QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 10:07 PM)
The velocity at which light is emitted in relation to other objects is a physical thing that must be accounted for, unless you can say why it should not be and what happens to the energy involved making it "disappear" or whatever.
Wow, you really have NO idea what we're talking about do you?
Wow, you really have NO idea what we're talking about do you?
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 08:55 PM)
Please try to be more specific with URLs. There are a bunch of links.
Yes idiot.
Each chapter has a link. This is the whole, 1920 translation of Relativity. This isn't a one page wiki entry.
Fool.
Yes idiot.
Each chapter has a link. This is the whole, 1920 translation of Relativity. This isn't a one page wiki entry.
Fool.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 09:55 PM)
Please try to be more specific with URLs. There are a bunch of links.
Did you expect the explanation of a complicated scientific theory to fit on one page?
Did you expect the explanation of a complicated scientific theory to fit on one page?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 12 2010, 09:13 PM)
Wow, you really have NO idea what we're talking about do you?
Yes, he doesn't.
noPeda is totally clueless about physics post 1860.
Yes, he doesn't.
noPeda is totally clueless about physics post 1860.
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 12 2010, 10:19 PM)
Yes, he doesn't.
noPeda is totally clueless about physics post 1860.
His attention span, however, dates back to 10,000 BC.
noPeda is totally clueless about physics post 1860.
His attention span, however, dates back to 10,000 BC.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 13 2010, 02:12 AM)
This shows something else where you are wrong but won't change.
There is no background medium. [/QUOTE]
To me there must be something like a medium to cause the restriction, or there is no restriction and people are wrong for believing there is. So far I believe people are wrong for believing there is.
It's not about believing.
It's what has been found whether you believe it or not.
There is no background medium. [/QUOTE]
To me there must be something like a medium to cause the restriction, or there is no restriction and people are wrong for believing there is. So far I believe people are wrong for believing there is.
It's not about believing.
It's what has been found whether you believe it or not.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 09:07 PM)
The velocity at which light is emitted in relation to other objects is a physical thing that must be accounted for, unless you can say why it should not be and what happens to the energy involved making it "disappear" or whatever.
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Feel free to edit this Wiki article and explain to everybody why they are wrong.
Arthur
Nope.
QUOTE
The speed at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer. The constancy of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether; it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Feel free to edit this Wiki article and explain to everybody why they are wrong.
Arthur
He's a troll.
No one could be that dense.
At least not without having found religion.
No one could be that dense.
At least not without having found religion.
Or maybe he loves the attention.
QUOTE (vkamath+Apr 13 2010, 04:11 AM)
Or maybe he loves the attention.
Bingo.
The hints are:
1)The constant lamenting going on about a 15 day ban that happened 7 months ago.
2)The need to have someone help search and discuss a later ban...to the point of devoting a topic thread to it.
Someone should have told nopEda to "take it up with the Moderator in private, or get over it" a long time ago.
Is this PPB going to keep this up for another year?
Bingo.
The hints are:
1)The constant lamenting going on about a 15 day ban that happened 7 months ago.
2)The need to have someone help search and discuss a later ban...to the point of devoting a topic thread to it.
Someone should have told nopEda to "take it up with the Moderator in private, or get over it" a long time ago.
Is this PPB going to keep this up for another year?
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 13 2010, 02:47 AM)
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Feel free to edit this Wiki article and explain to everybody why they are wrong.
Arthur
The things I read other places appear to agree with what I believe since they always seem to say light's velocity is the same for bodies in the same frame or moving uniform to each other, or some such thing indicating that it's NOT the same for things outside of that relationship. People in this dingy forum now seem to be saying the velocity of light is always the same for every observer. So if one observer is moving toward a light source at .75 C, and another is moving away from that light source at .75 C, the light from the source will still arrive at the same velocity when it reaches both observers, according to the claims of people in this forum. Combined velocities have not been a consideration to anyone in this forum other than myself afaik, and consider that I've been insulted for taking that into consideration, etc. But then at some point people might begin telling me what I've been saying from the beginning and telling me how stupid I am for not understanding it (even though I've been saying it from the start), like with the "time" subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Feel free to edit this Wiki article and explain to everybody why they are wrong.
Arthur
The things I read other places appear to agree with what I believe since they always seem to say light's velocity is the same for bodies in the same frame or moving uniform to each other, or some such thing indicating that it's NOT the same for things outside of that relationship. People in this dingy forum now seem to be saying the velocity of light is always the same for every observer. So if one observer is moving toward a light source at .75 C, and another is moving away from that light source at .75 C, the light from the source will still arrive at the same velocity when it reaches both observers, according to the claims of people in this forum. Combined velocities have not been a consideration to anyone in this forum other than myself afaik, and consider that I've been insulted for taking that into consideration, etc. But then at some point people might begin telling me what I've been saying from the beginning and telling me how stupid I am for not understanding it (even though I've been saying it from the start), like with the "time" subject.
QUOTE (keith*+Apr 13 2010, 04:38 AM)
...devoting a topic thread to it.
You're crying about that in a DIFFERENT thread! When I first read your bitchings I naturally got the feeling it must be in the thread you're bitching about but no...
You're crying about that in a DIFFERENT thread! When I first read your bitchings I naturally got the feeling it must be in the thread you're bitching about
but no...
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 13 2010, 01:45 PM)
The things I read other places appear to agree with what I believe since they always seem to say light's velocity is the same for bodies in the same frame or moving uniform to each other, or some such thing indicating that it's NOT the same for things outside of that relationship.
That is not what happens.
And light does not consult you as to what it should do.
It is the same within the frame.
It is the same for things outside the frame.
That is what has been found.
It is not what people say, it is what people have FOUND!
The things you have read only appear to agree with you because you won't give up wrong assumptions.
That is not what happens.
And light does not consult you as to what it should do.
It is the same within the frame.
It is the same for things outside the frame.
That is what has been found.
It is not what people say, it is what people have FOUND!
The things you have read only appear to agree with you because you won't give up wrong assumptions.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 13 2010, 08:45 AM)
The things I read other places appear to agree with what I believe since they always seem to say light's velocity is the same for bodies in the same frame or moving uniform to each other, or some such thing indicating that it's NOT the same for things outside of that relationship.
NOPE.
You wrote:
NOPE.
You wrote:
QUOTE (nopEda+)
The velocity at which light is emitted in relation to other objects is a physical thing that must be accounted for, unless you can say why it should not be and what happens to the energy involved making it "disappear" or whatever.
Which has NOTHING to do with "things outside that relationship".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
You claim that "things I read other places appear to agree with what I believe ",
Well then POST A LINK to these THINGS, so we can see if these "things" are reputable.
There are a LOT of cranks on the internet you know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
You claim that "things I read other places appear to agree with what I believe ",
Well then POST A LINK to these THINGS, so we can see if these "things" are reputable.
There are a LOT of cranks on the internet you know.
People in this dingy forum now seem to be saying the velocity of light is always the same for every observer.
NOW?????
As far as I know, anyone with any understanding of modern physics has ALWAYS been saying this.
Which has NOTHING to do with "things outside that relationship".
QUOTE
in free space light always is propagated with the speed of light c, a defined value independent of its direction of propagation and its frequency, and also independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. This second assumption has been verified experimentally and leads to counter-intuitive deductions including time dilation (moving clocks tick more slowly)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
You claim that "things I read other places appear to agree with what I believe ",
Well then POST A LINK to these THINGS, so we can see if these "things" are reputable.
There are a LOT of cranks on the internet you know.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| in free space light always is propagated with the speed of light c, a defined value independent of its direction of propagation and its frequency, and also independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. This second assumption has been verified experimentally and leads to counter-intuitive deductions including time dilation (moving clocks tick more slowly) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
You claim that "things I read other places appear to agree with what I believe ",
Well then POST A LINK to these THINGS, so we can see if these "things" are reputable.
There are a LOT of cranks on the internet you know.
People in this dingy forum now seem to be saying the velocity of light is always the same for every observer.
NOW?????
As far as I know, anyone with any understanding of modern physics has ALWAYS been saying this.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
So if one observer is moving toward a light source at .75 C, and another is moving away from that light source at .75 C, the light from the source will still arrive at the same velocity when it reaches both observers, according to the claims of people in this forum.
YES
YES
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Combined velocities have not been a consideration to anyone in this forum other than myself afaik, and consider that I've been insulted for taking that into consideration, etc.
Because you have been WRONG about it.
We have explained multiple times that light is not additive to the velocity of the object the light is emitted from.
Arthur
Because you have been WRONG about it.
We have explained multiple times that light is not additive to the velocity of the object the light is emitted from.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 13 2010, 02:10 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
So if one observer is moving toward a light source at .75 C, and another is moving away from that light source at .75 C, the light from the source will still arrive at the same velocity when it reaches both observers, according to the claims of people in this forum.
YES
So light slows down to .25 C so the combined velocity can be C with the observer moving towards it at .75 C, and then speeds up however much it would have to speed up in order to reach the other observer at C since the other observer is moving away from it at. But then it would still have to travel faster than C in order to arrive at the retreating observer at C, so even TRYING to pretend it works that way doesn't work.
YES
So light slows down to .25 C so the combined velocity can be C with the observer moving towards it at .75 C, and then speeds up however much it would have to speed up in order to reach the other observer at C since the other observer is moving away from it at. But then it would still have to travel faster than C in order to arrive at the retreating observer at C, so even TRYING to pretend it works that way doesn't work.
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 13 2010, 01:55 PM)
That is not what happens.
And light does not consult you as to what it should do.
It is the same within the frame.
It is the same for things outside the frame.
That is what has been found.
It is not what people say, it is what people have FOUND!
The things you have read only appear to agree with you because you won't give up wrong assumptions.
The fact that light is red and blue shifted causes me to believe it doesn't always travel at the same velocity in relation to everything in the universe, as you people have been claiming it does. But then this time next week you might all be telling me that it is different sometimes and that I'm stupid for thinking otherwise, even though I've been suggesting that very thing from the start.
And light does not consult you as to what it should do.
It is the same within the frame.
It is the same for things outside the frame.
That is what has been found.
It is not what people say, it is what people have FOUND!
The things you have read only appear to agree with you because you won't give up wrong assumptions.
The fact that light is red and blue shifted causes me to believe it doesn't always travel at the same velocity in relation to everything in the universe, as you people have been claiming it does. But then this time next week you might all be telling me that it is different sometimes and that I'm stupid for thinking otherwise, even though I've been suggesting that very thing from the start.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 13 2010, 09:50 AM)
So light slows down to .25 C so the combined velocity can be C with the observer moving towards it at .75 C, and then speeds up however much it would have to speed up in order to reach the other observer at C since the other observer is moving away from it at. But then it would still have to travel faster than C in order to arrive at the retreating observer at C, so even TRYING to pretend it works that way doesn't work.
No.
Take Craft A moving at .75 c towards planet X.
At the exact same time as Craft A passes a stationary Craft B, light is emitted from both of them.
Light leaving Craft A and Stationary Craft B will arrive at planet X at the exact same time, because the photons from both of them will propagate at the same rate.
Take Craft C moving at .75 c away from planet X.
At the exact same time as Craft C passes a stationary Craft B, light is emitted from both of them.
Light leaving Craft C and Stationary Craft B will arrive at planet X at the exact same time, because the photons from both of them will propagate at the same rate.
There is NO IMPACT on the propagation speed of light based on the movement of the object emitting the light.
Arthur
No.
QUOTE
in free space light always is propagated with the speed of light c, a defined value independent of its direction of propagation and its frequency, and also independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Take Craft A moving at .75 c towards planet X.
At the exact same time as Craft A passes a stationary Craft B, light is emitted from both of them.
Light leaving Craft A and Stationary Craft B will arrive at planet X at the exact same time, because the photons from both of them will propagate at the same rate.
Take Craft C moving at .75 c away from planet X.
At the exact same time as Craft C passes a stationary Craft B, light is emitted from both of them.
Light leaving Craft C and Stationary Craft B will arrive at planet X at the exact same time, because the photons from both of them will propagate at the same rate.
There is NO IMPACT on the propagation speed of light based on the movement of the object emitting the light.
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 13 2010, 09:59 AM)
The fact that light is red and blue shifted causes me to believe it doesn't always travel at the same velocity in relation to everything in the universe, as you people have been claiming it does.
NO
Our perception of the color of light varies based on its FREQUENCY but changes in the frequency of light don't affect the speed of light.
And we will tell you the same thing next week and the week after that and .....
Arthur
NO
Our perception of the color of light varies based on its FREQUENCY but changes in the frequency of light don't affect the speed of light.
QUOTE
in free space light always is propagated with the speed of light c, a defined value independent of its direction of propagation and its frequency
And we will tell you the same thing next week and the week after that and .....
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 13 2010, 02:59 PM)
The fact that light is red and blue shifted causes me to believe it doesn't always travel at the same velocity in relation to everything in the universe, as you people have been claiming it does. But then this time next week you might all be telling me that it is different sometimes and that I'm stupid for thinking otherwise, even though I've been suggesting that very thing from the start.
It being red or blue shifted is not why we say it travels at the same speed.
We say it travels at the same speed because it's been measured as moving at the same speed.
It being red or blue shifted is not why we say it travels at the same speed.
We say it travels at the same speed because it's been measured as moving at the same speed.
dopEduh!
Light travels at exactly the same speed for all observers, it is time and space that change, not lightspeed. The frequency change(red or blue shift)is what indicates the speed of the emitter.
Of course, you believe a lot of very stupid things, like an ET god.
Light travels at exactly the same speed for all observers, it is time and space that change, not lightspeed. The frequency change(red or blue shift)is what indicates the speed of the emitter.
Of course, you believe a lot of very stupid things, like an ET god.
