Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- From: "Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 04:33:58 +0100
"zookumar yelubandi" <zookumar@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:x_Nlk.4327$nu6.1183@xxxxxxxxxxx
| dlzc\ wrote:
| > Dear zookumar yelubandi:
| > "zookumar yelubandi" <zookumar@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:lwAlk.4110$nu6.3842@xxxxxxxxxxx
| > ....
| > > The speed of light in the *modelled* Universe
| > > may, indeed, be constant (gamma factor
| > > withstanding) but that assumes the veracity of the
| > > model. There is no compelling evidence, however,
| > > that this is the case.
| > Maxwell's equations return a constant speed of light for all
| > inertial observers.
|
| Thought experiment. Table lamp. Light switch. What is the
| velocity of the pre-emitted light before switch is turned on? What is
| the velocity of the emitted light after switch is turned on? How does
| light get from a virtual speed of zero to its measured terminal speed of
| "c"? That paradox alone defeats the notion of constant speed.
Photons are massless, no paradox.
True,
| the notion of "terminal velocity" is still sustainable within the
| gravitational model of the Universe, but I have not argued against this.
| The model itself is highly suspect because it contains many paradoxes
| and self-serving rationalizations. I repeat, there is more compelling
| evidence for the electric model than for the gravitational model.
|
|
| > Kopeikin used Jupiter as a shutter, a very precise clock, and
| > looked for a delay in the pulses from a pulsar as it was blocked
| > by Jupiter. The result obtained was consistent with no light
| > speed anisotropy. (His intent was to measure the speed of
| > gravity.)
|
| The above is circular logic. It does not address my point,
| namely, that light speed is perhaps better understood as a terminal
| velocity than a constant velocity.
|
| > There is compelling evidence, should you not insist on wearing
| > blinders.
| > David A. Smith
|
| I suggest that you stop regurgitating stale physics and start
| engaging the discussion at hand.
|
| -zookumar-
|
| ps: I noticed that you snipped rec.org.mensa from the headers. I
| only discovered this after going to google groups to see why so few
| posts of mine were being responded to on ROM. In my previous extended
| visits to ROM, I've always had my fair share of responses. I can only
| surmise that my ongoing reference to "www.infowars.com" has scared off
| those that have either succumbed to the neocon lies and fearmongering or
| have willingly joined the jackboot jig.
|
| Btw, while I was at google groups, I read some of your
| contributions wrt the WTC steel buckling/collapse. You seem to support
| the fraudulent pancake "hypothesis"/propaganda put out by neocon shill
| and chattermunk Eagar of MIT. If your belief systems are willing to
| accommodate such obvious pseudoscience as the "pancake hypothesis"
| (given the massive evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC towers),
*plonk*
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- From: zookumar yelubandi
- Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- From: BURT
- Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- Prev by Date: Re: Short Term Memory = Consciousness
- Next by Date: Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- Previous by thread: Re: Short Term Memory = Consciousness
- Next by thread: Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
