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 12:16:28 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gNCdnUxLuNViNYTZRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:HNOdnfKN2JkdOITZRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zc-dnYxGUqWBOYTZRVny0Q@pipex.net...
Are you saying the moving observer will measure photons moving >c?
Yes, he would have to, for a lightpulse that lasted for 1 second at the
source
to be less than such to the observer.
No. The observer wouldnt have to measure each photon as moving in excess
of c.
Yes, he would because if he still got a measurement of c, he would
still see 1 second worth of photons but of course, he sees one second
of photons traveling by him within a less time so he does come to realize
that the speed they pass by him could not be c and must be >c.
It is truly amazing that you can not grasp such a simple fact about
relative speed differences being a cause for such a shorter pulse time.
In your example where the pulse of 1 second duration hits an observer
moving at 0.5c towards the emitter, do you assert that EVERY photon in
that pulse will be moving at 1.5c?
Of course.
The "train" of photons would all have to be moving together so they
would all be measured to be passing by the observer at >c
What happens to the fact that on initial contact with the pulse, the first
and last photons are 300,000km apart?
Nothing happens to that fact at all.
The observer traveled that distance in 1/2 the time it was produced
in.
Still can't grasp that huh?
You see, I have already carried out experiments were the speed of a
photon was measured by an object moving towards the emitter.
How did you determine the "speed"
Through the main crystal in the set which was calibrated for c being a
constant.
ROFLOL
Too funny.
So you have a crystal that is set to measure c always!
LOL
No wonder you are so stupid!
LOL
The speed of the photon remains constant.
Not to the observer, it has a relative speed of >c
for the observer or the observer would not measure
a shorter time for fly by.
You truly are missing such a simple fact huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 12:26:54 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:16, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<heKdnUsgQ8vtNoTZRVn-gg@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gNCdnUxLuNViNYTZRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:HNOdnfKN2JkdOITZRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zc-dnYxGUqWBOYTZRVny0Q@pipex.net...
Are you saying the moving observer will measure photons moving >c?
Yes, he would have to, for a lightpulse that lasted for 1 second at the
source
to be less than such to the observer.
No. The observer wouldnt have to measure each photon as moving in excess
of c.
Yes, he would because if he still got a measurement of c, he would
still see 1 second worth of photons but of course, he sees one second
of photons traveling by him within a less time so he does come to realize
that the speed they pass by him could not be c and must be >c.
Nope. You are confusing the things you are trying to identify.
If you disagree with the predictions of the theory then please, feel free to
point me in the direction of somewhere I can read the outcome of an
experiment which supports your chance to the status quo.
Until that time, you have nothing but words.
It is truly amazing that you can not grasp such a simple fact about
relative speed differences being a cause for such a shorter pulse time.
It is not amazing that you cant grasp the situation. You are either being
deliberately dense, or your lack of experience of anything outside your
limited experience means your understanding is on a par with school
children.
In your example where the pulse of 1 second duration hits an observer
moving at 0.5c towards the emitter, do you assert that EVERY photon in
that pulse will be moving at 1.5c?
Of course.
The "train" of photons would all have to be moving together so they
would all be measured to be passing by the observer at >c
What happens to the fact that on initial contact with the pulse, the
first and last photons are 300,000km apart?
Nothing happens to that fact at all.
The observer traveled that distance in 1/2 the time it was produced
in.
When the observer is hit by the first photon, the last photon is 300,000km
away. How fast is the first photon going when it hits the observer?
Still can't grasp that huh?
Obviously not.
You see, I have already carried out experiments were the speed of a
photon was measured by an object moving towards the emitter.
How did you determine the "speed"
Through the main crystal in the set which was calibrated for c being a
constant.
ROFLOL
Too funny.
So you have a crystal that is set to measure c always!
Well, given a suitably loose interpretation of the language, yes. Do you
know how the insides of a radar are set up and configured?
Do you know what a receiver mechanism does?
The speed of the photon remains constant.
Not to the observer, it has a relative speed of >c
for the observer or the observer would not measure
a shorter time for fly by.
The speed of each photon will remain at c.
You truly are missing such a simple fact huh?
Nope.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 12:33:25 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddGdnVzGz79pMITZRVnyhg@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:16, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<heKdnUsgQ8vtNoTZRVn-gg@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gNCdnUxLuNViNYTZRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:HNOdnfKN2JkdOITZRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zc-dnYxGUqWBOYTZRVny0Q@pipex.net...
Are you saying the moving observer will measure photons moving >c?
Yes, he would have to, for a lightpulse that lasted for 1 second at the
source
to be less than such to the observer.
No. The observer wouldnt have to measure each photon as moving in excess
of c.
Yes, he would because if he still got a measurement of c, he would
still see 1 second worth of photons but of course, he sees one second
of photons traveling by him within a less time so he does come to realize
that the speed they pass by him could not be c and must be >c.
Nope. You are confusing the things you are trying to identify.
I am not.
You are ignoring the lesser fly by time.
It is not amazing that you cant grasp the situation. You are either being
deliberately dense, or your lack of experience of anything outside your
limited experience means your understanding is on a par with school
children.
Still afraid huh?
LOL
Does it burn T Wake?
Does it burn way too much in your head that the speed
of light is not constant to all and can not be so according
to the theory it supports.
LOL
Nothing happens to that fact at all.
The observer traveled that distance in 1/2 the time it was produced
in.
When the observer is hit by the first photon, the last photon is 300,000km
away. How fast is the first photon going when it hits the observer?
Relative to the observer it is doing 1.5c
That is why the observer would measure a shorter fly by
time for the entire train.
The speed of each photon will remain at c.
Only to the source.
Observers can not measure such.
It would simply be a physical impossiblity.
It would have to violate the relative motion difference
to still be moving at c wrt the observer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:03:06 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:33, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<gtudnTEFyJH0MoTZRVn-sw@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddGdnVzGz79pMITZRVnyhg@pipex.net...
Nope. You are confusing the things you are trying to identify.
I am not.
You are ignoring the lesser fly by time.
No I am not. You are misinterpreting what that implies.
Each photon will hit the detector at c.
It is not amazing that you cant grasp the situation. You are either being
deliberately dense, or your lack of experience of anything outside your
limited experience means your understanding is on a par with school
children.
Still afraid huh?
Eh?
Does it burn T Wake?
Does what burn?
Does it burn way too much in your head that the speed
of light is not constant to all and can not be so according
to the theory it supports.
What are you going on about?
When the observer is hit by the first photon, the last photon is
300,000km away. How fast is the first photon going when it hits the
observer?
Relative to the observer it is doing 1.5c
So when the first photon is going at 1.5c and the last photon is going at 1c
what does that do to your "train."
When the photon passes the observer what speed is it doing? At what point
does it change speed again?
That is why the observer would measure a shorter fly by
time for the entire train.
The "train" is not the photons. Each photon is still travelling at c.
The speed of each photon will remain at c.
Only to the source.
Only to everything.
Observers can not measure such.
