Science > Physics > Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
23 Mar 2006 08:55:52 AM |
| Object: |
Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
Albert Einstein :
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false."
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
23 Mar 2006 10:45:40 PM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143125752.752591.177930@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| Albert Einstein :
|
| "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
| light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
| is false."
|
| Pentcho Valev
Give a more specific reference, please.
Date, paper, some independent means of verifying the idiot's words.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
24 Mar 2006 12:30:48 AM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143125752.752591.177930@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| Albert Einstein :
|
| "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
| light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
| is false."
|
| Pentcho Valev
Give a more specific reference, please.
Date, paper, some independent means of verifying the idiot's words.
Androcles.
I found this quotation in Chapter 4 in Bryan Wallace's "The Farce of
Physics":
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
24 Mar 2006 12:39:58 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143181848.905907.108710@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1143125752.752591.177930@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| > | Albert Einstein :
| > |
| > | "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
| > | light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
| > | is false."
| > |
| > | Pentcho Valev
| >
| > Give a more specific reference, please.
| > Date, paper, some independent means of verifying the idiot's words.
| > Androcles.
|
| I found this quotation in Chapter 4 in Bryan Wallace's "The Farce of
| Physics":
|
| http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
|
| Pentcho Valev
As chief attorney for the prosecution I have to inform you that
defence counsel will object on the grounds of "hearsay" and
the judge will uphold the objection. I cannot cross-examine
the accused with it, he has taken the fifth Amendment and refuses
to answer by dying.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
24 Mar 2006 05:11:55 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Hexenmeister wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143125752.752591.177930@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| Albert Einstein :
|
| "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
| light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
| is false."
|
| Pentcho Valev
Give a more specific reference, please.
Date, paper, some independent means of verifying the idiot's words.
Androcles.
I found this quotation in Chapter 4 in Bryan Wallace's "The Farce of
Physics":
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Pentcho Valev
Ah, in that case, you may want to augment your reading with something a
little more reliable:
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
24 Mar 2006 05:17:28 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143198715.419859.112130@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
|
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > Hexenmeister wrote:
| > > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > > news:1143125752.752591.177930@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| > > | Albert Einstein :
| > > |
| > > | "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
| > > | light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
| > > | is false."
| > > |
| > > | Pentcho Valev
| > >
| > > Give a more specific reference, please.
| > > Date, paper, some independent means of verifying the idiot's words.
| > > Androcles.
| >
| > I found this quotation in Chapter 4 in Bryan Wallace's "The Farce of
| > Physics":
| >
| > http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
| >
| > Pentcho Valev
|
| Ah, in that case, you may want to augment your reading with something a
| little more reliable:
| http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
|
| PD
Ah, so that's where you get your information, Phuckwit Duck.
Humpty Roberts suggested amazon.com for his accretion disks
near black holes, and you had it all the time.
Professor Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
24 Mar 2006 09:52:10 AM |
|
|
"Hexenmeister" <vanquish@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
news:czQUf.105191$zk4.57049@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143198715.419859.112130@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| > > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > > news:1143125752.752591.177930@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| > > | Albert Einstein :
| > > | "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
| > > | speed of the light source, then my whole theory of
| > > | relativity and theory of gravity is false."
| > > | Pentcho Valev
| > >
[Hexer]
| > > Give a more specific reference, please. Date, paper,
| > > some independent means of verifying the idiot's words.
| > > Androcles.
| >
[Pentcho]
| > I found this quotation in Chapter 4 in Bryan Wallace's
| > "The Farce of Physics":
| > http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
| > Pentcho Valev
|
[Papa Draper]
| Ah, in that case, you may want to augment your reading
| with something a little more reliable:
| http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
| PD
[Hexer]
Ah, so that's where you get your information, Phuckwit Duck.
Humpty Roberts suggested amazon.com for his accretion
disks near black holes, and you had it all the time.
Professor Androcles.
[hanson]
ahahaha... Valev's ***** Panic in Einstein's Criminal Cult ******
seems to be in full bloom and swing.... ahahaha... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
23 Mar 2006 09:17:28 AM |
|
|
Good morning , idiot.
You forgot to add your link to Magueijo's theory.
