Re: Light Speed
From: mkolchins (mkolchins_at_comcast-dot-net.no-spam.invalid)
Date: 02/04/05
- Next message: mikeboarder: "Re: Newton's Cradle with unequal deviding masses"
- Previous message: John C. Polasek: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- In reply to: mkolchins: "Light Speed "C""
- Next in thread: PD: "Re: Light Speed"
- Reply: PD: "Re: Light Speed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 3 Feb 2005 19:25:45 -0600
> PDwrote:
mkolchins wrote:
> A number of years ago I purchased a video lecture series by
Professor
> Richard Wolfson of Middlebury College entitled Einstein's
> Relativity
> and the Quantum Revolution: Modern Physics for Non Scientist. I am
an
> architect not a scientist however I felt I had a better explanation
> for why light is always measured at speed "C". I have posted
> below a
> message that I have sent to Professor Wolfson explaining my theory
> and
> I am interested in this boards thoughts as well.
>
>
> I purchased your video tape lecture series on Einstein's Relativity
> and the Quantum Revolution a number of years ago and I always felt
I
> had a better explanation for why light is always measured traveling
> at speed "C". My theory has to do with the nature of photons, the
> way
> they travel and how they are measured. I realize you are going to
be
> very skeptical however I hope you will at least read my
explanation.
>
Thank You for your civilized response P.D. I have a couple of follow
up questions if you have the time and patience.
Unfortunately, very little of what you've written is right.
>
> · What is light? Light is electromagnetic waves with photons that
> occur or are created at the peaks and troughs where the energy of
the
> wave is concentrated.
>
That's defensible.
> This is why photons recorded in double slit
> experiments distribute themselves in patterns corresponding to wave
> peaks and troughs.
>
That's not. You'd have to explain why the patterns spread out when
the
slits get closer together.
I have not heard about this one is it possible to give brief
explanation to a non scientist?
> · Light waves compress between source and receiver. When light
> travels
> from a source and reaches another object the waves compress, the
> amount of compression depends on whether the source and receiver
are
> moving toward or away from each other and how fast, ie: moving
toward
> each other will produce more compression than moving away. This
> explains the red shift phenomenon.
>
And that's wrong. You assume the light stretches in a long string all
the way from the source to the receiver, and it doesn't.
I was not sure when I wrote this if the entire string of waves
compress or maybe just the waves in the area of the receiver. Could
this be possible and if not why? Don't water waves compress when they
strike land?
> · The speed of a light waves period is always "C" no matter
> what the
> waves length. This explains why when you measure the speed of
photons
> (peaks and troughs of waves) they always travel at speed "C"
> regardless of how source and receiver are moving relative to each
> other. The difference in their movement is taken up in the
> compression of the wavelength however the speed of the waves stays
> constant. I liken this to the inverse of a pendulum's period where
> no
> matter how far you swing the pendulum the time it takes to complete
a
> period remains constant but the speed of the pendulum varies.
>
Likening doesn't amount to a theory. I can like up and down quarks
with
male and female sexual differentiation, but that doesn't mean that
the
analogy has any physical basis.
Sorry could not think of a better term. Is it possible this is true
though?
> I have no significant mathematical background to test my theory
with
> and I realize that Einstein's relativity has been tested and
> validated however I think that if you mathematically substitute the
> compression of light waves for relativity of time and space you
might
> get the same results.
>
No.
Is this an absolute will not work no or not worth investigating no?
> One more thought, if I am right this could be an
> explanation for dark matter in space as well, dark matter might
just
> be objects that are traveling away from earth faster than the speed
> of light.
>
And I guess that proves that you didn't follow Wolfson's video
closely.
Rewind to the part where he talks about objects traveling faster than
the speed of light.
I did see that, I was assuming that if I was right then you could in
fact travel faster than light.
>
> I would very much like to hear your opinion of my theory if
possible,
> even if you think I am wrong I would like to know why.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Michael K.
> *---------------------------------*
> Posted at: http://www.GroupSrv.com
> *---------------------------------*
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com[/quote:514d9ff5dd]
*---------------------------------*
Posted at: http://www.GroupSrv.com
*---------------------------------*
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
- Next message: mikeboarder: "Re: Newton's Cradle with unequal deviding masses"
- Previous message: John C. Polasek: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- In reply to: mkolchins: "Light Speed "C""
- Next in thread: PD: "Re: Light Speed"
- Reply: PD: "Re: Light Speed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
