Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #480321
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. |
| Date | 2018-12-20 18:43 +0000 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <pvgnso$b9d$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <9ZlSD.26319$MB6.12252@fx33.am4> <ba41fda4-fba9-407f-a269-4826d16599b2@googlegroups.com> <T5vSD.9848$Ck1.7387@fx18.am4> <020892ea-7a00-47f2-b79b-586391a91708@googlegroups.com> <onPSD.30167$jz5.11388@fx41.am4> |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > 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! Ken has absolutely no idea what the inverse square law means in term of numbers. It’s a phrase he’s heard somewhere but what he thinks it might mean has no bearing on what it does mean. Ask him. He will dodge. > > keith stein > > . >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
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