So light slows down to .25 C so the combined velocity can be C with the observer moving towards it at .75 C, and then speeds up however much it would have to speed up in order to reach the other observer at C since the other observer is moving away from it at. But then it would still have to travel faster than C in order to arrive at the retreating observer at C, so even TRYING to pretend it works that way doesn't work.
No, light doesn't slow down, time does. If the observer is travelling away from the source at light speed(an impossibility), the light from a stationary source will NEVER reach the traveller.
You can say this ONLY because you simply do not understand what is being said(or you get your info from another idiot).
You can say this ONLY because you simply do not understand what is being said(or you get your info from another idiot).
People in this dingy forum now seem to be saying the velocity of light is always the same for every observer.
Yes, that is what we have ALWAYS said. It is a FACT, confirmed by every observation and experiment, only idiots and fools deny that fact.You are both.
Grumpy
No, light doesn't slow down, "the counting of the beat does because the beat slow down" does. Grumpy
I hope you don't mind me fixing that a bit for you.
Do you agree with that way of looking at it?
He thinks we mean something else by the word "time" than what we do mean by it.
QUOTE
The fact that light is red and blue shifted causes me to believe it doesn't always travel at the same velocity in relation to everything in the universe, as you people have been claiming it does.
Light travels at exactly the same speed for all observers, it is time and space that change, not lightspeed. The frequency change(red or blue shift)is what indicates the speed of the emitter.
Of course, you believe a lot of very stupid things, like an ET god.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fact that light is red and blue shifted causes me to believe it doesn't always travel at the same velocity in relation to everything in the universe, as you people have been claiming it does. |
Light travels at exactly the same speed for all observers, it is time and space that change, not lightspeed. The frequency change(red or blue shift)is what indicates the speed of the emitter.
Of course, you believe a lot of very stupid things, like an ET god.
So light slows down to .25 C so the combined velocity can be C with the observer moving towards it at .75 C, and then speeds up however much it would have to speed up in order to reach the other observer at C since the other observer is moving away from it at. But then it would still have to travel faster than C in order to arrive at the retreating observer at C, so even TRYING to pretend it works that way doesn't work.
No, light doesn't slow down, time does. If the observer is travelling away from the source at light speed(an impossibility), the light from a stationary source will NEVER reach the traveller.
QUOTE
The things I read other places appear to agree with what I believe since they always seem to say light's velocity is the same for bodies in the same frame or moving uniform to each other, or some such thing indicating that it's NOT the same for things outside of that relationship.
You can say this ONLY because you simply do not understand what is being said(or you get your info from another idiot).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The things I read other places appear to agree with what I believe since they always seem to say light's velocity is the same for bodies in the same frame or moving uniform to each other, or some such thing indicating that it's NOT the same for things outside of that relationship. |
You can say this ONLY because you simply do not understand what is being said(or you get your info from another idiot).
People in this dingy forum now seem to be saying the velocity of light is always the same for every observer.
Yes, that is what we have ALWAYS said. It is a FACT, confirmed by every observation and experiment, only idiots and fools deny that fact.You are both.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 13 2010, 03:24 PM)
No, light doesn't slow down, "the counting of the beat does because the beat slow down" does. Grumpy
I hope you don't mind me fixing that a bit for you.
Do you agree with that way of looking at it?
He thinks we mean something else by the word "time" than what we do mean by it.
Why is everyone still arguing with noPeda? He has already stated that the truth or falsity of a subject doesn't matter to him. He will only believe what he wishes to believe.
Good point.
But he won't go away.
But he won't go away.
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 13 2010, 06:53 PM)
Why is everyone still arguing with noPeda? He has already stated that the truth or falsity of a subject doesn't matter to him. He will only believe what he wishes to believe.
I believe you're lying. Try presenting a quote of me saying that. While you're at it, tell us why I should accept your interpretation of God above my own.
I believe you're lying. Try presenting a quote of me saying that. While you're at it, tell us why I should accept your interpretation of God above my own.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 13 2010, 03:24 PM)
Light travels at exactly the same speed for all observers, it is time and space that change, not lightspeed. The frequency change(red or blue shift)is what indicates the speed of the emitter.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
So light slows down to .25 C so the combined velocity can be C with the observer moving towards it at .75 C, and then speeds up however much it would have to speed up in order to reach the other observer at C since the other observer is moving away from it at. But then it would still have to travel faster than C in order to arrive at the retreating observer at C, so even TRYING to pretend it works that way doesn't work.
No, light doesn't slow down, time does. If the observer is travelling away from the source at light speed(an impossibility), the light from a stationary source will NEVER reach the traveller.
Then obviously light doesn't reach all observers at the same velocity, as I suspected all along. Sometimes you say it does, though other times like now you say it doesn't. Sometimes you say time does not exist, and other times like now you pretend that it does exist and changes things significantly.
No, light doesn't slow down, time does. If the observer is travelling away from the source at light speed(an impossibility), the light from a stationary source will NEVER reach the traveller.
Then obviously light doesn't reach all observers at the same velocity, as I suspected all along. Sometimes you say it does, though other times like now you say it doesn't. Sometimes you say time does not exist, and other times like now you pretend that it does exist and changes things significantly.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 13 2010, 08:33 PM)
Then obviously light doesn't reach all observers at the same velocity, as I suspected all along. Sometimes you say it does, though other times like now you say it doesn't. Sometimes you say time does not exist, and other times like now you pretend that it does exist and changes things significantly.
LOL You would make the world's worst detective.
"Since I don't know how it happened, it must not have happened at all"
LOL You would make the world's worst detective.
"Since I don't know how it happened, it must not have happened at all"
dopEduh!
Lightspeed is ALWAYS and FOREVER the same for all observers and you are dumber than a sack of hammers. You don't understand anything anyone tries to tell you, it's obvious in the incredible stupidity of your posts.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Then obviously light doesn't reach all observers at the same velocity, as I suspected all along. Sometimes you say it does, though other times like now you say it doesn't. Sometimes you say time does not exist, and other times like now you pretend that it does exist and changes things significantly.
Lightspeed is ALWAYS and FOREVER the same for all observers and you are dumber than a sack of hammers. You don't understand anything anyone tries to tell you, it's obvious in the incredible stupidity of your posts.
Grumpy
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 13 2010, 07:33 PM)
Then obviously light doesn't reach all observers at the same velocity, as I suspected all along.
Friggin amazing.
Care to explain how you came to this conclusion?
Oh, and by the way, are you familiar with the term LIGHT YEAR?
You know, the distance that light travels in a year.
It's use is quite common in dealing with astronomy as we typically use it to describe how distant other stars and galaxies are from us.
In fact, Google's built in calculator will tell you that:
1 light year = 9.4605284 × 10^15 meters
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...29&q=light+year
Note the precision.
If the speed of light in space wasn't CONSTANT, it would make no sense to use a term for distance called a light year.
But what about the meter?
Well it is defined as the distance travelled by light in free space in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
Again, note the precision.
If the speed of light wasn't CONSTANT, it would make no sense to use how far light goes in a SPECIFIC interval of time to define the length of a meter.
The rest of the metric system length units are based on a ratio to the length of meter, ie 1 cm = 1 m/10
Now since virtually every scientist on the planet uses either light years or meters in their work, does it not stand to reason that they all accept that these units of measurement are valid and allow for reproducable experiments by different observers because the speed of light is a CONSTANT.
OR
Do you think you know something that all of these scientists do not?
Arthur
Friggin amazing.
Care to explain how you came to this conclusion?
Oh, and by the way, are you familiar with the term LIGHT YEAR?
You know, the distance that light travels in a year.
It's use is quite common in dealing with astronomy as we typically use it to describe how distant other stars and galaxies are from us.
In fact, Google's built in calculator will tell you that:
1 light year = 9.4605284 × 10^15 meters
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...29&q=light+year
Note the precision.
If the speed of light in space wasn't CONSTANT, it would make no sense to use a term for distance called a light year.
But what about the meter?
Well it is defined as the distance travelled by light in free space in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
Again, note the precision.
If the speed of light wasn't CONSTANT, it would make no sense to use how far light goes in a SPECIFIC interval of time to define the length of a meter.
The rest of the metric system length units are based on a ratio to the length of meter, ie 1 cm = 1 m/10
Now since virtually every scientist on the planet uses either light years or meters in their work, does it not stand to reason that they all accept that these units of measurement are valid and allow for reproducable experiments by different observers because the speed of light is a CONSTANT.
OR
Do you think you know something that all of these scientists do not?
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 13 2010, 07:27 PM)
tell us why I should accept your interpretation of God above my own.
As a person with a non-standard definition of "god", I can see where you're coming from.
However... I accept that I have a non-standard definition. Therefore, I am not offended or concerned when someone calls me an atheist.
However you, my friend, are light years away from ANY definition of god I have ever heard.
As a person with a non-standard definition of "god", I can see where you're coming from.
However... I accept that I have a non-standard definition. Therefore, I am not offended or concerned when someone calls me an atheist.
However you, my friend, are light years away from ANY definition of god I have ever heard.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 13 2010, 07:27 PM)
I believe you're lying. Try presenting a quote of me saying that. While you're at it, tell us why I should accept your interpretation of God above my own.
Sure. Here it is.
idiot.
Sure. Here it is.
QUOTE
And for another even if you were right it wouldn't matter to me.
idiot.
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 3 2010, 03:24 PM)
If you think time exists then you should be able to explain either:
1. where/how you think it gets the energy to influence every bit of matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously.
or
2. how you think it manages to influence every bit of matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously without the use of any energy.
or
3. where/how you think it gets the energy to influence clocks and satellites if not everything else in the universe.
so please try.
i too once thought that the blogging in this site is little conservative but
What on earth are you, SON OF STALIN!!!!!!???????????????????????????
see, time isn't effecting us by hammering us from diamension. it simple is a character or diamension. as our position in this world changes time passes on. as the velocity varies, relativity as verifys that time varies.
saying that time exists same for all would be a challange to relativity but saying that time does'nt exist in tooooooooooooooo much
did you hear it from some african or indian tribal priest?
see i am not offending and am really sorry
you should have elaborated perhaps your views are wrong rather than false
1. where/how you think it gets the energy to influence every bit of matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously.
or
2. how you think it manages to influence every bit of matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously without the use of any energy.
or
3. where/how you think it gets the energy to influence clocks and satellites if not everything else in the universe.
so please try.
i too once thought that the blogging in this site is little conservative but
What on earth are you, SON OF STALIN!!!!!!???????????????????????????
see, time isn't effecting us by hammering us from diamension. it simple is a character or diamension. as our position in this world changes time passes on. as the velocity varies, relativity as verifys that time varies.
saying that time exists same for all would be a challange to relativity but saying that time does'nt exist in tooooooooooooooo much
did you hear it from some african or indian tribal priest?
see i am not offending and am really sorry
you should have elaborated perhaps your views are wrong rather than false
why do we even talk about god? where is it? did you invite it for dinner yesterday?
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 12:33 AM)
Sometimes you say time does not exist, and other times like now you pretend that it does exist and changes things significantly.
Sometimes you think he means one thing by "time" and what you think he means does not exist.
And other times you undestand what he means.
The inconsistency is with you.
Sometimes you think he means one thing by "time" and what you think he means does not exist.
And other times you undestand what he means.
The inconsistency is with you.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 14 2010, 01:34 AM)
Lightspeed is ALWAYS and FOREVER the same for all observers
You said:
"If the observer is travelling away from the source at light speed(an impossibility), the light from a stationary source will NEVER reach the traveller."
Yet you think if the observer was traveling at .75 C away from the source light would still reach him at C. You also think that if he was traveling at .75 C toward the source the light would reach him with the same velocity as it would if he were traveling away from it at the same rate. I can't help it that I don't believe something that sounds so impossible. In fact from my pov YOU should be telling me that it's impossible because there ARE velocities which must be accounted for and you have no way of accounting for them, OR you would account for them which you seem to be incapable of doing.
You said:
"If the observer is travelling away from the source at light speed(an impossibility), the light from a stationary source will NEVER reach the traveller."
Yet you think if the observer was traveling at .75 C away from the source light would still reach him at C. You also think that if he was traveling at .75 C toward the source the light would reach him with the same velocity as it would if he were traveling away from it at the same rate. I can't help it that I don't believe something that sounds so impossible. In fact from my pov YOU should be telling me that it's impossible because there ARE velocities which must be accounted for and you have no way of accounting for them, OR you would account for them which you seem to be incapable of doing.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 01:53 PM)
You said:
"If the observer is travelling away from the source at light speed(an impossibility), the light from a stationary source will NEVER reach the traveller."
Yet you think if the observer was traveling at .75 C away from the source light would still reach him at C. You also think that if he was traveling at .75 C toward the source the light would reach him with the same velocity as it would if he were traveling away from it at the same rate. I can't help it that I don't believe something that sounds so impossible. In fact from my pov YOU should be telling me that it's impossible because there ARE velocities which must be accounted for and you have no way of accounting for them, OR you would account for them which you seem to be incapable of doing.
I think we all agree that that it does sound impossible.
I seriously doubt any of us here would have come up with it ourselves.
Not only did it take an Einstein to figure it out, it was The Einstein. (and I don't mean Bob)
The main point is THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE TRUE.
The Universe does not consult us on what we think is impossible.
edit if you want to know if it's true no matter how impossible it sounds ask yourself "Does GPS work?"
If you say yes then it's true (even if it sounds impossible).
Edit does anyone here not think that it sounds impossible?
"If the observer is travelling away from the source at light speed(an impossibility), the light from a stationary source will NEVER reach the traveller."
Yet you think if the observer was traveling at .75 C away from the source light would still reach him at C. You also think that if he was traveling at .75 C toward the source the light would reach him with the same velocity as it would if he were traveling away from it at the same rate. I can't help it that I don't believe something that sounds so impossible. In fact from my pov YOU should be telling me that it's impossible because there ARE velocities which must be accounted for and you have no way of accounting for them, OR you would account for them which you seem to be incapable of doing.