Yet they do. If, by some amazing miracle, your theory was correct then it
would apply at all speeds and all directions not just an observer moving
towards an emitter at >0.499999999999999999999999999999999999999999c.
Everything involving an object moving whilst interacting with an EM field
would exhibit the effects.
It would be a well known, well documented, situation.
Yet it isn't.
What does this tell you?
It would simply be a physical impossiblity.
It would have to violate the relative motion difference
to still be moving at c wrt the observer.
You invent new "laws" of physics on a day to day basis.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:20:42 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uZSdnV57rfTsK4TZnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:33, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<gtudnTEFyJH0MoTZRVn-sw@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddGdnVzGz79pMITZRVnyhg@pipex.net...
Nope. You are confusing the things you are trying to identify.
I am not.
You are ignoring the lesser fly by time.
No I am not. You are misinterpreting what that implies.
I am not.
You are ignoring what it implies.
Each photon will hit the detector at c.
Nope.
the pulse time would not be shorter if such were true.
Does it burn T Wake?
Does what burn?
Your brain.
It seems to be overloaded and can not think about a simple
relative speed that must occur.
Relative to the observer it is doing 1.5c
So when the first photon is going at 1.5c and the last photon is going at
1c
what does that do to your "train."
The last photon is not doign such a speed accordign to the observer.
They are all passing by the observer at 1.5c
You truly are showing yourself to be very limited in your
thinking.
When the photon passes the observer what speed is it doing? At what point
does it change speed again?
It's speed never changes.
The relative speed of the observer creates a relative speed difference
The photon travels at c from it's source but passes by the observer
at a relative speed of 1.5c.
That is why the observer would measure a shorter fly by
time for the entire train.
The "train" is not the photons. Each photon is still travelling at c.
Not relative to the observer.
The speed of each photon will remain at c.
Only to the source.
Only to everything.
Nope.
If that was true, everything would measure a 1 second pulse
time.
What does this tell you?
So far, this all tells me and other readers that you are a moron.
It would simply be a physical impossiblity.
It would have to violate the relative motion difference
to still be moving at c wrt the observer.
You invent new "laws" of physics on a day to day basis.
What new laws am I inventing?
I am simply using relative motion.
Is that a new law?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 01:42:16 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:20, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<YsGdnWL1_5niJ4TZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uZSdnV57rfTsK4TZnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d@pipex.net...
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:33, Spaceman (Realspace@comcast.not)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<gtudnTEFyJH0MoTZRVn-sw@comcast.com>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddGdnVzGz79pMITZRVnyhg@pipex.net...
Nope. You are confusing the things you are trying to identify.
I am not.
You are ignoring the lesser fly by time.
No I am not. You are misinterpreting what that implies.
I am not.
You are ignoring what it implies.
No I am not. Because you misunderstand you have thought of a different
implication and you cling to it for dear life.
Each photon will hit the detector at c.
Nope.
the pulse time would not be shorter if such were true.
Yet each photon will hit the detector at c.
Isn't the universe wonderfull.
Does it burn T Wake?
Does what burn?
Your brain.
OK. No it doesn't burn. Does yours?
It seems to be overloaded and can not think about a simple
relative speed that must occur.
Nope. My brain is fine. Thanks for asking.
So when the first photon is going at 1.5c and the last photon is going at
1c
what does that do to your "train."
The last photon is not doign such a speed accordign to the observer.
So what speed is the last photon doing to the observer when the last photon
is 300,000 km away?
They are all passing by the observer at 1.5c
But for your theory to be correct they must be doing 1.5c the moment they
leave the emitter.
You truly are showing yourself to be very limited in your
thinking.
Maybe.
When the photon passes the observer what speed is it doing? At what point
does it change speed again?
It's speed never changes.
The relative speed of the observer creates a relative speed difference
The photon travels at c from it's source but passes by the observer
at a relative speed of 1.5c.
So am I correct in thinking that you are saying the observer will observe
the photons leave the emitter at 1.5c?
That is why the observer would measure a shorter fly by
time for the entire train.
The "train" is not the photons. Each photon is still travelling at c.
Not relative to the observer.
Well, it is interesting that you think this.
Maybe we need to have it tested.
The speed of each photon will remain at c.
Only to the source.
Only to everything.
Nope.
If that was true, everything would measure a 1 second pulse
time.
Nope.
Can you explain to me why the wavelength of electromagnetism is shifted red
or blue?
What does this tell you?
So far, this all tells me and other readers that you are a moron.
And you are the only clever person in the world.
Congratulations.
It would simply be a physical impossiblity.
It would have to violate the relative motion difference
to still be moving at c wrt the observer.
You invent new "laws" of physics on a day to day basis.
What new laws am I inventing?
I am simply using relative motion.
Is that a new law?
You are asserting it as a law.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 02:24:11 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sNednYAklJk9IoTZRVny1A@pipex.net...
Yet each photon will hit the detector at c.
Nope.
If the detector is moving at 0.5 c, the photons will be hitting
it at 1.5c
So what speed is the last photon doing to the observer when the last
photon
is 300,000 km away?
It is heading toward the observer at a combined relative speed
of 1.5c according to the observer.
They are all passing by the observer at 1.5c
But for your theory to be correct they must be doing 1.5c the moment they
leave the emitter.
No,
They can easily leave at c and travel constantly at c to the source,
but the observer could not measure such c if the observer is traveling
towards the lightsource at 0.5c
It's speed never changes.
The relative speed of the observer creates a relative speed difference
The photon travels at c from it's source but passes by the observer
at a relative speed of 1.5c.
So am I correct in thinking that you are saying the observer will observe
the photons leave the emitter at 1.5c?
The observer would measure such, yes.
But the photons only left at c of course.
and the only reason the observer would measure such
is simply because of his relative motion wrt the lightwave.
Nope.
If that was true, everything would measure a 1 second pulse
time.
Nope.
Yes.
Can you explain to me why the wavelength of electromagnetism is shifted
red
or blue?
Relative speed differences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 02:44:43 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:AvidnaMzB-jCVITZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sNednYAklJk9IoTZRVny1A@pipex.net...
Yet each photon will hit the detector at c.
Nope.
If the detector is moving at 0.5 c, the photons will be hitting
it at 1.5c
No matter how many times you say this, each photon will hit the detector at
c.
So what speed is the last photon doing to the observer when the last
photon
is 300,000 km away?
It is heading toward the observer at a combined relative speed
of 1.5c according to the observer.
Which means it has left the emitter at 1.5c then?
They are all passing by the observer at 1.5c
But for your theory to be correct they must be doing 1.5c the moment they
leave the emitter.
No,
They can easily leave at c and travel constantly at c to the source,
but the observer could not measure such c if the observer is traveling
towards the lightsource at 0.5c
For your theory to be valid, the observer must always measure the photons at
1.5c from the femtosecond they are emitted onwards.
It's speed never changes.
The relative speed of the observer creates a relative speed difference
The photon travels at c from it's source but passes by the observer
at a relative speed of 1.5c.
