Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #576083 > unrolled thread

Invariance of the speed of light

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Invariance of the speed of light Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-06 14:47 +0000
    Re: Invariance of the speed of light Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 08:05 -0800
    Re: Invariance of the speed of light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-02-06 12:33 -0600
      Problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-06 18:59 +0000
        Re: Problem The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-06 12:22 -0800
          Re: Problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-06 20:35 +0000
        Re: Problem FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> - 2022-02-06 16:10 -0500
        Re: Problem The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-06 21:01 -0800
          Re: Problem The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-06 21:02 -0800
    Re: Invariance of the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 14:12 -0800
      Re: Invariance of the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 16:35 -0800
    Re: Invariance of the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-07 06:23 +0100
      Re: Invariance of the speed of light Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-07 15:14 +0000
        Re: Invariance of the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-13 19:14 +0100
          Re: Invariance of the speed of light Darrel Angus <argus@iiehdc.mx> - 2022-02-14 07:11 +0000
    Re: Invariance of the speed of light Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 23:54 -0800
    Re: Invariance of the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-14 21:51 +1100

#576083 — Invariance of the speed of light

Invariance of the speed of light.

The speed of light is invariant by change of frame.

This is something that has been difficult to teach.

But the ordeal is not over. Ol must also teach that it is for all 
repositories, including accelerated repositories.

And there, it's no pie.

However, it is obvious that if I move at accelerated speed towards a wagon 
where a ray of light falls, this ray is observed only in relation to an 
infinitesimal succession of Galilean reference frames.

The speed of light will always be the same.

The spoke will take on the appearance of a curve. But on this curve the 
speed of light will be constant and equal to c.

Another thing: all the repositories are fixed for themselves. This is true 
for Galilean repositories, but it is also true for accelerated 
repositories. A falling body does not move relative to itself. For him, it 
is the earth that approaches him at accelerated speed.

This idea is very useful to understand what happens when describing the 
traveler of Tau Ceti.

The rocket is fixed, its propulsion acts as if propelling the surrounding 
space at accelerated speed.

Hence the extraordinary simplicity of calculation that can be done (in two 
lines) when we have understood all that and we see the error of 
relativistic physicists when they deal with the proper time of this 
rocket.

We then understand (and it makes us laugh so much we feel stupid not to 
have thought of it) why the time of the rocket between the moment it takes 
off and the moment when the Tau Teri system joins it, is same, absolutely 
of the same value as the instant when another rocket would take off (but 
at adequate average speed) and the instant when the Tau Ceti system would 
join it.

The departure of the two rockets being simultaneous, the arrival of the 
two rockets being simultaneous.

Whatever happens between the two, since neither, in its frame of 
reference, has moved, and joint events (they leave the earth together and 
Tau Ceri joins them when they are together) undoubtedly remain joint.
The proper times of the two rockets will therefore be the same in both 
cases.
It is therefore sufficient to know the proper time of one of the rockets 
to have the proper time of the other. It will be the same.


T.H. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#576093

On Sunday, 6 February 2022 at 15:47:36 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Invariance of the speed of light. 
> 
> The speed of light is invariant by change of frame. 
> 
> This is something that has been difficult to teach. 


And impossible to maintain; in his GR shit Giant Guru
had to withdraw.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576107

On 2/6/2022 8:47 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Invariance of the speed of light.
> 
> The speed of light is invariant by change of frame.
> 
> This is something that has been difficult to teach.

I see it as a game, nothing more. Its been going on for a long time.

<snip>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576111 — Problem

Problem of the day Baccalaureate Seine-Saint-Denis June 2022 (France):

A tap leaks three drops of water every 24 hours, or one drop every eight 
hours.

First question: is this normal?

Second question: Assuming that a day corresponds to approximately 24 
hours, estimate the loss per day.
(four points)

Third question: assuming that the neighbor upstairs takes drugs, and that 
his daughter is a prostitute, does this have an impact for you on the 
leakage of the tap?
(one point).

If not, explain why (fifteen points).

