> On Sep 8, 10:30 pm, "Spaceman"
> wrote:
>>> On Sep 8, 9:07 pm, "Spaceman"
>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 8, 8:41 pm, "Spaceman"
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 8, 7:11 pm, "Spaceman"
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 8, 5:20 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:44:50 -0600, Malrassic Park
>>>>>>>>>>
hotmail.com> wrote:>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:28:21 GMT, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Photons don't "reach" C, they are already at C to begin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with. Does that mean no protons have mass?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's get that straight.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They initially move at c wrt their source and at c+v wrt an
>>>>>>>>>>>> observer moving at -v wrt the source.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you really are a bullshitter.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh? Nobody has ever called me that before.
>>>>>>>>>> Where is the bullshit? Can't you understand plain physics?
>>
>>>>>>>>> Everybody who's smarter than a plate of fried Berkeley
>>>>>>>>> acid knows that it has been observed that c is the
>>>>>>>>> same regardless of the relative velocity of the source
>>>>>>>>> and the observer. That why Relativity came to be.
>>
>>>>>>>> Actually those that are "smarter than a plate of fried Berkeley
>>>>>>>> actually know c is a speed and can not be constant to all
>>>>>>>> frames.
>>
>>>>>>> Remember, the quote was: "smarter than a plate of
>>>>>>> fried Berkeley acid." Everybody whose smarter than
>>>>>>> a bowl of organically grown E. Coli knows that more
>>>>>>> than a century ago, in those dark medieval days,
>>>>>>> someone thought of the bright idea of measuring the
>>>>>>> speed of light in different directions, to see just what
>>>>>>> the absolute speed of the Earth was.
>>
>>>>>> Actually,
>>>>>> They came up with the idea to see if there was an "aether"
>>>>>> and of course, it failed, and all the morons jumped up and
>>>>>> said.. oh my god.. light traveled the same speed in 2 different
>>>>>> directions.
>>>>>> And the morons still can not grasp that is only proof that
>>>>>> light travels at a constant "c" to all "at rest" frames only.
>>
>>>>>>> And, voila,
>>>>>>> they discovered it was the same in all directions.
>>
>>>>>> To only "AT REST" frames.
>>
>>>>>>> Imagine that. And this is in an accelerating frame
>>>>>>> of reference.
>>
>>>>>> The source nor the observer are accelerating towards
>>>>>> nor away from each other.
>>>>>> Read this part slow...
>>>>>> AT REST frames.
>>>>>> So...No proof of constant to all frames at all.
>>
>>>>>> All frames on Earth that are not moving wrt to the ground
>>>>>> are "at rest" frames on Earth.
>>>>>> No proof lightspeed is constant to all "frames" has been made
>>>>>> EVER!
>>>>>> And... will not be made because lightspeed can not break
>>>>>> the rule of "relative" speed.
>>
>>>>> Well, you should be able to find a quasar receding
>>>>> at greater than 90%% of c, then, and prove by observation
>>>>> that the photons from that quasar are moving at less than
>>>>> 10%% of c relative to us.
>>
>>>> Hmm?
>>>> 90%% speed loss?
>>>> I don't think that would even make it here.
>>
>>> And yet, it has.
>>
>> You know of a quasar heading away from us at 0.9c?
>> Where did you find such info?
>>
>>>> It would be making such long waves as it flew away
>>>> they would be more like sound wave lengths than light wave lengths
>>>> :)-
>>
>>> Um. There are 60 Hz electromagnetic waves all around us.
>>> That's many octaves below middle-C in terms of frequency,
>>> but they still move at c if they are electromagnetic waves.
>>
>> No
>> Actually they do not move at c on Earth here.
>> You should learn a bit about them before you say such like that.
>> In fact...
>> It is a tiny bit slower from the atmosphere.
>
> Actually 60Hz photons do not move at all through the
> atmosphere.
LOL
With enough power they do dingleberry.
You truly are lost.
LOL
>You need a conductor. If you knew
> anything at all about the electromagnetic spectrum,
> you'd realize that.
If you had any clue about such you would know that with
enough power, glass even becomes electrified.
You are a dingleberry with no hope of following real science
anymore.
> And, in actuality, light photons still propagate at c, it
> just just that they are absorbed and re-emitted by the
> myriad atoms in the medium they encounter. Or, you
> can view it as a result of the wave nature of light. The
> closer the light is to the resonance frequency of a
> material medium, the greater the effect on its phase.
> Traversal of a plasma can actually result in a phase
> velocity greater than c. The photons, however, are
> still only propagating at c.
Ya OK,
That is why they take longer to travel down fibre optics
than they do in air.
You are a moron.
Get a clue some year.
>> c is for vacuum... just like c is for cookie and it's good enough
>> for me. c is not for "medium" speeds.
>> mediums such as air and water. slow down c.
>> You should stop thinking anything other than such.
>
> See above. This is really worse than a red herring anyway.
> It's an infrared herring.
No,
It is fact about distances being traveled and time it takes
to travel them.
Light travels slower in certain mediums.
Apparently you love to remain brainwashed and clueless.
I feel sorry for you.
:)
> If you wanted to prove that the speed of propagation of
> photons varied with the relative speed of the source, it
> would be easy enough to conduct that experiment. Take
> two satellites in geosynchronous orbit and one in lower
> orbit, where it's orbital velocity is neccessarily higher.
> Measure the time it takes for radio signals to transfer
> between the satellites.
>
> Suggest this experiment to NASA.
> You'd be in for a Nobel Prize if it shows that a radio
> beam from the lower orbit satellite is faster than one from
> the geosynchronous satellite. Go ahead. Your task is
> before you. I'm sure you can use the cash prize.
Why bother with sats?
I already gave an experiment in the sci.physics group
that proves light is not constant to all and it is very simple
to setup.
>> Ya Ok,
>> Try stepping into the 21's century.
>> c only is true for "at rest" frames in vacuum
>> You really should grab a clue some year. MR 20th century.
>> :)
>
> This is 20th century physics we are discussing.
> I thought that before you were ushered to the
> 21st, you'd have to be welcomed to the 20th.
I am trying to get you into the 21st century where people
with brains know that "lightspeed" is relative, and only constant
to "at rest" frames.
I see you don't want to jump into the future yet.
You poor thing.
>>> Hint: frequency and speed are two independent variables.
>>
>> Hint: speed changes frequency detected.
>
> Beside the point. My statement was in a response to
> your conflation of speed and frequency. Here is your
> text:
>
>> Hmm?
>> 90%% speed loss?
>> I don't think that would even make it here.
>> It would be making such long waves as it flew away
>> they would be more like sound wave lengths than light wave lengths
>> :)
>
> Of course, there is red shift, but I wasn't even
> neccessarily talking about the light section
> of the electromagnetic spectrum. Hell, it
> could have been gamma rays photons I was
> referring to. Or even higher frequencies than that.
> Anyway, there certainly have been quasars
> detected with a red-shift indicating a recession
> at over 90%% c.
>
> Anyway, it seemed you were saying that photons
> couldn't have longer wavelengths than sound. Maybe
> you didn't mean that, but it sounded that way.
As I said,
Please show me the quasar that is moving away from us at
90%% of c.
I never heard of such a find.
I think they have goofed up badly on that one.
> I'm starting to think you are old enough to have
> received your education before Special Relativity
> was even conceived, much less born.
No,
I actually showed my teacher problems with Special Relativity
and passed all my science classes with A+'s
And if you actually thought on your own you would be
able to understand what I am saying.
But i see you can not comprehend anythign except your
own brainwashing anymore.
:(
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
