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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #612920 > unrolled thread

Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames

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

Contents

  Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 15:10 -0700
    Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 15:14 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 16:27 -0700
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-14 17:41 -0700
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 21:45 -0700
          Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 10:43 -0700
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 12:11 -0700
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 21:08 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-14 22:21 -0700
    Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-14 17:43 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 18:15 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 18:23 -0700
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 20:20 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-14 22:39 -0500
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-14 20:59 -0700
          Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 06:00 -0700
          Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-17 22:37 +1000
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Wyouman Ophoven <eowp@ovenvnyh.ho> - 2023-06-17 16:42 +0000
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 21:00 -0700
          Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 06:04 -0700
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 08:34 -0700
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 21:40 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 12:55 -0700
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-17 22:39 +1000
          Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 07:41 -0700
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Braden Peerenboom <bemo@nrrrenon.rm> - 2023-06-17 16:13 +0000
          Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-17 08:12 -0700
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-17 17:16 +0200
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-17 19:31 -0400
              Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-17 16:41 -0700
                Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 17:10 -0700
                  Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 03:47 -0700
                    Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:38 -0700
                Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-18 01:04 -0400
                  Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Roosevelt Rooiakker <orts@aesrorov.oo> - 2023-06-20 22:17 +0000
    Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Carlos L <asjcharles@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 16:42 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-17 08:11 -0400
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Clerence Langbroek <gbee@ncaeneng.al> - 2023-06-17 12:20 +0000
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-18 14:57 +1000
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-22 09:18 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#612977

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 6:04:16 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 12:00:36 AM UTC-4, Ross Finlayson wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:39:25 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > If the car is going lightspeed, then [snip] 
> 
> But relativity says that that is impossible, so there is no need to read the rest of your argument. 
> You are forcing that 0=1. You are forcing a contradictory premise. 
> If you want to analyze relativity, analyze relativity! 
> 
> Perhaps you meant If the car is going almost lightspeed, then...

If light is going light speed, and it's in front of a car's headlights, ....

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

#612956

On Thursday, 15 June 2023 at 05:39:25 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/14/23 7:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the 
> > velocity of the source, as in ballistics.
> Physics is a science. In science

In science we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!!

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

#613048

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:43:37 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent. 
> > 
> > 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock 
> > second). That means no constant c. 
> > 1 second in A's frame = 1/gamma seconds in B;s frame. 
> > OR 
> > 1 second in A's frame = gamma seconds in B;s frame. 
> > 
> > 3. Replace "c" in every SR equation with: 
> > c'= gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming 
> > frequency) 
> > OR 
> > c'= 1/gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming 
> > frequency)   
> What do you mean by observer-dependent? In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the velocity of the source, as in ballistics.

let say the following:
There is a light source Xo.
Three observers A, B and D are rushing toward Xo at different speeds.
Stand physics says that each of the observers will measure the speed of light from Xo to be c.
I disagree.
Einstein forced each of them to measure the speed of light from  Xo to be "c" by inventing time dilation and length contraction..I  disagree, There is no absolute time dilation and no physical length contraction,

The correct way to measure the speed of incoming light from Xo is as follows:
1. Measure the wavelength from Xo.and that to  be :Lx
2. Ask Xo for the frequency of light and that to be fx.
3. Calculate the incoming speed of light  = Lx*fx 

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

#613096

On 17-June-23 5:55 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:43:37 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent.
>>>
>>> 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock
>>> second). That means no constant c.
>>> 1 second in A's frame = 1/gamma seconds in B;s frame.
>>> OR
>>> 1 second in A's frame = gamma seconds in B;s frame.
>>>
>>> 3. Replace "c" in every SR equation with:
>>> c'= gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
>>> frequency)
>>> OR
>>> c'= 1/gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
>>> frequency)
>> What do you mean by observer-dependent? In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the velocity of the source, as in ballistics.
> 
> let say the following:
> There is a light source Xo.
> Three observers A, B and D are rushing toward Xo at different speeds.
> Stand physics says that each of the observers will measure the speed of light from Xo to be c.
> I disagree.
> Einstein forced each of them to measure the speed of light from  Xo to be "c" by inventing time dilation and length contraction..I  disagree, There is no absolute time dilation and no physical length contraction,

He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be 
if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all 
observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.

