Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672953 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-09-07 16:06 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-09-10 23:58 +0200 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 72 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 16:06 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 16:12 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 16:30 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-09 12:12 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:35 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-10 11:18 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 17:52 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 12:09 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 00:11 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 19:20 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 21:02 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 16:11 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-12 00:44 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-11 11:26 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-11 11:02 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 07:37 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 21:05 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-12 13:05 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 07:41 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 07:48 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 08:25 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 23:12 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 18:16 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 18:35 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 16:01 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:21 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:14 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:24 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 00:03 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 17:22 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 05:21 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-14 11:43 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 08:52 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:25 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:45 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-12 12:59 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-12 13:04 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 23:28 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-14 11:41 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 16:05 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:24 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:18 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:29 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:53 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:49 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:48 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-15 12:07 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 23:25 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-16 10:48 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-14 11:43 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 16:14 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-13 10:18 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 07:30 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 09:45 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-11 22:10 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 16:13 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-12 00:46 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-29 10:56 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-29 15:12 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-02 20:46 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-30 09:43 +0000
Speed of light (was: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-09 04:03 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-09 12:06 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:39 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-09 16:44 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-09 17:12 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 18:19 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-11 08:45 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-09 11:31 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:43 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-10 23:58 +0200
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 20:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AC07A91.715F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #673893 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Stefan Ram wrote: > > > > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote or quoted: > > >Maxwell did not say one way or other whether the speed of light is > > >c relative to its source. From what he did say we can infer that he > > >thought that that depeds on the motion of the source. Maxwell thought > > >that the speed of light is c in some frame that was later called ether. > > > > In a reference frame, Maxwell's equations yield the wave equation > > > > Nabla^2 E = mu_0 eps_0 d^2/dt^2 E, > > > > and the solutions have speed 1/sqrt(mu_0 eps_0), which is c. There > > is no source term, i.e., no dependency on the speed of a source. > > There is no such thing as "Empty Space". > > it has to hit something... > > it doesn't doge stuff.. > > so it cannot ever reach 'it's' speed of light. > > Vacumns do not exist. > > empty space does not exist. > > dat is why the earth revolves around the sun... > the sun is in it's way. > > wat is the speed of light in the ocean? > > if it don't hit a fish... Now, what is the speed of light relative to...me? To light, i probably look like i'm standing still... everything is standing still. if you slow down light i'm in slow motion if you slow down light all the way.. i'm faster than the speed of light. light is standing still. -- 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]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 09:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18da100a193e73af$401$2439770$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673864 |
On 29 Sep 2026 10:56:10 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote: > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote or quoted: >>Maxwell did not say one way or other whether the speed of light is c >>relative to its source. From what he did say we can infer that he >>thought that that depeds on the motion of the source. Maxwell thought >>that the speed of light is c in some frame that was later called ether. > > In a reference frame, Maxwell's equations yield the wave equation > > Nabla^2 E = mu_0 eps_0 d^2/dt^2 E, > > and the solutions have speed 1/sqrt(mu_0 eps_0), which is c. There is > no source term, i.e., no dependency on the speed of a source. Maxwell believed light was carried by an Aether medium. He produced a number that was close to the then estimated speed of light. It turned out to be a very important universal constant, relating to the mutual induction between electricity and magnetism. It was subsequently found to also represent the speed of light relative to its source...and there is nothing in Maxwell's equations that suggests otherwise. If you think light does not move at c relative to its source...which might be possible...I would like to hear your explanation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 04:03 +0200 |
| Subject | Speed of light (was: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space) |
| Message-ID | <117qeor$1sl8d$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #672953 |