We give the following Lorentz transformations:
x'=(x+vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
y'=y
z'=z
t'=(t-xv/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
The accelerations of the tap water leak will be neglected.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576129 — Re: Problem

Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
> Problem of the day Baccalaureate Seine-Saint-Denis June 2022 (France):
> 
> A tap leaks three drops of water every 24 hours, or one drop every eight
> hours.
> 
> First question: is this normal?
> 
> Second question: Assuming that a day corresponds to approximately 24
> hours, estimate the loss per day.
> (four points)
> 
> Third question: assuming that the neighbor upstairs takes drugs, and that
> his daughter is a prostitute, does this have an impact for you on the
> leakage of the tap?
> (one point).
> 
> If not, explain why (fifteen points).
> 
> We give the following Lorentz transformations:
> x'=(x+vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> y'=y
> z'=z
> t'=(t-xv/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> The accelerations of the tap water leak will be neglected.

neglected??? but, but..the water drops fall under constant
*accelerations* due to gravity. 


You sound like those teachers in skool who are in need of 'textbooks' in
order to  learn how to teach.


Without 'textbooks', teachers cannot teach.

(and these textbooks come with solutions otherwise the teachers
themselves don't know the answers.)




> 
> R.H.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576131 — Re: Problem

Le 06/02/2022 à 21:22, The Starmaker a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>> 
>> Problem of the day Baccalaureate Seine-Saint-Denis June 2022 (France):
>> 
>> A tap leaks three drops of water every 24 hours, or one drop every eight
>> hours.
>> 
>> First question: is this normal?
>> 
>> Second question: Assuming that a day corresponds to approximately 24
>> hours, estimate the loss per day.
>> (four points)
>> 
>> Third question: assuming that the neighbor upstairs takes drugs, and that
>> his daughter is a prostitute, does this have an impact for you on the
>> leakage of the tap?
>> (one point).
>> 
>> If not, explain why (fifteen points).
>> 
>> We give the following Lorentz transformations:
>> x'=(x+vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>> y'=y
>> z'=z
>> t'=(t-xv/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>> The accelerations of the tap water leak will be neglected.
> 
> neglected? ? ? but, but..the water drops fall under constant
> *accelerations* due to gravity. 

Yes, indeed, the drop of water falling from the tap undergoes an 
acceleration while falling.
And the distance traveled by the drop of water, is important to calculate 
the height of the sink.
x = 1/2. g. t²
g=10m/s²
But we don't need it to solve the problem on the number of drops of water 
lost per day.
A day is 3600*24 seconds. So that's a lot of seconds. Divide the height of 
the sink by the number of seconds in a day.
That's about eight deconds a day which fall with an acceleration of five 
meters per second (1/2 g) over 24 hours since in two minutes 200 seconds 
pass (one minute is 100% of sixty seconds and there , I multiply by two 
since the third drop has not yet fallen at 9:59:59") and it is not part of 
the adjournment to be taken into account.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576135 — Re: Problem

Richard Hachel formulated on Sunday :
> Problem of the day Baccalaureate Seine-Saint-Denis June 2022 (France):
>
> A tap leaks three drops of water every 24 hours, or one drop every eight 
> hours.
>
> First question: is this normal?

Unknown. We don't even know if it is regular. Is there a plumber's 
union in France? They might actually have statistics on this.

> Second question: Assuming that a day corresponds to approximately 24 hours, 
> estimate the loss per day.
> (four points)

No loss. Even if you don't cap it, it just becomes water vapor and is 
not actually lost -- it's just that you no longer know where it is.

> Third question: assuming that the neighbor upstairs takes drugs, and that his 
> daughter is a prostitute, does this have an impact for you on the leakage of 
> the tap?
> (one point).

Yes, he's the landlord.

> If not, explain why (fifteen points).

Do I get the fifteen points since I answered yes?

> We give the following Lorentz transformations:
> x'=(x+vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> y'=y
> z'=z
> t'=(t-xv/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> The accelerations of the tap water leak will be neglected.
>
> R.H.