So am I correct in thinking that you are saying the observer will observe
the photons leave the emitter at 1.5c?
The observer would measure such, yes.
So the light remains a constant for the observer?
But the photons only left at c of course.
Says who?
and the only reason the observer would measure such
is simply because of his relative motion wrt the lightwave.
Lets leave the wave-nature of em out of this for now. Let us talk about
single photons.
In our new thought experiment, the emitter is set up to emit a single
photon. The observer moves towards this photon at v_o. Do you insist he will
measure that photon hitting him at 1.5c?
Nope.
If that was true, everything would measure a 1 second pulse
time.
Nope.
Yes.
Nope.
Can you explain to me why the wavelength of electromagnetism is shifted
red
or blue?
Relative speed differences.
So which remains the same - frequency or wavelength?
Can you show me the formula to calculate this please? The only one I know of
is the standard one which (to determine the change in the unknown figure)
requires one of the remaining variables to be constant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 03:06:55 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IJ-dndZq7tTdU4TZRVnyig@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:AvidnaMzB-jCVITZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sNednYAklJk9IoTZRVny1A@pipex.net...
Yet each photon will hit the detector at c.
Nope.
If the detector is moving at 0.5 c, the photons will be hitting
it at 1.5c
No matter how many times you say this, each photon will hit the detector
at c.
No matter how many times you say this, it is wrong according to the
shorter duration of the lightpulse.
So what speed is the last photon doing to the observer when the last
photon
is 300,000 km away?
It is heading toward the observer at a combined relative speed
of 1.5c according to the observer.
Which means it has left the emitter at 1.5c then?
According to the observer, basically yes.
According to the source, basically no.
No,
They can easily leave at c and travel constantly at c to the source,
but the observer could not measure such c if the observer is traveling
towards the lightsource at 0.5c
For your theory to be valid, the observer must always measure the photons
at 1.5c from the femtosecond they are emitted onwards.
What theory?
It is a known fact that the lightpulse would last a shorter time to
an observer heading towards it.
The observer would measure such, yes.
So the light remains a constant for the observer?
If the observer keeps a constant speed of 0.5c then yes
the light heading towards him will have a constant relative speed
of 1.5c
But the photons only left at c of course.
Says who?
Says the speed light leaves the source at.
so the source would say such but the observer can not
say such.
and the only reason the observer would measure such
is simply because of his relative motion wrt the lightwave.
Lets leave the wave-nature of em out of this for now. Let us talk about
single photons.
In our new thought experiment, the emitter is set up to emit a single
photon. The observer moves towards this photon at v_o. Do you insist he
will measure that photon hitting him at 1.5c?
Yes, he would have to unless you want to ignore relative motion
of the observer like only an idiot would.
Relative speed differences.
So which remains the same - frequency or wavelength?
Why would either do such?
sheesh you are so full of twisting ***** it is amazing you
can even keep your head on your shoulders without it blowing up.
LOL
Can you show me the formula to calculate this please? The only one I know
of is the standard one which (to determine the change in the unknown
figure) requires one of the remaining variables to be constant.
Irrevant twist noted.
You love to twist away from the 1 second pulse huh?
It must really burn you up that you can not account for
the shorter pulse without using a higher than c relative speed.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 03:23:40 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:NKedncXiXJr5ToTZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IJ-dndZq7tTdU4TZRVnyig@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:AvidnaMzB-jCVITZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sNednYAklJk9IoTZRVny1A@pipex.net...
Yet each photon will hit the detector at c.
Nope.
If the detector is moving at 0.5 c, the photons will be hitting
it at 1.5c
No matter how many times you say this, each photon will hit the detector
at c.
No matter how many times you say this, it is wrong according to the
shorter duration of the lightpulse.
No it isn't.
You have assumed that because the light pulse will appear shorter to the
moving observer, the lightpulse will be going faster.
The photons will still be travelling at c.
So what speed is the last photon doing to the observer when the last
photon
is 300,000 km away?
It is heading toward the observer at a combined relative speed
of 1.5c according to the observer.
Which means it has left the emitter at 1.5c then?
According to the observer, basically yes.
According to the source, basically no.
What do the photons see their speed as?
No,
They can easily leave at c and travel constantly at c to the source,
but the observer could not measure such c if the observer is traveling
towards the lightsource at 0.5c
For your theory to be valid, the observer must always measure the photons
at 1.5c from the femtosecond they are emitted onwards.
What theory?
That the speed of light is not a constant. (See subject of post)
Specifically, for the part of your theory which states that the moving
detector will detect each photon hitting it at >c.
It is a known fact that the lightpulse would last a shorter time to
an observer heading towards it.
The pulse is an interesting phrase and open to misinterpretation. It may
well mean a different thing to me than it does to you. For example, in my
understanding, the pulse is not a "fixed length object" but simply a way of
packetising (is that a word?) the photons in a 3x10^8m piece of space.
The observer would measure such, yes.
So the light remains a constant for the observer?
If the observer keeps a constant speed of 0.5c then yes
the light heading towards him will have a constant relative speed
of 1.5c
And away from him at 1.5c I assume?
But the photons only left at c of course.
Says who?
Says the speed light leaves the source at.
so the source would say such but the observer can not
say such.
Ok. So who are we to believe?
In our new thought experiment, the emitter is set up to emit a single
photon. The observer moves towards this photon at v_o. Do you insist he
will measure that photon hitting him at 1.5c?
Yes, he would have to unless you want to ignore relative motion
of the observer like only an idiot would.
Ok. So for the observer the photon is travelling at 1.5c - yet conventional
physics - accepted the world over - dictates that the photon will travel at
c.
I assume you think that every singly physist in the world has been
brainwashed and no one before you has thought to test this in the last 100
years then?
Relative speed differences.
So which remains the same - frequency or wavelength?
Why would either do such?
sheesh you are so full of twisting ***** it is amazing you
can even keep your head on your shoulders without it blowing up.
You say the red/blue shift is down to "relative speed differences" yet there
is no formula to predict this.
The standard formula for a wave, works perfectly well at predicting the
shift in light - yet requires c to be constant.
This means that to all intents and purposes c is a constant.
Why is this a twist? (Oh, sorry, I forgot you dont understand enough science
to work out how things are interlinked)
The subject of the thread reads "
The speed of light can not be physically constant to all"
So now we need to look at the implications of this claim
Can you show me the formula to calculate this please? The only one I know
of is the standard one which (to determine the change in the unknown
figure) requires one of the remaining variables to be constant.
Irrevant twist noted.
You love to twist away from the 1 second pulse huh?
No. If we accept your theory that c is not constant then we need a new way
to model waves.
It must really burn you up that you can not account for
the shorter pulse without using a higher than c relative speed.
Ok, I now see that you have no idea what you are talking about and have to
obsess about a single thing. You cant comprehend the implications of your
beliefs. Its ok. I am sure, one day, you will grow up enough to talk to
adults.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 05:52:54 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZLCdnTbVj_3_SoTZRVnyrg@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:NKedncXiXJr5ToTZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IJ-dndZq7tTdU4TZRVnyig@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:AvidnaMzB-jCVITZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sNednYAklJk9IoTZRVny1A@pipex.net...
