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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391303 > unrolled thread

The measurement of the velocity of light.

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

Contents

  The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-08-31 11:56 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-08-31 12:24 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 08:09 +1000
        Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-03 18:41 -0700
          Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:32 +1000
            Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 04:38 -0700
              Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:30 +1000
                Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 18:45 -0700
                  Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-07 06:00 +1000
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. intuitionist1@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 00:54 -0700
        Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 00:59 -0700
          Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. intuitionist1@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 01:10 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-08-31 12:29 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-08-31 12:37 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-08-31 13:08 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-08-31 12:38 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-08-31 13:09 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 14:34 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-31 15:03 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 14:35 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 10:20 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-09-01 11:58 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-01 12:23 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-09-01 13:29 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-02 02:12 +0000
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-01 12:38 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-01 13:38 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-01 14:37 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-02 12:20 +1000
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-09-01 19:53 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-02 11:22 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-02 12:57 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-02 14:40 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 16:22 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-02 17:57 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 18:29 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-03 03:55 +0000
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 18:36 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-03 06:02 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 18:43 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 11:45 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-03 19:04 +0000
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 11:49 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 11:59 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-09-03 21:37 +0200
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 13:17 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 13:22 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 13:23 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-04 15:09 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-06 12:36 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 20:11 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-06 13:43 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 14:50 -0700
        Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 20:16 -0700
          Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 21:07 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-07 15:45 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-08 15:42 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 18:43 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-08 20:39 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 20:13 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-08 20:51 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 21:17 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-09 11:03 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:46 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-10 09:30 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 16:44 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 14:31 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-11 08:42 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 13:14 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-11 13:38 -0700
        Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-11 14:17 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 15:24 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-11 15:39 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 17:00 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 17:03 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-12 10:09 -0700
        Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:12 +0200
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 12:17 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 13:01 -0700
        Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-15 12:14 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-15 11:27 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 13:24 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 14:31 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 16:14 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 19:18 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-15 12:34 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 20:33 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 15:23 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-15 16:13 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 16:30 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-16 08:07 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 17:53 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 16:35 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-18 06:14 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 13:47 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-18 14:56 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-18 15:59 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 16:03 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-18 20:24 -0500
        Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. intuitionist1@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 01:01 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 17:04 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 18:39 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 15:40 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 14:18 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-20 20:04 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 11:31 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-21 14:52 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 13:31 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-23 12:55 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 10:24 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-23 11:24 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:32 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-23 15:24 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 14:07 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-24 14:40 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-27 08:42 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 16:58 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 17:20 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 16:00 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 10:30 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 14:05 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 14:13 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 14:32 -0700
        Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 03:15 +0000
          Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 05:18 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-29 13:17 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 14:44 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-29 15:54 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 19:40 -0700
        Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 03:59 +0000
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-30 12:57 -0700
      Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 06:00 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 12:40 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 11:28 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 15:58 -0700
    Re: The measurement of the velocity of light. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 10:58 -0700

Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

#394170

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:30:49 AM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [Nothing but mumblings and regurgitations.]

Take your vomit elsewhere

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

#394173

MAXWELL assumes that since radio waves and light propagate at the same velocity that light has an electromagnetic field structure but Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous and cannot be used to represent an electromagnetic field structure of light. In addition, it is not physically possible to determine the velocity of light. Roemer (1676) did not calculate the velocity of light. Huygens (1690) measures the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter KL (fig 23) and a 22 minute time delay (Huygens, p. 9) but.......................which proves Huygens measurement of the velocity of light is physically invalid and cannot be used to justify Maxwell's theory. Fizeau (1849) uses a rotating cogwheel to form a series of light pulses to generated an intensity that is used to measure the velocity of light but to measure the velocity of light requires the time a single light pulse propagates a specific distance which proves Fizeau's experiment is invalid since the rotating cogwheel cannot produce a single light pulse; consequently, Fabry-Perot (1989) interferometer is employed to measure the velocity of light using the interferometer's diffraction pattern to obtain a wavelength that is used in the wave equation (λf = c) to determine the velocity of light but the optical ether, composed of matter, that forms the light wave represented with the wave equation does not physically exist (vacuum); consequently, the wave equation (λf = c) cannot be used to determine the velocity of light. Furthermore, a Kerr shutter is used to measure the velocity of light but Kerr's nanosecond shutter speed cannot form a measurable intensity after a single light pulse propagates a distance of 8 km which is experimental proof the velocity of light has not been measured. One should look at the flip (sudden and complete chance in the method to determining the velocity of light) that is occurring since Fabry-Perot interferometer is completely different from Fizeau cogwheel and Huygens Io methods of measuring the velocity of light. We have to ask why are physicists using completely different methods and why physicists do not use the Hubble to verify Huygens' method or use the MIT lunar reflector experiment to measure the velocity of light. It is not physically possible to measure the velocity of light using the current state of physics. The last revolution is physics occurred in the 1400's when the theory that the earth was the center of the solar system was reversed. Now, we are at a second physics revolution that could possible bring greater prosperity than the first revolution that lasted until 1905 with Planck and Einstein. Peace love and hippie girls. 

