Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #480310
| Subject | Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| References | <_4eSD.13055$lN1.10956@fx13.am4> <9ZlSD.26319$MB6.12252@fx33.am4> <ba41fda4-fba9-407f-a269-4826d16599b2@googlegroups.com> <T5vSD.9848$Ck1.7387@fx18.am4> <020892ea-7a00-47f2-b79b-586391a91708@googlegroups.com> |
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
| Message-ID | <onPSD.30167$jz5.11388@fx41.am4> (permalink) |
| Organization | virginmedia.com |
| Date | 2018-12-20 16:25 +0000 |
On 20/12/2018 15:46, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is >>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good >>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a >>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly >>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be >>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to >>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been >>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in >>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly >>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth. >>> >>> Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due too the inverse square law. >> >> >> The good news is that you are right,Ken, >> indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth. > > One would not see the front end of the laser due to the inverse square law. It is dispersed in a circumference in space. >> >> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken >> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW. >> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 >> at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at >> a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters, > > At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law but the effect is so small that it is not measurable If it was obeying the inverse wquare law Ken, the power density at 10 m would be 100 times less than the power density at 1 meter. That is what the inverse square law implies Ken, and for certain at these distances no laser obeys the inverse square law Ken, even Gary knows that eh! keith stein . > > >
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 21:59 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-18 19:11 -0600
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 06:46 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-19 20:50 -0600
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-19 14:24 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 16:09 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 15:53 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 08:19 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 16:55 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 09:58 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 15:13 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 03:04 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 06:57 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-19 06:56 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 17:20 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-19 14:26 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 07:54 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 03:20 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 11:53 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 04:53 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 13:45 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 09:18 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 07:46 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 16:25 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 18:43 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 13:32 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 22:53 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 13:59 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 02:36 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-30 08:46 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 13:43 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 14:04 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 14:20 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 16:57 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 22:44 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 00:34 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 18:10 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 16:00 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:27 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 11:40 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 00:09 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 18:09 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 15:18 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 18:31 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-22 21:30 -0600
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 19:48 +0000
csiph-web