Yet each photon will hit the detector at c.
Nope.
If the detector is moving at 0.5 c, the photons will be hitting
it at 1.5c
No matter how many times you say this, each photon will hit the detector
at c.
No matter how many times you say this, it is wrong according to the
shorter duration of the lightpulse.
No it isn't.
You have assumed that because the light pulse will appear shorter to the
moving observer, the lightpulse will be going faster.
No assumption made at all.
You still have no cause for such I notice.
The photons will still be travelling at c.
Not according to the observer.
If they truly were traveling at c wrt the observer the observer
would measure 1 second of a lightpulse just as if it were
the source itself.
Which means it has left the emitter at 1.5c then?
According to the observer, basically yes.
According to the source, basically no.
What do the photons see their speed as?
The photons see there speed as 0.
They have no relative thing to measure speed from if they
only have themselves.
That the speed of light is not a constant. (See subject of post)
It is not a theory,
It is a postulate.
Sheesh!
Specifically, for the part of your theory which states that the moving
detector will detect each photon hitting it at >c.
It is not a theory, it is a postualte for a theory.
Sheesh.
You are lost!
LOL
It is a known fact that the lightpulse would last a shorter time to
an observer heading towards it.
The pulse is an interesting phrase and open to misinterpretation. It may
well mean a different thing to me than it does to you. For example, in my
understanding, the pulse is not a "fixed length object" but simply a way
of packetising (is that a word?) the photons in a 3x10^8m piece of space.
If it is moving at a "constant" speed, then it is a fixed length.
You sure have problems with basic terms of speed huh?
If the observer keeps a constant speed of 0.5c then yes
the light heading towards him will have a constant relative speed
of 1.5c
And away from him at 1.5c I assume?
Of course.
why would it not be?
It passes him at 1.5c, what other speed would it leave him at..
Sheesh!
What is your problem with understanding such a simple relative speed
problem?
But the photons only left at c of course.
Says who?
Says the speed light leaves the source at.
so the source would say such but the observer can not
say such.
Ok. So who are we to believe?
Both.
Speed is a relative thing.
That is why a "speed" of light can not be constant to all.
DUH!
LOL
Ok. So for the observer the photon is travelling at 1.5c - yet
conventional physics - accepted the world over - dictates that the photon
will travel at c.
The photon is traveling at c you stinkin moron.
It's just the relative speed to the observer that is 1.5c.
Sheesh you are either really dumb or totally ignorant.
LOL
The subject of the thread reads "
The speed of light can not be physically constant to all"
Yup,
So, tell me why the pulse would not be 1 second for observers
if lightspeed is supposed to be constant to all observers?
So now we need to look at the implications of this claim
You are the one not looking at all,
You are parroting off ***** instead of actually using your
brain.
LOL
No. If we accept your theory that c is not constant then we need a new way
to model waves.
No,
Only "you" need a new way to think about observers relative speeds
to the waves.
Somehow you can not grasp relative speed anymore.
Or maybe you never could.
It must really burn you up that you can not account for
the shorter pulse without using a higher than c relative speed.
Ok, I now see that you have no idea what you are talking about and have to
obsess about a single thing. You cant comprehend the implications of your
beliefs. Its ok. I am sure, one day, you will grow up enough to talk to
adults.
You can not comprehend basic relative speeds.
It is all very simple stuff.
It is pretty sad you can not even begin to grasp it
and must argue as stupidly as you do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 06:51:08 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:S56dnXqsB7LXZ4TZRVn-gg@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZLCdnTbVj_3_SoTZRVnyrg@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:NKedncXiXJr5ToTZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IJ-dndZq7tTdU4TZRVnyig@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:AvidnaMzB-jCVITZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sNednYAklJk9IoTZRVny1A@pipex.net...
Yet each photon will hit the detector at c.
Nope.
If the detector is moving at 0.5 c, the photons will be hitting
it at 1.5c
No matter how many times you say this, each photon will hit the
detector at c.
No matter how many times you say this, it is wrong according to the
shorter duration of the lightpulse.
No it isn't.
You have assumed that because the light pulse will appear shorter to the
moving observer, the lightpulse will be going faster.
No assumption made at all.
Ok, if it isn't an assumption what experimental evidence do you have to
support it?
You still have no cause for such I notice.
Cause for what? Your assumption or the change in amount of time the moving
observer will spend in contact with the light?
I have a question for you: is the light pulse is 3x10^8m long?
The photons will still be travelling at c.
Not according to the observer.
Prove it.
If they truly were traveling at c wrt the observer the observer
would measure 1 second of a lightpulse just as if it were
the source itself.
Prove it.
Which means it has left the emitter at 1.5c then?
According to the observer, basically yes.
According to the source, basically no.
What do the photons see their speed as?
The photons see there speed as 0.
They have no relative thing to measure speed from if they
only have themselves.
But they have the observer moving towards them in one direction and the
emitter moving away in the other direction.
That the speed of light is not a constant. (See subject of post)
It is not a theory,
It is a postulate.
Hahahaha.
Nice. Can I make an assumption about what you mean when you use the word?
Based on Merriam-Webster it can mean:
1 : DEMAND, CLAIM
2 a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or
start from the postulate of b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in
logic or mathematics)
Now, I think you are making a claim but I suspect you want it to mean (as a
noun) the self evident version: ("1" below)
1 : a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or
premise of a train of reasoning
2 : AXIOM 3
Am I right?
As you seem to be using this as the basis for a train of reasoning, this is
(to me anyway) called a theory.
Do you have a theory with which you want to correct the theory(s) of
relativity?
Sheesh!
What is that supposed to mean?
Specifically, for the part of your theory which states that the moving
detector will detect each photon hitting it at >c.
It is not a theory, it is a postualte for a theory.
So what is the theory then?
Sheesh.
You are lost!
Obviously.
It is a known fact that the lightpulse would last a shorter time to
an observer heading towards it.
The pulse is an interesting phrase and open to misinterpretation. It may
well mean a different thing to me than it does to you. For example, in my
understanding, the pulse is not a "fixed length object" but simply a way
of packetising (is that a word?) the photons in a 3x10^8m piece of space.
If it is moving at a "constant" speed, then it is a fixed length.
You sure have problems with basic terms of speed huh?
So the light pulse remains fixed in length but all the photons speed up?
Is that what you are saying?
If the observer keeps a constant speed of 0.5c then yes
the light heading towards him will have a constant relative speed
of 1.5c
And away from him at 1.5c I assume?
Of course.
why would it not be?
It passes him at 1.5c, what other speed would it leave him at..
When does it revert back to c?
What is your problem with understanding such a simple relative speed
problem?
Obviously you are undoing the best part of thiry years of schooling and
practical experience. This is going to take time.
Ok. So who are we to believe?
Both.
