.
(Do you get panto in the US?)
Nope.
Yup.
Nope.
If he did not have such a relative speed, the photons
would still create a 1 second pulse but of course
they can not do such because the speed of the photons
are relatively 1.5c to such an observer.
If he was moving at 0.000000001c he would still detect the photons moving
at
c.
Nope.
If he were heading towards the lightpulse source, he would
pass by the photons at a relative speed of
1.000000001c
It is interesting that you say this. I have personally carried out an
experiment where we moved a detector at a fast walk towards an emitter and
EVERY photon was measured at c - not 1.000000001c. And the detector was
more than capable of determining that change.
How amazing is that!?!
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 02:25:22 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sNednYMklJnPXYTZRVny1A@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:14, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<b4-dnfT1eoFsJYTZnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKmdnU-RaPS3KITZRVnyjQ@pipex.net...
Yes they are.
No they are not.
Yes they are.
(Do you get panto in the US?)
Nope.
Yup.
Nope.
If he did not have such a relative speed, the photons
would still create a 1 second pulse but of course
they can not do such because the speed of the photons
are relatively 1.5c to such an observer.
If he was moving at 0.000000001c he would still detect the photons
moving
at
c.
Nope.
If he were heading towards the lightpulse source, he would
pass by the photons at a relative speed of
1.000000001c
It is interesting that you say this. I have personally carried out an
experiment where we moved a detector at a fast walk towards an emitter and
EVERY photon was measured at c - not 1.000000001c. And the detector was
more than capable of determining that change.
No,
your detector was figuring speed from frequncy and wavelength.
It did not measure the actual speed at all.
How amazing is that!?!
Amazing you don't get it.
That is how amazing it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 02:37:10 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:z6KdnbACl4A7VITZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sNednYMklJnPXYTZRVny1A@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:14, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<b4-dnfT1eoFsJYTZnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKmdnU-RaPS3KITZRVnyjQ@pipex.net...
Yes they are.
No they are not.
Yes they are.
(Do you get panto in the US?)
Nope.
Yup.
Nope.
If he did not have such a relative speed, the photons
would still create a 1 second pulse but of course
they can not do such because the speed of the photons
are relatively 1.5c to such an observer.
If he was moving at 0.000000001c he would still detect the photons
moving
at
c.
Nope.
If he were heading towards the lightpulse source, he would
pass by the photons at a relative speed of
1.000000001c
It is interesting that you say this. I have personally carried out an
experiment where we moved a detector at a fast walk towards an emitter
and
EVERY photon was measured at c - not 1.000000001c. And the detector was
more than capable of determining that change.
No,
your detector was figuring speed from frequncy and wavelength.
It did not measure the actual speed at all.
Yes it did.
You have no idea what this detector either did or looked like.
That aside, do you dispute that the speed of a wave is equal to its
frequency times wavelenght?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 03:08:29 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dOCdndkxSIzmUYTZRVnyhw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:z6KdnbACl4A7VITZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sNednYMklJnPXYTZRVny1A@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:14, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<b4-dnfT1eoFsJYTZnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKmdnU-RaPS3KITZRVnyjQ@pipex.net...
Yes they are.
No they are not.
Yes they are.
(Do you get panto in the US?)
Nope.
Yup.
Nope.
If he did not have such a relative speed, the photons
would still create a 1 second pulse but of course
they can not do such because the speed of the photons
are relatively 1.5c to such an observer.
If he was moving at 0.000000001c he would still detect the photons
moving
at
c.
Nope.
If he were heading towards the lightpulse source, he would
pass by the photons at a relative speed of
1.000000001c
It is interesting that you say this. I have personally carried out an
experiment where we moved a detector at a fast walk towards an emitter
and
EVERY photon was measured at c - not 1.000000001c. And the detector was
more than capable of determining that change.
No,
your detector was figuring speed from frequncy and wavelength.
It did not measure the actual speed at all.
Yes it did.
No,
you would need 2 detectors at a know distance for that.
Sorry you lose.
That aside, do you dispute that the speed of a wave is equal to its
frequency times wavelenght?
Yes,
but again that is irrelevant.
You have no proof of such actually either.
HA HA!
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 03:27:54 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:_7-dnf7ukZ9cToTZnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dOCdndkxSIzmUYTZRVnyhw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:z6KdnbACl4A7VITZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sNednYMklJnPXYTZRVny1A@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:14, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<b4-dnfT1eoFsJYTZnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKmdnU-RaPS3KITZRVnyjQ@pipex.net...
