| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2007 09:03:14 AM |
| Object: |
TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
18 Mar 2007 06:32:26 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174140194.863174.22830@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
It has nothing to do with the independence of c, nor the timing of light's
propagations. To the propagation of light no thing is ever moving, which
fact reduces to propagation being instantaneous with causing event. From
that point on the light mirrors in itself only the now subjective space-time
coordinate point of propagation which has nothing whatsoever to do with the
source of propagation. You can't seem to picture that fact.
Nor can you picture the fact that a source in motion may may move a tiny
pico-meter in space from propagation of light to propagation of light
expanding space between propagations of light on that end of the deal, which
on the other and receiving end will appear to be a differentiation in both
space and time, though it be only a differentiation in space on the
propagating end, the timing being perfectly sequenced tick to tick, to tick
of the clock, with no internally local connection to be had to change
regarding non-local space.
Light doesn't give a damn about the source. Coordinate space-time wise, it
is all about the causing event point of propagation. And coordinate
space-time wise, it will be all about that absolutely fixed-frozen point in
coordinate space-time forever.
'Instantaneous with cause' ('simultaneous with cause'), is faster than
"infinite velocity." "Finite constants," for the universal constants such as
c, is a poor term of use because "finite" is itself "relative." You talk
about the [speed] of light when c is actually all about light-time
space-time [distance] from any coordinate space-time POINT OF PROPAGATION .
.. . [from which "coordinate system" provided] all relative velocities will
be calculated. When it comes to there being any motion involved, the divided
twosome of objective observer and [objective source of light's propagation /
subjective point of propagation] becomes a divided triangular tri-state of
observer, subjective point of propagation, and objective source of light's
propagation with all motion and continuity of motion. The subjective points
of propagation is what the objective sources of light's propagation in space
and time will always drop off and leave distantly behind them in space and
time for the observer to measure light-time space-time to.
Though the observer should deal in three points in the triangle of the
coordinate system, he actually need not deal in three clocks for the three
points. He can curve the traveler's actuality of [there and now] clock time
into his own [here and now] clock time, deliberately merging those two
clocks into only one, ASSUMING exactly the same clock time (a version of
"quantum entanglement" you might say) regarding a twin objectivity versus
the subjective light-time space-time point of propagation which is the point
on the opposite side of what is now to be a circle that will always be the
observed (the one and only traveler that ever will be under observation). A
positional reading by the observer of a light second's distance from the
observer becomes a second's distance and difference between point of
propagation and whatever the source of light's propagation. A positional
reading by the observer for a galaxy a billion light years in distance from
the observer becomes a billion years in distance and difference between
subjective light-time space-time [there-then] point of propagation and the
objective source of light's propagation, the now real-time [there-now]
galaxy.
For Special Relativity to become truly realized concerning physics, the
difference between the at rest inertial frame observer and the observed
traveler has to be MADE TO BECOME the difference between the real traveler
and the observed traveler -- any distant traveling object -- as well. If the
physicist is going to quantum entangle the two, as he has been PARTIALLY
doing all this time, then he is going to have to go all the way in curving
the real traveler, and traveler's clock, to his own frame and clock in order
to truly realize what he is observing at any [light-time space-time]
distance away from himself.
---------------
Nicely accurate looks at the place of '1/2' regarding a fundamental
"Universe" base of two ('2' ('0' and '1')):
"The universe is (always) wider than our view of it." -- Henry David
Thoreau (parenthetic mine.)
"Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." --
Thomas S. Kuhn.
---------------
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
17 Mar 2007 09:18:52 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1174140194.863174.22830@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
Exercise for the reader:
Which ignored differences (by Pentcho Valev) of the following list
are responsible for the above?
- physicists and philosophers,
- coordinate time and proper time,
- invariance and constancy,
- special relativity and general relativity,
- teachers and hypnotists,
- laymen and zombies,
- a person being right and a theory being right,
- students and imbeciles,
- bad science and bad engineering,
- bad engineering and bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it,
- physics and linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- everyday concepts and scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- local and global,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
23 Mar 2007 01:56:26 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 2:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
25 Mar 2007 05:06:04 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
25 Mar 2007 09:21:37 AM |
|
|
On Mar 25, 6:06 am, "John Jones" <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev-
Note: putting a blank subject line in your response forces Google
Groups to display that thread on the opening page for the group with a
blank subject, thus making it impossible for someone looking for that
thread to find it.