Speed is a relative thing.
That is why a "speed" of light can not be constant to all.
But that means it is constant to none unless you want to introduce an extra
frame of reference.
Are you implying the aether exists?
Does the speed of the emitter change anything?
Ok. So for the observer the photon is travelling at 1.5c - yet
conventional physics - accepted the world over - dictates that the photon
will travel at c.
The photon is traveling at c you stinkin moron.
It's just the relative speed to the observer that is 1.5c.
Sheesh you are either really dumb or totally ignorant.
Ooh, You are so patient and tolerant.
As I said, conventional physics accepted the world over dictates the
observer will measure the photon at c.
Can you show me any literature which supports your claim? I have reams of
documentation which assert that c is constant to all observers.
The subject of the thread reads "
The speed of light can not be physically constant to all"
Yup,
So, tell me why the pulse would not be 1 second for observers
if lightspeed is supposed to be constant to all observers?
Obviously I cant because you are the genius. I am willing to learn from your
citations.
So now we need to look at the implications of this claim
You are the one not looking at all,
You are parroting off ***** instead of actually using your
brain.
Hahaha.
Good one. That isnt a (parroted) repeat at all, is it?
No. If we accept your theory that c is not constant then we need a new
way to model waves.
No,
Only "you" need a new way to think about observers relative speeds
to the waves.
Well, do you mean me personally or are you on a crusade against "the man?"
Do you think changing the relative speed to the wave doesnt mean a new model
is required?
Somehow you can not grasp relative speed anymore.
Or maybe you never could.
Maybe. Who knows?
It must really burn you up that you can not account for
the shorter pulse without using a higher than c relative speed.
Ok, I now see that you have no idea what you are talking about and have
to obsess about a single thing. You cant comprehend the implications of
your beliefs. Its ok. I am sure, one day, you will grow up enough to talk
to adults.
You can not comprehend basic relative speeds.
Obviously not.
It is all very simple stuff.
Cool. Isnt it odd no one has thought of it sooner. Maybe you really are a
genius.
It is pretty sad you can not even begin to grasp it
and must argue as stupidly as you do.
Ok, but now we have determined that the speed changes we need to look at the
formula which dictates the frequency and wavelength.
If the "relative" speed of the wave hitting the observer changes, how can
the frequency or wavelength also change?
If you get your new formula out soon you can claim all the credit for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 07:16:16 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:laOdnenC-rOflYfZRVnyjA@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:S56dnXqsB7LXZ4TZRVn-gg@comcast.com...
No assumption made at all.
Ok, if it isn't an assumption what experimental evidence do you have to
support it?
The gedanken you seem to not be able to comprehend at all.
and other stuff you will not see until it is too late to save
your religion.
LOL
You still have no cause for such I notice.
Cause for what? Your assumption or the change in amount of time the moving
observer will spend in contact with the light?
I have a question for you: is the light pulse is 3x10^8m long?
Yes, of course it is.
That it how it is a one second pulse of light from the source silly.
The photons see there speed as 0.
They have no relative thing to measure speed from if they
only have themselves.
But they have the observer moving towards them in one direction and the
emitter moving away in the other direction.
Observer is coming towards them at 0.5c and the emitter is
relativity moving away at 1c.
(although the emitters speed is irrelevant since light always leaves
it's source at c)
1 : DEMAND, CLAIM
2 a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or
start from the postulate of b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in
logic or mathematics)
Now, I think you are making a claim but I suspect you want it to mean (as
a noun) the self evident version: ("1" below)
1 : a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or
premise of a train of reasoning
2 : AXIOM 3
Am I right?
As you seem to be using this as the basis for a train of reasoning, this
is (to me anyway) called a theory.
Ok,
Then Einsteins theory is made of smaller theories according to you.
Whatever..
According to you Einstein never made postulates..
no prob.
LOL
Do you have a theory with which you want to correct the theory(s) of
relativity?
Correct what part of the theory?
Only the postulate is wrong.
Most of the theory is based only on a constant lightspeed
from the source. nothing else in the theory has an observer
non dependance of relative speed.
If it is moving at a "constant" speed, then it is a fixed length.
You sure have problems with basic terms of speed huh?
So the light pulse remains fixed in length but all the photons speed up?
I have answered this already.
The photons do not speed up.
The relative speed is what is greater than c.
the photons are still traveling at c.
Is that what you are saying?
No,
and no matter how many times you ask it is not going
to change what I stated.
Of course.
why would it not be?
It passes him at 1.5c, what other speed would it leave him at..
When does it revert back to c?
It never changed.
It is only relative speed change, not a physical speed change,.
Sheesh!
You really do not understand relative speed huh?
What is your problem with understanding such a simple relative speed
problem?
Obviously you are undoing the best part of thiry years of schooling and
practical experience. This is going to take time.
You apparently did not have 30 good years.
Anyone that actually had that much time would easily know
the difference between a physical speed and a relative speed.
You seem to have completely forgotten such if you have had
that much school.
Or they took that long to brainwash you into not being able to
think on your own anymore.
LOL
Ok. So who are we to believe?
Both.
Speed is a relative thing.
That is why a "speed" of light can not be constant to all.
But that means it is constant to none unless you want to introduce an
extra frame of reference.
Kind of correct,
It is only a constant speed from it's source point.
It always travels at a physical speed of c.
relative speeds are different for it all over the place.
That is what relative speed is all about.
Are you implying the aether exists?
Not really.
It might though for all you know.
:)
Does the speed of the emitter change anything?
No.
Why would it?
Do boats rocking in place make waves that move faster than
boats that are driving and rocking?
The photon is traveling at c you stinkin moron.
It's just the relative speed to the observer that is 1.5c.
Sheesh you are either really dumb or totally ignorant.
Ooh, You are so patient and tolerant.
I try to be but you really push the limits.
As I said, conventional physics accepted the world over dictates the
observer will measure the photon at c.
No,
The world dictates the speed light travels at is a constant
speed of c from it's source.
Can you show me any literature which supports your claim? I have reams of
documentation which assert that c is constant to all observers.
I have told you to think about relative speeds.
You seem to like to ignore relative speeds for lightwaves?
Do you think lightwaves can ignore relative speed differences
completely?
So, tell me why the pulse would not be 1 second for observers
if lightspeed is supposed to be constant to all observers?
Obviously I cant because you are the genius. I am willing to learn from
your citations.
Then drop the ***** about light beign constant to all observers
and think for once.
Why would a 1 second light pulse not be 1 second for all?
Hint: relative speed difference.
:)
Well, do you mean me personally or are you on a crusade against "the man?"
Seems to be you only now.
I don't see anyone else challenging this.
Mostly because they are all trying to figure a length contraction
or time dilation joke to try and pull. but of course such can not
be fixed by that in this situation I created..
ELOL
Do you think changing the relative speed to the wave doesnt mean a new
model is required?
It means a fix to relativity only.
most of it remains the same.
not too big of a fix either.
Ok, but now we have determined that the speed changes we need to look at
the formula which dictates the frequency and wavelength.
