|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: SpacemanSpaceman Date: Aug 23, 2008 11:35
> 1. Why is light's velocity a constant c?
Answer:...
Because it is not.
Lights "velocity" is relative, just like anything elses velocity is.
Do you always ignore "relative motion" to support the relative motion
based theories?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
|
| |
|
| | 48 Comments |
|
|
Author: Jerry KrausJerry Kraus Date: Aug 23, 2008 11:39
On Aug 23, 1:35Â pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
>> 1. Why is light's velocity a constant c?
>
> Answer:...
> Because it is not.
> Lights "velocity" is relative, just like anything elses velocity is.
> Do you always ignore "relative motion" to support the relative motion
> based theories?
>
> --
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
> Spaceman
Probably true. Too many assumptions, too little data. Main problem
in physics since Einstein.
|
| |
|
| | 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: SpacemanSpaceman Date: Aug 23, 2008 11:49
Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On Aug 23, 1:35 pm, "Spaceman"
> wrote:
>>> 1. Why is light's velocity a constant c?
>>
>> Answer:...
>> Because it is not.
>> Lights "velocity" is relative, just like anything elses velocity is.
>> Do you always ignore "relative motion" to support the relative motion
>> based theories?
>>
>> --
>> James M Driscoll Jr
>> Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
>> Spaceman
>
> Probably true. Too many assumptions, too little data. Main problem
> in physics since Einstein.
|
| Show full article (1.76Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JohnJohn Date: Aug 23, 2008 12:30
Jerry Kraus wrote:
> Probably true. Too many assumptions, too little data. Main problem
> in physics since Einstein.
Apparently you think you would be happier with earlier understandings of
light, so please share with us what you think the earlier knowledge was
and how we would benefit from ignoring relativity.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SpacemanSpaceman Date: Aug 23, 2008 12:45
John wrote:
> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
>> Probably true. Too many assumptions, too little data. Main problem
>> in physics since Einstein.
>
> Apparently you think you would be happier with earlier understandings
> of light, so please share with us what you think the earlier
> knowledge was and how we would benefit from ignoring relativity.
|
| Show full article (1.71Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sue...Sue... Date: Aug 23, 2008 12:58
On Aug 23, 2:35 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
===
>> 1. Why is light's velocity a constant c?
>
===
> Answer:...
> Because it is not.
> Lights "velocity" is relative, just like anything elses velocity is.
That is the argument your anomalous twin worshipping
mates are making. Have they brainwashed you too?
<< Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply that the
Academy recognised the particle nature of light? The
Nobel Committee says that Einstein had found that the
energy exchange between matter and ether occurs by
atoms emitting or absorbing a quantum of energy, hv.
|
| Show full article (2.03Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SpacemanSpaceman Date: Aug 23, 2008 13:10
Sue... wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2:35 pm, "Spaceman"
> wrote:
>
> ===
>
>>> 1. Why is light's velocity a constant c?
>>
> ===
>> Answer:...
>> Because it is not.
>> Lights "velocity" is relative, just like anything elses velocity is.
>
> That is the argument your anomalous twin worshipping
> mates are making. Have they brainwashed you too?
|
| Show full article (1.02Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: Sue...Sue... Date: Aug 23, 2008 14:12
On Aug 23, 4:10 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
> Sue... wrote:
>> On Aug 23, 2:35 pm, "Spaceman"
>> wrote:
>
>> ===
>
>>>> 1. Why is light's velocity a constant c?
>
>> ===
>>> Answer:...
>>> Because it is not.
>>> Lights "velocity" is relative, just like anything elses velocity is.
>
>> That is the argument your anomalous twin worshipping
>> mates are making. Have they brainwashed you too?
>
> Wow, you truly are lost in physics Sue. ...
|
| Show full article (1.39Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: SpacemanSpaceman Date: Aug 23, 2008 14:32
Sue... wrote:
> On Aug 23, 4:10 pm, "Spaceman"
> wrote:
>> Sue... wrote:
>>> On Aug 23, 2:35 pm, "Spaceman"
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> ===
>>
>>>>> 1. Why is light's velocity a constant c?
>>
>>> ===
>>>> Answer:...
>>>> Because it is not.
>>>> Lights "velocity" is relative, just like anything elses velocity
>>>> is.
>>
>>> That is the argument your anomalous twin worshipping
>>> mates are making. Have they brainwashed you too? ...
|
| Show full article (1.94Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Sue...Sue... Date: Aug 23, 2008 16:11
On Aug 23, 5:32 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
> Please provide a physical frame of reference that proves
> lightspeed is constant to all frames and is not actually relative
> since you know so much about "physics" and SR.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
