Re: how to prove that sound is a wave ?
- From: xxein1@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 17:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
On May 23, 4:35 pm, Jack Sprat <jack_sp...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
xxe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[snip]
Why do you think everyone argues the minutia of such a basic
foundation of terms (G, M, R, V and the consequences)? We can't even
measure the speed of light directly.
There's something wrong with this statement when most of the cops in town
have a device that depends on the speed of light for writing tickets.
Its not rocket science anymore.
xxein1 happens to be right. Your town cops use the predicted
speed of light, *not* the measured speed of light. Even then,
as often as not, they lie.
xxein: C'mon Jack. It's not the measured speed of light either. We
derive a constant value for sol that matches the physics of what we
measure. Remember a physical time dilation of the moving or
gravitational observer and the physical length contraction for the
direction of moving objects? These become highly variable with
increased velocity. They do so in a tandem, of course, that makes
things like sol appear to 'us' as a constant.
But it is the physic of gravity, once obtained, that provides the
insight necessary to really understand how all this works. A little
logic can go a long way. I used +-11185 m/s as an example of a simple
and sole gravitational object (Earth). I'll get back to this.
In the non-gravitational aspect (Lorentz, SR), it is very evident that
TD and LC play a role in our measurement of sol. Twls is all we can
measure though. It is a necessary aspect of a continuum. Otherwise
our little universe would not have a connection to itself.
But we do have a gravity in our universe. It is the nature of it. We
don't get to deal the cards and it is not a game. Now back to 11185.
That is the increase/decrease in the actual speed of a photon between
the large Earth and a far away small test mass. Here's the thing.
Light traveling from the test mass will end up on Earth with V = val
(c) +11185 m/s. Otoh, the reverse would be that it left the Earth at
val(c) - 11185 and increase to c. This is clearly not reciprocal.
What this means is that our GPS (military), although accurate enough
(~-10e secs) for our needs and technology, could be improved to -
googleplexe if we had the hardware (and physical understanding of
light in gravity) to do it. But we don't. We continue to think our
science is adequate to explain it all. I'm not saying that
atmospheric conditions will allow such an accuracy, just that we
missed the physical connection.
A rough calc (very rough) shows that GPS can have an accuracy of ~3^-3
meters with this discrepancy of light in gravity. Who is going to
notice??? No one except a logical theoretician.
.
- References:
- how to prove that sound is a wave ?
- From: Nimo
- Re: how to prove that sound is a wave ?
- From: Jack Sprat
- how to prove that sound is a wave ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Feedback in Microwave Oven
- Next by Date: Re: Could Dark Matter be here on earth?
- Previous by thread: Re: how to prove that sound is a wave ?
- Next by thread: Re: how to prove that sound is a wave ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