Sylvia.

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

#613108

On Saturday, 17 June 2023 at 14:39:14 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be 
> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all 
> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated. 

No, it didn't, and considering the definitions of his time
it was a complete absurd.

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

#613115

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Saturday, 17 June 2023 at 14:39:14 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
>> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be
>> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all
>> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.
> 
> No, it didn't, and considering the definitions of his time it was a
> complete absurd.

that's why polakia will never be a country. Mostly an enclave, like 
ukronazia, *_but_not_even_that_*. You are fucking traitors, disrespectful 
*_nazi_terrorists_*. *_The_extermination_camps_* in polakia were there 
*_before_* Hitler entered the scene.

*_South_African_president’s_security_* detail prevented from going to 
Russia 
https://%72t.com/news/578210-african-president-security-detail-goes-home/
Hungary refused to let the aircraft into its airspace after 
*_Polish_authorities_blocked_dozens_of_South_African_security_personnel_* 

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

#613110

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:39:14 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17-June-23 5:55 am, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:43:37 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: 
> >>> 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent. 
> >>> 
> >>> 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock 
> >>> second). That means no constant c. 
> >>> 1 second in A's frame = 1/gamma seconds in B;s frame. 
> >>> OR 
> >>> 1 second in A's frame = gamma seconds in B;s frame. 
> >>> 
> >>> 3. Replace "c" in every SR equation with: 
> >>> c'= gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming 
> >>> frequency) 
> >>> OR 
> >>> c'= 1/gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming 
> >>> frequency) 
> >> What do you mean by observer-dependent? In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the velocity of the source, as in ballistics. 
> > 
> > let say the following: 
> > There is a light source Xo. 
> > Three observers A, B and D are rushing toward Xo at different speeds. 
> > Stand physics says that each of the observers will measure the speed of light from Xo to be c. 
> > I disagree. 
> > Einstein forced each of them to measure the speed of light from Xo to be "c" by inventing time dilation and length contraction..I disagree, There is no absolute time dilation and no physical length contraction,
> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be 
> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all 
> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated. 
> 
> Sylvia.
Of course the speed of light (and everything else) has relative (additive) velocity. Therefore it is both observer dependent and source dependent. Einstein did not ask that, he asserted that. It has never been shown by experiment. The Doppler shift of light is caused by this relative velocity and proves it's speed depends on the motion of the source and observer.

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

#613111

Le 17/06/2023 à 17:12, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:39:14 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 17-June-23 5:55 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:43:37 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock
>>>>> second). That means no constant c.
>>>>> 1 second in A's frame = 1/gamma seconds in B;s frame.
>>>>> OR
>>>>> 1 second in A's frame = gamma seconds in B;s frame.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Replace "c" in every SR equation with:
>>>>> c'= gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
>>>>> frequency)
>>>>> OR
>>>>> c'= 1/gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
>>>>> frequency)
>>>> What do you mean by observer-dependent? In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the velocity of the source, as in ballistics.
>>>
>>> let say the following:
>>> There is a light source Xo.
>>> Three observers A, B and D are rushing toward Xo at different speeds.
>>> Stand physics says that each of the observers will measure the speed of light from Xo to be c.
>>> I disagree.
>>> Einstein forced each of them to measure the speed of light from Xo to be "c" by inventing time dilation and length contraction..I disagree, There is no absolute time dilation and no physical length contraction,
>> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be
>> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all
>> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> Of course the speed of light (and everything else) has relative (additive) velocity.

Why ?

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

#613151

On 6/17/2023 11:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:39:14 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 17-June-23 5:55 am, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> Einstein forced each of them to measure the speed of light from Xo to be "c" by inventing time dilation and length contraction..I disagree, There is no absolute time dilation and no physical length contraction,
>> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be
>> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all
>> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.

> Of course the speed of light (and everything else) has relative (additive) velocity.

"Of course" is a phrase that shouldn't be used in physics.

> Therefore it is both observer dependent and source dependent. Einstein did not ask that, he asserted that.

No, Einstein saw that all experiments showed the speed of light was c, 
regardless of the motion of the source or observer. He did not create 
the idea of constant speed of light. It was already known. Nobody knew 
why it was so, just that it was so.