Ok,
be sure to include water waves and sound waves this time because before
water waves and sound waves easily made such wrong.
:)
If the "relative" speed of the wave hitting the observer changes, how can
the frequency or wavelength also change?
What?
The relative speed change causes such to begin with.
Sheesh
Don't you even know basic doppler anymore or have
you lost that basic classic physics completely?
If you get your new formula out soon you can claim all the credit for it.
Yup.
Or if you had a brain. you would be thinking of one right now to
beat me to it..
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
16 Mar 2006 09:07:14 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:k9-dnYvlnchJkIfZRVn-gA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:laOdnenC-rOflYfZRVnyjA@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:S56dnXqsB7LXZ4TZRVn-gg@comcast.com...
No assumption made at all.
Ok, if it isn't an assumption what experimental evidence do you have to
support it?
The gedanken you seem to not be able to comprehend at all.
I didnt realise you could speak German.
If this is just a thought experiement then it is entertaining, but for you
to surplant the establishment you need more than an idea.
and other stuff you will not see until it is too late to save
your religion.
It is not my religion. I (genuinely) would look forward to you being able to
replace relativity with a new theory.
I cant wait.
You still have no cause for such I notice.
Cause for what? Your assumption or the change in amount of time the
moving observer will spend in contact with the light?
I have a question for you: is the light pulse is 3x10^8m long?
Yes, of course it is.
That it how it is a one second pulse of light from the source silly.
But if the light is travelling at 1.5c then it should actually be shorter
than that - shouldn't it?
But they have the observer moving towards them in one direction and the
emitter moving away in the other direction.
Observer is coming towards them at 0.5c and the emitter is
relativity moving away at 1c.
(although the emitters speed is irrelevant since light always leaves
it's source at c)
According to you this soley with regard to the emitter.
How do you differentiate between an emitter moving towards the detector and
the detector moving towards the emitter?
Whoese frame of reference are you using here?
1 : DEMAND, CLAIM
2 a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or
start from the postulate of b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in
logic or mathematics)
Now, I think you are making a claim but I suspect you want it to mean (as
a noun) the self evident version: ("1" below)
1 : a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or
premise of a train of reasoning
2 : AXIOM 3
Am I right?
As you seem to be using this as the basis for a train of reasoning, this
is (to me anyway) called a theory.
Ok,
Then Einsteins theory is made of smaller theories according to you.
Did I say this?
A postulate is the basis for a theory. Yes or no?
What are you arguing with here?
Whatever..
According to you Einstein never made postulates..
no prob.
When and where did I say this?
Do you have a theory with which you want to correct the theory(s) of
relativity?
Correct what part of the theory?
Only the postulate is wrong.
But a postulate can be defined as an axiom and as such correct by
definition.
Unless you can produce evidence which supports your postulate, your
re-writing of the theory wont survive.
Most of the theory is based only on a constant lightspeed
from the source. nothing else in the theory has an observer
non dependance of relative speed.
Most is not all. It only needs a small change to undermine the rest of a
theory.
If it is moving at a "constant" speed, then it is a fixed length.
You sure have problems with basic terms of speed huh?
So the light pulse remains fixed in length but all the photons speed up?
I have answered this already.
The photons do not speed up.
The relative speed is what is greater than c.
the photons are still traveling at c.
Ok, so the photons are travelling at c. The light pulse remains 3x10^8 m
long.
Is this correct?
Is that what you are saying?
No,
and no matter how many times you ask it is not going
to change what I stated.
I am not trying to get you change what you have stated. The record on Google
(etc) remains for all to see.
I am trying to get you to clarify the ambiguities in some of the terms you
have used.
Of course.
why would it not be?
It passes him at 1.5c, what other speed would it leave him at..
When does it revert back to c?
It never changed.
Ok, when does the speed of the pulse revert back to c with regards to the
moving observer.
It is only relative speed change, not a physical speed change,.
So you have said.
You have this obsession that I am trying to trick you. You need to settle
down a little.
You really do not understand relative speed huh?
Yes. But I am learning a whole new world of physics from you now - and can I
trust anything I learned at school / university any more???
What is your problem with understanding such a simple relative speed
problem?
Obviously you are undoing the best part of thiry years of schooling and
practical experience. This is going to take time.
You apparently did not have 30 good years.
I had very good years. I got a first class honours degree for example.
By the way, I never said in the previous post they had been good years.....
Why did you feel the need to add it?
Anyone that actually had that much time would easily know
the difference between a physical speed and a relative speed.
You would be surprised when it comes to the EM force. (In fact when it comes
to anything outside early stage classical mechanics which are quietly
dropped when you move into the quantum realms. I never did like QM - used to
interfere with my hangovers).
You seem to have completely forgotten such if you have had
that much school.
Maybe. This is more than possible.
Or they took that long to brainwash you into not being able to
think on your own anymore.
I wish I knew who these "they" were. If you can tell me who they are, I will
make sure they atone for their brainwashing.
But that means it is constant to none unless you want to introduce an
extra frame of reference.
Kind of correct,
It is only a constant speed from it's source point.
It always travels at a physical speed of c.
relative speeds are different for it all over the place.
That is what relative speed is all about.
Which means we have no way of determining what the "physical speed" of the
photon ever is as, unless we can enter this exact frame of reference to
which everything moves, we can't measure anything.
Again, it seems like all our calculations are going to be out by some
serious numbers.
Are you implying the aether exists?
Not really.
It might though for all you know.
It might. How can we find it?
Does the speed of the emitter change anything?
No.
Why would it?
Because you cant determine if the emitter is moving towards you or you are
moving towards the emitter surely?
For example, imagine (good old thought experiment time again) two space
ships 3x10^9m apart in a vacuum, with the distance between them reducing at
0.995c
One emitts a photon towards the other one.
How do you determine which ship is moving to determine what the shift will
be?
Do boats rocking in place make waves that move faster than
boats that are driving and rocking?
What has this got to do with anything? I though we were talking about a wave
which can propagate through a vacuum not one which relies on the motion of
ancillary particles to generate it's existence.
Has the nature of light changed?
The photon is traveling at c you stinkin moron.
It's just the relative speed to the observer that is 1.5c.
Sheesh you are either really dumb or totally ignorant.
Ooh, You are so patient and tolerant.
I try to be but you really push the limits.
Oh well. Nothing good is ever easy.
As I said, conventional physics accepted the world over dictates the
observer will measure the photon at c.
No,
The world dictates the speed light travels at is a constant
speed of c from it's source.
The world or the universe?
I thought you didn't like setting rules the universe had to follow? You told
me off for it before.
If a source emits a 1 second pulse of light backwards as it is moving at
0.995c what will happen?
Can you show me any literature which supports your claim? I have reams of
documentation which assert that c is constant to all observers.
I have told you to think about relative speeds.
You seem to like to ignore relative speeds for lightwaves?
The standard textbook teaching for the last sixty years or so has been that
light remains constant to all observers, regardless of motion.