Looks like VSL received a blow recently:
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-05-04.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
23 Mar 2006 10:11:23 AM |
|
|
In Einstein's theory, "variable speed of light" implies that either the
speed of light depends on the speed of the light source or observer,
or, if there is a gravitational field, the speed of light "varies with
position" (see Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity"). In order to
camouflage the issue, Einstein's hypnotists have introduced an idiotic
definition: "variable" means that the speed of light "varies over the
history of the Universe":
http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLReview1.html
Needless to say, this definition has nothing to do with Einstein's
theory but it is a perfect strawman that zombies successfully fight.
Pentcho Valev
dda1 wrote:
Good morning , idiot.
You forgot to add your link to Magueijo's theory.
Looks like VSL received a blow recently:
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-05-04.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
23 Mar 2006 01:43:07 PM |
|
|
Good night, idiot
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
23 Mar 2006 11:55:15 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics dda1 <rangeravenger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Good morning , idiot.
You forgot to add your link to Magueijo's theory.
Looks like VSL received a blow recently:
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-05-04.html
Careful! This actually has very little to do with Magueijo.
Magueijo and his collaborators have been working primarily on
models in which the speed of light is faster in the *extremely*
early universe, long before the formation of quasars. The
observations reported in this press release apply to times
long after that. They provide evidence against claims by an
Australian group that the fine structure constant is changing
(although this issue is not at all settled), but that's a quite
different issue.
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
24 Mar 2006 01:28:56 AM |
|
|
$$ The PERiODiC iSOTOPiC TABLE ..of Elementary NUCLEAR mass:
$$ Fine structure ALPHA a = (n - 1) = 0.007292667189 = 2*pi*ae
= (mD / m1) - 1
= (mp / u) - 1
= (D2 / u) - 2
= (He3 / u) - 3
= (He4 / u) - 4 ..alpha PARTiCLE, He4
= (X5 / u) - 5
= (X6 / u) - 6
= (Lithium7 / u) - 7
NUCLEAR mass Xi -> = (Xi / u) - x ..CHARACTER number, x
= (Xi - u*x) / u ..ATOMiC mass unit u
= (mp + me - H_y) / u .. .. .. ..in amu
= NUCLEAR BiNDiNG ENERGY / u*c^2 .. .. ..in amu
= (mp - u) / u .. .. .. ..in amu
= (mD - m1) / m1
SiGNETiC mass mS -> = mS / m1 ..GUESS TEST mass m1
= Moo / a*me
= me*re / Mp*lp ... continue..
= me*re / {mph}*ls ..lp/4*(pi)^2=ls
= nA*me*re / [mph]*r1
= 4*pi*me*re / Moo*loo ..the RYDBERG loo ...
= (vescape)^2 / 2*v1^2
= 4*pi*Roo*me*re / Moo ..HARTREE mass, Moo
= 2*pi*c*me*re / h
= c*me*re / hbar
= 4*pi*Roo*re / a^2
= 4*pi*re / a^2*loo
= 2*pi*re / wlc ..COMPTON wave, wlc
= re / wlbar ..wlbar also, wls
BOHR radius ao -> = ao*a*re / (wlbar)^2
= (ao)^2*a^2*re / (wlbar)^3
= (re)^2 / (wlbar)^2*a
= ao*(re)^2 / (wlbar)^3
= ao*a^2 / wlbar
= 2*pi*ao*a^2 / wlc
= wlbar*a^2 / re ..CLASSY me radius re
= (ao)^2*a^3 / (wlbar)^2
= ao*a^3 / re
= (wlbar)^2*a^3 / (re)^2
= wlbar*ao*a^4 / (re)^2
= (ao)^2*a^4 / re*wlbar
= (ao)^2*a^5 / (re)^2
= (ao)^3*a^5 / re*(wlbar)^2
= wlbar*(ao)^2*a^6 / (re)^3
= (ao)^3*a^7 / (re)^3
= (ao)^3*a^6 / (re)^2*wlbar
= (wlbar)^2*ao*a^5 / (re)^3
= (wlbar)^3*a^4 / (re)^3
= (ao)^3*a^4 / (wlbar)^3
= 4*pi*c^2*me*re / Vu*{e}*loo ..continued next page,
= 4*pi*c^2*me*re / eH*loo
continued.. = 4*pi*c^2*me*re / Vu*{e}*loo
= 4*pi*c^2*me*re / eH*loo
= 4*pi*Roo*c^2*me*re / Vu*{e}
= 4*pi*Roo*c^2*me*re / 10*"e"*{e}*Volt
= 4*pi*Roo*c^2*me*re / 10*"e"*{{e})
= 4*pi*Roo*c^2*me*re / 10*"e"*eV
= 4*pi*Roo*c^2*me*re / eH ..HARTREE energy, eH.
