Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- From: BURT <macromitch@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 20:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 4, 7:33 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"zookumar yelubandi" <zooku...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:x_Nlk.4327$nu6.1183@xxxxxxxxxxx| dlzc\ wrote:
| > Dear zookumar yelubandi:
| > "zookumar yelubandi" <zooku...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| >news:lwAlk.4110$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.
Light has the fastest clock and has no kinetic energy. It is Gamma
One.
Do not compare its kind of motion to matters that can change to gain
massenergy. Gamma one sets lights energy to its frequency.
Mitch Raemsch
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*
.
- References:
- Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- From: Androcles
- Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- Prev by Date: Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- Next by Date: Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- Previous by thread: Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- Next by thread: Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