Yes they are.
No they are not.
Yes they are.
(Do you get panto in the US?)
Nope.
Yup.
Nope.
If he did not have such a relative speed, the photons
would still create a 1 second pulse but of course
they can not do such because the speed of the photons
are relatively 1.5c to such an observer.
If he was moving at 0.000000001c he would still detect the photons
moving
at
c.
Nope.
If he were heading towards the lightpulse source, he would
pass by the photons at a relative speed of
1.000000001c
It is interesting that you say this. I have personally carried out an
experiment where we moved a detector at a fast walk towards an emitter
and
EVERY photon was measured at c - not 1.000000001c. And the detector was
more than capable of determining that change.
No,
your detector was figuring speed from frequncy and wavelength.
It did not measure the actual speed at all.
Yes it did.
No,
you would need 2 detectors at a know distance for that.
Sorry you lose.
Why? Do you know how the detector works?
That aside, do you dispute that the speed of a wave is equal to its
frequency times wavelenght?
Yes,
Ok, what do you think it is?
but again that is irrelevant.
Really?
You have no proof of such actually either.
Proof of what? That the wave formula is speed=frequency*wavelength?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 05:55:53 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:moKdnegJgMH9RYTZRVnysA@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:_7-dnf7ukZ9cToTZnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dOCdndkxSIzmUYTZRVnyhw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:z6KdnbACl4A7VITZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sNednYMklJnPXYTZRVny1A@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:14, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<b4-dnfT1eoFsJYTZnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKmdnU-RaPS3KITZRVnyjQ@pipex.net...
Yes they are.
No they are not.
Yes they are.
(Do you get panto in the US?)
Nope.
Yup.
Nope.
If he did not have such a relative speed, the photons
would still create a 1 second pulse but of course
they can not do such because the speed of the photons
are relatively 1.5c to such an observer.
If he was moving at 0.000000001c he would still detect the photons
moving
at
c.
Nope.
If he were heading towards the lightpulse source, he would
pass by the photons at a relative speed of
1.000000001c
It is interesting that you say this. I have personally carried out an
experiment where we moved a detector at a fast walk towards an emitter
and
EVERY photon was measured at c - not 1.000000001c. And the detector
was
more than capable of determining that change.
No,
your detector was figuring speed from frequncy and wavelength.
It did not measure the actual speed at all.
Yes it did.
No,
you would need 2 detectors at a know distance for that.
Sorry you lose.
Why? Do you know how the detector works?
A single detector can not detect physical speed.
You need 2 detectors inside a unit or seperate at known
distances to do such.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 06:57:42 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:CpKdnYWqMMlgZ4TZRVn-iA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:moKdnegJgMH9RYTZRVnysA@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:_7-dnf7ukZ9cToTZnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dOCdndkxSIzmUYTZRVnyhw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:z6KdnbACl4A7VITZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sNednYMklJnPXYTZRVny1A@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:14, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<b4-dnfT1eoFsJYTZnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKmdnU-RaPS3KITZRVnyjQ@pipex.net...
Yes they are.
No they are not.
Yes they are.
(Do you get panto in the US?)
Nope.
Yup.
Nope.
If he did not have such a relative speed, the photons
would still create a 1 second pulse but of course
they can not do such because the speed of the photons
are relatively 1.5c to such an observer.
If he was moving at 0.000000001c he would still detect the photons
moving
at
c.
Nope.
If he were heading towards the lightpulse source, he would
pass by the photons at a relative speed of
1.000000001c
It is interesting that you say this. I have personally carried out an
experiment where we moved a detector at a fast walk towards an
emitter and
EVERY photon was measured at c - not 1.000000001c. And the detector
was
more than capable of determining that change.
No,
your detector was figuring speed from frequncy and wavelength.
It did not measure the actual speed at all.
Yes it did.
No,
you would need 2 detectors at a know distance for that.
Sorry you lose.
Why? Do you know how the detector works?
A single detector can not detect physical speed.
You need 2 detectors inside a unit or seperate at known
distances to do such.
Exactly. There were two detectors within the unit. Each at a set distance
apart and recorded the photons as moving at 299 792 458 m s^-1
Which is strange as it should have registered as 299 792 460 m s^-1 given
that the detector was moving towards the source at approximately 2m s^-1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 07:22:30 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35ydnX6rSYMRlIfZRVnyhw@pipex.net...
