Re: Speed Of Light Question

Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2005 04:35:13 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 28 Sep 2005 16:10:03 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >> Using the fact that light speed is source dependent, I and others are now able
> >> >> to reconstruct the reality behind some of these illusions...with outstanding
> >> >> success.
> >> >
> >> >There is not a scintilla of electromagnetic proof of what
> >> >you are unscientifically calling a 'fact'.
> >>
> >> When light leaves a remote star, do you think it cares a bugger about little
> >> planet Earth?
> >
> >It *cares* about every charge along the path. Substituting
> >Einstein's postulates does invalidate electromagnetic principles.
>
> I agree.....but probably disagree as to the magnitude of the effect.

There is quite an ambitious survey underway to map dielectric
properties for regions of space. I don't recall the name but
I'm sure you've consulted it and made some calculation to support
your point of view.

>
> >> Its speed has only one reference...its source.
> >Not true. Coulomb couping to neighboring matter
> >Is part of the radiating mechanism.
> >Read how the Coulomb (radiation) gauge differs
> >from the Lorenz gauge.
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
>
> Like all your references, this one also uses the expression 'speed of light'.

He means 300 million meters per second. He probably has short
fingers and doesn't like stretching up to the number keys. :o)
>
> How many times do I have to repeat "SPEEDS ARE RELATIVE" before it sinks in?

That's Right! 85 MPH means nothing to a luge pilot with jagged ice
racing past unless he knows if it wrt Io or Pluto. :o)


>
> >> >> It is to be hoped that the whole of astronomy soon recognizes this major
> >> >> breakthough and drags itself out of the Einsteinian rut.
> >> >
> >> >Einstein has nothing to do the the work of Maxwell, Weber,
> >> >Heaviside and many others which show the
> >> >mode of propagation you are proposing is precluded by
> >> >well tested electomagnetic principles.
> >>
> >> They all assumed that an aether existed.
> >
> >And I suppose you attribute the attraction of a
> >charged comb to a pith ball to the wires that
> >a magician has hidden. :o)
>
> I suppose you attribute the fact that we don't fall off planet Earth to
> Einstein's equivalence principle.

You'd be waaaay wrong in that supposition.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/9ff73514e2bb00d5?scoring=d&q=electro+london+gravity&hl=en


Sue...

>
> >
> >Sue...
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>
> "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... Henri Wilson) wrote: ...  that the speed of light relative to little planet Earth, ... Since nothing in the universe moves at anywhere near c wrt to anything ... ground is moving at *measurably* different speeds relative to the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Spindle Speeds - C6B Lathe
    ... Similarly nudging the top speed up from 2000rpm. ... looks like a good theoretical target, but back on planet earth with a ... speeds are in the two ranges given your 10% envelope. ...
    (uk.rec.models.engineering)
  • Re: Spindle Speeds - C6B Lathe
    ... looks like a good theoretical target, but back on planet earth with a ... I have modified my C6B to two step poly vee, ... speeds are in the two ranges given your 10% envelope. ...
    (uk.rec.models.engineering)