I think we all agree that that it does sound impossible.
I seriously doubt any of us here would have come up with it ourselves.
Not only did it take an Einstein to figure it out, it was The Einstein. (and I don't mean Bob)
The main point is THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE TRUE.
The Universe does not consult us on what we think is impossible.
edit if you want to know if it's true no matter how impossible it sounds ask yourself "Does GPS work?"
If you say yes then it's true (even if it sounds impossible).
Edit does anyone here not think that it sounds impossible?
You lied:
"He has already stated that the truth or falsity of a subject doesn't matter to him. He will only believe what he wishes to believe"
When I challenged you to back up your lie you not surprisingly responded with another lie pretending that this quote:
"And for another even if you were right it wouldn't matter to me."
was in response to what you claimed in your first lie. But the truth is that it was not in response to what you lied about, but instead it was in response to this:
"He has already stated that the truth or falsity of a subject doesn't matter to him. He will only believe what he wishes to believe"
When I challenged you to back up your lie you not surprisingly responded with another lie pretending that this quote:
"And for another even if you were right it wouldn't matter to me."
was in response to what you claimed in your first lie. But the truth is that it was not in response to what you lied about, but instead it was in response to this:
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You are talking about something that fits no ones defintion of God.
It's a waste of time for me to point out lies people tell about me because to you people feel any lies you tell about me are okay, though I have no doubt you think I'm horrible for pointing out your lies. So you feel that your lies are okay, but it's wrong for me to point out what you do TO ME.
Are you a vegan, btw?
It's a waste of time for me to point out lies people tell about me because to you people feel any lies you tell about me are okay, though I have no doubt you think I'm horrible for pointing out your lies. So you feel that your lies are okay, but it's wrong for me to point out what you do TO ME.
Are you a vegan, btw?
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 08:53 AM)
You said:
"If the observer is travelling away from the source at light speed(an impossibility), the light from a stationary source will NEVER reach the traveller."
Yet you think if the observer was traveling at .75 C away from the source light would still reach him at C. You also think that if he was traveling at .75 C toward the source the light would reach him with the same velocity as it would if he were traveling away from it at the same rate.
Correct.
"If the observer is travelling away from the source at light speed(an impossibility), the light from a stationary source will NEVER reach the traveller."
Yet you think if the observer was traveling at .75 C away from the source light would still reach him at C. You also think that if he was traveling at .75 C toward the source the light would reach him with the same velocity as it would if he were traveling away from it at the same rate.
Correct.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I can't help it that I don't believe something that sounds so impossible.
Which is why we aren't asking you to take our word for it.
We have provided MANY links to scientific papers explaining that this is so.
The scientific papers are based on both theory and have also been confirmed by experimental evidence.
In fact no experiment has shown the speed of light to vary based on the motion of the object emitting the light.
We have also shown that our entire metric system of measurement is based on the constant speed of light.
I don't think there is anything more we can do or say.
Arthur
Which is why we aren't asking you to take our word for it.
We have provided MANY links to scientific papers explaining that this is so.
The scientific papers are based on both theory and have also been confirmed by experimental evidence.
In fact no experiment has shown the speed of light to vary based on the motion of the object emitting the light.
We have also shown that our entire metric system of measurement is based on the constant speed of light.
I don't think there is anything more we can do or say.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2010, 02:17 PM)
In fact no experiment has shown the speed of light to vary based on the motion of the object emitting the light.
Arthur
Or based on the motion of the object receiving the light.
Arthur
Or based on the motion of the object receiving the light.
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 14 2010, 02:00 PM)
I think we all agree that that it does sound impossible.
I seriously doubt any of us here would have come up with it ourselves.
Not only did it take an Einstein to figure it out, it was The Einstein. (and I don't mean Bob)
The main point is THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE TRUE.
The Universe does not consult us on what we think is impossible.
edit if you want to know if it's true no matter how impossible it sounds ask yourself "Does GPS work?"
If you say yes then it's true (even if it sounds impossible).
Edit does anyone here not think that it sounds impossible?
Account for the differences in velocity which in this example looks like 1.5 C, and explain what negates that difference. If you can't, then I can only continue to believe you're not correct about your claim. If you're not, then what? Well, at least I won't be sucked down into it with you as long as I resist. If you're right and I'm wrong, and eventually you or someone manages to account for the velocity differences and of course the energy that must be accounted for as well, then I'll finally understand like you "do". What if you have the wrong interpretation, should I still believe you? If and when you can not account for all the vanishing (or whatever) velocity and energy ....still I should believe you? I can't. I don't believe Einstein believed what you claim either, but if he did then he must have accounted for the changed velocities and their energies too. Not just for this one example either--which would be impressive by itself imo--but for every bit of matter in the universe velocities and energies between every bit would have be vanishing or popping into existence or whatever 
constantly and consistently.
Or, combined speeds can be greater than C. So far my guess is that somewhere it's suggested that they can't be more than twice C, but I haven't seen it yet.
I seriously doubt any of us here would have come up with it ourselves.
Not only did it take an Einstein to figure it out, it was The Einstein. (and I don't mean Bob)
The main point is THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE TRUE.
The Universe does not consult us on what we think is impossible.
edit if you want to know if it's true no matter how impossible it sounds ask yourself "Does GPS work?"
If you say yes then it's true (even if it sounds impossible).
Edit does anyone here not think that it sounds impossible?
Account for the differences in velocity which in this example looks like 1.5 C, and explain what negates that difference. If you can't, then I can only continue to believe you're not correct about your claim. If you're not, then what? Well, at least I won't be sucked down into it with you as long as I resist. If you're right and I'm wrong, and eventually you or someone manages to account for the velocity differences and of course the energy that must be accounted for as well, then I'll finally understand like you "do". What if you have the wrong interpretation, should I still believe you? If and when you can not account for all the vanishing (or whatever) velocity and energy
....still I should believe you? I can't. I don't believe Einstein believed what you claim either, but if he did then he must have accounted for the changed velocities and their energies too. Not just for this one example either--which would be impressive by itself imo--but for every bit of matter in the universe velocities and energies between every bit would have be vanishing or popping into existence or whatever constantly and consistently. Or, combined speeds can be greater than C. So far my guess is that somewhere it's suggested that they can't be more than twice C, but I haven't seen it yet.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2010, 02:17 PM)
Correct.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I can't help it that I don't believe something that sounds so impossible.
Which is why we aren't asking you to take our word for it.
We have provided MANY links to scientific papers explaining that this is so.
I wish you would try again. Someone posted a link to a bunch of Einstein's quotes, but I haven't taken the hour or two it would take to try to find exactly what I'm looking for. Someone else posted a link explaining the spectrum of light. I took an hour or so myself and found something that leads me to believe I'm right, but never have seen anything other than claims made by people like you that what you're saying is correct. And to make it even worse, if you do find that I'm right you'll probably say you've been telling me what I've been suggesting the whole time and tell me what an idiot I am for not understading it.
no experiment has shown the speed of light to vary based on the motion of the object emitting the light.
Which is why we aren't asking you to take our word for it.
We have provided MANY links to scientific papers explaining that this is so.
I wish you would try again. Someone posted a link to a bunch of Einstein's quotes, but I haven't taken the hour or two it would take to try to find exactly what I'm looking for. Someone else posted a link explaining the spectrum of light. I took an hour or so myself and found something that leads me to believe I'm right, but never have seen anything other than claims made by people like you that what you're saying is correct. And to make it even worse, if you do find that I'm right you'll probably say you've been telling me what I've been suggesting the whole time and tell me what an idiot I am for not understading it.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2010, 02:17 PM)
The scientific papers are based on both theory and have also been confirmed by experimental evidence.
In fact no experiment has shown the speed of light to vary based on the motion of the object emitting the light.
I've never suggested that it does. But that's entirely different than saying light reaches all objects at the same velocity regardless of the direction and velocity of the objects. Those are entirely different things, and I'm beginning to wonder if you people even appreciate that much.
In fact no experiment has shown the speed of light to vary based on the motion of the object emitting the light.
I've never suggested that it does. But that's entirely different than saying light reaches all objects at the same velocity regardless of the direction and velocity of the objects. Those are entirely different things, and I'm beginning to wonder if you people even appreciate that much.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 10:30 AM)
Account for the differences in velocity which in this example looks like 1.5 C, and explain what negates that difference.
As we've told you a million times, it's time dilation. The faster you go, the slower time goes. If you are moving in "slow-motion" you will get a different speed measurement than someone who is not in "slow-motion." It just so happens that the amount of time dilation experienced scales perfectly to keep all observed light moving at the same perceived speed.
As we've told you a million times, it's time dilation. The faster you go, the slower time goes. If you are moving in "slow-motion" you will get a different speed measurement than someone who is not in "slow-motion." It just so happens that the amount of time dilation experienced scales perfectly to keep all observed light moving at the same perceived speed.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 02:30 PM)
Account for the differences in velocity which in this example looks like 1.5 C, and explain what negates that difference. If you can't, then I can only continue to believe you're not correct about your claim. If you're not, then what?
GPS works.
Suck it up.
It makes no difference if we understand how something works.
If something works it works independent of us.
But in any case good ol' Al explained it all pretty well. (Actually he was young Al when he explained it)
(Not this Al but he's onto something as well)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSjHuTpElk
GPS works.
Suck it up.
It makes no difference if we understand how something works.
If something works it works independent of us.
But in any case good ol' Al explained it all pretty well. (Actually he was young Al when he explained it)
(Not this Al but he's onto something as well)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSjHuTpElk
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 09:30 AM)
I don't believe Einstein believed what you claim either, but if he did then he must have accounted for the changed velocities and their energies too.
I've presented this to you multiple times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
It completely supports our assertions.
It claims exactly what you say you can't believe, is in fact true.
As I've said multiple times, feel free to edit this Wiki article and explain to everybody why they are wrong.
Of course you won't do so will you?
Why?
Arthur
I've presented this to you multiple times:
QUOTE
The speed at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer. The constancy of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether; it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
It completely supports our assertions.
It claims exactly what you say you can't believe, is in fact true.
As I've said multiple times, feel free to edit this Wiki article and explain to everybody why they are wrong.
Of course you won't do so will you?
Why?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette @ Apr 14 2010+ 02:17 PM)
no experiment has shown the speed of light to vary based on the motion of the object emitting the light.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 09:42 AM)
I've never suggested that it does.
Yeah, you did:
Yeah, you did:
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Yet you think if the observer was traveling at .75 C away from the source light would still reach him at C. You also think that if he was traveling at .75 C toward the source the light would reach him with the same velocity as it would if he were traveling away from it at the same rate.
So you are clearly saying that the motion of the object affects the speed of light.
But then you say it's not.
Wrong.
idiot
So you are clearly saying that the motion of the object affects the speed of light.
But then you say it's not.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
But that's entirely different than saying light reaches all objects at the same velocity regardless of the direction and velocity of the objects. Those are entirely different things, and I'm beginning to wonder if you people even appreciate that much.
But how is it different?
I'm beginning to think you don't understand what VELOCITY means.
Velocity means distance / time.
Velocity is NOT the same as the rate of closure on an object.
Velocity is NOT the same as duration.
For instance, if an object is moving away from a light source, the light will take longer to reach them then if they are not moving away from it, but regardless of the objects motion the light will always reach it at the exact same velocity.
To be clear.
Light always propogates at the same velocity in free space.
The velocity of light doesn't change based on the velocity of the object emitting the light.
Since light has only ONE velocity, by definition, it MUST reach all objects at the same velocity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Arthur
But how is it different?
I'm beginning to think you don't understand what VELOCITY means.
Velocity means distance / time.
Velocity is NOT the same as the rate of closure on an object.
Velocity is NOT the same as duration.
For instance, if an object is moving away from a light source, the light will take longer to reach them then if they are not moving away from it, but regardless of the objects motion the light will always reach it at the exact same velocity.
To be clear.
Light always propogates at the same velocity in free space.
The velocity of light doesn't change based on the velocity of the object emitting the light.
Since light has only ONE velocity, by definition, it MUST reach all objects at the same velocity.
QUOTE
The speed at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer. The constancy of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether; it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2010, 02:44 PM)
I've presented this to you multiple times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
It completely supports our assertions.
It claims exactly what you say you can't believe, is in fact true.
As I've said multiple times, feel free to edit this Wiki article and explain to everybody why they are wrong.
Of course you won't do so will you?
Why?
Arthur
So "extra" energy carried in the velocity difference of all objects in the universe vanishes, and needed energy pops into existence, all to maintain that light always travels at 186K miles per second in relation to everything in the universe. Truly astounding if true, and what great manipulation and apparent intelligence it must take to make it happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
It completely supports our assertions.
It claims exactly what you say you can't believe, is in fact true.
As I've said multiple times, feel free to edit this Wiki article and explain to everybody why they are wrong.
Of course you won't do so will you?
Why?
Arthur
So "extra" energy carried in the velocity difference of all objects in the universe vanishes, and needed energy pops into existence, all to maintain that light always travels at 186K miles per second in relation to everything in the universe. Truly astounding if true, and what great manipulation and apparent intelligence it must take to make it happen.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2010, 03:00 PM)
Since light has only ONE velocity, by definition, it MUST reach all objects at the same velocity.
The same velocity relative to what?
The same velocity relative to what?
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 10:07 AM)
So "extra" energy carried in the velocity difference of all objects in the universe vanishes, and needed energy pops into existence, all to maintain that light always travels at 186K miles per second in relation to everything in the universe. Truly astounding if true, and what great manipulation and apparent intelligence it must take to make it happen.