HenryWilson wrote: > If space contains a light source, it is not empty...and according to > Maxwell, light always moves at c relative to its source. Fallacy. When we are talking about the speed of light in vacuum, we mean that the speed with which light propagates _through_ a region of space that is *otherwise* devoid of material objects, i.e. there is no transparent or translucent optical medium (like air) _between_ the location where the light (seemed to) have originated (e.g. a light source) and the location to which it propagated and where it was observed/measured. Notice that there are different qualities of vacuum, too; without qualification, in this regard we mean an ideal classical vacuum that is devoid of any real particles. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 12:06 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <117r7jc$vvmg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672953 |
On 07/09/2026 19:06, HenryWilson wrote: > If space contains a light source, it is not empty...and according to > Maxwell, light always moves at c relative to its source. If the space is bigger than the light source there could be empty space somewhere. The speed of light in air is close ehough to c for many purposes. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 23:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d3cb6e9133c335$13871$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673052 |
On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:06:51 +0300, Mikko wrote: > On 07/09/2026 19:06, HenryWilson wrote: >> If space contains a light source, it is not empty...and according to >> Maxwell, light always moves at c relative to its source. > > If the space is bigger than the light source there could be empty space > somewhere. > > The speed of light in air is close ehough to c for many purposes. The speed of light anywhere in our whole solar system is very close to c. That's why Einstein got away with it for so long
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 16:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AA1EF42.1EEE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #673064 |
HenryWilson wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:06:51 +0300, Mikko wrote: > > > On 07/09/2026 19:06, HenryWilson wrote: > >> If space contains a light source, it is not empty...and according to > >> Maxwell, light always moves at c relative to its source. > > > > If the space is bigger than the light source there could be empty space > > somewhere. > > > > The speed of light in air is close ehough to c for many purposes. > > The speed of light anywhere in our whole solar system is very close to c. > That's why Einstein got away with it for so long Eighty-nine quadrillion, eight hundred seventy-five trillion, five hundred seventeen billion, eight hundred seventy-three million, six hundred eighty-one thousand, seven hundred sixty-four. -- 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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 17:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AA1F600.7E85@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #673066 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > HenryWilson wrote: > > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:06:51 +0300, Mikko wrote: > > > > > On 07/09/2026 19:06, HenryWilson wrote: > > >> If space contains a light source, it is not empty...and according to > > >> Maxwell, light always moves at c relative to its source. > > > > > > If the space is bigger than the light source there could be empty space > > > somewhere. > > > > > > The speed of light in air is close ehough to c for many purposes. > > > > The speed of light anywhere in our whole solar system is very close to c. > > That's why Einstein got away with it for so long > > Eighty-nine quadrillion, eight hundred seventy-five trillion, five > hundred seventeen billion, eight hundred seventy-three million, six > hundred eighty-one thousand, seven hundred sixty-four. Energy = mass × Eighty-nine quadrillion, eight hundred seventy-five trillion, five hundred seventeen billion, eight hundred seventy-three million, six hundred eighty-one thousand, seven hundred sixty-four. -- 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]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d4088c83e6ec62$10632$1766332$4026de73@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673070 |
On Wed, 09 Sep 2026 17:12:48 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: >> > > The speed of light in air is close ehough to c for many purposes. >> > >> > The speed of light anywhere in our whole solar system is very close >> > to c. >> > That's why Einstein got away with it for so long >> >> Eighty-nine quadrillion, eight hundred seventy-five trillion, five >> hundred seventeen billion, eight hundred seventy-three million, six >> hundred eighty-one thousand, seven hundred sixty-four. Is that a record of your IQ's reduction over time?? (x e16)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-11 08:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AA42229.3491@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #673083 |
HenryWilson wrote: > > On Wed, 09 Sep 2026 17:12:48 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: > > >> > > The speed of light in air is close ehough to c for many purposes. > >> > > >> > The speed of light anywhere in our whole solar system is very close > >> > to c. > >> > That's why Einstein got away with it for so long > >> > >> Eighty-nine quadrillion, eight hundred seventy-five trillion, five > >> hundred seventeen billion, eight hundred seventy-three million, six > >> hundred eighty-one thousand, seven hundred sixty-four. > > Is that a record of your IQ's reduction over time?? (x e16) > That was simply an English translation of Albert Einstein's formular for the atomic bomb. E=M c^2 E stands for Energy = stands for equals M stands for Mass and the c^2 translated in English is: Eighty-nine quadrillion, eight hundred seventy-five trillion, five hundred seventeen billion, eight hundred seventy-three million, six hundred eighty-one thousand, seven hundred sixty-four. I don't know what language you speak... do you want the German version? In German E is L -- 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]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 11:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s15zjv.vgd6js1swj5zeN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672953 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > If space contains a light source, it is not empty...and according to > Maxwell, light always moves at c relative to its source. Maxwell never said that, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 23:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d3cbac4057c608$13872$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673054 |
On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 11:31:58 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> If space contains a light source, it is not empty...and according to >> Maxwell, light always moves at c relative to its source. > > Maxwell never said that, Even though he would have known it he couldn't say it because it conflicted with his belief in the Aether. So after studying his equations, I have said it for him. > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 23:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s18oav.1cou9ov1epdu03N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #673065 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 11:31:58 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > > > >> If space contains a light source, it is not empty...and according to > >> Maxwell, light always moves at c relative to its source. > > > > Maxwell never said that, > > Even though he would have known it he couldn't say it because it > conflicted with his belief in the Aether. > So after studying his equations, I have said it for him. So you are a cheater. Again, no surprise, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web