Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: "AI4QJ" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:58:41 -0500
"Richard Clark" <kb7qhc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ms8vq3pkekq4vg0ph99nmk098pa0m88c0s@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:45:25 -0500, "AI4QJ" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Correct. However, why don't you just leave it to Einstein who has
confirmed
this
By virtue of the impossibility of having a real situation of the square
root
of a negative number, or time multiplied by "j" (SQRT -1), it is
impossible
for v to exceed c in the real world.
Hi Dan,
Well, this is not confirmation merely exposition - and not even unique
to Einstein. It is demonstrated that v can exceed c
It cannot. You have too broad of a definition of "c". See nelow.
(you have
replicated my observations there, so that cannot be in dispute), but
it cannot exceed 299,792,458 meters per second >(which bares scant
(sorry .... cut)
Looks like semamntics to me. Whenever you see "c" in the special or general
theories, it means exactly 299,792,458 meters/sec. You should not use the
designator "c" to express the speed of light in other media such as water.
It will always be a smaller number. The designator "c", meaning "constant",
is indeed a universal constant designating the speed of light in a vacuum.
The lorentz transformation and resultant time dilation derivations have only
to do with "c", i.e the speed of light in a vacuum, not the speed of light
in water or solid acrylic, glass or any other media.
I must admit, you made a very good point, i.e. that in some media there are
particles that travel faster than light can travel in the same media even if
they can never reach or exceed 299,792,458 meters/sec in any media. But I
will remind the reader that this in itself does provide any causality
dilemmas or prove the existence of God because the universal constants (like
"c") still hold true.Particles that travel in water faster than light
travels in water still travel at a velocity less than 299,792,458 meters/sec
so the quantity in the square root radical is still positive. However, it
does make for a nice light show for tourists who visit nuclear power plants.
I wonder if the tour guides are able to explain what I just said?
AI4QJ
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: Richard Clark
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- References:
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: Cecil Moore
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: Tom Donaly
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: Cecil Moore
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: cliff wright
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: Richard Clark
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: AI4QJ
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: Richard Clark
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: AI4QJ
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: Richard Clark
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: AI4QJ
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- From: Richard Clark
- Re: Waves vs Particles
- Prev by Date: Re: k0tar - Tom Ring
- Next by Date: Re: Tuning antenna using signal gen and spectrum analyser
- Previous by thread: Re: Waves vs Particles
- Next by thread: Re: Waves vs Particles
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|