$$ The GUESS iSS, PROTON mass mp = (a + 1)*u = mn / (ae + 1)
= H_y + a*u - me = Zs*h*c*mn / Ue
= H_y + mp - u - me = Ub*mn / Ue
= (H_y - me) + a*u = 2*mn / ge
= u + a*u = Ub*me / Un
= (QUARKs) + a*u = 2*Ue*me / Un*ge
= D2 - mp + a*u = {e}*hbar / 2*Un
= D2 - u = (a + 1)*me / 10^4*Qx.
$$ Nomenclature:
D2 = Deuterium NUCLEAR MASS Zs = Zeeman splitting constant.
H_y = Normal Hydrogen ATOM h = Planck's constant.
mp = proton mass hbar = Dirac's --> h / 2*pi.
mn = neutron mass ge = electron gyromagnetic ratio.
u = ATOMiC MASS UNiT (amu). Ue = electron magnetic moment.
me = PROPER electron mass. Ub = Bohr magneton.
a = Fine STRUCTURE Constant. Un = NUCLEAR magneton.
a*u*c^2 = NUCLEAR Binding ENERGY.!! {e} = elementary charge.
ae = (ge - 2) / 2 = a / 2*pi = electro-magnetic moment ANOMALY.
Qx = Universal DiMENSiONLESS Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation NUMBER.
Above independent of any Unit System ..but, GUESS-iSS-defined.
Note:
Maxwell's "AMBiENT permittivity COEFFiCiENT" = epsilon Er.
[e]^2 = Old STANDARD charge squared = {e}^2 / 4*pi*Er*Eo.
Eo = GUESS STANDARD permittivity = epsilon = 1 / Uo*c^2.
Uo = " STANDARD permeability = 4*pi / 10^7 -> Wb/A*m.
$$ The GUESS SiGNETiC mass, mS
= mD - m1 = (n - 1)*m1 = m1*(vescape)^2/(2*v1^2).
The GUESS iSS, Electron mass, me = eH/a^2*c^2 = Moo/a^2 = 10^4*Qx*u.
Electric Potential Vu = 10*("e")*Volts ..Unit dist @ quantum CHARGE.
Quantum CHARGE {e} = BASiC elementary CHARGE -> Amp*sec ..units.
Ub = BOHR magneton -> Amp*(meter)^2 ..units.
(ao) = BOHR radius.
Note Uo & Eo CANNOT BOTH equal UNiTY ..in any *COHERENT* SYSTEM.
(Mp)^2 = PLANCK mass squared = M1*m1*Er / (n - 1)*a ..over/a^2.
Er = The Maxwell permittivity Eo STANDARD coefficient.
(lo)^2 = The "MYSTERiOUS Magnetic Length constant", ..squared.
eG = GiBB's free energy, the old CHEMiSTRY icon, [G].
$$ Go-go search: < fine structure variable >< isotopic table >.
< GUESS nomenclature >< My BiGGER bang.!! >< ascii iSS GUESS >.
Google < http://groups.google.ca/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg&ie=UTF-8 >.
$$ Sincerely, ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stan Byers" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
23 Mar 2006 12:13:31 PM |
|
|
Hello Dr. Carlip and Group,
This last spring of 05 I posted the paper
"Light Speed versus Special Relativity" on these news groups.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
I was hoping that you would notice the discussions and join in.
Quite a while back I followed your interesting discussions with
Dr.Tom Van Flandern concerning the speed of gravity and now I
(and the group?) would be most interested in studying your
comments concerning the data as indicated in the
graphs of the Jupiter/Io/Earth light speed analysis.
The Abstract from the paper follows:
"This paper reviews the available speed of light (c) measurements
that demonstrate speed variations of inter-planetary light as
measured relative to the motion of:... planets, satellites, the solar
system, and the Milky Way galaxy.