Please show the equations that demonstrate that emitting light from a moving object causes any energy to vanish or later pop up?
I've never seen any indication that that is true, or necessary for relativity to work, but be my guest and do explain it to us.
Nor do I see why any intelligence is needed for photons to have a constant speed.
Arthur
Please show the equations that demonstrate that emitting light from a moving object causes any energy to vanish or later pop up?
I've never seen any indication that that is true, or necessary for relativity to work, but be my guest and do explain it to us.
Nor do I see why any intelligence is needed for photons to have a constant speed.
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 10:13 AM)
The same velocity relative to what?
Velocity is not defined that way.
Velocity is the rate of change of position.
It is a vector physical quantity; both magnitude and direction are required to define it. The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is speed, a quantity that is measured in meters per second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity
Thus we can say that the velocity of light is 186,000 m/s relative to EVERYTHING.
Now if an object is MOVING relative to light, then the RATE OF CLOSURE might change, but the VELOCITY of light does not.
Don't confuse the two concepts.
Think of it this way:
Say you are in a car moving at 100 mph.
If you run into a bridge, you hit it at 100 mph because the bridge isn't moving, but if you run into the back of a truck that is going 50 mph, your rate of closure (your relative speed difference) is 50 mph, but your speed was still 100 mph.
Arthur
Velocity is not defined that way.
Velocity is the rate of change of position.
It is a vector physical quantity; both magnitude and direction are required to define it. The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is speed, a quantity that is measured in meters per second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity
Thus we can say that the velocity of light is 186,000 m/s relative to EVERYTHING.
Now if an object is MOVING relative to light, then the RATE OF CLOSURE might change, but the VELOCITY of light does not.
Don't confuse the two concepts.
Think of it this way:
Say you are in a car moving at 100 mph.
If you run into a bridge, you hit it at 100 mph because the bridge isn't moving, but if you run into the back of a truck that is going 50 mph, your rate of closure (your relative speed difference) is 50 mph, but your speed was still 100 mph.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2010, 03:29 PM)
Velocity is the rate of change of position.
It is a vector physical quantity; both magnitude and direction are required to define it. The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is speed, a quantity that is measured in meters per second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity
Thus we can say that the velocity of light is 186,000 m/s relative to EVERYTHING.
Now if an object is MOVING relative to light, then the RATE OF CLOSURE might change, but the VELOCITY of light does not.
Don't confuse the two concepts.
Think of it this way:
Say you are in a car moving at 100 mph.
If you run into a bridge, you hit it at 100 mph because the bridge isn't moving, but if you run into the back of a truck that is going 50 mph, your rate of closure (your relative speed difference) is 50 mph, but your speed was still 100 mph.
Arthur
Again that's what I've been saying to begin with. Should I feel bad because I referred to rate of closure as velocity relative to the observer? No, I don't think so. It's probably not over yet either. There are probably people who will say that the rate of closure between light and an object cannot be greater than or less than C. If you believe that yourself, then why did you even bring it up?
It is a vector physical quantity; both magnitude and direction are required to define it. The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is speed, a quantity that is measured in meters per second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity
Thus we can say that the velocity of light is 186,000 m/s relative to EVERYTHING.
Now if an object is MOVING relative to light, then the RATE OF CLOSURE might change, but the VELOCITY of light does not.
Don't confuse the two concepts.
Think of it this way:
Say you are in a car moving at 100 mph.
If you run into a bridge, you hit it at 100 mph because the bridge isn't moving, but if you run into the back of a truck that is going 50 mph, your rate of closure (your relative speed difference) is 50 mph, but your speed was still 100 mph.
Arthur
Again that's what I've been saying to begin with. Should I feel bad because I referred to rate of closure as velocity relative to the observer? No, I don't think so. It's probably not over yet either. There are probably people who will say that the rate of closure between light and an object cannot be greater than or less than C. If you believe that yourself, then why did you even bring it up?
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 03:13 PM)
The same velocity relative to what?
You name it.
Light is the same velocity no matter what it's relative to.
That is an observation not a theory.
You name it.
Light is the same velocity no matter what it's relative to.
That is an observation not a theory.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 11:17 AM)
Again that's what I've been saying to begin with. Should I feel bad because I referred to rate of closure as velocity relative to the observer? No, I don't think so.
BS
Rate of closure is NOT the same thing as VELOCITY.
You can't use the terms interchangably.
I have been consistant in stating that the velocity of light is a CONSTANT.
You have been arguing that it is not.
So
Are you NOW agreeing that the Speed of Light is in fact a CONSTANT?
Arthur
BS
Rate of closure is NOT the same thing as VELOCITY.
You can't use the terms interchangably.
I have been consistant in stating that the velocity of light is a CONSTANT.
You have been arguing that it is not.
So
Are you NOW agreeing that the Speed of Light is in fact a CONSTANT?
Arthur
NoPeda knows nothing at all about physics.
Literally, nothing.
And he rejects all information. He will only believe what he wants to believe, and that is a very simplified version of what he sees around him.
As he's said elsewhere, he doesn't care about true or false, he believes what he wants.
Literally, nothing.
And he rejects all information. He will only believe what he wants to believe, and that is a very simplified version of what he sees around him.
As he's said elsewhere, he doesn't care about true or false, he believes what he wants.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2010, 04:30 PM)
BS
Rate of closure is NOT the same thing as VELOCITY.
You can't use the terms interchangably.
I have been consistant in stating that the velocity of light is a CONSTANT.
You have been arguing that it is not.
So
Are you NOW agreeing that the Speed of Light is in fact a CONSTANT?
Arthur
I would agree that it's always emitted at the same velocity. My understanding has always been that velocity has to be in relation to something else, and it still is. How else could it be? So it's always emitted at the same velocity relative to the emitter, but that sure doesn't mean it's the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe.
Rate of closure is NOT the same thing as VELOCITY.
You can't use the terms interchangably.
I have been consistant in stating that the velocity of light is a CONSTANT.
You have been arguing that it is not.
So
Are you NOW agreeing that the Speed of Light is in fact a CONSTANT?
Arthur
I would agree that it's always emitted at the same velocity. My understanding has always been that velocity has to be in relation to something else, and it still is. How else could it be? So it's always emitted at the same velocity relative to the emitter, but that sure doesn't mean it's the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe.
QUOTE
So it's always emitted at the same velocity relative to the emitter, but that sure doesn't mean it's the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe.
Wrong.
idiot
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 03:04 PM)
I would agree that it's always emitted at the same velocity.
Well that's a start.
Well that's a start.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
My understanding has always been that velocity has to be in relation to something else, and it still is.
And that is one specific point where your understanding is wrong.
Again, look at the definition of Velocity.
It is NOT specified in relation to anything else, it is simply distance / time.
And for light, (as you have now finally agreed) that propagation velocity is ALWAYS the same.
The fact that light speed is a constant is why we can use light speed as the basis for our entire metric measuring system.
And that is one specific point where your understanding is wrong.
Again, look at the definition of Velocity.
It is NOT specified in relation to anything else, it is simply distance / time.
And for light, (as you have now finally agreed) that propagation velocity is ALWAYS the same.
The fact that light speed is a constant is why we can use light speed as the basis for our entire metric measuring system.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
So it's always emitted at the same velocity relative to the emitter,
Not quite: it's emitted at the same velocity REGARDLESS of the velocity of the emitter, so adding the qualifier 'relative to the emitter" is incorrect.
Not quite: it's emitted at the same velocity REGARDLESS of the velocity of the emitter, so adding the qualifier 'relative to the emitter" is incorrect.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
but that sure doesn't mean it's the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe.
How can it not? Light, as you have already agreed, only has one velocity.
Again, you seem to be getting wrapped up with the movement of multiple objects.
And while it's true that depending on the motion of the other object the closing rate may be different than light speed, but regardless of the closing rate of light and any other object, an observer on that object will ALWAYS measure the speed of light to be the same.
And there in lies the essence of the Theory of Relativity.
The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source and is the same for any observer.
The "velocity of light is the same for any observer" is the WOW! part of that statement and I believe is what is giving you trouble, because even if you are on a space ship moving at near light speed, you will still perceive light moving towards you as moving at just light speed.
That's one of the parts of the Theory of Relativity that makes you scratch your head and why it took someone like Einstein to come up with it.
Once again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Arthur
How can it not? Light, as you have already agreed, only has one velocity.
Again, you seem to be getting wrapped up with the movement of multiple objects.
And while it's true that depending on the motion of the other object the closing rate may be different than light speed, but regardless of the closing rate of light and any other object, an observer on that object will ALWAYS measure the speed of light to be the same.
And there in lies the essence of the Theory of Relativity.
The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source and is the same for any observer.
The "velocity of light is the same for any observer" is the WOW! part of that statement and I believe is what is giving you trouble, because even if you are on a space ship moving at near light speed, you will still perceive light moving towards you as moving at just light speed.
That's one of the parts of the Theory of Relativity that makes you scratch your head and why it took someone like Einstein to come up with it.
Once again:
QUOTE
The speed at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer. The constancy of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether; it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 14 2010, 08:04 PM)
I would agree that it's always emitted at the same velocity. My understanding has always been that velocity has to be in relation to something else, and it still is. How else could it be? So it's always emitted at the same velocity relative to the emitter, but that sure doesn't mean it's the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe.
It is true that being emitted at the same velocity relative to the emitter does not mean that it is the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe.
It is the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe for other reasons.
And we know it is the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe because that is what we have found. It's not what was expected but it is what was found to be true.
It is true that being emitted at the same velocity relative to the emitter does not mean that it is the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe.
It is the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe for other reasons.
And we know it is the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe because that is what we have found. It's not what was expected but it is what was found to be true.
buttershug
Well, yes it does. The point is that every "frame of reference" of the observer, no matter in which direction or at what speed. Each seperate observer will see all light at exactly the same speed, no matter what.
If two space ships were approaching the same planet at very near lightspeed an observer on that planet would see them both traveling under the speed of light, their combined speed would be above light speed, but neither would in fact be traveling faster than light. If the two space craft could see each other, however, neither would see theirselves approaching each other at above light speed even if light had time enough to travel the distance between them. The only view they would likelyhave of each other as they passed eachother would be a spectacular far ultraviolet flash(or even xrays) ahead and then a far infared dot receeding behind at near lightspeed. At all times in all three spots(the space ships and planet)the speed of light would be measured as being exactly the same from whatever source.
Time, however would be very much slower in both space craft as compared to the(relatively)motionless planet. And both spacecraft would be measurably shorter in the direction of travel and much heavier than it was before it started traveling(energy=mass x the speed of light squared).
Strange but true.
Grumpy
QUOTE
It is true that being emitted at the same velocity relative to the emitter does not mean that it is the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe.
Well, yes it does. The point is that every "frame of reference" of the observer, no matter in which direction or at what speed. Each seperate observer will see all light at exactly the same speed, no matter what.
If two space ships were approaching the same planet at very near lightspeed an observer on that planet would see them both traveling under the speed of light, their combined speed would be above light speed, but neither would in fact be traveling faster than light. If the two space craft could see each other, however, neither would see theirselves approaching each other at above light speed even if light had time enough to travel the distance between them. The only view they would likelyhave of each other as they passed eachother would be a spectacular far ultraviolet flash(or even xrays) ahead and then a far infared dot receeding behind at near lightspeed. At all times in all three spots(the space ships and planet)the speed of light would be measured as being exactly the same from whatever source.
Time, however would be very much slower in both space craft as compared to the(relatively)motionless planet. And both spacecraft would be measurably shorter in the direction of travel and much heavier than it was before it started traveling(energy=mass x the speed of light squared).
Strange but true.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 15 2010, 12:30 AM)
buttershug
Well, yes it does.
Strange but true.
Grumpy
The way the Universe is, means it's true.
I wasn't saying it wasn't true.
I was just saying that the reason given isn't enough by itself to make it so.
Being male isn't enough for Obama to be President of the US.
Well, yes it does.
Strange but true.
Grumpy
The way the Universe is, means it's true.
I wasn't saying it wasn't true.
I was just saying that the reason given isn't enough by itself to make it so.
Being male isn't enough for Obama to be President of the US.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2010, 09:00 PM)
Light, as you have already agreed, only has one velocity.
Again, you seem to be getting wrapped up with the movement of multiple objects.
And while it's true that depending on the motion of the other object the closing rate may be different than light speed, but regardless of the closing rate of light and any other object, an observer on that object will ALWAYS measure the speed of light to be the same.
And there in lies the essence of the Theory of Relativity.
The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source and is the same for any observer.
I'm not getting "wrapped up with" the movement of multiple objects. Their movement is the MAIN THING in space. On Earth it's easy because we just pretend the surface of the Earth is at rest and take it for granted that velocity is always relative to it. But in space it's completely different even when you want to pretend it's not. There is no surface of the universe to pretend is at rest as we do with the surface of the Earth. You suggest that velocity doesn't have anything to do with relative to anything else by saying it's only relative to distance and "time", but distance from what still means relative to what which you people STILL!!! can't appreciate the significance of.
Again, you seem to be getting wrapped up with the movement of multiple objects.
And while it's true that depending on the motion of the other object the closing rate may be different than light speed, but regardless of the closing rate of light and any other object, an observer on that object will ALWAYS measure the speed of light to be the same.
And there in lies the essence of the Theory of Relativity.
The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source and is the same for any observer.
I'm not getting "wrapped up with" the movement of multiple objects. Their movement is the MAIN THING in space. On Earth it's easy because we just pretend the surface of the Earth is at rest and take it for granted that velocity is always relative to it. But in space it's completely different even when you want to pretend it's not. There is no surface of the universe to pretend is at rest as we do with the surface of the Earth. You suggest that velocity doesn't have anything to do with relative to anything else by saying it's only relative to distance and "time", but distance from what still means relative to what which you people STILL!!! can't appreciate the significance of.