Einstein figured a constant speed of light was the result of some 
unknown law of physics. He made it a postulate for his SR paper.

> It has never been shown by experiment.

Wrong. A constant speed of light was already known by experiments before 
Einstein's time. That's why he worked on SR in the first place. He 
wanted to see what the consequences of a constant speed of light were.

> The Doppler shift of light is caused by this relative velocity and proves it's speed depends on the motion of the source and observer.

The relativistic Doppler effect, of course.

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

#613152

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:30:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 6/17/2023 11:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:39:14 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> On 17-June-23 5:55 am, Ken Seto wrote: 
> 
> >>> Einstein forced each of them to measure the speed of light from Xo to be "c" by inventing time dilation and length contraction..I disagree, There is no absolute time dilation and no physical length contraction, 
> >> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be 
> >> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all 
> >> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.
> > Of course the speed of light (and everything else) has relative (additive) velocity.
> "Of course" is a phrase that shouldn't be used in physics.
> > Therefore it is both observer dependent and source dependent. Einstein did not ask that, he asserted that.
> No, Einstein saw that all experiments showed the speed of light was c, 
> regardless of the motion of the source or observer. He did not create 
> the idea of constant speed of light. It was already known. Nobody knew 
> why it was so, just that it was so. 
> 
> Einstein figured a constant speed of light was the result of some 
> unknown law of physics. He made it a postulate for his SR paper.
> > It has never been shown by experiment.
> Wrong. A constant speed of light was already known by experiments before 
> Einstein's time. That's why he worked on SR in the first place. He 
> wanted to see what the consequences of a constant speed of light were.
> > The Doppler shift of light is caused by this relative velocity and proves it's speed depends on the motion of the source and observer.
> The relativistic Doppler effect, of course.
You can have your etiquette just don't impose it on others. No, Einstein did not "see" that because no experiments showed that. The source of his and your difficulty is the failure to distinguish between a lack of an ether wind and constancy of the speed of light. The MMX does not show what you are claiming. The Doppler shift proves you are wrong. The relativistic Doppler is a mathematical lie.

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

#613153

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 7:41:39 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:30:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 

> > ... A constant speed of light was already known by experiments before 
> > Einstein's time. That's why he worked on SR in the first place. 

> You can have your etiquette just don't impose it on others. 

You are confused. He is stating facts. Prior to special relativity, all experiments were showing that the speed of light is independent of the source and observer.

> No, Einstein did not "see" that because no experiments showed that. 

So now you are resorting to lies to try to defend yourself. Are you a reality denier?

> The relativistic Doppler is a mathematical lie.

How would you know when you can't even do basic math?
You can't even solve high school math problems, so you are in no position to discuss math or physics.
This news group is not for you.

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

#613176

On Sunday, 18 June 2023 at 02:10:42 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 7:41:39 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:30:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > ... A constant speed of light was already known by experiments before
> > > Einstein's time. That's why he worked on SR in the first place.
> > You can have your etiquette just don't impose it on others.
> You are confused. He is stating facts. Prior to special relativity, all experiments were showing that the speed of light is independent of the source and observer.

Only idiots like you or stupid Mike can believe such an
impudent lie.

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

#613269

How do you know a frames motion in space?
If it cannot be marked how do we get to frames
not being at absolute rest? What is the motion
in space of light and atoms?
At a motion black hole atoms compete
with light motion... does that not make
them equally absolute?


Mitchell Raemsch

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

#613168

On 6/17/2023 7:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:30:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/17/2023 11:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:39:14 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 17-June-23 5:55 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>>>> Einstein forced each of them to measure the speed of light from Xo to be "c" by inventing time dilation and length contraction..I disagree, There is no absolute time dilation and no physical length contraction,
>>>> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be
>>>> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all
>>>> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.
>>> Of course the speed of light (and everything else) has relative (additive) velocity.
>> "Of course" is a phrase that shouldn't be used in physics.
>>> Therefore it is both observer dependent and source dependent. Einstein did not ask that, he asserted that.
>> No, Einstein saw that all experiments showed the speed of light was c,
>> regardless of the motion of the source or observer. He did not create
>> the idea of constant speed of light. It was already known. Nobody knew
>> why it was so, just that it was so.
>>
>> Einstein figured a constant speed of light was the result of some
>> unknown law of physics. He made it a postulate for his SR paper.
>>> It has never been shown by experiment.
>> Wrong. A constant speed of light was already known by experiments before
>> Einstein's time. That's why he worked on SR in the first place. He
>> wanted to see what the consequences of a constant speed of light were.
>>> The Doppler shift of light is caused by this relative velocity and proves it's speed depends on the motion of the source and observer.
>> The relativistic Doppler effect, of course.