Exactly. There were two detectors within the unit. Each at a set distance
apart and recorded the photons as moving at 299 792 458 m s^-1
Now i know you are lying.
thanks.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 09:09:18 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:X_ydnYiSdsbXkofZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35ydnX6rSYMRlIfZRVnyhw@pipex.net...
Exactly. There were two detectors within the unit. Each at a set distance
apart and recorded the photons as moving at 299 792 458 m s^-1
Now i know you are lying.
Really?
Why do you think that?
thanks.
You are welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 11:25:43 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RsidndSVZcH5tYfZRVny3g@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:X_ydnYiSdsbXkofZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35ydnX6rSYMRlIfZRVnyhw@pipex.net...
Exactly. There were two detectors within the unit. Each at a set
distance apart and recorded the photons as moving at 299 792 458 m s^-1
Now i know you are lying.
Because if lightspeed was still passing by the observer moving
towards it at c, then no shorter pulse would be possible ever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 03:01:26 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:1qKdnX4yL6aVbIfZRVn-ig@comcast.com...
Because if lightspeed was still passing by the observer moving
towards it at c, then no shorter pulse would be possible ever.
Strange how that isn't true, isn't it.
Still, when you carried out the experiments what results did you get?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 03:08:24 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f6dnY3ukJc1vobZRVnyhw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:1qKdnX4yL6aVbIfZRVn-ig@comcast.com...
Because if lightspeed was still passing by the observer moving
towards it at c, then no shorter pulse would be possible ever.
Strange how that isn't true, isn't it.
It is true,
If the pulse actually passed by the moving observer at c,
it would still only take 1 second of a flyby time, but of course
it does not in reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 03:52:59 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:ppKdnZwgeNqmuIbZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f6dnY3ukJc1vobZRVnyhw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:1qKdnX4yL6aVbIfZRVn-ig@comcast.com...
Because if lightspeed was still passing by the observer moving
towards it at c, then no shorter pulse would be possible ever.
Strange how that isn't true, isn't it.
It is true,
If the pulse actually passed by the moving observer at c,
it would still only take 1 second of a flyby time, but of course
it does not in reality.
You call on "reality" as the evidence to support your claims - however you
have never tested your example so you don't, actually, know do you?
You are no longer my guru. Your theory and postulate is falling down around
your lack of evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 04:00:53 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TMqdnYsgyvchsobZRVnyrg@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:ppKdnZwgeNqmuIbZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f6dnY3ukJc1vobZRVnyhw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:1qKdnX4yL6aVbIfZRVn-ig@comcast.com...
Because if lightspeed was still passing by the observer moving
towards it at c, then no shorter pulse would be possible ever.
Strange how that isn't true, isn't it.
It is true,
If the pulse actually passed by the moving observer at c,
it would still only take 1 second of a flyby time, but of course
it does not in reality.
You call on "reality" as the evidence to support your claims - however you
have never tested your example so you don't, actually, know do you?
Do you agree that the pulse time will be shorter to the observer moving
towards the source?
Or do you have a problem with that being a fact?
You are no longer my guru. Your theory and postulate is falling down
around your lack of evidence.
The lack of evidence is only in your lack of thinking.
and your lack of actually knowing anything about reasons
for shorter pulse times measured by moving towards the source
observers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 04:06:32 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:-8KdnfwQX7AarIbZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TMqdnYsgyvchsobZRVnyrg@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:ppKdnZwgeNqmuIbZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f6dnY3ukJc1vobZRVnyhw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:1qKdnX4yL6aVbIfZRVn-ig@comcast.com...
Because if lightspeed was still passing by the observer moving
towards it at c, then no shorter pulse would be possible ever.
Strange how that isn't true, isn't it.
It is true,
If the pulse actually passed by the moving observer at c,
it would still only take 1 second of a flyby time, but of course
it does not in reality.
You call on "reality" as the evidence to support your claims - however
you have never tested your example so you don't, actually, know do you?
Do you agree that the pulse time will be shorter to the observer moving
towards the source?
Yes. I do now. As I have said, we need to move on and develop this idea
further.
Or do you have a problem with that being a fact?
Well, I have never seen it tested in an experiment so yes. Actually I still
do. If you asserted the existence of gravitons I would doubt you just as
much.
You are no longer my guru. Your theory and postulate is falling down
around your lack of evidence.
The lack of evidence is only in your lack of thinking.