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 14 2010, 09:07 PM)
It is true that being emitted at the same velocity relative to the emitter does not mean that it is the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe.
It is the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe for other reasons.
And we know it is the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe because that is what we have found. It's not what was expected but it is what was found to be true.
If it is true that means every bit of light in the universe must be regulated and adjusted with the main purpose being to have every bit of electromagnetic radiation in the universe strike every surface in the universe at the exact same velocity. For me that's still so hard to believe that I can only believe the people who believe it must be wrong. It's much easier to believe people have the wrong interpretation than it is that something is manipulating all light in the universe in the way people are claiming it is. It would almost have to be something intelligent too in order to make all those different calculations and adjustments...
It is the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe for other reasons.
And we know it is the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe because that is what we have found. It's not what was expected but it is what was found to be true.
If it is true that means every bit of light in the universe must be regulated and adjusted with the main purpose being to have every bit of electromagnetic radiation in the universe strike every surface in the universe at the exact same velocity. For me that's still so hard to believe that I can only believe the people who believe it must be wrong. It's much easier to believe people have the wrong interpretation than it is that something is manipulating all light in the universe in the way people are claiming it is. It would almost have to be something intelligent too in order to make all those different calculations and adjustments...
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 15 2010, 02:52 PM)
For me that's still so hard to believe that I can only believe the people who believe it must be wrong.
So, you finding it hard to believe means that it is wrong? If the rest of the human race followed your example, we would still be living in caves. EVERY ADVANCE IN SCIENCE is initially hard to believe.
So, you finding it hard to believe means that it is wrong? If the rest of the human race followed your example, we would still be living in caves. EVERY ADVANCE IN SCIENCE is initially hard to believe.
The idiot knows nothing about the way the physical universe works.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 15 2010, 01:42 PM)
I'm not getting "wrapped up with" the movement of multiple objects. Their movement is the MAIN THING in space. On Earth it's easy because we just pretend the surface of the Earth is at rest and take it for granted that velocity is always relative to it. But in space it's completely different even when you want to pretend it's not.
NOPE.
Velocity is simply distance / time.
And
The velocity of light in free space is a constant.
Indeed I can pick any two points anywhere in free space and the velocity of light between them will always be the same.
Any two points.
Rant and rave all you want, but none of this is going to change.
NOPE.
Velocity is simply distance / time.
And
The velocity of light in free space is a constant.
Indeed I can pick any two points anywhere in free space and the velocity of light between them will always be the same.
Any two points.
Rant and rave all you want, but none of this is going to change.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
You suggest that velocity doesn't have anything to do with relative to anything else by saying it's only relative to distance and "time", but distance from what still means relative to what which you people STILL!!! can't appreciate the significance of.
I see it's making you mad.
Too bad, but velocity is expressed as just meters/sec.
There is NO REQUIRED QUALIFIER of velocity that requires us to say meters/sec in relation to X.
Thus light's velocity is 299,792,458 meters/sec.
PERIOD.
Arthur
I see it's making you mad.
Too bad, but velocity is expressed as just meters/sec.
There is NO REQUIRED QUALIFIER of velocity that requires us to say meters/sec in relation to X.
Thus light's velocity is 299,792,458 meters/sec.
PERIOD.
Arthur
dopEda
Nope, dope. It is time and space that must adjust themselves(as is their nature to do)so that the speed of light is always constant everywhere, always. That you don't know this makes you ignorant, that you fail to learn this makes you stupid and that you insist on claiming only you understand what you know nothing about makes you a fool.
Grumpy
QUOTE
If it is true that means every bit of light in the universe must be regulated and adjusted with the main purpose being to have every bit of electromagnetic radiation in the universe strike every surface in the universe at the exact same velocity.
Nope, dope. It is time and space that must adjust themselves(as is their nature to do)so that the speed of light is always constant everywhere, always. That you don't know this makes you ignorant, that you fail to learn this makes you stupid and that you insist on claiming only you understand what you know nothing about makes you a fool.
Grumpy
This thread is still going on and ...?
Nope, dope. It is time and space that must adjust themselves(as is their nature to do)so that the speed of light is always constant everywhere, always. That you don't know this makes you ignorant, that you fail to learn this makes you stupid and that you insist on claiming only you understand what you know nothing about makes you a fool.
And why is this thread going on and on?
Velocity isn't just speed for one, Arthur.
Free space isn't "time and space," Grumpy. That numbers two glaring errors(and begs the question why I should read any further).
Come on folks, you can do better!
And why is this thread going on and on?
Velocity isn't just speed for one, Arthur.
Free space isn't "time and space," Grumpy. That numbers two glaring errors(and begs the question why I should read any further).
Come on folks, you can do better!
In theoretical physics, Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) is a variant of Classical Electrodynamics (CED) which posits the existence of a classical Lorentz-Invariant radiation field having statistical properties similar to that of the electromagnetic zero-point field (ZPF) of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
Investigations of SED have been concerned with:
The degree to which this prescription might cause CED to mimic some behaviors traditionally considered to be the exclusive domain of Quantum Mechanics; and
A possible classical ZPF-based origin for gravity and inertia.
There is not universal agreement on the success of these endeavors.
Carry on. (Keep in mind, inertia and gravity; as well as no universal agreement!)
MrB.
QUOTE
Nope, dope. It is time and space that must adjust themselves(as is their nature to do)so that the speed of light is always constant everywhere, always. That you don't know this makes you ignorant, that you fail to learn this makes you stupid and that you insist on claiming only you understand what you know nothing about makes you a fool.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE | ||
Nope, dope. It is time and space that must adjust themselves(as is their nature to do)so that the speed of light is always constant everywhere, always. That you don't know this makes you ignorant, that you fail to learn this makes you stupid and that you insist on claiming only you understand what you know nothing about makes you a fool. On Earth it's easy because we just pretend the surface of the Earth is at rest and take it for granted that velocity is always relative to it. But in space it's completely different even when you want to pretend it's not.
|
And why is this thread going on and on?
Velocity isn't just speed for one, Arthur.
Free space isn't "time and space," Grumpy. That numbers two glaring errors(and begs the question why I should read any further).
Come on folks, you can do better!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
NOPE. Velocity is simply distance / time. And The velocity of light in free space is a constant. |
And why is this thread going on and on?
Velocity isn't just speed for one, Arthur.
Free space isn't "time and space," Grumpy. That numbers two glaring errors(and begs the question why I should read any further).
Come on folks, you can do better!
In theoretical physics, Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) is a variant of Classical Electrodynamics (CED) which posits the existence of a classical Lorentz-Invariant radiation field having statistical properties similar to that of the electromagnetic zero-point field (ZPF) of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
Investigations of SED have been concerned with:
The degree to which this prescription might cause CED to mimic some behaviors traditionally considered to be the exclusive domain of Quantum Mechanics; and
A possible classical ZPF-based origin for gravity and inertia.
There is not universal agreement on the success of these endeavors.
Carry on. (Keep in mind, inertia and gravity; as well as no universal agreement!)
MrB.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 16 2010, 08:31 AM)
Velocity isn't just speed for one, Arthur.
For light in free space it is, in fact it's 299,792,458 meters/sec.
But what I actually said was:
but regardless of the closing rate of light and any other object, an observer on that object will ALWAYS measure the speed of light to be the same.
And there in lies the essence of theTheory of Relativity.
The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source and is the same for any observer.
The "velocity of light is the same for any observer" is the WOW! part of that statement and I believe is what is giving you trouble, because even if you are on a space ship moving at near light speed, you will still perceive light moving towards you as moving at just light speed.
That's one of the parts of the Theory of Relativity that makes you scratch your head and why it took someone like Einstein to come up with it.
Once again:
The speed at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer. The constancy of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether; it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments
The WOW part, is that the collective wiki-idiots continues to be quoted by other idiots. Eventually, you would think someone would know better(besides yours truly)!
The bold is to draw attention to the issue of falsifiability. And the scratch should read Principle or some equivalent that does not denigrate the prestige or gibbet the mundane efficency of theory.
MrB.
Yes, wikipedia has its uses, just like government. The rub is when to declare independence.
For light in free space it is, in fact it's 299,792,458 meters/sec.
But what I actually said was:
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Velocity is simply distance / time.
And
The velocity of light in free space is a constant.
Indeed I can pick any two points anywhere in free space and the velocity of light between them will always be the same.
Feel free to show which of those statements is wrong and why.
Your link to SED certainly didn't address any of these issues.
Arthur
And
The velocity of light in free space is a constant.
Indeed I can pick any two points anywhere in free space and the velocity of light between them will always be the same.
Feel free to show which of those statements is wrong and why.
Your link to SED certainly didn't address any of these issues.
Arthur
QUOTE (Adoucette+ April 14, 2010 )
but regardless of the closing rate of light and any other object, an observer on that object will ALWAYS measure the speed of light to be the same.
And there in lies the essence of the
The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source and is the same for any observer.
The "velocity of light is the same for any observer" is the WOW! part of that statement and I believe is what is giving you trouble, because even if you are on a space ship moving at near light speed, you will still perceive light moving towards you as moving at just light speed.
That's one of the parts of the Theory of Relativity that makes you scratch your head and why it took someone like Einstein to come up with it.
Once again:
QUOTE (WikiQUOTE +)
The speed at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer. The constancy of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether; it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments
The WOW part, is that the collective wiki-idiots continues to be quoted by other idiots. Eventually, you would think someone would know better(besides yours truly)!
The bold is to draw attention to the issue of falsifiability. And the scratch should read Principle or some equivalent that does not denigrate the prestige or gibbet the mundane efficency of theory.MrB.
Yes, wikipedia has its uses, just like government. The rub is when to declare independence.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 18 2010, 01:35 AM)
Yes, wikipedia has its uses, just like government. The rub is when to declare independence.
When your wife is your daughter and you want to avoid paying taxes.
When your wife is your daughter and you want to avoid paying taxes.
YAWN.
No surprise that Mr B ignored the challenge to show which of those statements was wrong and why.
Arthur
No surprise that Mr B ignored the challenge to show which of those statements was wrong and why.
Arthur
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 16 2010, 01:31 PM)
This thread is still going on and ...?
And why is this thread going on and on?
Velocity isn't just speed for one, Arthur.
Free space isn't "time and space," Grumpy. That numbers two glaring errors(and begs the question why I should read any further).
Come on folks, you can do better!
Grumpy in particular appears to enjoy calling me an idiot for believing time exists as a physical whatever, which I don't except as a manmade representation of duration, and then later refer to something that would require time to be a physical...whatever in order to be true.
I hope I don't get killfiled for this, but I'm going to quote a couple of things pointing out that velocity relative to what is significant:
_________________________________________________________
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doplight.htm
. . .
We set up our coordinate system so that the positive direction is from the listener toward the source. So if the source is moving away from the listener, its velocity v is positive, but if it is moving toward the listener, then the v is negative. The listener, in this case, is always considered to be at rest (so v is really the total relative velocity between them). The speed of light c is always considered positive.
The listener receives a frequency fL which would be different from the frequency transmitted by the source fS. This is calculated with relativistic mechanics, by applying necessary the length contraction, and obtains the relationship:
fL = sqrt [(c - v)/(c + v)] * fS
Red Shift & Blue Shift
A light source moving away from the listener (v is positive) would provide an fL that is less than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the red end of the light spectrum, so it is called a red shift. When the light source is moving toward the listener (v is negative), then fL is greater than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the high-frequency end of the light spectrum. For some reason, violet got the short end of the stick and such frequency shift is actually called a blue shift. Obviously, in the area of the electromagnetic spectrum outside of the visible light spectrum, these shifts might not actually be toward red and blue. If you're in the infrared, for example, you're ironically shifting away from red when you experience a "red shift."
. . .
In astronomy, these shifts prove helpful. When observing a system with two stars, you can tell which is moving toward you and which away by analyzing how the frequencies change.
. . .
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doplight.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
. . .
When we're approaching a wave, Lorentz contraction increases the Doppler shift we observe since the wave crests become increasingly contracted in space; consequently we measure a shorter wavelength. Since the Lorentz contraction increases without bound as we approach the speed of light, so the Doppler shift increases without bound, rather than merely doubling the frequency as we'd expect from classical physics.
. . .
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
I didn't see anything that suggested to me the velocity of light is the same for everything regardless... I'm sure not claiming to understand all this, but do know velocity in relation to what is significant and this has been going on and on getting nowhere because people keep trying to deny it. In contrast to that it is significant and should be understood in more detail, not dismissed as insignificant, imo.
The speed of sound is restricted in the atmosphere by the medium itself, but light isn't the same sort of thing so doesn't have that sort of restriction. Even if it did it doesn't seem that it would reach everything at the same speed regardless of anything else, and red and blue shifting still causes me to believe it does reach things at differing velocities. The way I understand it it's different for sound because sound waves themselves get compressed by restrictions of the medium, but light doesn't have a medium in space to impose such restrictions.
And why is this thread going on and on?
Velocity isn't just speed for one, Arthur.
Free space isn't "time and space," Grumpy. That numbers two glaring errors(and begs the question why I should read any further).
Come on folks, you can do better!
Grumpy in particular appears to enjoy calling me an idiot for believing time exists as a physical whatever, which I don't except as a manmade representation of duration, and then later refer to something that would require time to be a physical...whatever in order to be true.
I hope I don't get killfiled for this, but I'm going to quote a couple of things pointing out that velocity relative to what is significant:
_________________________________________________________
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doplight.htm
. . .
We set up our coordinate system so that the positive direction is from the listener toward the source. So if the source is moving away from the listener, its velocity v is positive, but if it is moving toward the listener, then the v is negative. The listener, in this case, is always considered to be at rest (so v is really the total relative velocity between them). The speed of light c is always considered positive.
