Re: Speed Of Light Question
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Sep 2005 04:44:11 -0700
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2005 17:20:59 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >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:
> >> >>
> >>
>
> >> >
> >> >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.
>
> I wait in anticipation.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >> 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)
>
> Are you implying that he is referring to the universal constant that has
> dimensions of speed and is equal to 2.997E8 metres/sec?...or do you mean he is
> referring to a speed of one object wrt another?
>
> >>
> >> 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)
>
> What do you mean by 85 mph?
>
> I am currently traveling at 85mph. I am also traveling at 850 mph. I am also
> traveling at 85000000000 mph.....wrt different objects, of course.
You answered your own question. The object subject to
the resultant force is the spatial reference.
>
>
> >> >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
>
> the maths of action-at-a-distance doesn't explain the physics of same.
Good job! You found two excuses in the HTML abstract to give
your pdf reader a bit of time off. I am sure it is well deserved. ;-)
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".
.
- References:
- Re: Speed Of Light Question
- From: Sue...
- Re: Speed Of Light Question
- From: Sue...
- Re: Speed Of Light Question
- From: Sue...
- Re: Speed Of Light Question
- From: Sue...
- Re: Speed Of Light Question
- From: Sue...
- Re: Speed Of Light Question
- Prev by Date: Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth.
- Next by Date: South pole is melting
- Previous by thread: Re: Speed Of Light Question
- Next by thread: Re: Speed Of Light Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|