Re: Light Speed Test versus Special Relativity

From: christie.jones (christie.jones_at_insightbb.com)
Date: 03/24/05 

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:21:15 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: Light Speed Test versus Special Relativity

>
> "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. . . .
>

What the hell would the increase in distance from the source have to do with
how long it takes the light to reach us? Once the light left the source the
source shouldn't matter in the equation at all. If, at the instant the
light leaves the source, the earth is X distance away then if light is going
to be measured at c it CANNOT matter what motion the earth makes after the
light left the source. If there is a difference, then the light is not
traveling c in relation to earth it is traveling c-(earth's velocity away
from source).

>> > 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.
>
>

Thomas

Quantcast