The idea that light from a remote source maintains a constant
speed (c) relative to all observers regardless of their differing
speeds and directions, as proposed by the theory of
Special Relativity, is shown to be incompatible with the
characteristics of light's speed demonstrated by the
data, analysis and charts of Io's eclipse timing."
In summary, this review of available data demonstrates
that these listed characteristics for light exist when it is acknowledged
that the Doppler effect for light cannot be independent of the
Doppler effect for the event images which are propagated with the light.
A) Light speed is isotropic and at c only relative to its
non-accelerating source.
B) There is no known speed limit for light relative to space or remote
objects.
These characteristics are in direct opposition to the apparent concept
from Einstein's 1912 manuscript for Special Relativity page 56:
Quote "There exists a coordinate system with respect to which
every light ray propagates in vacuum with the velocity c". Unquote.
If the speed of the train of light and events from Jupiter was
not reduced in relation to the retreating Earth, succeeding
observations of eclipse events would remain in synchronism
with the observations of the near point.
The only way there could exist an absence of an observed
delay during motion,...would be if the light speed was infinite.
There would be no delays during the 200 day retreating
movement, and the accumulation of 113 individual delays
to equal the total 1003 second delay would not occur.
Therefore there would not be a 1003 second delay to
be manifested at the far point.
The following quotes from Einstein's letters to his friends provides an
indication of the importance of our correctly understanding light's relative
speed.
Circa 1913 Quote: If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit
dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my
whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false. Unquote
Circa 1949 Quote: Now one may think that I am looking
back on my life's work with serene satisfaction. Viewed more
closely however, it is quite different. There is not a single
concept of which I am certain that it will stand the test of time.
I am not sure that the concepts are on the right track at all. Unquote
The complete paper is available on the above listed URL.
Any comments of discussions you or your colleagues may provide
that may reconcile the Jupiter/Io light speed data and charts with
Einstein's constant light speed postulate will be appreciated and
studied promptly.
Best Regards, Stan Byers
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/index.html
<carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:dvune3$k8n$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
In sci.physics dda1 <rangeravenger@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-05-04.html
Careful! This actually has very little to do with Magueijo.
Magueijo and his collaborators have been working primarily on
models in which the speed of light is faster in the *extremely*
early universe, long before the formation of quasars. The
observations reported in this press release apply to times
long after that. They provide evidence against claims by an
Australian group that the fine structure constant is changing
(although this issue is not at all settled), but that's a quite
different issue.
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
23 Mar 2006 04:47:01 PM |
|
|
"Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:peWdnWyQ2pPPeL_ZnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Hello Dr. Carlip and Group,
This last spring of 05 I posted the paper
"Light Speed versus Special Relativity" on these news groups.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
I was hoping that you would notice the discussions and join in.
And Tom Roberts gave you the answer
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/bf53d80a4ed90a31
Quite a while back I followed your interesting discussions with
Dr.Tom Van Flandern concerning the speed of gravity and now I
(and the group?) would be most interested in studying your
comments concerning the data as indicated in the
graphs of the Jupiter/Io/Earth light speed analysis.
The Abstract from the paper follows:
"This paper reviews the available speed of light (c) measurements
that demonstrate speed variations of inter-planetary light as
measured relative to the motion of:... planets, satellites, the solar
system, and the Milky Way galaxy.
The idea that light from a remote source maintains a constant
speed (c) relative to all observers regardless of their differing
speeds and directions, as proposed by the theory of
Special Relativity, is shown to be incompatible with the
characteristics of light's speed demonstrated by the
data, analysis and charts of Io's eclipse timing."
In summary, this review of available data demonstrates
that these listed characteristics for light exist when it is acknowledged
that the Doppler effect for light cannot be independent of the
Doppler effect for the event images which are propagated with the light.
A) Light speed is isotropic and at c only relative to its
non-accelerating source.
B) There is no known speed limit for light relative to space or remote
objects.
These characteristics are in direct opposition to the apparent concept
from Einstein's 1912 manuscript for Special Relativity page 56:
Quote "There exists a coordinate system with respect to which
every light ray propagates in vacuum with the velocity c". Unquote.
If the speed of the train of light and events from Jupiter was
not reduced in relation to the retreating Earth, succeeding
observations of eclipse events would remain in synchronism
with the observations of the near point.
The only way there could exist an absence of an observed
delay during motion,...would be if the light speed was infinite.