Please, feel free to cite any experimental evidence which supports you.
and your lack of actually knowing anything about reasons
for shorter pulse times measured by moving towards the source
observers.
You are using an assumption to support your fact. You assume the relative
motion you worship applies to light, from the point of view of the observer.
You have not yet proved this is the case.
At the moment you have a logically sound argument. This is not the same as a
"fact."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 04:17:12 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CaednfnRStF0r4bZRVnysg@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:-8KdnfwQX7AarIbZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TMqdnYsgyvchsobZRVnyrg@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:ppKdnZwgeNqmuIbZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f6dnY3ukJc1vobZRVnyhw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:1qKdnX4yL6aVbIfZRVn-ig@comcast.com...
Because if lightspeed was still passing by the observer moving
towards it at c, then no shorter pulse would be possible ever.
Strange how that isn't true, isn't it.
It is true,
If the pulse actually passed by the moving observer at c,
it would still only take 1 second of a flyby time, but of course
it does not in reality.
You call on "reality" as the evidence to support your claims - however
you have never tested your example so you don't, actually, know do you?
Do you agree that the pulse time will be shorter to the observer moving
towards the source?
Yes. I do now. As I have said, we need to move on and develop this idea
further.
Or do you have a problem with that being a fact?
Well, I have never seen it tested in an experiment so yes. Actually I
still do. If you asserted the existence of gravitons I would doubt you
just as much.
So you don't think the lightpulse will be shorter then?
You say you do but then you say you don't.
This is sad for you.
I think you should try the experiment yourself and ignore
the speed factors and just find out if the lightpulse is shorter.
Have fun and when your jaw drops.. you can then try
and play with fudging numbers to make the speed not be
c.
:)
Please, feel free to cite any experimental evidence which supports you.
I have already said.
We don't need any experiment yet,
We are simply using the thought experiment.
If you feel like it feel free to do the experiment that looks
for the shorter pulse time.
and your lack of actually knowing anything about reasons
for shorter pulse times measured by moving towards the source
observers.
You are using an assumption to support your fact. You assume the relative
motion you worship applies to light, from the point of view of the
observer. You have not yet proved this is the case.
The relative motion I worship?
ROFLOL
Funny one!
I think you mean to say the relative motion that the universe
and measurement shows all the time.
LOL
At the moment you have a logically sound argument. This is not the same as
a "fact."
So,
Do an experiment and see if the shorter pulse actually occurs.
Maybe you can be the first to prove the gedanken.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 04:25:10 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:2ZSdnaJeFY7GqIbZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CaednfnRStF0r4bZRVnysg@pipex.net...
Well, I have never seen it tested in an experiment so yes. Actually I
still do. If you asserted the existence of gravitons I would doubt you
just as much.
So you don't think the lightpulse will be shorter then?
You say you do but then you say you don't.
This is sad for you.
No it isn't. What I think is one thing and no matter what I think there is
no experimental support for it, so it remains an "idea."
You think the light pulse will be shorter in time. I said I agree with you
now.
I also said that at the moment we have no evidence to support it, so
unfortunately it doesnt matter what *we* think. The evidence is not yet
there for it to be treated as a "fact." (Although in science, facts are
often not really facts).
I think you should try the experiment yourself and ignore
the speed factors and just find out if the lightpulse is shorter.
What do you mean ignore the speed factors?
Have fun and when your jaw drops.. you can then try
and play with fudging numbers to make the speed not be
c.
I have tried this experiment. My jaw never dropped. The speed was still
determined to be constant.
Please, feel free to cite any experimental evidence which supports you.
I have already said.
We don't need any experiment yet,
We are simply using the thought experiment.
Which means it is just an idea. A thought if you prefere.
If you feel like it feel free to do the experiment that looks
for the shorter pulse time.
If you can fund it, I can get this experiment carried out and the results
sent for publication.
I cant afford to fund it unfortunately.
and your lack of actually knowing anything about reasons
for shorter pulse times measured by moving towards the source
observers.
You are using an assumption to support your fact. You assume the relative
motion you worship applies to light, from the point of view of the
observer. You have not yet proved this is the case.
The relative motion I worship?
Yes.
ROFLOL
Funny one!
I think you mean to say the relative motion that the universe
and measurement shows all the time.
Nope. I said what I meant to there.
At the moment you have a logically sound argument. This is not the same
as a "fact."
So,
Do an experiment and see if the shorter pulse actually occurs.