The listener receives a frequency fL which would be different from the frequency transmitted by the source fS. This is calculated with relativistic mechanics, by applying necessary the length contraction, and obtains the relationship:
fL = sqrt [(c - v)/(c + v)] * fS
Red Shift & Blue Shift
A light source moving away from the listener (v is positive) would provide an fL that is less than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the red end of the light spectrum, so it is called a red shift. When the light source is moving toward the listener (v is negative), then fL is greater than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the high-frequency end of the light spectrum. For some reason, violet got the short end of the stick and such frequency shift is actually called a blue shift. Obviously, in the area of the electromagnetic spectrum outside of the visible light spectrum, these shifts might not actually be toward red and blue. If you're in the infrared, for example, you're ironically shifting away from red when you experience a "red shift."
. . .
In astronomy, these shifts prove helpful. When observing a system with two stars, you can tell which is moving toward you and which away by analyzing how the frequencies change.
. . .
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doplight.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
. . .
When we're approaching a wave, Lorentz contraction increases the Doppler shift we observe since the wave crests become increasingly contracted in space; consequently we measure a shorter wavelength. Since the Lorentz contraction increases without bound as we approach the speed of light, so the Doppler shift increases without bound, rather than merely doubling the frequency as we'd expect from classical physics.
. . .
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
I didn't see anything that suggested to me the velocity of light is the same for everything regardless... I'm sure not claiming to understand all this, but do know velocity in relation to what is significant and this has been going on and on getting nowhere because people keep trying to deny it. In contrast to that it is significant and should be understood in more detail, not dismissed as insignificant, imo.
The speed of sound is restricted in the atmosphere by the medium itself, but light isn't the same sort of thing so doesn't have that sort of restriction. Even if it did it doesn't seem that it would reach everything at the same speed regardless of anything else, and red and blue shifting still causes me to believe it does reach things at differing velocities. The way I understand it it's different for sound because sound waves themselves get compressed by restrictions of the medium, but light doesn't have a medium in space to impose such restrictions.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 16 2010, 01:31 PM)
Carry on. (Keep in mind, inertia and gravity; as well as no universal agreement!)
MrB.
What are you referring to with that?
MrB.
What are you referring to with that?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 16 2010, 12:58 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
If it is true that means every bit of light in the universe must be regulated and adjusted with the main purpose being to have every bit of electromagnetic radiation in the universe strike every surface in the universe at the exact same velocity.
It is time and space that must adjust themselves(as is their nature to do)so that the speed of light is always constant everywhere, always.
So you say, but I remember you as telling me time doesn't really exist as a physical thing, which I agree with. Then other times you act like it does exist and does have influence on things. Since I don't believe in "space" or "time" I have a hard time believing they make light strike everything it strikes at the same velocity regardless of anything else.
So you say, but I remember you as telling me time doesn't really exist as a physical thing, which I agree with. Then other times you act like it does exist and does have influence on things. Since I don't believe in "space" or "time" I have a hard time believing they make light strike everything it strikes at the same velocity regardless of anything else.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 16 2010, 12:58 AM)
That you don't know this makes you ignorant, that you fail to learn this makes you stupid and that you insist on claiming only you understand what you know nothing about makes you a fool.
I'd have to see the particular claim(s) you're referring to, if any.
I'd have to see the particular claim(s) you're referring to, if any.
We are not talking about theory when we say that the speed of light is constant.
We are talking about observations.
You can deny the observations or you can accept that they are real and try understand how it is possible.
You're reasoning makes sense for an imaginary universe but in the real one, light has always been found to be at one speed.
We are talking about observations.
You can deny the observations or you can accept that they are real and try understand how it is possible.
You're reasoning makes sense for an imaginary universe but in the real one, light has always been found to be at one speed.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 18 2010, 11:34 AM)
I didn't see anything that suggested to me the velocity of light is the same for everything regardless... I'm sure not claiming to understand all this, but do know velocity in relation to what is significant and this has been going on and on getting nowhere because people keep trying to deny it. In contrast to that it is significant and should be understood in more detail, not dismissed as insignificant, imo.
We've been through this before.
It has not been dismissed, but it doesn't affect the speed of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
Which means that though the frequency can shift (red shift vs blue shift) the speed of light is a constant.
There is NO REQUIRED QUALIFIER of velocity that requires us to say meters/sec in relation to X.
Light's velocity is 299,792,458 meters/sec.
PERIOD.
Arthur
We've been through this before.
It has not been dismissed, but it doesn't affect the speed of light.
QUOTE
in free space light always is propagated with the speed of light c, a defined value independent of its direction of propagation and its frequency, and also independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. This second assumption has been verified experimentally and leads to counter-intuitive deductions including time dilation (moving clocks tick more slowly)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
Which means that though the frequency can shift (red shift vs blue shift) the speed of light is a constant.
There is NO REQUIRED QUALIFIER of velocity that requires us to say meters/sec in relation to X.
Light's velocity is 299,792,458 meters/sec.
PERIOD.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 18 2010, 05:11 PM)
There is NO REQUIRED QUALIFIER of velocity that requires us to say meters/sec in relation to X.
Regardless of whether or not light always travels at the "same" velocity, meters/sec in relation to some things is apparently significant in some way(s):
_________________________________________________________
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
. . .
When we're approaching a wave, Lorentz contraction increases the Doppler shift we observe since the wave crests become increasingly contracted in space; consequently we measure a shorter wavelength. Since the Lorentz contraction increases without bound as we approach the speed of light, so the Doppler shift increases without bound, rather than merely doubling the frequency as we'd expect from classical physics.
. . .
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Regardless of whether or not light always travels at the "same" velocity, meters/sec in relation to some things is apparently significant in some way(s):
_________________________________________________________
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
. . .
When we're approaching a wave, Lorentz contraction increases the Doppler shift we observe since the wave crests become increasingly contracted in space; consequently we measure a shorter wavelength. Since the Lorentz contraction increases without bound as we approach the speed of light, so the Doppler shift increases without bound, rather than merely doubling the frequency as we'd expect from classical physics.
. . .
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 18 2010, 01:51 PM)
Regardless of whether or not light always travels at the "same" velocity, meters/sec in relation to some things is apparently significant in some way(s):
_________________________________________________________
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
. . .
When we're approaching a wave, Lorentz contraction increases the Doppler shift we observe since the wave crests become increasingly contracted in space; consequently we measure a shorter wavelength. Since the Lorentz contraction increases without bound as we approach the speed of light, so the Doppler shift increases without bound, rather than merely doubling the frequency as we'd expect from classical physics.
. . .
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Yes, but this describes a change in the FREQUENCY of light, not the SPEED of light.
Can you not appreciate that BLUE light and RED light, may be different FREQUENCIES, but still travel at the exact same speed?
Again, there is just ONE speed of light.
299,792,458 meters/sec.
period.
What part of that don't you understand?
How many times must I repeat it?
Arthur
_________________________________________________________
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
. . .
When we're approaching a wave, Lorentz contraction increases the Doppler shift we observe since the wave crests become increasingly contracted in space; consequently we measure a shorter wavelength. Since the Lorentz contraction increases without bound as we approach the speed of light, so the Doppler shift increases without bound, rather than merely doubling the frequency as we'd expect from classical physics.
. . .
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Yes, but this describes a change in the FREQUENCY of light, not the SPEED of light.
Can you not appreciate that BLUE light and RED light, may be different FREQUENCIES, but still travel at the exact same speed?
Again, there is just ONE speed of light.
299,792,458 meters/sec.
period.
QUOTE
in free space light always is propagated with the speed of light c, a defined value independent of its direction of propagation and its frequency,
What part of that don't you understand?
How many times must I repeat it?
Arthur
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 18 2010, 04:46 PM)
You can deny the observations or you can accept that they are real and try understand how it is possible.
I'm trying to understand the truth and not settle for believing something that's not true. Velocity relative to the light source is significant but I've been told that it's not. What else are people telling me that's not true?
I'm trying to understand the truth and not settle for believing something that's not true. Velocity relative to the light source is significant but I've been told that it's not. What else are people telling me that's not true?
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 18 2010, 02:01 PM)
What else are people telling me that's not true?
People haven't been telling you ANYTHING that is not true.
These pretty much summarize what people have been trying to explain to you:
and
and
in free space light always is propagated with the speed of light c, a defined value independent of its direction of propagation and its frequency
Since it is now clear that you are too stupid to understand these two simple statements I'm calling it quits on trying to further explain these to you.
I think of myself as a patient person, willing to give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but you have exceeded my tolerance for the willful disregard for the effort that others have put into trying to explain things to you.
The fact is you ignore everything offered and continually act like stupidity is a virtue.
Adios.
Arthur
People haven't been telling you ANYTHING that is not true.
These pretty much summarize what people have been trying to explain to you:
QUOTE
The speed at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer.
and
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The speed at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer. |
and
in free space light always is propagated with the speed of light c, a defined value independent of its direction of propagation and its frequency
Since it is now clear that you are too stupid to understand these two simple statements I'm calling it quits on trying to further explain these to you.
I think of myself as a patient person, willing to give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but you have exceeded my tolerance for the willful disregard for the effort that others have put into trying to explain things to you.
The fact is you ignore everything offered and continually act like stupidity is a virtue.
Adios.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 18 2010, 07:00 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Regardless of whether or not light always travels at the "same" velocity, meters/sec in relation to some things is apparently significant in some way(s):
_________________________________________________________
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
. . .
When we're approaching a wave, Lorentz contraction increases the Doppler shift we observe since the wave crests become increasingly contracted in space; consequently we measure a shorter wavelength. Since the Lorentz contraction increases without bound as we approach the speed of light, so the Doppler shift increases without bound, rather than merely doubling the frequency as we'd expect from classical physics.
. . .
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Yes, but this describes a change in the FREQUENCY of light, not the SPEED of light.
Can you not appreciate that BLUE light and RED light, may be different FREQUENCIES, but still travel at the exact same speed?
Again, there is just ONE speed of light.
299,792,458 meters/sec.
period.
What part of that don't you understand?
Why you don't seem able to appreciate what causes the change in frequencies.
Why you don't seem able to appreciate what causes the change in frequencies.
It is because the source is moving towards you or away from you.
But the speed of the light is the same.
Imagine you have two light detectors that are one light second apart from each other.
light will hit the second one, one second after hitting the first one regardless of the sources movement.
The light will be red or blue shifted if the source of the light is moving relative to you but the speed won't be different.
And again it is what is observed.
And GPS works.
in free space light always is propagated with the speed of light c, a defined value independent of its direction of propagation and its frequency, and also independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. This second assumption has been verified experimentally and leads to counter-intuitive deductions including time dilation (moving clocks tick more slowly)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
We are not talking about theory when we say that the speed of light is constant.
We are talking aboutobservations.
_________________________________________________________
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
. . .
When we're approaching a wave, Lorentz contraction increases the Doppler shift we observe since the wave crests become increasingly contracted in space; consequently we measure a shorter wavelength. Since the Lorentz contraction increases without bound as we approach the speed of light, so the Doppler shift increases without bound, rather than merely doubling the frequency as we'd expect from classical physics.
. . .
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
QUOTE
Yes, but this describes a change in the FREQUENCY of light, not the SPEED of light.
Can you not appreciate that BLUE light and RED light, may be different FREQUENCIES, but still travel at the exact same speed?
Again, there is just ONE speed of light.
299,792,458 meters/sec.
period.
What part of that don't you understand?
Why you don't seem able to appreciate what causes the change in frequencies.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 19 2010, 01:28 AM)
Why you don't seem able to appreciate what causes the change in frequencies.
It is because the source is moving towards you or away from you.
But the speed of the light is the same.
Imagine you have two light detectors that are one light second apart from each other.
light will hit the second one, one second after hitting the first one regardless of the sources movement.
The light will be red or blue shifted if the source of the light is moving relative to you but the speed won't be different.
And again it is what is observed.
And GPS works.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 18 2010, 08:28 PM)
Why you don't seem able to appreciate what causes the change in frequencies.
Actually I do.
But you are such a dipshit that you don't appreciate that change in frequency of the light has NO IMPACT on its speed.
So once again, you act like stupidity is a virtue.
Friggin amazing.
Arthur
Actually I do.
But you are such a dipshit that you don't appreciate that change in frequency of the light has NO IMPACT on its speed.
So once again, you act like stupidity is a virtue.
Friggin amazing.
Arthur
QUOTE (Adoucette QUOTE of Wikipedia+)
in free space light always is propagated with the speed of light c, a defined value independent of its direction of propagation and its frequency, and also independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. This second assumption has been verified experimentally and leads to counter-intuitive deductions including time dilation (moving clocks tick more slowly)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
QUOTE (Buttershug+)
We are not talking about theory when we say that the speed of light is constant.
We are talking about
No, you are{or should be} talking about convention.
On a related note, "light" is shorthand for the electromagnetic spectrum.
---------->Showforum= 20 & is missed by the posters so far
------->Showtopic= 27738. The world runs on idiots. How can the crash of civilization be far off??
MrB.
On a related note, "light" is shorthand for the electromagnetic spectrum.
---------->Showforum= 20 & is missed by the posters so far
------->Showtopic= 27738. The world runs on idiots. How can the crash of civilization be far off??
MrB.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I'm sure not claiming to understand all this, but do know velocity in relation to what is significant and this has been going on and on getting nowhere because people keep trying to deny it. In contrast to that it is significant and should be understood in more detail, not dismissed as insignificant, imo.
The speed of sound is restricted in the atmosphere by the medium itself, but light isn't the same sort of thing so doesn't have that sort of restriction.
The speed of sound is restricted in the atmosphere by the medium itself, but light isn't the same sort of thing so doesn't have that sort of restriction.
Yes, yes the thickets of uncommon knowledge...