You are trying to undo a lot of education.
Thank the Universe for your garage eh?
Do you think lightwaves can ignore relative speed differences
completely?
Obviously, not any more.
Why doesnt the relative speed difference apply when the emitter is moving?
If it fires a pulse forward for 1 second and is moving at 0.995c surely the
1 second pulse will not be 3x10^8m long?
Or is this different?
So, tell me why the pulse would not be 1 second for observers
if lightspeed is supposed to be constant to all observers?
Obviously I cant because you are the genius. I am willing to learn from
your citations.
Then drop the ***** about light beign constant to all observers
and think for once.
I will try obi-wan.
Why would a 1 second light pulse not be 1 second for all?
Hint: relative speed difference.
Wow. Thanks for the hint.
You are so ace its untrue.
Well, do you mean me personally or are you on a crusade against "the
man?"
Seems to be you only now.
Cool. I am flattered.
I don't see anyone else challenging this.
Nope.
It could be that everyone else is ignoring you or has you kill filed - or
maybe they are all in agreement with you and the time to over throw the
establishement is upon us.
I think you should head off to the library and burn all the physics books so
we can replace them with the new ones.
Mostly because they are all trying to figure a length contraction
or time dilation joke to try and pull. but of course such can not
be fixed by that in this situation I created..
Wow.
You are so great.
Do you think changing the relative speed to the wave doesnt mean a new
model is required?
It means a fix to relativity only.
Cool.
What practical value will it have? What new things will it predict?
most of it remains the same.
not too big of a fix either.
It doesnt have to be big. The bit you are trying to fix has ramifications at
many levels.
Ok, but now we have determined that the speed changes we need to look at
the formula which dictates the frequency and wavelength.
Ok,
be sure to include water waves and sound waves this time because before
water waves and sound waves easily made such wrong.
Cool. Nothing to do with their propagation methods involving the exchange of
kinetic energy between atoms or anything?
I am obviously not up to the task - I have spent too long brainwashed that
speed = frequency * wavelength. What will our new formula be?
wavelength the "relative" speed of the wave hitting the observer changes,
how can the frequency or wavelength also change?
What?
The relative speed change causes such to begin with.
Ok, that doesn't answer the question.
If the relative speed has changed, then the formula speed = frequency *
wavelength doesn't work.
Sheesh
Don't you even know basic doppler anymore or have
you lost that basic classic physics completely?
Well, obviously I dont. Just think, all those years installing functioning
doppler systems and I never knew they were acutally causing crashes.
Wow. You amaze me more by the minute.
If you get your new formula out soon you can claim all the credit for it.
Yup.
Or if you had a brain. you would be thinking of one right now to
beat me to it..
But I must not have a brain. It is very hard to shake the years of the "Old"
formula working so well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 11:22:45 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7tadnQmPCsd1uofZRVny1A@pipex.net...
The gedanken you seem to not be able to comprehend at all.
I didnt realise you could speak German.
If this is just a thought experiement then it is entertaining, but for you
to surplant the establishment you need more than an idea.
The idea I am stating is what is happening in reality.
To bad you can not grasp such a fact.
Yes, of course it is.
That it how it is a one second pulse of light from the source silly.
But if the light is travelling at 1.5c then it should actually be shorter
than that - shouldn't it?
Not for the source,
It leaves the source at c according to the source.
It leaves the source at 1.5 c according to the observer heading towards
the source at 0.5c
Observer is coming towards them at 0.5c and the emitter is
relativity moving away at 1c.
(although the emitters speed is irrelevant since light always leaves
it's source at c)
According to you this soley with regard to the emitter.
How do you differentiate between an emitter moving towards the detector
and the detector moving towards the emitter?
You don't have to,
The emitter always does send out light at c.
(This is the only proven thing in experiments on such to date).
<snipped massive additive ***** that is just repeating T Wake ignorance>
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 03:17:12 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:AKSdnWMbYarKbYfZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7tadnQmPCsd1uofZRVny1A@pipex.net...
The gedanken you seem to not be able to comprehend at all.
I didnt realise you could speak German.
If this is just a thought experiement then it is entertaining, but for
you to surplant the establishment you need more than an idea.
The idea I am stating is what is happening in reality.
To bad you can not grasp such a fact.
Oh, I grasp the fact that you are sure what you say is true. However I also
grasp the fact that you have no *real* idea about if it is actually what
happens in the real world.
You are comforted with your (ahem) knowledge that everything you can
interact with on a day to day basis is all that is needed to accurately
describe the universe. But you have never tried it out, so........
Yes, of course it is.
That it how it is a one second pulse of light from the source silly.
But if the light is travelling at 1.5c then it should actually be shorter
than that - shouldn't it?
Not for the source,
It leaves the source at c according to the source.
It leaves the source at 1.5 c according to the observer heading towards
the source at 0.5c
Right, let me see if I understand what you are saying here.
The moving observer measures the pulse as travelling at 1.5c because he is
moving towards it at 0.5c.
The pulse is 1 second long, which means it is, to the moving observer
4.5x10^8m long (1.5c).
Is this correct so far?
Observer is coming towards them at 0.5c and the emitter is
relativity moving away at 1c.
(although the emitters speed is irrelevant since light always leaves
it's source at c)
According to you this soley with regard to the emitter.
How do you differentiate between an emitter moving towards the detector
and the detector moving towards the emitter?
You don't have to,
The emitter always does send out light at c.
(This is the only proven thing in experiments on such to date).
I like the way you snip the bits you find hard to deal with. Well done. I
look up to you more each day.
Why is the relativistic change to the speed of light only dependant on the
observer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 03:31:13 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OJGdnefMxNvEuobZRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
Oh, I grasp the fact that you are sure what you say is true. However I
also grasp the fact that you have no *real* idea about if it is actually
what happens in the real world.
Then you grasp what actually occurs in the world wrong.
The lightpulse time does actually shorten the faster you are moving
towards it.
Right, let me see if I understand what you are saying here.
The moving observer measures the pulse as travelling at 1.5c because he is
moving towards it at 0.5c.
The pulse is 1 second long, which means it is, to the moving observer
4.5x10^8m long (1.5c).
No
Why would you change the physical length?
I like the way you snip the bits you find hard to deal with. Well done. I
look up to you more each day.
Why is the relativistic change to the speed of light only dependant on the
observer?
Because light always leaves the source at c no matter the sources
speed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 03:58:45 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:iNidnUfriOEJt4bZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OJGdnefMxNvEuobZRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
Oh, I grasp the fact that you are sure what you say is true. However I
also grasp the fact that you have no *real* idea about if it is actually
what happens in the real world.
Then you grasp what actually occurs in the world wrong.
Please, re-read my post. I didn't say it "didnt happen," I said you could
not be sure. If you can be sure without testing it, then you are simply a
charlatan.
The lightpulse time does actually shorten the faster you are moving
towards it.
Have you experimentally tested this?
Right, let me see if I understand what you are saying here.
The moving observer measures the pulse as travelling at 1.5c because he
is moving towards it at 0.5c.
