Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
From: George Dishman (george_at_briar.demon.co.uk)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Does "c" loose some velocity after leaving a dense medium back into space?"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Reply: Henri Wilson: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:59:17 -0000
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:h361415jn9fira6s0slvnv79af5t1ucm63@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:26:46 -0800, "Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net>
> wrote:
...
>>>From my limited experience on the newsgroups, it has been evident that if
>>an
>>error is posted it takes about one nano second for someone to point it
>>out.
>>I first posted the elementary article "Light Speed versus Special
>>Relativity" , with data and charts on March 14, 2005 AD. So far there has
>>not been one post that points out any error in the data, logic or graphs.
If you check the thread Henri, you'll find I
pointed out a string of errors in the logic
in Stan's post, most of which he snipped or
simply ignored.
...
> You will find that whenever they cannot answer a difficult question, they
> will
> either resort to abuse and ridicule (...you don't understand relativity!)
When it is pointed out that a comment that
contradicts what you will find in any textbook,
it isn't ridicule, it is merely a statement of
fact. Nobody will waste time on such strawmen
but it's useful to point out why.
> or they will disappear from the thread.
Stan wrote in news:q9idnaUk7s4T9KPfRVn-1g@comcast.com
> > If any
> > readers can produce with specificity, graphs or logic
> > that will dispute or correct the 1003 second delay
> > and conclusion, I will be more than happy to review
> > them in specific detail.
His numbers are correct but his conclusion is wrong
so I replied in news:d1nhcp$pi2$1@news.freedom2surf.net
> I am not disputing the 1003s figure, it is entirely
> compatible with SR. In very rough figures, the radius
> of the orbit of Jupiter is about 5.2 AU. When the
> Earth is closest to it, the light must travel 4.2AU
> at speed c which takes about 2120s but when the Earth
> is furthest from Jupiter the light must travel 6.2AU
> so takes about 3120s (still at the same speed) hence
> the difference of about 1000s.
Stan's response in news:rsednaNNmrpg2d3fRVn-vw@comcast.com
was not to 'review my reply in specific detail'
but instead to delete that entire conversation.
I repeated the point in my next post so it will
be interesting to see if he tries to address it
in his reply. You are welcome to comment of
course, but we shall see who disappears from
the thread first.
George
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Does "c" loose some velocity after leaving a dense medium back into space?"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Reply: Henri Wilson: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|