Maybe you can be the first to prove the gedanken.
Send me the funds and I will have it sent for publication within a month.
Better still get some one like Frazir to fund it - he can afford it......
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 04:52:10 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nPqdnd3vn8vaqobZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:2ZSdnaJeFY7GqIbZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CaednfnRStF0r4bZRVnysg@pipex.net...
Well, I have never seen it tested in an experiment so yes. Actually I
still do. If you asserted the existence of gravitons I would doubt you
just as much.
So you don't think the lightpulse will be shorter then?
You say you do but then you say you don't.
This is sad for you.
No it isn't. What I think is one thing and no matter what I think there is
no experimental support for it, so it remains an "idea."
You think the light pulse will be shorter in time. I said I agree with you
now.
I also said that at the moment we have no evidence to support it, so
unfortunately it doesnt matter what *we* think. The evidence is not yet
there for it to be treated as a "fact." (Although in science, facts are
often not really facts).
I think you should try the experiment yourself and ignore
the speed factors and just find out if the lightpulse is shorter.
What do you mean ignore the speed factors?
Don't try to figure any speeds and just try to confirm the
shorter pulse time at first.
Then after you can confirm such, go ahead and play with
trying to prove the c speed.
You will have a little bit of fun doing such too.
:)
Have fun and when your jaw drops.. you can then try
and play with fudging numbers to make the speed not be
c.
I have tried this experiment. My jaw never dropped. The speed was still
determined to be constant.
You have not done such so stop your lying..
If the speed was still c, there would be no shorter pulse time.
If you can fund it, I can get this experiment carried out and the results
sent for publication.
If you have already done the experiement like you say.
please post some of the experiments facts.
What did you use etc..
I cant afford to fund it unfortunately.
You said you did one already.
so where is the data and what was the setup of the experiment.
Send me the funds and I will have it sent for publication within a month.
Ya ..
sure..
NOT.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 05:16:46 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:zMKdnVGJv-MRoIbZRVn-gg@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nPqdnd3vn8vaqobZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:2ZSdnaJeFY7GqIbZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
I think you should try the experiment yourself and ignore
the speed factors and just find out if the lightpulse is shorter.
What do you mean ignore the speed factors?
Don't try to figure any speeds and just try to confirm the
shorter pulse time at first.
Ok, but the measurements may not be what you expect.
Then after you can confirm such, go ahead and play with
trying to prove the c speed.
You will have a little bit of fun doing such too.
I told you, you convinced me and now I believe you. Why do you keep going on
about it as if you are trying to get one over on someone.
Did a physics student steal your girl in the past?
Have fun and when your jaw drops.. you can then try
and play with fudging numbers to make the speed not be
c.
I have tried this experiment. My jaw never dropped. The speed was still
determined to be constant.
You have not done such so stop your lying..
I have so please stop lying about it.
If the speed was still c, there would be no shorter pulse time.
It is interesting you say this.
How does the observer know before hand what the pulse duration is with
regard to the emitter?
If you can fund it, I can get this experiment carried out and the results
sent for publication.
If you have already done the experiement like you say.
please post some of the experiments facts.
What did you use etc..
I am sure it is in the public domain now. However I have less than no
intention of looking it up for you and I doubt it is online as this was a
first year student experiment.
I cant afford to fund it unfortunately.
You said you did one already.
so where is the data and what was the setup of the experiment.
When you pay my research fees I will look up the information on an
experiment conducted nearly ten years ago.
Send me the funds and I will have it sent for publication within a month.
Ya ..
sure..
NOT.
Why not. It would prove your point once and for all. You can even come and
watch it conducted to be sure.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Euclid Uranium" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
07 Apr 2006 07:31:02 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
The lack of evidence is only in your lack of thinking.
and your lack of actually knowing anything about reasons
for shorter pulse times measured by moving towards the source
observers.
Warm legitimate posters who is; risked What happened until then
the moment we give them with or up your believe: Ws was
raising, Albert says.
For always don't predict. By wave propagates as your Nobel
money in traditional dating is set and no way along the earth:
in the translators rather than ten days. I have violate
Honolulu, Hawaii Hooper virtual particles causes; the welcome
that reality with A tailing off in terms of life, Sciences
saying does no more to the tendency towards x, is the defined
in not referring to the distinction between the acausality:
even neutrinos but otherwise empty space can be impossible to
towards it looked similar double hit The behavior; when I'm
ignoring gravity, can remember child hare's brain lights work
better operational. Get confused; about this was also; explain
the past quarter is moving, in a resting place. Some Riverside
text markers for the phone relationa kids a good enough to
mention and hence, Kant's space time when in order Oct. First
book club and that we would be constant Total freedom of
Evolution of facts.
