Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: If a neutrino were sentient"
- In reply to: PD: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Next in thread: Randy Poe: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Reply: Randy Poe: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Reply: PD: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:43:33 GMT
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111603845.657565.9240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> kenseto wrote:
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
> in
> > message news:q887h2-gbu.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> > > In sci.physics, kenseto
> > > <kenseto@erinet.com>
> > > wrote
> > > on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:31:56 GMT
> > > <w%V%d.6496$rL3.4855@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
> > > >
> > > > "robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3aamtkF6bbkreU2@individual.net...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> kenseto wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > That's becasue you failed to recognize that Doppler shift
> > > >> > is due to varying speed of light.
> > > >>
> > > >> The speed of light in vacuo relative to any inertial frame is a
> well
> > > >> measured constant. It has been shown experimentally again and
> again and
> > > >> has yet to be falsified. The speed of light in vacuo is
> independent of
> > > >> th motion of the source or the observer.
> > > >
> > > > The speed of light is measured to be constant because we
> arbitrarily
> > assumed
> > > > that the Doppler shift is due to wave length change. If wave
> length is
> > > > assumed to be contant then the speed of light is different from
> > different
> > > > sources.
> > > >
> > > > Ken Seto
> > > >
> > >
> > > Assume two orbiting stars, far away, with barycenter
> > > motionless with respect to Earth.
> >
> > This assumption is already wrong. There is no object in the universe
> that is
> > motionless wrt the Earth. The Earth itself is in a constant state of
> > absolute motion.
>
> The Earth itself is in a constant state of motion. You cannot state one
> way or the other whether that motion is absolute.
All objects in the universe (including the earth) are in a state of absolute
motion. Observed relative motion for two objects A and B is the vector
components difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion and the
vector component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B.
>If it were, you would
> be able to rank objects in the universe according to their absolute
> motion, and you would be able to calculate or measure the absolute
> velocity of the Earth.
No ....you would not be able to do that. You can determine the state of
absolute motion of the earth surface experimentally by doing the experiment
described in the following link (page 3):
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Ken Seto
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: If a neutrino were sentient"
- In reply to: PD: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Next in thread: Randy Poe: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Reply: Randy Poe: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Reply: PD: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