> You can have your etiquette just don't impose it on others. No, Einstein did not "see" that because no experiments showed that.

Your delusions are irrelevant. It was known before Einstein came along 
that the speed of light was always measured as c, regardless of motion 
of the source or observer. As I said, Einstein didn't come up with the 
idea of a constant speed of light, because all experiments showed the 
speed of light was always c.

Cranks always want to "blame" Einstein for coming up with the constant 
speed of light, but it simply isn't true. The constant speed of light 
was already a known experimental result.

> The source of his and your difficulty is the failure to distinguish between a lack of an ether wind and constancy of the speed of light.

Not relevant. The constant speed of light was and is an experimental 
result. Experimental results of a constant speed of light obviously 
disprove claims that the speed of light is not constant.

> The MMX does not show what you are claiming.

The MMX is consistent with several theories, including ballistic light 
and a constant speed of light. It neither confirms nor disproves a 
constant speed of light. It merely disproved the most common aether 
theory of the time.

> The Doppler shift proves you are wrong. The relativistic Doppler is a mathematical lie.

How could it be a "mathematical lie" if it is consistent with all 
observations which produce a Doppler shift?

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

#613329

Volney wrote:

> Cranks always want to "blame" Einstein for coming up with the constant
> speed of light, but it simply isn't true. The constant speed of light
> was already a known experimental result.

yes sure, but absolutely. Anyone who went to secondary school is aware of 
what happened to Napoleon (1812), Hitler (1943) and 
*_the_Nazi_Azov_battalions_at_the_Mariupol_Severdonesk_chemical_plant_(2022)_* 
and could therefore anticipate what arrives at US-UK-NATO-Nazis in Ukraine 
today.

Stolenburg, you might want to revise your history lessons since you are in 
denial about 
*_your_miserable_bloody_defeats_in_Mariupol_Soledar_Bakhmut_*.

if these tanks *_are_shipped_to_the_nazi_uKurine_*, then Russia and China 
do have *_all_the_legal_rights_*, to *_sink_those_ships_* at the bottom of 
the ocean. The putina has to stop thinking it's illegal. It's not illegal 
to stop a war.

*_Something_Big_is_Coming_* - Parts 2 & 3 
https://b%69%74%63hute.com/video/0MJiMwSFRS4v

Unbelievable how NATO managed to gather such a number of military 
incompetents and how they surrender they duties to more incompetent 
politicians. Dangerous times ahead for the west.

Calling it "Ukrainian counter offensive " is just a Jock, When the whole 
world knows the reality of *_west_coalition_against_one_Russia_* and 
Russia is playing it well by Gods grace

I am sharing this because I want everyone to enjoy this. The following 
lines are from CNN:
Ukrainian forces have suffered losses in heavy equipment and soldiers as 
they met greater than expected resistance from Russian forces in their 
first attempt to breach Russian lines in the east of the country in recent 
days, two senior US officials tell CNN.

One US official described the losses – which include US supplied MRAP 
armored personnel vehicles *_as_“significant”_*.

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

#613063

El jueves, 15 de junio de 2023 a las 0:10:53 UTC+2, Ken Seto escribió:
> 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent. 
> 
> 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock 
> second). That means no constant c. 
> 1 second in A's frame = 1/gamma seconds in B;s frame. 
> OR 
> 1 second in A's frame = gamma seconds in B;s frame. 
> 
> 3. Replace "c" in every SR equation with: 
> c'= gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming 
> frequency) 
> OR 
> c'= 1/gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming 
> frequency)


How can it be that the speed of light in vacuum has always a specific value "c" relative to the inertial reference frame in which it is measured and does not depend on the speed of the source relative to such frame?
Special Relativity tries to explain it making ad hoc unphysical hypothesis (about time dilation and space contraction) that lead to paradoxes and contradictions.