Now, re-calculate for heavy water.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576175 — Re: Problem

For some reason Google Groups doesn't see your post...
no tree fell in the forrest.

Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
> Problem of the day Baccalaureate Seine-Saint-Denis June 2022 (France):
> 
> A tap leaks three drops of water every 24 hours, or one drop every eight
> hours.
> 
> First question: is this normal?
> 
> Second question: Assuming that a day corresponds to approximately 24
> hours, estimate the loss per day.
> (four points)
> 
> Third question: assuming that the neighbor upstairs takes drugs, and that
> his daughter is a prostitute, does this have an impact for you on the
> leakage of the tap?
> (one point).
> 
> If not, explain why (fifteen points).
> 
> We give the following Lorentz transformations:
> x'=(x+vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> y'=y
> z'=z
> t'=(t-xv/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> The accelerations of the tap water leak will be neglected.
> 
> R.H.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576176 — Re: Problem

i mean no forrest for a tree to fall...

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> For some reason Google Groups doesn't see your post...
> no tree fell in the forrest.
> 
> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> > Problem of the day Baccalaureate Seine-Saint-Denis June 2022 (France):
> >
> > A tap leaks three drops of water every 24 hours, or one drop every eight
> > hours.
> >
> > First question: is this normal?
> >
> > Second question: Assuming that a day corresponds to approximately 24
> > hours, estimate the loss per day.
> > (four points)
> >
> > Third question: assuming that the neighbor upstairs takes drugs, and that
> > his daughter is a prostitute, does this have an impact for you on the
> > leakage of the tap?
> > (one point).
> >
> > If not, explain why (fifteen points).
> >
> > We give the following Lorentz transformations:
> > x'=(x+vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'=(t-xv/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> > The accelerations of the tap water leak will be neglected.
> >
> > R.H.
> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
>  the unchallengeable.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576143

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 6:47:36 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Invariance of the speed of light. 
> 
> The speed of light is invariant by change of frame. 
> 
> This is something that has been difficult to teach. 
> 
> But the ordeal is not over. Ol must also teach that it is for all 
> repositories, including accelerated repositories. 
> 
> And there, it's no pie. 
> 
> However, it is obvious that if I move at accelerated speed towards a wagon 
> where a ray of light falls, this ray is observed only in relation to an 
> infinitesimal succession of Galilean reference frames. 
> 
> The speed of light will always be the same. 
> 
> The spoke will take on the appearance of a curve. But on this curve the 
> speed of light will be constant and equal to c. 
> 
> Another thing: all the repositories are fixed for themselves. This is true 
> for Galilean repositories, but it is also true for accelerated 
> repositories. A falling body does not move relative to itself. For him, it 
> is the earth that approaches him at accelerated speed. 
> 
> This idea is very useful to understand what happens when describing the 
> traveler of Tau Ceti. 
> 
> The rocket is fixed, its propulsion acts as if propelling the surrounding 
> space at accelerated speed. 
> 
> Hence the extraordinary simplicity of calculation that can be done (in two 
> lines) when we have understood all that and we see the error of 
> relativistic physicists when they deal with the proper time of this 
> rocket. 
> 
> We then understand (and it makes us laugh so much we feel stupid not to 
> have thought of it) why the time of the rocket between the moment it takes 
> off and the moment when the Tau Teri system joins it, is same, absolutely 
> of the same value as the instant when another rocket would take off (but 
> at adequate average speed) and the instant when the Tau Ceti system would 
> join it. 
> 
> The departure of the two rockets being simultaneous, the arrival of the 
> two rockets being simultaneous. 
> 
> Whatever happens between the two, since neither, in its frame of 
> reference, has moved, and joint events (they leave the earth together and 
> Tau Ceri joins them when they are together) undoubtedly remain joint. 
> The proper times of the two rockets will therefore be the same in both 
> cases. 
> It is therefore sufficient to know the proper time of one of the rockets 
> to have the proper time of the other. It will be the same. 
> 
> 
> T.H.