The differences between the relativistic and Lorenzs theory are principle of constancy of light velocity and principle of relativity. Only when experimental evidence testifies the two principles, can it be considered as the proof to prove the relativistic.
....
Einstein admitted in "Introduction of Special and General Relativity" that Lorenz also explained for all of these facts and experimental results. Lorenz has proved that the results of Michelson-Morley experiment do not contradict Ether Theory.
In recent years, many scientists express different views on the theory of relativity.
For example, H. O. G. Alfven, a Nobel Prize winner, figured out that the theory of relativity was nothing more than a knick knack and it obliterated the distinction between science and pseudo-science. J. P. Wesley, a German senior theoretical physicist, said: "The theory of relativity has never been useful." J. G. Bernes, physics professor of Texas University in the U.S., said that the theory of relativity was "a disaster" and it's time to change the blind faith in the theory of relativity.
"Physicists' general attitude to the theory of relativity is that they do not understand it but think it shouldn't be wrong because it has been recognized. I acknowledge that I have kept such an attitude until recent years." said by L. Essen, late senior scientist who was once the director of Time and Frequency Department of British National Laboratory. After his research, he finally found the theory of relativity was a contradiction full of loopholes. However, didn't they know that there were a large number of experiments to prove the theory of relativity was correct?
The slow dawning of civilization---->
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?&showtopic=27576
As Trout points out to what looks like a non-native speaker of English-proof of principle is beside the point; you run with a certain physics as a paradigm.
MrB.
The question is, has special relativity run its course? Will it be neatly buried within three hundred years? I hope so. I think so.
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1156
Arthur
That's the same as saying that the speed of light is variable, depending on the speed of the emitter. You do not get the fact that a photon leaving the emitter is not the same as throwing a ball from a moving source. It is not the same. A simple way to look at it is from the photon's pov: it always emits from a source as if the source was not moving. If you have a loudspeaker mounted on top of a moving vehicle, the speed of sound is also not ~1100'/sec + the speed of the car. It emits from the car as if it was still. And it has it's own Doppler effect too. If you think about it, that's why we have sonic booms from jets moving at Mach 1.
You also don't understand speed vs. frequency, so since you bring up sound waves, look at it in those terms:
For simplicity, we'll say that sound moves through the air at ~1100 ft./sec. A 60 cycle/sec frequency then has a wave of 1100/60, which = ~18.3 Ft.
A 20k wave would then be 1100/20,000 = ~.055 ft.
But both waves reach the listener at the same time, because the speed of sound is not affected by it's frequency. If they didn't, music would be a senseless sonic gibberish. The frequency does not affect the speed; on earth, the medium does. When I set up delay speakers in a huge venue, I set the delay according to the speed of sound, not the frequency (thankfully).
The speed of light, while being a different animal than sound, does share the same speed/frequency independence. Blue light from the sun gets here as fast as red light from the sun. Now here's a conundrum for you: it can take photons a very long time to travel from the center of the sun to the surface. Why do you think this is so?
Another conundrum: light can't escape from a black hole due to the gravity. Are the photons then moving at 0 in their space? What do you think?
That's the same as saying that the speed of light is variable, depending on the speed of the emitter. You do not get the fact that a photon leaving the emitter is not the same as throwing a ball from a moving source. It is not the same. A simple way to look at it is from the photon's pov: it always emits from a source as if the source was not moving. If you have a loudspeaker mounted on top of a moving vehicle, the speed of sound is also not ~1100'/sec + the speed of the car. It emits from the car as if it was still. And it has it's own Doppler effect too. If you think about it, that's why we have sonic booms from jets moving at Mach 1.
You also don't understand speed vs. frequency, so since you bring up sound waves, look at it in those terms:
For simplicity, we'll say that sound moves through the air at ~1100 ft./sec. A 60 cycle/sec frequency then has a wave of 1100/60, which = ~18.3 Ft.
A 20k wave would then be 1100/20,000 = ~.055 ft.
But both waves reach the listener at the same time, because the speed of sound is not affected by it's frequency. If they didn't, music would be a senseless sonic gibberish. The frequency does not affect the speed; on earth, the medium does. When I set up delay speakers in a huge venue, I set the delay according to the speed of sound, not the frequency (thankfully).
The speed of light, while being a different animal than sound, does share the same speed/frequency independence. Blue light from the sun gets here as fast as red light from the sun. Now here's a conundrum for you: it can take photons a very long time to travel from the center of the sun to the surface. Why do you think this is so?
Another conundrum: light can't escape from a black hole due to the gravity. Are the photons then moving at 0 in their space? What do you think?
For me that's still so hard to believe that I can only believe the people who believe it must be wrong.
This is an important and revealing mission statement from you.
You still haven't answered my question "What is physical?"
Some suitable Twain quotes:
As yet I can't believe it would be world by world, but instead if time exists it would have to influence all matter in the universe simultaneously and constantly, changing the amounts of energy required to assure things like all electromagnetic radiation arriving at all objects in the universe at the same velocity regardless of the velocity of the objects, and to make sure things slow down if they get too much velocity when close to a large body (or whatever)....etc.... Or not.
QUOTE (Showtopic= 27576+)
The differences between the relativistic and Lorenzs theory are principle of constancy of light velocity and principle of relativity. Only when experimental evidence testifies the two principles, can it be considered as the proof to prove the relativistic.
....
Einstein admitted in "Introduction of Special and General Relativity" that Lorenz also explained for all of these facts and experimental results. Lorenz has proved that the results of Michelson-Morley experiment do not contradict Ether Theory.
In recent years, many scientists express different views on the theory of relativity.
For example, H. O. G. Alfven, a Nobel Prize winner, figured out that the theory of relativity was nothing more than a knick knack and it obliterated the distinction between science and pseudo-science. J. P. Wesley, a German senior theoretical physicist, said: "The theory of relativity has never been useful." J. G. Bernes, physics professor of Texas University in the U.S., said that the theory of relativity was "a disaster" and it's time to change the blind faith in the theory of relativity.
"Physicists' general attitude to the theory of relativity is that they do not understand it but think it shouldn't be wrong because it has been recognized. I acknowledge that I have kept such an attitude until recent years." said by L. Essen, late senior scientist who was once the director of Time and Frequency Department of British National Laboratory. After his research, he finally found the theory of relativity was a contradiction full of loopholes. However, didn't they know that there were a large number of experiments to prove the theory of relativity was correct?
The slow dawning of civilization---->
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?&showtopic=27576
As Trout points out to what looks like a non-native speaker of English-proof of principle is beside the point; you run with a certain physics as a paradigm.
MrB.
The question is, has special relativity run its course? Will it be neatly buried within three hundred years? I hope so. I think so.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 19 2010, 05:55 AM)
The question is, has special relativity run its course? Will it be neatly buried within three hundred years? I hope so. I think so.
Pathetic.
Pathetic.
QUOTE
Report of the Editorial Board Member -- LY11626A/Huang
I support the rejection of the paper from PRA and I am sure that such a paper is inappropriate for publication in any journal on physics. Actually, the text of this paper represents a series of speculations having no scientific background.
...
Mikhail V. Fedorov
Editorial Board Member
Physical Review A
I support the rejection of the paper from PRA and I am sure that such a paper is inappropriate for publication in any journal on physics. Actually, the text of this paper represents a series of speculations having no scientific background.
...
Mikhail V. Fedorov
Editorial Board Member
Physical Review A
Bats
No, you don't think at all. Relativity has passed every test so far, it is the way the Universe works no matter how many fellow idiotic cranks you post from.
Grumpy
QUOTE
The question is, has special relativity run its course? Will it be neatly buried within three hundred years? I hope so. I think so.
No, you don't think at all. Relativity has passed every test so far, it is the way the Universe works no matter how many fellow idiotic cranks you post from.
Grumpy
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/printth...p=556965&pp=500
But that's all irrelevant, because the phase accumulation from the Sagnac effect depends on the area of the interferometer, too, and a Michelson interferometer encloses no area. It will not measure rotation effects. It is sensitive to linear motion, if light has an unequal speed of propagation due to the ether. But we get a null result. Ergo, no ether.
Ergo, no revolution measured, Earth's rotation not necessary!
MrB.
QUOTE
But that's all irrelevant, because the phase accumulation from the Sagnac effect depends on the area of the interferometer, too, and a Michelson interferometer encloses no area. It will not measure rotation effects. It is sensitive to linear motion, if light has an unequal speed of propagation due to the ether. But we get a null result. Ergo, no ether.
MrB.
Ergo, No Brain activity detected in MrB. MrB's brain not necessary.
Arthur
Arthur
Silly, Arthur 
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?&showtopic=11306 <---For the original poster who is looking for (potential)similar t h i n k e r s.
MrB.
What is not widely known is that in 1949 Godel made a remarkable discovery: there exist possible worlds described by the theory of relativity in which time, as we ordinarily understand it, does not exist. He added a philosophical argument that demonstrates, by Godel's lights, that as a consequence, time does not exist in our world either. If Godel is right, Einstein has not just explained time; he has explained it away...
Related book(unrelated page #134?)
books.google.com/books?isbn=0465092942
(Palle Yourgrau, A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein) ------> the end{or next to last post} of showtopic= 17327
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?&showtopic=17327
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?&showtopic=11306 <---For the original poster who is looking for (potential)similar t h i n k e r s.
MrB.
QUOTE
What is not widely known is that in 1949 Godel made a remarkable discovery: there exist possible worlds described by the theory of relativity in which time, as we ordinarily understand it, does not exist. He added a philosophical argument that demonstrates, by Godel's lights, that as a consequence, time does not exist in our world either. If Godel is right, Einstein has not just explained time; he has explained it away...
Related book(unrelated page #134?)
books.google.com/books?isbn=0465092942
(Palle Yourgrau, A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein) ------> the end{or next to last post} of showtopic= 17327
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?&showtopic=17327
QUOTE
read A World Without Time
with your physicist or scientist mode shut off and you will be fine.
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1156
Arthur
QUOTE
would agree that it's always emitted at the same velocity. My understanding has always been that velocity has to be in relation to something else, and it still is. How else could it be? So it's always emitted at the same velocity relative to the emitter, but that sure doesn't mean it's the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe.
That's the same as saying that the speed of light is variable, depending on the speed of the emitter. You do not get the fact that a photon leaving the emitter is not the same as throwing a ball from a moving source. It is not the same. A simple way to look at it is from the photon's pov: it always emits from a source as if the source was not moving. If you have a loudspeaker mounted on top of a moving vehicle, the speed of sound is also not ~1100'/sec + the speed of the car. It emits from the car as if it was still. And it has it's own Doppler effect too. If you think about it, that's why we have sonic booms from jets moving at Mach 1.
You also don't understand speed vs. frequency, so since you bring up sound waves, look at it in those terms:
For simplicity, we'll say that sound moves through the air at ~1100 ft./sec. A 60 cycle/sec frequency then has a wave of 1100/60, which = ~18.3 Ft.
A 20k wave would then be 1100/20,000 = ~.055 ft.
But both waves reach the listener at the same time, because the speed of sound is not affected by it's frequency. If they didn't, music would be a senseless sonic gibberish. The frequency does not affect the speed; on earth, the medium does. When I set up delay speakers in a huge venue, I set the delay according to the speed of sound, not the frequency (thankfully).
The speed of light, while being a different animal than sound, does share the same speed/frequency independence. Blue light from the sun gets here as fast as red light from the sun. Now here's a conundrum for you: it can take photons a very long time to travel from the center of the sun to the surface. Why do you think this is so?
Another conundrum: light can't escape from a black hole due to the gravity. Are the photons then moving at 0 in their space? What do you think?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| would agree that it's always emitted at the same velocity. My understanding has always been that velocity has to be in relation to something else, and it still is. How else could it be? So it's always emitted at the same velocity relative to the emitter, but that sure doesn't mean it's the same velocity in regards to everything in the universe. |
That's the same as saying that the speed of light is variable, depending on the speed of the emitter. You do not get the fact that a photon leaving the emitter is not the same as throwing a ball from a moving source. It is not the same. A simple way to look at it is from the photon's pov: it always emits from a source as if the source was not moving. If you have a loudspeaker mounted on top of a moving vehicle, the speed of sound is also not ~1100'/sec + the speed of the car. It emits from the car as if it was still. And it has it's own Doppler effect too. If you think about it, that's why we have sonic booms from jets moving at Mach 1.
You also don't understand speed vs. frequency, so since you bring up sound waves, look at it in those terms:
For simplicity, we'll say that sound moves through the air at ~1100 ft./sec. A 60 cycle/sec frequency then has a wave of 1100/60, which = ~18.3 Ft.
A 20k wave would then be 1100/20,000 = ~.055 ft.
But both waves reach the listener at the same time, because the speed of sound is not affected by it's frequency. If they didn't, music would be a senseless sonic gibberish. The frequency does not affect the speed; on earth, the medium does. When I set up delay speakers in a huge venue, I set the delay according to the speed of sound, not the frequency (thankfully).
The speed of light, while being a different animal than sound, does share the same speed/frequency independence. Blue light from the sun gets here as fast as red light from the sun. Now here's a conundrum for you: it can take photons a very long time to travel from the center of the sun to the surface. Why do you think this is so?
Another conundrum: light can't escape from a black hole due to the gravity. Are the photons then moving at 0 in their space? What do you think?
For me that's still so hard to believe that I can only believe the people who believe it must be wrong.
This is an important and revealing mission statement from you.
You still haven't answered my question "What is physical?"
Some suitable Twain quotes:
QUOTE
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read.
A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds.
When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds.
When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 19 2010, 02:58 PM)
QUOTE
What is not widely known is that in 1949 Godel made a remarkable discovery: there exist possible worlds described by the theory of relativity in which time, as we ordinarily understand it, does not exist. He added a philosophical argument that demonstrates, by Godel's lights, that as a consequence, time does not exist in our world either. If Godel is right, Einstein has not just explained time; he has explained it away...