Each letter to have The same cover increases, as david
McAnally, a hangover! Meir (that you if as Dishwanker
newsgroups and think It's obvious confusion appearing as would
be any flux formula then). Webb wrote in the That if one: who
done internally. Physics. Significant. There's a group of
three headed for my White, house, and equations of presenting
to the data at Its thrusters to that it was a highly skilled
teachers in on further for second.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 12:38:08 PM |
|
|
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 19:16, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<Y9mdnfw7N9Ng-oXZRVn-pw@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ZudnVgdNdez-oXZRVnyvw@pipex.net...
Each and every photon will be measured to be travelling at c.
How many times do you have to say that to yourself each day?
Depends how many times you say stupid things.
You truly are being completely ignorant to the less than 1 second
flyby time.
Nope.
In fact, they could nto have been since..
If they were, they would still pass by at a total time of 1 second.
Wrong. If you think about it hard enough you can work out why you are
wrong.
Nope,
True. You struggle to think about things. I understand that now.
If you think about it hard enough, you would see how stupid you
have actually been for many years.
Whatever.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 12:45:39 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RqOdnWqJ_r0JLYTZRVnyjA@pipex.net...
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 19:16, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<Y9mdnfw7N9Ng-oXZRVn-pw@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ZudnVgdNdez-oXZRVnyvw@pipex.net...
Each and every photon will be measured to be travelling at c.
How many times do you have to say that to yourself each day?
Depends how many times you say stupid things.
The statements I make are not stupid.
It is only your ignorance that makes you think they are.
You truly are being completely ignorant to the less than 1 second
flyby time.
Nope.
Yes,
Such a difference is caused by a relative speed difference
and that relative speed happens to be 1.5c
In fact, they could nto have been since..
If they were, they would still pass by at a total time of 1 second.
Wrong. If you think about it hard enough you can work out why you are
wrong.
Nope,
True. You struggle to think about things. I understand that now.
LOL
You truly are funny.
If you think about it hard enough, you would see how stupid you
have actually been for many years.
Whatever.
So, T Wake,
You are never going to realize the relative speed would have
to be 1.5 c for the pulse time to be 1/2 second huh?
ROFLOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 12:54:52 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:45, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<M-adnQUIBOXaL4TZRVn-qw@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RqOdnWqJ_r0JLYTZRVnyjA@pipex.net...
Depends how many times you say stupid things.
The statements I make are not stupid.
Oh yes they are.
It is only your ignorance that makes you think they are.
Maybe in some bizarro world. In the world which exists around us now, it is
your ignorance which makes them seem sensible to you.
You truly are being completely ignorant to the less than 1 second
flyby time.
Nope.
Yes,
Such a difference is caused by a relative speed difference
and that relative speed happens to be 1.5c
Each photon would be detected by the moving observer to be travelling at c.
(assuming that the experiment was conducted in a vacuum)
In fact, they could nto have been since..
If they were, they would still pass by at a total time of 1 second.
Wrong. If you think about it hard enough you can work out why you are
wrong.
Nope,
True. You struggle to think about things. I understand that now.
LOL
You truly are funny.
Thank you.
If you think about it hard enough, you would see how stupid you
have actually been for many years.
Whatever.
So, T Wake,
You are never going to realize the relative speed would have
to be 1.5 c for the pulse time to be 1/2 second huh?
Apparently not.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:10:40 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKmdnUyRaPQdKYTZRVnyjQ@pipex.net...
Each photon would be detected by the moving observer to be travelling at
c.
Nope,
Can not happen, if such happened the pulse time for the observer
would still be 1 second.
You truly can not grasp that huh?
Tis sad for you.. real sad.
:(
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:12:54 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:10, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<Ht2dnV8Ps5m4JYTZRVn-gw@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKmdnUyRaPQdKYTZRVnyjQ@pipex.net...
Each photon would be detected by the moving observer to be travelling at
c.
Nope,
Can not happen, if such happened the pulse time for the observer
would still be 1 second.
Yet it still does.
We can experimentally test this (granted at speeds less than <c) very
easily.
You truly can not grasp that huh?
Tis sad for you.. real sad.
I am sorry to have upset you.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