The pulse is 1 second long, which means it is, to the moving observer
4.5x10^8m long (1.5c).
No
Why would you change the physical length?
It hasnt. I said to the moving observer.
The first and last photons are 1 second apart. If the moving observer
registers their speed as 1.5c then they have to be determined to be
4.5*x10^8m apart.
If they are not that distance apart, as measured by the observer then you
have changed the duration of the pulse which means it's speed *can* actually
remain constant.
You stated the moving observer would measure each and every photon as being
1.5c. For the pulse to be 1 second long, the moving observer must measure
that to be 4.5*10^8m. If the moving observer measures the first and last
photon to be 1.5*10^8m apart, the pulse is only 1/2 second in duration and
still moving at c.
I like the way you snip the bits you find hard to deal with. Well done. I
look up to you more each day.
Why is the relativistic change to the speed of light only dependant on
the observer?
Because light always leaves the source at c no matter the sources
speed.
Why? That isn't the case in other momentum based events. Why is the emitter
allowed to remain with a constant speed if the detector isn't?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 04:09:23 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:16idnc49i8yLrIbZRVnyhA@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:iNidnUfriOEJt4bZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OJGdnefMxNvEuobZRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
Oh, I grasp the fact that you are sure what you say is true. However I
also grasp the fact that you have no *real* idea about if it is actually
what happens in the real world.
Then you grasp what actually occurs in the world wrong.
Please, re-read my post. I didn't say it "didnt happen," I said you could
not be sure. If you can be sure without testing it, then you are simply a
charlatan.
The lightpulse time does actually shorten the faster you are moving
towards it.
Have you experimentally tested this?
We are using a gedanken here,
Experiments are null and void right now.
Don't you agree that an observer moving towards the lightpulse
will observer a shorter duration?
No
Why would you change the physical length?
It hasnt. I said to the moving observer.
The length has not changed to the moving observer at all.
The light pulse is 1 second long still.
but the moving observer will not measure 1 second
of flyby time simply because he is moving towards the
source.
The first and last photons are 1 second apart. If the moving observer
registers their speed as 1.5c then they have to be determined to be
4.5*x10^8m apart.
No they don't.
That would be more than 1 second apart.
If they are not that distance apart, as measured by the observer then you
have changed the duration of the pulse which means it's speed *can*
actually remain constant.
It's speed is remaining constant to the source.
The observer will not measure the same flyby time but the
length of the "photon train" will not change at all.
You stated the moving observer would measure each and every photon as
being 1.5c. For the pulse to be 1 second long, the moving observer must
measure that to be 4.5*10^8m. If the moving observer measures the first
and last photon to be 1.5*10^8m apart, the pulse is only 1/2 second in
duration and still moving at c.
The moving observer is not measuring 1 second so your longer length is
completely twisting the whole problem around..
Sheesh
You are really lost now.
LOL
Because light always leaves the source at c no matter the sources
speed.
Why? That isn't the case in other momentum based events. Why is the
emitter allowed to remain with a constant speed if the detector isn't?
The emitter can be any speed,
It still makes the wave at c.
The light wave is traveling at a constant speed of c from the emission
point.
The relative speed can not be constant to the observer because
the speed itself is a speed and all speeds are relative.
Why don't you understand relative speed anymore?
I thought you understood such?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
17 Mar 2006 04:36:03 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:84-dnbkw840YrobZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:16idnc49i8yLrIbZRVnyhA@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:iNidnUfriOEJt4bZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OJGdnefMxNvEuobZRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
Oh, I grasp the fact that you are sure what you say is true. However I
also grasp the fact that you have no *real* idea about if it is
actually what happens in the real world.
Then you grasp what actually occurs in the world wrong.
Please, re-read my post. I didn't say it "didnt happen," I said you could
not be sure. If you can be sure without testing it, then you are simply a
charlatan.
The lightpulse time does actually shorten the faster you are moving
towards it.
Have you experimentally tested this?
We are using a gedanken here,
Experiments are null and void right now.
So this is just a thought then. Ok.
Don't you agree that an observer moving towards the lightpulse
will observer a shorter duration?
I do now. You have re-educated me.
No
Why would you change the physical length?
It hasnt. I said to the moving observer.
The length has not changed to the moving observer at all.
The light pulse is 1 second long still.
but the moving observer will not measure 1 second
of flyby time simply because he is moving towards the
source.
So the observer measures the pulse as being 1/2 second in duration, yet
3x10^8m long?
Am I right now?
How far has the observer moved in this 1/2 second?
The first and last photons are 1 second apart. If the moving observer
registers their speed as 1.5c then they have to be determined to be
4.5*x10^8m apart.
No they don't.
That would be more than 1 second apart.
It wouldnt - the observer thinks they are moving at 1.5c. At that speed
3x10^8m is 0.67 seconds.
If they are not that distance apart, as measured by the observer then you
have changed the duration of the pulse which means it's speed *can*
actually remain constant.
It's speed is remaining constant to the source.
The observer will not measure the same flyby time but the
length of the "photon train" will not change at all.
So, the observer thinks the photon train is actually 0.67 seconds long. Why
would the observer think it was supposed to be 1 second long?
You stated the moving observer would measure each and every photon as
being 1.5c. For the pulse to be 1 second long, the moving observer must
measure that to be 4.5*10^8m. If the moving observer measures the first
and last photon to be 1.5*10^8m apart, the pulse is only 1/2 second in
duration and still moving at c.
The moving observer is not measuring 1 second so your longer length is
completely twisting the whole problem around..
Sheesh
You are really lost now.
No, you said the distance bettween the first and last photon remained at
3x10^8m. If the moving observer measures the photons travelling at 1.5c then
the observer will expect to be "bathed" by the wave for 0.67 seconds.
Because the last photon is going 1.5c the time it takes to hit the spot the
first was in, means the moving observer will not have any method of
measuring what the emitter sent out and can only rely on what it sees. Which
will be a "photon train" 0.67 seconds long, travelling at c - surely?
Because light always leaves the source at c no matter the sources
speed.
Why? That isn't the case in other momentum based events. Why is the
emitter allowed to remain with a constant speed if the detector isn't?
The emitter can be any speed,
It still makes the wave at c.
Why? Why doesnt the relative motion of the emitter get brought into play
here?
The light wave is traveling at a constant speed of c from the emission
point.
Using your example, with a slight modification if the emitter is moving away
from the (now static) detector at 0.995c the 1 second pulse will be
stretched to greater than one second when it hits the stationary observer.
Or is this relative motion not allowed in the theory which will be based on
your new postulate?
The relative speed can not be constant to the observer because
the speed itself is a speed and all speeds are relative.
Yet you have the emitter as a static frame of reference and nothing else.
Why don't you understand relative speed anymore?
I thought you understood such?
If a boat speeds towards you the waves in the sea come at you faster than if
the boat is speeding away. Why, after using water waves repeatedly as an
example, do you no longer allow this for a moving emitter?
.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