There would be no delays during the 200 day retreating
movement, and the accumulation of 113 individual delays
to equal the total 1003 second delay would not occur.
Therefore there would not be a 1003 second delay to
be manifested at the far point.
The following quotes from Einstein's letters to his friends provides an
indication of the importance of our correctly understanding light's
relative
speed.
It provides an indication of what Einstein thought of its importance Circa
1913 - it does not provide any evidence of what modern physics thinks of its
importance.
Circa 1913 Quote: If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit
dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my
whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false. Unquote
While Einstein may have said that it is false. As an aside some people
think of Einstein as some infallible genius - he was not - for example look
up his discussions with Kretchmann. Nor is he the last word in relativity.
In modern times it is well recognized relativity has nothing intrinsically
to do with light - it can be applied to light but it is not about light - it
is about space-time geometry. See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
under the heading of Relativity without c.
The constant c that naturally occurs in SR may or may not be the speed of
light - such is an experimental matter. It is found to a very high degree
of accuracy to be the speed of light - but no experiment can or in principle
can ever establish it to be exactly the speed of light. For example it is
perfectly compatible with the photon having a very small but non zero mass
and described by the Proca lagrangian.
Tom Roberts also explained this to you but for some reason you chose to
ignore it.
Bill
Circa 1949 Quote: Now one may think that I am looking
back on my life's work with serene satisfaction. Viewed more
closely however, it is quite different. There is not a single
concept of which I am certain that it will stand the test of time.
I am not sure that the concepts are on the right track at all. Unquote
The complete paper is available on the above listed URL.
Any comments of discussions you or your colleagues may provide
that may reconcile the Jupiter/Io light speed data and charts with
Einstein's constant light speed postulate will be appreciated and
studied promptly.
Best Regards, Stan Byers
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/index.html
<carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:dvune3$k8n$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
In sci.physics dda1 <rangeravenger@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-05-04.html
Careful! This actually has very little to do with Magueijo.
Magueijo and his collaborators have been working primarily on
models in which the speed of light is faster in the *extremely*
early universe, long before the formation of quasars. The
observations reported in this press release apply to times
long after that. They provide evidence against claims by an
Australian group that the fine structure constant is changing
(although this issue is not at all settled), but that's a quite
different issue.
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
23 Mar 2006 12:54:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:55:15 +0000 (UTC),
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
Magueijo and his collaborators have been working primarily on
models in which the speed of light is faster in the *extremely*
early universe, long before the formation of quasars.
Crackpot physics continually emerges from the spacetime community. It
never ceases to amaze me. Carlip is definitely an ***** kisser's *****
kisser. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
23 Mar 2006 01:46:40 PM |
|
|
Thank you,
Out of curiosity isn't the "Australian group" the same one that was
supposed to validate Magueijo's hypothesis? I am not arguing with you,
I am just curious since you know more n this subject.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
24 Mar 2006 01:41:51 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics dda1 <rangeravenger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Out of curiosity isn't the "Australian group" the same one that was
supposed to validate Magueijo's hypothesis? I am not arguing with you,
I am just curious since you know more n this subject.
It's complicated. To start, there isn't a unique form of "Magueijo's
hypothesis" -- Magueijo has worked on a number of quite different
models, with a variety of different collaborators.
But Magueijo's first paper on this, with Albrecht, appeared as a
preprint in November 1998. (It's at arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9811018.)
The first paper by Webb et al., the Australian group in question, on
possible observations of a varying fine structure constant appeared
as a preprint in March 1998 (arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9803165), based
on observations from 1994-6, so it certainly wasn't designed to test
Magueijo's proposal. Similarly, while the Albrecht and Magueijo
paper briefly mentions Webb et al., they say that if their results
are correct they are irrelevant to the main point of the model, which
involves a phase transition in the extremely early universe.
A later paper by Murphy, Webb, et al. on the continuing search for
changes in the fine structure constant (arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012419)
gives a variety of theoretical motivations for thinking about this
possibility. A later model considered by Magueijo is mentioned, but
it is just one of a long list of possibilities.
Steve Carlip
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
05 Apr 2006 12:40:23 AM |
|
|
Thank you, appreciate it.
Is there any experiment that confirms any of the many different
magueijo models?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
23 Mar 2006 10:53:42 AM |
|
|
In article <1143125752.752591.177930@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
Albert Einstein :
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false."