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

#394178

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 3:13:10 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [Nothing but mumblings and regurgitations.] 

Take your vomit elsewhere

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

#394205

Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes:

>On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 3:13:10 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> [Nothing but mumblings and regurgitations.] 

>Take your vomit elsewhere

That guy just reposts the same stuff even though I and others responded 
and told him why it was wrong. I told him to respond to my response and
not to just repost the same discredited stuff.  He reposts it anyway, and 
I will no longer respond to, or even read his posts any longer.

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

#394246

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 9:15:05 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 3:13:10 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > [Nothing but mumblings and regurgitations.] 
> >
> > Take your vomit elsewhere
> 
> That guy just reposts the same stuff even though I and others responded 
> and told him why it was wrong. I told him to respond to my response and
> not to just repost the same discredited stuff.  He reposts it anyway, and 
> I will no longer respond to, or even read his posts any longer.

Yep, he's just another stupid regurgitating troll like Vomitous Valev.

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

#394281

That guy just reposts the same stuff even though I and others responded 
and told him why it was wrong. I told him to respond to my response and 
not to just repost the same discredited stuff.  He reposts it anyway, and 
I will no longer respond to, or even read his posts any longer.


__________________________________________________________________________


I disagree with what you are saying since you have not proven that I am wrong. You have simply refused to justify why I am wrong but maybe I am wrong and since as you have stated I am so simple lets start all over with:


1. Did Roemer (1676) measure the velocity of light?

2. Did Huygens measure the velocity of light?

3. Can Fizeau cogwheel produce a single light pulse?

4. Is Fabry-Perot (1989) interferometer velocity of light experiment based on the wave equation (λf = c) and an optical ether, compose of matter?

5. Can a Kerr shutter pulse beam produce a detectable intensity?


Imagine that you have been given a legal interrogator and are under subpoena directed by a US Federal Judge in a civil lawsuit to answer the above questions and if you answer falsely you would be held in contempt of court (perjury) which is a felony.

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

#394290

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 2:17:58 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
> > That guy just reposts the same stuff even though I and others responded 
> > and told him why it was wrong. I told him to respond to my response and 
> > not to just repost the same discredited stuff.  He reposts it anyway, and 
> > I will no longer respond to, or even read his posts any longer.
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> I disagree with what you are saying since you have not proven that I am
> wrong.

Tough!  No one is obligated to prove anything to you.  You come along
and repeat garbage with NO acknowledgment of those who have told you
you are wrong.

> You have simply refused to justify why I am wrong

Incorrect.

> but maybe I am wrong

Your baloney has been refuted, and you are definitely wrong.

> and since as you have stated I am so simple lets start all over with:
> 
> 1. Did Roemer (1676) measure the velocity of light?

Yes.

> 2. Did Huygens measure the velocity of light?

Yes.

> 3. Can Fizeau cogwheel produce a single light pulse?

Yes.  A train of pulses contains a number of single pulses.

> 4. Is Fabry-Perot (1989) interferometer velocity of light experiment
> based on the wave equation (λf = c)

Yes.

> and an optical ether, compose of matter?

Not necessarily.  Light has properties that we normally think of as
consistent with waves and particles, but there is no "optical ether"
that has what we consider as having "mechanical" properties.

> 5. Can a Kerr shutter pulse beam produce a detectable intensity?

Yes.

> Imagine that you have been given a legal interrogator and are under
> subpoena directed by a US Federal Judge in a civil lawsuit to answer
> the above questions and if you answer falsely you would be held in
> contempt of court (perjury) which is a felony.

YOU do not constitute a court and you have no legal status, so cut the
baloney.  I have answered your questions truthfully according to my
understanding.

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

#394297

Dear Gary,                                  Dated: Sept 29 2016



         I am extremely sorry to inform you that you have been banned. Until you change your tone to a more congenial affect that is conducive to a more civil conversation you will continued to be banned. Thank you.



Ben

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

#394320

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 4:54:15 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Gary,                                  Dated: Sept 29 2016
> 
> 
> 
>          I am extremely sorry to inform you that you have been banned.

So you can't take the truth.  Typical of a lying scumbag.

> Until you change your tone to a more congenial affect that is conducive
> to a more civil conversation you will continued to be banned. Thank you.
> 
> Ben

Yep, you are a rotten scumbag who can't face the truth.  I answered ALL
of your questions so you revert to dishonesty ... again.