Sagnac / Ehrenfest.

1/2 c wheel + 1/2 c wheel = 1 c wheel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576154

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 2:12:43 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 6:47:36 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> > Invariance of the speed of light. 
> > 
> > The speed of light is invariant by change of frame. 
> > 
> > This is something that has been difficult to teach. 
> > 
> > But the ordeal is not over. Ol must also teach that it is for all 
> > repositories, including accelerated repositories. 
> > 
> > And there, it's no pie. 
> > 
> > However, it is obvious that if I move at accelerated speed towards a wagon 
> > where a ray of light falls, this ray is observed only in relation to an 
> > infinitesimal succession of Galilean reference frames. 
> > 
> > The speed of light will always be the same. 
> > 
> > The spoke will take on the appearance of a curve. But on this curve the 
> > speed of light will be constant and equal to c. 
> > 
> > Another thing: all the repositories are fixed for themselves. This is true 
> > for Galilean repositories, but it is also true for accelerated 
> > repositories. A falling body does not move relative to itself. For him, it 
> > is the earth that approaches him at accelerated speed. 
> > 
> > This idea is very useful to understand what happens when describing the 
> > traveler of Tau Ceti. 
> > 
> > The rocket is fixed, its propulsion acts as if propelling the surrounding 
> > space at accelerated speed. 
> > 
> > Hence the extraordinary simplicity of calculation that can be done (in two 
> > lines) when we have understood all that and we see the error of 
> > relativistic physicists when they deal with the proper time of this 
> > rocket. 
> > 
> > We then understand (and it makes us laugh so much we feel stupid not to 
> > have thought of it) why the time of the rocket between the moment it takes 
> > off and the moment when the Tau Teri system joins it, is same, absolutely 
> > of the same value as the instant when another rocket would take off (but 
> > at adequate average speed) and the instant when the Tau Ceti system would 
> > join it. 
> > 
> > The departure of the two rockets being simultaneous, the arrival of the 
> > two rockets being simultaneous. 
> > 
> > Whatever happens between the two, since neither, in its frame of 
> > reference, has moved, and joint events (they leave the earth together and 
> > Tau Ceri joins them when they are together) undoubtedly remain joint. 
> > The proper times of the two rockets will therefore be the same in both 
> > cases. 
> > It is therefore sufficient to know the proper time of one of the rockets 
> > to have the proper time of the other. It will be the same. 
> > 
> > 
> > T.H.
> Sagnac / Ehrenfest. 
> 
> 1/2 c wheel + 1/2 c wheel = 1 c wheel

Pezzaglia's usually reliable.

http://www.clifford.org/wpezzag/talk/2005eugene/05eugene.pdf

Not to mention authoritative.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576181

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Invariance of the speed of light.
> 
> The speed of light is invariant by change of frame.

Gibberish.

> This is something that has been difficult to teach.
> 
> But the ordeal is not over. Ol must also teach that it is for all
> repositories, including accelerated repositories.

The proper term is _reference frame_ or _frame of reference_,
not “repository”.
 

PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576211

Le 07/02/2022 à 06:23, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
>> Invariance of the speed of light.
>> 
>> The speed of light is invariant by change of frame.
> 
> Gibberish.
> 
>> This is something that has been difficult to teach.
>> 
>> But the ordeal is not over. Ol must also teach that it is for all
>> repositories, including accelerated repositories.
> 
> The proper term is _reference frame_ or _frame of reference_,
> not “repository”.
>  
> 
> PointedEars

Yes. My traductor is bad.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577012

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Yes. My traductor is bad.

Obviously.

fr. « traducteur » ↔ engl. “translator”, not “traductor”.

Try Google Translate instead, or use Wiktionary; or learn English, today’s 
«lingua franca» of science.  That would also help you to clarify your many 
misconceptions.


