Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:20:06 GMT

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:2202379a.0409252209.fb3f890@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<rAj5d.1177$ED.379@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
| > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| > news:2202379a.0409251100.7c2d5a41@posting.google.com...
| > | "Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
| > news:<U4b5d.979$zc1.233@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...
| > | > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| > | > news:2202379a.0409231327.28154dcc@posting.google.com...
| >
| > | > > I think you're studying invariants, there's lots of good stuff
| > | > > in them. Others that may interest you is the invariance of the
| > | > > magnitude of the fundamental charge "q" and Planck's constant
| > | > > "h".
| > | >
| > | > Really, I'm fixated on light. :) Problem is I'm so darned deficient
in
| > any
| > | > math past algebra, and it's really slowing me down.
| > |
| > | That's the same for everybody. Not sure math must dominate though.
| > | Einstein once wrote of "mathematical torment" while pursuing the
| > | unified field theory, his sense of the universe was subsumed by
| > | math.
| > | IMHO math is the legalese of physics, and physics does require
| > | precision of communication when ideas get complicated. Hand
| > | gestures don't work (I just waved at you :).
| > |
| > | > > Currently I'm arguing Newton's gravitational constant "G" is
| > | > > not a constant and not an invariant. You see, the "c", "q" and
| > | > > "h" are fairly easy to confirm experimentally as being constant
| > | > > and invariant, but "G" is more elusive and I'm afraid we may
| > | > > have jumped to a conclusion by assuming it's invariant. So I
| > | > > take the rather unpopular and unorthodox stand of questioning
| > | > > that assumption to the chagrin of GRist's and try to determine
| > | > > the consequence of "G" being a relative quantity.
| > | >
| > | > You have really taken on a job! Gravity is a pet of an old friend of
| > mine
| > | > from aspn-t too. Why are you so certain G isn't a constant?
| > |
| > | Who said anything about certainty, I'm an old hound-dog doing
| > | what comes natural, chasing a scent, I smell something fishy??.
| > |
| > | >What conditions would make it not a constant?
| > |
| > | It would become noticeable at higher speeds and energies.
| > |
| > | What occurs (to me) is a relativistically induced dimensional
| > | deformation, that in simple SR terms, makes dimensions to have
| > | different mesurements for a moving observer' compared to a rest
| > | observer, along the lines of, (gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)),
| > |
| > | L' = L / gamma ((Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction))
| > |
| > | T' = T / gamma ((Time dilation))
| > |
| > | M' = M * gamma ((Mass increase with velocity))
| > |
| > | The weak limit of GR is very nearly SR applied to Newton's
| > | gravity. So this in a weak g-field is
| > |
| > | Acceleration = L/T^2 = G*M/L^2
| > |
| > | Dimensionally, where SR is concerned, becomes equivalent to,
| > |
| > | Acceleration = 1/T = G/L^3,
| > |
| > | where the M == 1/L, and the T == L are equivalent transformations.
| > |
| > | From that we obtain,
| > |
| > | G = L^3/T == L^2
| > |
| > | meaning that G transforms like Length squared. But L is relative
| > | therefore G ought to be as well, IOW's the measurement of G depends on
| > | on the relative velocity of the observer, and is NOT a constant
| > | in the same sense that "c" is found to be.
| > |
| > | Pax, if you're ok with algebra then the above will be clear, if
| > | anyone else who is reading this post thinks I'm misleading Pax
| > | please inform her, I'm interested!
| >
| > I think you are misleading others, although not intentionally.
| > You are prepared to say
| > L' = L / gamma,
| > T' = T / gamma, gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
| > so gamma is > 1.
| > Using a gamma of 2 (v = 0.866c), for example, and L of 1 metre, T of 1
| > second,
| > we have:
| > L' = 1/2 metres,
| > T' = 1/2 seconds.
| > Okay with that,
|
| Thanks for the confirmation, and worked example.
|
| >but you are unable to derive gamma to begin with.
| > If you are okay with algebra (???),
|
| But all I wanted to do it give Pax a KISS,
| (Keep It Straight and Simple), after all I
| hardly know her, and she might have a jealous
| husband.
| Ken
|
Two bored casino dealers are waiting at the crap table.
A very attractive blonde woman arrived and bet twenty-thousand dollars
($20,000) on a single roll of the dice. She said, "I hope you don't
mind, but I feel much luckier when I'm completely nude." With that, she
stripped from the neck down, rolled the dice and yelled, "Come on,
baby, Mama needs new clothes!" As the dice came to a stop she jumped up
and down and squealed..."YES! YES! I WON, I WON!" She hugged each of
the dealers and then picked up her winnings and her clothes and quickly
departed. The dealers stared at each other dumfounded. Finally, one of
them asked, "What did she roll?" The other answered, "I don't know -- I
thought you were watching."

MORAL: Not all blondes are dumb, but all men are men, and some men are
relativists.

Androcles

|
| > For quotations following, reference:
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
| >
| >
| > 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
| > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in
empty
| > space.",
| > an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
| > relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
| > remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
| >
| > 3) The equation
| > ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
,
| > the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
| > (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
| >
| > 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
| > and the equation should be
| > ½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| > at the very least.
| >
| > 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without
considering
| > IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
| > tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
| >
| > 6) The statements
| > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
| > when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
| > and
| > "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
| > composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we
obtain
| > V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
| > which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
| > contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector
space.
| >
| > 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by
feeding
| > the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a
total
| > failure.
| > Check:
| > (t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
| >
| >
| > 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
| > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
| > a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
| > Androcles.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > > > Be well - Pax
| > | > >
| > | > > Likewise
| > | > > Ken
| > | >
| > | > Be well some more :) - Pax
| >
| > | > .~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~.
| > |
| > | A
| > | Interesting W V Equation, ((I'm sea sick)).
| > | E
| > |
| > | > May people say of you:
| > | > "The world is a better place because you are in it."
| > |
| > | Ever get a thank you note from the government when you paid
| > | your taxes on time???
| > |
| > | > From Andromeda:
| > | > "Dillon Hunt, there are three kinds of people in this
| > | > universe, those who can count, and those who can't."
| > |
| > | The fourth kind aren't even in this universe.
| > | Regards
| > | Ken S. Tucker

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GPS GR Correction Myth.
    ... | Androcles wrote: ... when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." ... Light with the Principle of Relativity. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... segment that speeds up; and one segment that slows down ... It is clear you have not done the math and it looks like you have never ... light velocity increased beyond 'c'. ... light can be calculated by dividing the static distance by the time. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... segment that speeds up; and one segment that slows down ... It is clear you have not done the math and it looks like you have never ... light velocity increased beyond 'c'. ... light can be calculated by dividing the static distance by the time. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... segment that speeds up; and one segment that slows down ... It is clear you have not done the math and it looks like you have never ... light velocity increased beyond 'c'. ... light can be calculated by dividing the static distance by the time. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... :>: Androcles wrote: ... One says the pole runs slower, ... This is the story of a scientific crime. ... when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." ...
    (sci.physics)