YOU are banned from communicating with me because you have proven yourself
to be just another stupid, lying troll.

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

#394332

Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes:

>On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 4:54:15 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Dear Gary,                                  Dated: Sept 29 2016
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>          I am extremely sorry to inform you that you have been banned.

>So you can't take the truth.  Typical of a lying scumbag.

>> Until you change your tone to a more congenial affect that is conducive
>> to a more civil conversation you will continued to be banned. Thank you.
>> 
>> Ben

>Yep, you are a rotten scumbag who can't face the truth.  I answered ALL
>of your questions so you revert to dishonesty ... again.

>YOU are banned from communicating with me because you have proven yourself
>to be just another stupid, lying troll.

This is funny.  The troll apparently didn't know how to respond.

Anyway, to the Troll "Ben":  As I stated before, although in different
words, You are also banned from communicating with me as well, as you
refuse to accept the fact that Usenet newsgroups are for discussion.  
Reposting the same thing over and over is not discussion, but spam.

*plonk*

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

#394429

MaweLL assumes that since radio waves and light propagate at the same velocity that light has an electromagnetic field structure but Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous and cannot be used to represent an electromagnetic field structure of light. In addition, it is not physically possible to determine the velocity of light. Roemer (1676) did not calculate the velocity of light. Huygens (1690) measures the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter KL (fig 23) and a 22 minute time delay (Huygens, p. 9) but.......................which proves Huygens measurement of the velocity of light is physically invalid and cannot be used to justify Maxwell's theory. Fizeau (1849) uses a rotating cogwheel to form a series of light pulses to generated an intensity that is used to measure the velocity of light but to measure the velocity of light requires the time a single light pulse propagates a specific distance which proves Fizeau's experiment is invalid since the rotating cogwheel cannot produce a single light pulse; consequently, Fabry-Perot (1989) interferometer is employed to measure the velocity of light using the interferometer's diffraction pattern to obtain a wavelength that is used in the wave equation (λf = c) to determine the velocity of light but the optical ether, composed of matter, that forms the light wave represented with the wave equation does not physically exist (vacuum); consequently, the wave equation (λf = c) cannot be used to determine the velocity of light. Furthermore, a Kerr shutter is used to measure the velocity of light but Kerr's nanosecond shutter speed cannot form a measurable intensity after a single light pulse propagates a distance of 8 km which is experimental proof the velocity of light has not been measured. One should look at the flip (sudden and complete chance in the method to determining the velocity of light) that is occurring since Fabry-Perot interferometer is completely different from Fizeau cogwheel and Huygens Io methods of measuring the velocity of light. We have to ask why are physicists using completely different methods and why physicists do not use the Hubble to verify Huygens' method or use the MIT lunar reflector experiment to measure the velocity of light. It is not physically possible to measure the velocity of light using the current state of physics. The last revolution is physics occurred in the 1400's when the theory that the earth was the center of the solar system was reversed. Now, we are at a second physics revolution that could possible bring greater prosperity than the first revolution that lasted until 1905 with Planck and Einstein. Peace love and pretty hippie girls.



PLeases answer ask the following questions and justify your response using quote from the actual text. Example, if your answer is yes to question 1, then use statements from Roemer paper to justify your quotes:.


1. Did Roemer (1676) measure the velocity of light?. 

2. Did Huygens measure the velocity of light?. 

3. Can Fizeau cogwheel produce a exculsive single light pulse?. 

4. Is Fabry-Perot (1989) interferometer velocity of light experiment based on the wave equation (λf = c) and an optical ether, compose of matter?. 

5. Can a Kerr shutter pulse beam produce a detectable intensity?. 


Imagine that you have been given a legal interrogator and are under subpoena directed by a US Federal Judge in a civil lawsuit to answer the above questions and if you answer falsely you would be held in contempt of court (perjury) which is a felony.. 

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

#394469

Wonder if space time is moving & light is Not moving?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf


Looking through a Keyhole with a fish eye lense. 