Pentcho Valev
And since every piece of data shows Al was right...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
24 Mar 2006 11:13:36 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein :
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false."
See? Einstein had a far healthier and reasonable attitude towards his
own theory than most people around here.
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
25 Mar 2006 07:40:22 AM |
|
|
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143263616.449363.41740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein :
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false."
See? Einstein had a far healthier and reasonable attitude towards his
own theory than most people around here.
Ah.....but you failed to realize that doppler shift is evidence for varying
speed of incoming light and doppler shift is dependent on the speed of the
light source. So I guess that you agree that Einstein admitted that SR is
refuted.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
25 Mar 2006 07:18:39 AM |
|
|
In article <aLbVf.39520$g91.5005@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143263616.449363.41740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein :
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false."
See? Einstein had a far healthier and reasonable attitude towards his
own theory than most people around here.
Ah.....but you failed to realize that doppler shift is evidence for varying
speed of incoming light
Wrong. DS concerns frequency.
and doppler shift is dependent on the speed of the
light source.
Or the observer.
So I guess that you agree that Einstein admitted that SR is
refuted.
I guess you're a drooling idiot.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
26 Mar 2006 08:23:51 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:e041ik$p3v$4@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <aLbVf.39520$g91.5005@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143263616.449363.41740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein :
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
is false."
See? Einstein had a far healthier and reasonable attitude towards his
own theory than most people around here.
Ah.....but you failed to realize that doppler shift is evidence for
varying
speed of incoming light
Wrong. DS concerns frequency.
Hey idiot....speed of light=Lambda*frequency.
Since there is nothing during transit of light that could change the lambda
therefore any detected change in frequency must be due to a change in the
speed of the incoming light.
Ken Seto
and doppler shift is dependent on the speed of the
light source.
Or the observer.
So I guess that you agree that Einstein admitted that SR is
refuted.
I guess you're a drooling idiot.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
27 Mar 2006 03:52:13 AM |
|
|
In article <XtxVf.41969$g91.29538@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:e041ik$p3v$4@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <aLbVf.39520$g91.5005@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143263616.449363.41740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein :
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
is false."
See? Einstein had a far healthier and reasonable attitude towards his
own theory than most people around here.
Ah.....but you failed to realize that doppler shift is evidence for
varying
speed of incoming light
Wrong. DS concerns frequency.
Hey idiot....speed of light=Lambda*frequency.
Yes, so if mu changes, lambda changes.
Since there is nothing during transit of light that could change the lambda
Bzzzt. False. The motion of the source relative to the observer changes
this. Physics 101.
therefore any detected change in frequency must be due to a change in the
speed of the incoming light.
Ken Seto
and doppler shift is dependent on the speed of the
light source.
Or the observer.
So I guess that you agree that Einstein admitted that SR is
refuted.
I guess you're a drooling idiot.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
27 Mar 2006 09:40:04 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:e08u7m$ar1$2@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <XtxVf.41969$g91.29538@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:e041ik$p3v$4@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <aLbVf.39520$g91.5005@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143263616.449363.41740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein :
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of
the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
is false."
See? Einstein had a far healthier and reasonable attitude towards
his
own theory than most people around here.
Ah.....but you failed to realize that doppler shift is evidence for
varying
speed of incoming light
Wrong. DS concerns frequency.
Hey idiot....speed of light=Lambda*frequency.
Yes, so if mu changes, lambda changes.
Since there is nothing during transit of light that could change the
lambda
Bzzzt. False. The motion of the source relative to the observer changes
this. Physics 101.
No idiot....the motion of the source changes the speed of the incoming light
and thus changes the frequency. The wavelength remains constant.
Ken Seto
therefore any detected change in frequency must be due to a change in the
speed of the incoming light.
Ken Seto
and doppler shift is dependent on the speed of the
light source.
Or the observer.
So I guess that you agree that Einstein admitted that SR is
refuted.
I guess you're a drooling idiot.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
28 Mar 2006 02:45:17 AM |
|
|
In article <oHTVf.60846$9I5.20825@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:e08u7m$ar1$2@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <XtxVf.41969$g91.29538@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:e041ik$p3v$4@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <aLbVf.39520$g91.5005@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143263616.449363.41740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein :
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of
the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
is false."