An alternate explanation (within Galilean Relativity) can be summarized as follows:
A standard source of radiation emits a plurality of wave-like disturbances characterized by their different speeds relative to the emitter. The electrons (of the standard detectors of radiation) have a high probability (a sharp resonance in their interaction cross section) to respond to the "light type disturbances" of speed c speed relative to them. 
The speed of light is therefore c relative to the observer.  (It must be understood that the "observer" is the elementary matter (electrons) detecting the radiation).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMwFjqGeAtE 
https://www.eterinica.net/EVE6/Eve6.pdf

Carlos L

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

#613090

On 6/16/2023 7:42 PM, Carlos L wrote:
> El jueves, 15 de junio de 2023 a las 0:10:53 UTC+2, Ken Seto escribió:
>> 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent.
>>
>> 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock
>> second). That means no constant c.
>> 1 second in A's frame = 1/gamma seconds in B;s frame.
>> OR
>> 1 second in A's frame = gamma seconds in B;s frame.
>>
>> 3. Replace "c" in every SR equation with:
>> c'= gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
>> frequency)
>> OR
>> c'= 1/gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
>> frequency)
> 
> 
> How can it be that the speed of light in vacuum has always a specific value "c" relative to the inertial reference frame in which it is measured and does not depend on the speed of the source relative to such frame?

Because when you plug in "c" for the SR speed combination formula for 
one of the speeds, the resulting speed is also c.

w = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), replace "u" with "c", v is velocity of source and 
you get w=c.

> Special Relativity tries to explain it making ad hoc unphysical hypothesis (about time dilation and space contraction) that lead to paradoxes and contradictions.

No, the formula above, which Einstein derived, explains it.
> 
> An alternate explanation (within Galilean Relativity) can be summarized as follows:

Unsupported babbling.

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

#613092

Volney wrote:

> Because when you plug in "c" for the SR speed combination formula for
> one of the speeds, the resulting speed is also c.
> 
> w = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), replace "u" with "c", v is velocity of source and
> you get w=c.

this makes no sense, since for c=1, *_a_c^2_is_still_1_*, whereas for a 
*_c=3e5_km/s_a_c^2_is_something_else_*. You are crossing 
*_the_Russian_red_lines_* you may not trespass.

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

#613166

On 17-June-23 9:42 am, Carlos L wrote:
> El jueves, 15 de junio de 2023 a las 0:10:53 UTC+2, Ken Seto escribió:
>> 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent.
>>
>> 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock
>> second). That means no constant c.
>> 1 second in A's frame = 1/gamma seconds in B;s frame.
>> OR
>> 1 second in A's frame = gamma seconds in B;s frame.
>>
>> 3. Replace "c" in every SR equation with:
>> c'= gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
>> frequency)
>> OR
>> c'= 1/gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
>> frequency)
> 
> 
> How can it be that the speed of light in vacuum has always a specific value "c" relative to the inertial reference frame in which it is measured and does not depend on the speed of the source relative to such frame?
> Special Relativity tries to explain it making ad hoc unphysical hypothesis (about time dilation and space contraction) that lead to paradoxes and contradictions.

Clearly, you've never read Einstein's paper, whether in the original 
German, or in translation, because it contains no such hypothesis about 
either time dilation, or space contraction.

Getting your understanding of special relativity from popular science 
descriptions is never going to be a good idea.

Sylvia.

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

#613446

On 6/16/23 6:42 PM, Carlos L wrote:
> How can it be that the speed of light in vacuum has always a specific
> value "c" relative to the inertial reference frame in which it is
> measured and does not depend on the speed of the source relative to
> such frame?

SR models this as due to the different orientations of the measuring 
instruments that are at rest in different inertial frames.

> Special Relativity tries to explain it making ad hoc
> unphysical hypothesis (about time dilation and space contraction)
> that lead to paradoxes and contradictions.

Not true. You need to learn about the ACTUAL theory, and not some 
guesswork like this.

> An alternate explanation [...]

That's no explanation, that;s just word salad.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web