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

#394513

Maxwell assumes that since radio waves and light propagate at the same velocity that light has an electromagnetic field structure but Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous and cannot be used to represent an electromagnetic field structure of light. In addition, it is not physically possible to determine the velocity of light. Roemer (1676) did not calculate the velocity of light. Huygens (1690) measures the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter KL (fig 23) and a 22 minute time delay (Huygens, p. 9) but.......................which proves Huygens measurement of the velocity of light is physically invalid and cannot be used to justify Maxwell's theory. Fizeau (1849) uses a rotating cogwheel to form a series of light pulses to generated an intensity that is used to measure the velocity of light but to measure the velocity of light requires the time a single light pulse propagates a specific distance which proves Fizeau's experiment is invalid since the rotating cogwheel cannot produce a single light pulse; consequently, Fabry-Perot (1989) interferometer is employed to measure the velocity of light using the interferometer's diffraction pattern to obtain a wavelength that is used in the wave equation (λf = c) to determine the velocity of light but the optical ether, composed of matter, that forms the light wave represented with the wave equation does not physically exist (vacuum); consequently, the wave equation (λf = c) cannot be used to determine the velocity of light. Furthermore, a Kerr shutter is used to measure the velocity of light but Kerr's nanosecond shutter speed cannot form a measurable intensity after a single light pulse propagates a distance of 8 km which is experimental proof the velocity of light has not been measured. One should look at the flip (sudden and complete chance in the method to determining the velocity of light) that is occurring since Fabry-Perot interferometer is completely different from Fizeau cogwheel and Huygens Io methods of measuring the velocity of light. We have to ask why are physicists using completely different methods and why physicists do not use the Hubble to verify Huygens' method or use the MIT lunar reflector experiment to measure the velocity of light. It is not physically possible to measure the velocity of light using the current state of physics. The last revolution is physics occurred in the 1400's when the theory that the earth was the center of the solar system was reversed. Now, we are at a second physics revolution that could possible bring greater prosperity than the first revolution that lasted until 1905 with Planck and Einstein. Peace love and pretty hippie girls with hair legs. 



PLeases answer the following questions and justify your response.


1. Did Roemer (1676) measure the velocity of light? 

2. Did Huygens measure the velocity of light? 

3. Can Fizeau cogwheel produce a single light pulse? 

4. Is Fabry-Perot (1989) interferometer velocity of light experiment based on the wave equation (λf = c) and an optical ether, compose of matter? 

5. Can a Kerr shutter pulse beam produce a detectable intensity? 


Imagine that you have been given a legal interrogator and are under subpoena directed by a US Federal Judge in a civil lawsuit to answer the above questions and if you answer falsely you would be held in contempt of court (perjury) which is a felony.


1. No. Roemer never calculated the velocity of light in his three page paper. If he did state the passage. 


2. Yes. Huygens calculated the velocity of light but..............quid pro quo


3. No. Fizeau cogwheel can form a single light pulse. Fizeau cogwheel forms a series of light pulses which does not represent a single light pulse.


4. Yes. A wave is a mechanical entity that requires a medium composed of matter. Also Maxwell's electromagnetic field cannot be the medium since Faraday's induction effect is propagating at the velocity of light.

5. Yes and No. At a point just in front of the Kerr shutter an intensity can be detected but after the pulse propagates a distance a distance of 8 km no intensity is formed.

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

#394617

Has anyone figure not what wrong with Huygens' measurement?

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

#394765

Mawell assumes that since radio waves and light propagate at the same velocity that light has an electromagnetic field structure but Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous and cannot be used to represent an electromagnetic field structure of light. In addition, it is not physically possible to determine the velocity of light. Roemer (1676) did not calculate the velocity of light. Huygens (1690) measures the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter KL (fig 23) and a 22 minute time delay (Huygens, p. 9) but.......................which proves Huygens measurement of the velocity of light is physically invalid and cannot be used to justify Maxwell's theory. Fizeau (1849) uses a rotating cogwheel to form a series of light pulses to generated an intensity that is used to measure the velocity of light but to measure the velocity of light requires the time a single light pulse propagates a specific distance which proves Fizeau's experiment is invalid since the rotating cogwheel cannot produce a single light pulse; consequently, Fabry-Perot (1989) interferometer is employed to measure the velocity of light using the interferometer's diffraction pattern to obtain a wavelength that is used in the wave equation (λf = c) to determine the velocity of light but the optical ether, composed of matter, that forms the light wave represented with the wave equation does not physically exist (vacuum); consequently, the wave equation (λf = c) cannot be used to determine the velocity of light. Furthermore, a Kerr shutter is used to measure the velocity of light but Kerr's nanosecond shutter speed cannot form a measurable intensity after a single light pulse propagates a distance of 8 km which is experimental proof the velocity of light has not been measured. One should look at the flip (sudden and complete chance in the method to determining the velocity of light) that is occurring since Fabry-Perot interferometer is completely different from Fizeau cogwheel and Huygens Io methods of measuring the velocity of light. We have to ask why are physicists using completely different methods and why physicists do not use the Hubble to verify Huygens' method or use the MIT lunar reflector experiment to measure the velocity of light. It is not physically possible to measure the velocity of light using the current state of physics. The last revolution is physics occurred in the 1400's when the theory that the earth was the center of the solar system was reversed. Now, we are at a second physics revolution that could possible bring greater prosperity than the first revolution that lasted until 1905 with Planck and Einstein. Peace love and pretty hippie girls. 

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

#395121

hi

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

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

csiph-web