Re: Light Speed Test versus Special Relativity

From: OG (owen_at_gwynnefamily.org.uk)
Date: 03/23/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:55:17 -0000

"Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:74KdnV810aNsKNzfRVn-1A@comcast.com...
> Hello Owen and Group,
>
> Thanks for the message. Your question highlights the important part
that SR
> does not notice.
> It is impossible to have the same relative speed with light when you
are
> moving in the same direction,... as you have when you are at rest in
> relation to the source. If you are parked beside the road and a train
is
> passing parallel going west at 100 miles per hour(mph),...and then you
start
> driving west at twenty mph, SR says that the train will still be
passing you
> at 100 mph.

What a stupid comment.

> Now you and I both know that you could not teach such a concept to
grade
> school children.

For trains, no.

But we're not talkinag about trains, we're talking about light. Light is
totally different, because light is the 'mediator of synchronicity'.

> Think of the Io eclipse events as an audible clock ticking. When the
Earth
> has no relative speed in relation to Jupiter there is an "at rest
rate".
> When the Earth retreats from Jupiter the Doppler effect reduces the
rate. SR
> says the relative speed of sound remains the same after you start
> retreating. Now if the speed of sound stayed the same,... the moving
Earth
> would hear the "at rest rate" while it was retreating.

No it doesn't. You already know that the distance is increasing, think
about it

>That is exactly why
> SR is impossible. It SR were true there would be no 1003 sec delay as
> observed by Roemer. As long as the 1003 sec delay exists since 1676
> AD,...SR is impossible.

Guess what, you are wrong, think about it.

> If two things have different speeds in the same direction relative to
> Jupiter it is impossible for the relative speed to be equal to the
fastest
> speed. This same statement it true for rotation on a common axis.
>
> "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:3abv7mF6ae48oU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:DYKdnVNi2Jg7zqHfRVn-3A@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> Gentlemen of physical science.
> >>
> >> This notice is posted with a request for reviews. All comments,
> > corrections
> >> and alternate views are welcome. Reviews may be posted on this
group
> > or
> >> emailed. Reviews will not be posted on the web site or news groups
> > without
> >> the reviewing author's prior permission. The links for the graphs
are
> >> listed below and the graphs are currently available on the website.
> >>
> >> Io's period change graphs via Excel spread***.
> >>
> >> Earth retreating from Jupiter
> >> http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif
> >>
> >> Earth approaching Jupiter
> >> http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoEcipChange4.gif
> >>
> >> This entire article is available on the website. Newsgroup readers
may
> >> review the
> >> complete article at the link
> >>
> >> http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
> >>
> >> Shortly after the reviews have been received this content will be
> >> incorporated with the other pages on the site.
> >> Citations or links to arguments correcting or refuting this
> >> interpretation of Roemer's data will be appreciated.
> >> A link or quote of rational arguments will be added to the web
page.
> >
> > Your site includes the following key paragraph
> > QUOTE
> > If the speed of the train of light and events from Jupiter was not
> > reduced in relation to the retreating Earth, succeeding observations
of
> > eclipse events would remain in synchronism with the observations of
the
> > near point. How could a station 2.6549 million miles further from
> > Jupiter observe an eclipse event at the same time that it is
observed at
> > the near point
> > END QUOTE
> >
> > That is a pretty big IF. . .
> > Please explain precisely WHY successive observations would remain in
> > synch if speed of light was not reduced.
> > They would move out of synch simply because of the increased
distance.
>
> Yes, that is exactly right. and the Earth's distance per unit time is
> producing the distance.
> Therefore the relative speed has changed. Just like the train,... C-v.

What is this, ""proof by assertion"?

> SR says the speed of light stays the same after you start retreating.
> If the speed stays the same the light's frequency stays the same.
> If the frequency stays the same the period between wave crests stay
the
> same.

What on earth makes you say this?

> If the period for the light wave stays the same the period for the
events
> carried by the light stay the same.
> If the period of events (eclipse) stay the same, there will be no 1003
> second delay.

You forget that in the interval between tics there is in increase in
distance.
As I said. . . .

> > It is, of course, no coincidence that the change in eclipse period
is
> > proportional to the relative speed of the Earth and Jupiter, since
the
> > relative speed times 152,916seconds gives the increase in distance.

Technically, I think you would be correct if the speed of light was
infinite, but in real life you are not correct.