See? Einstein had a far healthier and reasonable attitude towards
his
own theory than most people around here.
Ah.....but you failed to realize that doppler shift is evidence for
varying
speed of incoming light
Wrong. DS concerns frequency.
Hey idiot....speed of light=Lambda*frequency.
Yes, so if mu changes, lambda changes.
Since there is nothing during transit of light that could change the
lambda
Bzzzt. False. The motion of the source relative to the observer changes
this. Physics 101.
No idiot....the motion of the source changes the speed of the incoming light
and thus changes the frequency. The wavelength remains constant.
A fool might think so, but it's been proven time and again that what I said is
what happens.
Ken Seto
therefore any detected change in frequency must be due to a change in the
speed of the incoming light.
Ken Seto
and doppler shift is dependent on the speed of the
light source.
Or the observer.
So I guess that you agree that Einstein admitted that SR is
refuted.
I guess you're a drooling idiot.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
28 Mar 2006 07:12:01 PM |
|
|
Dear Lloyd Parker:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:e0bem8$3ou$3@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <oHTVf.60846$9I5.20825@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
....
Bzzzt. False. The motion of the source relative to the
observer changes this. Physics 101.
No idiot....the motion of the source changes the speed
of the incoming light and thus changes the frequency.
The wavelength remains constant.
A fool might think so, but it's been proven time and again
that what I said is what happens.
It is clear that kenseto has never heard of diffraction gratings,
and how moving sources change wavelength. Diffraction gratings
do their thing without ever needing "wave speed".
Of course now that kenseto has agreed that frequency changes, and
experiment shows that wavelength changes, that means that kenseto
now agrees that c is constant!
Good work Lloyd!
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
29 Mar 2006 08:40:17 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:m9lWf.362$kT4.189@fed1read02...
Dear Lloyd Parker:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:e0bem8$3ou$3@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <oHTVf.60846$9I5.20825@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
...
Bzzzt. False. The motion of the source relative to the
observer changes this. Physics 101.
No idiot....the motion of the source changes the speed
of the incoming light and thus changes the frequency.
The wavelength remains constant.
A fool might think so, but it's been proven time and again
that what I said is what happens.
It is clear that kenseto has never heard of diffraction gratings,
and how moving sources change wavelength. Diffraction gratings
do their thing without ever needing "wave speed".
Diffraction grating is useful to define the wavelength of a light source.
But once the wavelength of a specfic light source (such as H-Alpha) is
defined by using the grating at the rest frame of the source such wavelength
is not changed. According to the SR first postulate each observer measures
the same wavelength for H-Alpha using his own grating. Since there is
nothing that can change the wavelength during the transit of light from a
moving H-Alpha source then the observed frequency change must be due to a
change in the speed of the incoming H-Alpha light.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
28 Mar 2006 07:16:46 PM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:m9lWf.362$kT4.189@fed1read02...
It is clear that kenseto has never heard of diffraction gratings, and how
moving sources change wavelength. Diffraction gratings do their thing
without ever needing "wave speed".
It is clear that David Smith and Lloyd Parker
have no clue about the difference between physical wavelength
change and relative wavelength change and how a difference
in speed is a relative change unless the medium is affecting the
output of the wave and such relative speed change is
unlike a physical change like a diffraction grating creates
or the medium would do.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
29 Mar 2006 04:17:26 AM |
|
|
In article <3oGdnRvTht5kQrTZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:m9lWf.362$kT4.189@fed1read02...
It is clear that kenseto has never heard of diffraction gratings, and how
moving sources change wavelength. Diffraction gratings do their thing
without ever needing "wave speed".
It is clear that David Smith and Lloyd Parker
have no clue about the difference between physical wavelength
change and relative wavelength change and how a difference
in speed is a relative change unless the medium is affecting the
output of the wave and such relative speed change is
unlike a physical change like a diffraction grating creates
or the medium would do.
LOL
Light does change speed in a different medium. It does not in a vacuum.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: Re: Variable Speed of Light : Adieu Einstein, Sorry Newton |
27 Mar 2006 01:37:22 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
No idiot....the motion of the source changes the speed of the incoming light
and thus changes the frequency. The wavelength remains constant.
Learn physics. Right now you are only wasting your time.
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