Bob Clark
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
25 Mar 2007 03:32:53 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
26 Mar 2007 03:46:00 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
26 Mar 2007 11:19:01 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
26 Mar 2007 01:45:10 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
26 Mar 2007 04:39:43 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
26 Mar 2007 04:43:29 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
26 Mar 2007 04:43:52 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
26 Mar 2007 04:44:14 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
26 Mar 2007 04:45:39 PM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 10:44?pm, "John Jones" <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: . |
26 Mar 2007 05:51:35 PM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 4:45 pm, "John Jones" <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Serious bot infection.
Suggest lancing the boil with a hot icepick over a 2-gallon bucket and
keeping that post elevated until the swelling goes down.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
27 Mar 2007 08:19:53 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: . |
27 Mar 2007 08:26:43 AM |
|
|
On Mar 27, 2:19?pm, "John Jones" <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO |
27 Mar 2007 01:34:01 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING |
27 Mar 2007 01:36:48 PM |
|
|
On Mar 27, 7:34?pm, "John Jones" <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC [...] |
30 Mar 2007 08:54:23 AM |
|
|
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTIN |
28 Mar 2007 02:22:50 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPO |
28 Mar 2007 02:34:46 PM |
|
|
On Mar 28, 1:22 pm, "John Jones" <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
You perhaps wish that crossposting to sci.logic be ceased?
"My name is Luna! My name is Luna! Luna! Luna! My name is Luna!
Luna!"
"You name would not be "Luna" mayhaps, would it?"
- Woody Allen
- "Sleeper"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTIN |
29 Mar 2007 07:34:10 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPO |
29 Mar 2007 08:50:05 AM |
|
|
Death is Nature's way of telling you something's wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Pentho Valley STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOG |
30 Mar 2007 08:16:20 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Pentho Valley STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOG |
02 Apr 2007 04:23:01 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Pentho Valley STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOG |
02 Apr 2007 04:23:47 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Pentho Valley STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOG |
03 Apr 2007 11:44:42 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:03?pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
18 Mar 2007 11:20:35 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. [...]
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Hmmm. Why you keep emphasizing the speed of light is not constant is a
mystery to me -- it is well known that the speed of light is constant
only in locally inertial frames (as I said in that quote). I even posted
a rather long and detailed derivation of this back in 1998:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd9168f6ec3220d2
[...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
he published GR in 1915.
Why don't you grow up and actually STUDY modern physics and how
relativity has progressed since Einstein? A tiny fraction of what you
write is trivially true, and the rest is complete nonsense. And your
arrogant tone is utterly unjustified. You will never learn anything by
wasting your time posting nonsense to the net. Nor will your drivel ever
convince anyone of anything (except that you are a fool)....
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
19 Mar 2007 01:02:01 AM |
|
|
On Mar 18, 9:20 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. [...]
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Hmmm. Why you keep emphasizing the speed of light is not constant is a
mystery to me -- it is well known that the speed of light is constant
only in locally inertial frames (as I said in that quote). I even posted
a rather long and detailed derivation of this back in 1998:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd9168f6ec3...
[...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
he published GR in 1915.
Why don't you grow up and actually STUDY modern physics and how
relativity has progressed since Einstein? A tiny fraction of what you
write is trivially true, and the rest is complete nonsense. And your
arrogant tone is utterly unjustified. You will never learn anything by
wasting your time posting nonsense to the net. Nor will your drivel ever
convince anyone of anything (except that you are a fool)....
Tom Roberts
Pancho will never grow, he's already to old and sick for that. Autism
at such an advanced age is utterly and completely incurable. Luckily
for us, his autism will be soon be replaced by Alzheimer and he'll
stop torturing the keyboard.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
