> On Aug 24, 3:40 pm, "Spaceman"
> wrote:

>> Sue... wrote:

>>> On Aug 24, 3:01 pm, "Spaceman"
>>> wrote:

>>>> Sue... wrote:

>>>>> On Aug 24, 1:14 pm, "Spaceman"
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> Sue... wrote:

>>>>>>> On Aug 24, 11:12 am, "Spaceman"
>>>>>>> wrote:

>>

>>>>>>>> Post this all you want Sue,

>>

>>>>>> Post this all you want Sue,
>>>>>> Post this all you want Sue,

>>>> Post this all you want Sue,

>
> << where $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ are physical constants
> which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
> which involve measuring the force of attraction between two
> fixed changes and two fixed parallel current carrying wires.
> According to the relativity principle, these experiments must
> yield the same values for $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ in all
> inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in
> all inertial frames. >>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>
> http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_impedance_of_vacuum
>
>
>

>>

>>>>>> It is a simple and factual statement that Sue and other "constant
>>>>>> speed of light" worshippers ignore, and refuse to even think
>>>>>> about.

>>

>>> =============

>>>>> If light speed is not constant how do you calculate
>>>>> the speed it propagates away from from a fast binary
>>>>> star system?

>>

>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star#Eclipsing_binaries

>>

>>> =============

>>

>>>> If you use "the speed of light as constant to all" then your motion
>>>> towards or away can not be determined at all and your motion
>>>> with the source would be considered "at rest".
>>>> If you use doppler shift as the reference then you are using
>>>> a relative speed even though you are not classically physics
>>>> trained enough to understand why.

>>

>>> Light propagating away from the binary system has no
>>> choice in the matter.

>>
>> You trulydo not even get what is being stated.
>> apparently you think if a source is moving at 0.8c it can still
>> create waves in front of it that will travel outward from
>> the source at c still.
>> I see you truly have no grasp of doppler effect at all.
>> and will never understand that lightspeed can not be constant
>> to all frames (inertial or relative frames) and can only be constant
>> to all "at rest" frames.
>>

>>> What is the speed of the light from the approaching
>>> star?

>>
>> It would depend on the relative speeds of the source and
>> the observer.
>>

>>> What is the speed of the light from the receeding
>>> star?

>>
>> Same answer.
>> It would depend on the relative speeds of the source and the
>> observer.

>
> That is about nine strikes for you in this thread alone.
> (they are letting you stay in the game so both teams
> can kick your teeth out when the discussion is over.

> << For a nearby star with a small orbital velocity
> (or whose orbital plane was almost perpendicular to
> our line of view) this might merely make the star's
> orbit seem erratic, but for a sufficient combination of
> orbital speed and distance (and inclination), the "fast"
> light given off during approach would be able to catch
> up with and even overtake "slow" light emitted earlier
> during a recessional part of the star's orbit, and the star
> would present an image that was scrambled and out of
> sequence.

> De Sitter made a study of double stars (1913) and
> found no cases where the stars' images appeared
> scrambled.

> Since the total flight-time difference between "fast"
> and "slow" lightsignals would be expected to scale linearly
> with distance in simple emission theory, and the study
> would (statistically) have included stars with a reasonable
> spread of distances and orbital speeds and orientations,
> deSitter concluded that the effect should have been seen
> if the model was correct, and its absence meant that basic
> emission theory was almost certainly wrong. >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
>
> W. de Sitter, "A proof of the constancy of the velocity of light,"
> Proceedings of the Section of Sciences
> http://www.shadetreephysics.com/desit-3e.htm
>

>> If it did not , doppler effect would never occur and we could not
>> ever know what relative speeds are occuring.

>
> Faulty reasoning known since de Sitter's time.

> Stop playing with yourself and learn some 21st century physics.
> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html