As yet I can't believe it would be world by world, but instead if time exists it would have to influence all matter in the universe simultaneously and constantly, changing the amounts of energy required to assure things like all electromagnetic radiation arriving at all objects in the universe at the same velocity regardless of the velocity of the objects, and to make sure things slow down if they get too much velocity when close to a large body (or whatever)....etc.... Or not.
Gosh you are thick NopEda
Does length influence all matter in the universe simultaneously?
If so.. how does it do that?
Time is a dimension.
Do you understand that yet?
QUOTE
As yet I can't believe it would be world by world, but instead if time exists it would have to influence all matter in the universe simultaneously and constantly,
Does length influence all matter in the universe simultaneously?
If so.. how does it do that?
Time is a dimension.
Do you understand that yet?
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 19 2010, 04:03 PM)
The frequency does not affect the speed; on earth, the medium does. When I set up delay speakers in a huge venue, I set the delay according to the speed of sound, not the frequency (thankfully).
The speed of light, while being a different animal than sound, does share the same speed/frequency independence. Blue light from the sun gets here as fast as red light from the sun.
I'm aware that sound is restricted by the medium and understand the difference between velocity of sound and frequency. Thank you for the explanation. I did understand that already, and in fact it's part of what causes me to believe light doesn't move at the same velocity relative to all things in the universe. Whether it somehow does or not blue shifting shows that a velocity difference between the source and the observer CAN BE significant since that velocity is what causes the shift in frequency for the observer.
The speed of light, while being a different animal than sound, does share the same speed/frequency independence. Blue light from the sun gets here as fast as red light from the sun.
I'm aware that sound is restricted by the medium and understand the difference between velocity of sound and frequency. Thank you for the explanation. I did understand that already, and in fact it's part of what causes me to believe light doesn't move at the same velocity relative to all things in the universe. Whether it somehow does or not blue shifting shows that a velocity difference between the source and the observer CAN BE significant since that velocity is what causes the shift in frequency for the observer.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 19 2010, 04:03 PM)
Now here's a conundrum for you: it can take photons a very long time to travel from the center of the sun to the surface. Why do you think this is so?
Another conundrum: light can't escape from a black hole due to the gravity. Are the photons then moving at 0 in their space? What do you think?
My guess about photons in the sun is that gravity holds them back as well as creating very dense matter for them to have to get through, and that could slow them down.
As for what photons do in black holes I don't have an opionion. Maybe looking at a timeline of the universe, in the very very early stages would help, like even before the formation of protons and electrons.
Another conundrum: light can't escape from a black hole due to the gravity. Are the photons then moving at 0 in their space? What do you think?
My guess about photons in the sun is that gravity holds them back as well as creating very dense matter for them to have to get through, and that could slow them down.
As for what photons do in black holes I don't have an opionion. Maybe looking at a timeline of the universe, in the very very early stages would help, like even before the formation of protons and electrons.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 19 2010, 10:55 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I'm sure not claiming to understand all this, but do know velocity in relation to what is significant and this has been going on and on getting nowhere because people keep trying to deny it. In contrast to that it is significant and should be understood in more detail, not dismissed as insignificant, imo.
The speed of sound is restricted in the atmosphere by the medium itself, but light isn't the same sort of thing so doesn't have that sort of restriction.
Boy did you open yourself up with that last one. I'm going to be nice.
fyi, in your case, 'stupid' is a decision, not an inherent condition. Others may disagree, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
That was a compliment, btw....relatively
Still better than having Sir Robin....
Boy did you open yourself up with that last one. I'm going to be nice.
fyi, in your case, 'stupid' is a decision, not an inherent condition. Others may disagree, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
That was a compliment, btw....relatively
Still better than having Sir Robin....
More than anyone else in here is likely to do.
The speed of sound is restricted in the atmosphere by the medium itself, but light isn't the same sort of thing so doesn't have that sort of restriction.
Yes, yes the thickets of uncommon knowledge...
No one else seems to feel it's significant. I feel that it's most significant, maybe because I'm so stupid. Regardless of how much stupidity I have to contend with from myself and anyone else who might have a touch of it, velocity between observer and source is significant. If light does act like sound waves restricted by the medium that brings up another question of what causes the restriction.
No one else seems to feel it's significant. I feel that it's most significant, maybe because I'm so stupid. Regardless of how much stupidity I have to contend with from myself and anyone else who might have a touch of it, velocity between observer and source is significant. If light does act like sound waves restricted by the medium that brings up another question of what causes the restriction.
Edit
Too easy.
Arthur
Too easy.
Arthur
QUOTE
Regardless of how much stupidity I have to contend with from myself
Boy did you open yourself up with that last one. I'm going to be nice.
fyi, in your case, 'stupid' is a decision, not an inherent condition. Others may disagree, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
That was a compliment, btw....relatively
Still better than having Sir Robin....
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 20 2010, 02:37 AM)
Boy did you open yourself up with that last one. I'm going to be nice.
fyi, in your case, 'stupid' is a decision, not an inherent condition. Others may disagree, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
That was a compliment, btw....relatively
Still better than having Sir Robin....
More than anyone else in here is likely to do.
ON GRAVITY Interfering With The Constant Speed\Velocity of Light
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?&showtopic=17327
Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are SCIENTIFIC PROSTITUTES.
That's the thing, Pentcho. This is what Einstein said in 1922:
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (eg of light).."
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1156
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?&showtopic=17327
QUOTE (Bryan Wallace+ showtopic= 17327)
Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are SCIENTIFIC PROSTITUTES.
QUOTE (Farsight August 23 2007+)
That's the thing, Pentcho. This is what Einstein said in 1922:
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (eg of light).."
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1156
QUOTE
Why all of the sudden philosophy bashing? Well I just finished reading A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Gödel and Einstein by Palle Yourgrau. From the title you would guess that this book is a discussion solely of the friendship between Einstein and Gödel, but really the book is a vigorous argument that Gödel should be taken seriously as an important philosopher. In particular Yourgrau believes that Gödels work in general relativity and his argument against time have been overlooked by philosophers as is of great importance. The book, therefore, will be of more interest to those familiar with Kant and Wittgenstein than to those who are interested in the logic and the physics that Gödel and Einstein are usually associated
...
This characterization of the chronology protection conjecture seems to me very misleading. Why? Because the chronology protection conjecture isnt just an add-on to general relativity: it is the conjecture that general relativity when combined with the other laws of physics does not allow for closed timelike curves. This is different from arguing, as Yourgrau later does, that the objection is simply that Gödels universe is not our universe: it is arguing that the more complete laws of physics disallow closed timelike curves.
...
This characterization of the chronology protection conjecture seems to me very misleading. Why? Because the chronology protection conjecture isnt just an add-on to general relativity: it is the conjecture that general relativity when combined with the other laws of physics does not allow for closed timelike curves. This is different from arguing, as Yourgrau later does, that the objection is simply that Gödels universe is not our universe: it is arguing that the more complete laws of physics disallow closed timelike curves.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why all of the sudden philosophy bashing? Well I just finished reading A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Gödel and Einstein by Palle Yourgrau. From the title you would guess that this book is a discussion solely of the friendship between Einstein and Gödel, but really the book is a vigorous argument that Gödel should be taken seriously as an important philosopher. In particular Yourgrau believes that Gödels work in general relativity and his argument against time have been overlooked by philosophers as is of great importance. The book, therefore, will be of more interest to those familiar with Kant and Wittgenstein than to those who are interested in the logic and the physics that Gödel and Einstein are usually associated ... This characterization of the chronology protection conjecture seems to me very misleading. Why? Because the chronology protection conjecture isnt just an add-on to general relativity: it is the conjecture that general relativity when combined with the other laws of physics does not allow for closed timelike curves. This is different from arguing, as Yourgrau later does, that the objection is simply that Gödels universe is not our universe: it is arguing that the more complete laws of physics disallow closed timelike curves. One more fact into the mix, the chronology protection of Hawking discusses the formation of CTCs, assuming initial conditions where they do not already exist, and concludes that plausibly this is forbidden, though to know for sure one would have to quantize gravity. In Goedel universe the CTCs exist for all times so Hawkings assumptions (specifically the part about compactly generated Cauchy horizon) do not hold and one can demonstrate that the conclusion (divergent EM tensor) does not hold either. In other words, this is all a red herring, chronology protection was never intended to say anything about Goedel universe. |
Is three hundred years too long(or too short) for all this to get worked out?
MrB.
What would intrigue me in reading more of the book by Yourgrau is Gödels christianity and what he thought of the resurrection vis-à-vis CTCs. Does everyone have a guardian angel to pull back the figure of time when the LORD calls us from the grave(at the same time)?
<------Showtopic= 27625 for my take on the two {large scale} resurrections
MrB.
What would intrigue me in reading more of the book by Yourgrau is Gödels christianity and what he thought of the resurrection vis-à-vis CTCs. Does everyone have a guardian angel to pull back the figure of time when the LORD calls us from the grave(at the same time)?
<------Showtopic= 27625 for my take on the two {large scale} resurrections
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 21 2010, 06:29 AM)
ON GRAVITY Interfering With The Constant Speed\Velocity of Light
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Mar 4 2010, 01:01 AM)
1. I requires the same energy that an inch requires to be an inch.
2. It influences all matter that same way that length does and uses the same energy.
3. It uses the same energy that length uses to influence all matter everywhere.
Well put, however I believe that we are missing a fundamental point here. Who said that time works like everything else? Who said that distance works like everything else? Where is it written that time "acts" on clocks. We say that time is an invention of man and this is partially true. What we must gain from this highly cliché maxim is that the measurement of time was the invention not the concept. The concept of time is independent of what we see at our sphere of influence. Remember that time and distance are literally the only aspects of the universe that go in two directions infinitely. Not even light, the cosmic speed limit, boasts such an attribute. This is essential to understand when we take into account the fact that time and space are in effect the same thing, and that they have the ability to shift themselves in the interest of keeping the speed of light constant.
To say that time does not exist is to say that space is also a figment of a deranged imagination. They go hand in hand to help govern the laws of movement and energetic properties. Strictly speaking we can say that in the same way that light has an "effective mass" we can say that time and space have an "effective energy". due to the equation E=mc^2 all matter is essentially energy anyway so the first and second questions are irrelevant.
To say that it exerts influence on other things is somewhat misleading. location in space and state in time are elements of reality and apply to all bodies universally that exist, to go a bit farther, space-time is present in matter and matter in it.
At the end of the day this was an ill conceived effort to wrest intellectual discussion out of mere mortals who's grasp of absolution is tenacious and maniacal indeed. I will not claim to understand everything that I just said, that would be prideful, but I can only state my observations. Unfortunately we do not have the vantage point of the eternities necessary to comprehend the movements of space-time.
2. It influences all matter that same way that length does and uses the same energy.
3. It uses the same energy that length uses to influence all matter everywhere.
Well put, however I believe that we are missing a fundamental point here. Who said that time works like everything else? Who said that distance works like everything else? Where is it written that time "acts" on clocks. We say that time is an invention of man and this is partially true. What we must gain from this highly cliché maxim is that the measurement of time was the invention not the concept. The concept of time is independent of what we see at our sphere of influence. Remember that time and distance are literally the only aspects of the universe that go in two directions infinitely. Not even light, the cosmic speed limit, boasts such an attribute. This is essential to understand when we take into account the fact that time and space are in effect the same thing, and that they have the ability to shift themselves in the interest of keeping the speed of light constant.
To say that time does not exist is to say that space is also a figment of a deranged imagination. They go hand in hand to help govern the laws of movement and energetic properties. Strictly speaking we can say that in the same way that light has an "effective mass" we can say that time and space have an "effective energy". due to the equation E=mc^2 all matter is essentially energy anyway so the first and second questions are irrelevant.
To say that it exerts influence on other things is somewhat misleading. location in space and state in time are elements of reality and apply to all bodies universally that exist, to go a bit farther, space-time is present in matter and matter in it.
At the end of the day this was an ill conceived effort to wrest intellectual discussion out of mere mortals who's grasp of absolution is tenacious and maniacal indeed. I will not claim to understand everything that I just said, that would be prideful, but I can only state my observations. Unfortunately we do not have the vantage point of the eternities necessary to comprehend the movements of space-time.
QUOTE (www.perimeterinstitute.ca+)
Why does gravity affect the rate at which time moves?
gibbersh! Time is not monolithic. And the general relativity block view doesn't say time flows.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0240
And beside all this, you once again slid pass without touching base, Arthur.
And beside all this, you once again slid pass without touching base, Arthur.
A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.
Velocity depends on direction, otherwise you have a scalar known as speed.
MrB.
You're outta Here--says the umpire
More here:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/.../chennotes.html
I watch "flashforward" on Thursdays. One character said in effect, it is not fatalism versus free will. It is rather both, fatalism and free will. Amen, brother
http://www.physicsforums.com/printthread.php?t=120323&pp=40
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0240
QUOTE
The default state of fundamental physics should not be taken to be a time irreversible evolution of physical states: it is an ongoing irreversible development of time itself.
And beside all this, you once again slid pass without touching base, Arthur.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The default state of fundamental physics should not be taken to be a time irreversible evolution of physical states: it is an ongoing irreversible development of time itself. |
And beside all this, you once again slid pass without touching base, Arthur.
A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.
Velocity depends on direction, otherwise you have a scalar known as speed.
MrB.
You're outta Here--says the umpire
More here:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/.../chennotes.html
I watch "flashforward" on Thursdays. One character said in effect, it is not fatalism versus free will. It is rather both, fatalism and free will. Amen, brother
http://www.physicsforums.com/printthread.php?t=120323&pp=40
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.