PointedEars
-- 
“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns
 so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
 of the entire tapestry.”
   —Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577049

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Richard Hachel wrote: Yes. My traductor is bad.
> 
> Obviously. fr. « traducteur » ↔ engl. “translator”, not “traductor”.
> Try Google Translate instead, or use Wiktionary; or learn English,
> today’s «lingua franca» of science.  That would also help you to clarify
> your many misconceptions.

we can see yours. The plan for creating a *_killer_virus_* for 
depopulation, mortally being injected, with toxic crap, for something, a 
"virus" which doesn't even exists. 

THE SEQUEL TO THE FALL OF THE CABAL - Part 18, COVID-19: The Greatest Lie 
Ever Told https://www.bitchute.com/video/hHK0trD9NHyT/

*mass_murderers*, knowingly paid and encouraged by your own 
*_deepen_corrupt_capitalist_government_*. Traitors ready to be
hanged.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla - 'We didn't Study the Real Virus, but a Virus
that we Built in the Lab' https://www.bitchute.com/video/diSfxWYgFiit/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577052

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 11:47:36 AM UTC-3, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Invariance of the speed of light. 
> 
> The speed of light is invariant by change of frame. 
> 
> This is something that has been difficult to teach. 
> 
> But the ordeal is not over. Ol must also teach that it is for all 
> repositories, including accelerated repositories. 
> 
> And there, it's no pie. 
> 
> However, it is obvious that if I move at accelerated speed towards a wagon 
> where a ray of light falls, this ray is observed only in relation to an 
> infinitesimal succession of Galilean reference frames. 
> 
> The speed of light will always be the same. 
> 
> The spoke will take on the appearance of a curve. But on this curve the 
> speed of light will be constant and equal to c. 
> 
> Another thing: all the repositories are fixed for themselves. This is true 
> for Galilean repositories, but it is also true for accelerated 
> repositories. A falling body does not move relative to itself. For him, it 
> is the earth that approaches him at accelerated speed. 
> 
> This idea is very useful to understand what happens when describing the 
> traveler of Tau Ceti. 
> 
> The rocket is fixed, its propulsion acts as if propelling the surrounding 
> space at accelerated speed. 
> 
> Hence the extraordinary simplicity of calculation that can be done (in two 
> lines) when we have understood all that and we see the error of 
> relativistic physicists when they deal with the proper time of this 
> rocket. 
> 
> We then understand (and it makes us laugh so much we feel stupid not to 
> have thought of it) why the time of the rocket between the moment it takes 
> off and the moment when the Tau Teri system joins it, is same, absolutely 
> of the same value as the instant when another rocket would take off (but 
> at adequate average speed) and the instant when the Tau Ceti system would 
> join it. 
> 
> The departure of the two rockets being simultaneous, the arrival of the 
> two rockets being simultaneous. 
> 
> Whatever happens between the two, since neither, in its frame of 
> reference, has moved, and joint events (they leave the earth together and 
> Tau Ceri joins them when they are together) undoubtedly remain joint. 
> The proper times of the two rockets will therefore be the same in both 
> cases. 
> It is therefore sufficient to know the proper time of one of the rockets 
> to have the proper time of the other. It will be the same. 
> 
> 
> T.H.

The speed of light is invariant because BIMP, by consensus, established it as an axiom of science, settled to 299792458 m/s.

As simple as that. BIMP, that define worldwide standards, was unable to collect measurements with dispersion lower that +/- 10 ppm
so, about 40 years ago splat the differences and came with the above value.

Nobody has been able to measure, with accuracy and precision, the speed of light. Now, it's not a problem.

It's defined as an axiom, like the point. And nobody, in the last 2300 years dare to question such axiom: "The point exist. Period."

The speed of light is an axiom and is 299792458 m/s everywhere in the universe, because a bunch of fucking bureaucrats said so. Period.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577056

On 07-Feb-22 1:47 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Invariance of the speed of light.
> 
> The speed of light is invariant by change of frame.
> 
> This is something that has been difficult to teach.
> 
> But the ordeal is not over. Ol must also teach that it is for all 
> repositories, including accelerated repositories.
> 

Another new word just introduced into the discussion with no definition 
of its meaning in this context.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web