Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?

Minh511_at_ninhthuanpt.com.vn
Date: 09/27/04

  • Next message: Bilge: "Re: Well, it finally happened...." 
    Date: 26 Sep 2004 20:32:12 -0700

    Dear sirs!
    For the answers of a question: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    I would like to submit some ideas:
    According to the special theory of relativity (SR), all of
    relativitists claimed that:
    1. Anything traveling at c would have infinite mass, except the light!
    2. Every relative motions must obey the law a+b>a, a-b<a, except the
    speed of light (that only in a vacuum)!
    3. The speed of any motions must be defined by the law dx/dt, except
    the speed of light! This means the speed of light must be defined in a
    condition of the absolute independence, independing on the space,
    time, anything existing in universe!
    4. Every laws of nature must obey the invarience of c but the speed of
    light c is not such for anylaw, simply, it is a hypothesis which was
    proved by Michelson-Morly experiment in the past.
    5. The space must be distorted, the time must be dilated in order that
    the speed of light being an invariant! (because of this is consequence
    of the above four privilegies of the light)
    Oh, ...this kind of light is exactly being the same my God!
    My God! …What a pity!
    So, I want to ask every relativitists only three questions:
    1. Why the speed of light can have such many privilegies?
    2. Who assigned the light having such privilegies?
    Sincerely thanks!
    ThanhMinh

    "Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message news:<ZUo5d.1200$zc1.990@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...
    > "Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
    > news:isn5d.1156$zc1.600@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
    > >
    > > "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    > > news:rQi5d.1159$ED.408@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > > >
    > > > "Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:rEe5d.987$zc1.913@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
    > > >
    > > > "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    > > > news:%rc5d.968$ED.330@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > > > >
    > > > > "Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
    > > > > news:ZVa5d.978$zc1.409@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    > a) 600 mph for 2 hours and 1200 mph for 1 hour
    > > | > b) 60 mph for 20 hours and 63 mph for 19 hours
    > > | > c) 30 mph for 40 hours and 30.77 mph for 39 hours
    > > | > d) 1200 mph for 1 hour and 'c' for 0 hours.
    > > | > e) Other - specify.
    >
    > > > Why would you choose b) in preference to c) ?
    > >
    > > Because of certain "givens" as to human nature, b falls outside the
    > > probability of those givens wrt two individuals traveling separately who
    > are
    > > traversing a very long distance.
    >
    > Correction once again:
    > The above comment should be in reference to c not b. When I'm dead, I'll
    > stop finding a constant need to correct myself.
    >
    > Meanwhile, I want you to understand that although many of my comments come
    > in the form of arguments, that does not necessarily mean I consider my level
    > of understanding to be greater than yours, or your position to be incorrect,
    > more commonly the truth is just the opposite. I fully expect you to come
    > back with facts that refute my position and shore up yours if you don't
    > agree with me. This can be done amicably in such a way that, even if it is
    > found I am wanting on all scores, some of my comments might spark a new
    > direction for your thoughts on a subject in light of your more correct base
    > of understanding.
    >
    > I'm not here to prove you or anyone else wrong, I'm here to discover what is
    > correct.
    >
    > Be well - Pax

    Sincerely thanks!
    ThanhMinh

  • Next message: Bilge: "Re: Well, it finally happened...."