On Sep 9, 8:49Â pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
>> 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 seem to have your AC crossed with your DC
there. I know it's easy to do, what with gay marriage
in Massachussettes, where they used to hunt witches.
>>You need a conductor. Â 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.
And that has exactly what to do with the propagation
of 60Hz electromagnetic waves, hmm? You can't
even keep it in your mind and not forget the difference
between electromagnetic waves and electromagnetic
charge. But, here, if you like, is space for you to
cite where AC current was propagated through the
air:---->
> You are a dingleberry with no hope of following real science
> anymore.
Neener neener neener.
>> 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. Â Or, you
>> can view it as a result of the wave nature of light. Â 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. Â 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.
Yes, a different resonance frequency of the medium.
Denser material. Here's an M&M for you wondrous
performance.
> You are a moron.
> Get a clue some year.
Given your performance here, you are not
authorized to say such things.
>>> 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. Â 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.
Yes, and it is irrelevant to the question of the relationship
between the relative velocities of the source and observer
and the speed of propagation of the photons. Phase
velocity changes in different media are not a product
of relative velocity. Anyway, do the experiment with
neutrinos if you like, which don't interact much at all
with matter, and always propagate at c, regardless of
the relative velocity of the source.
> Apparently you love to remain brainwashed and clueless.
> I feel sorry for you.
> :)
Yeah, yeah, it's always everybody else who is "brainwashed
and clueless" to the crackpot.
True Believer:"Allah, why is it the scientific community does
not accept our creation physics? Could it have something to
do with this empiricism thing I keep hearing about?"
Allah: "No, my child. They are brainwashed and clueless, now
strap this bomb to your torso and shut up. We'll show their
infidelic asses!"
>> 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. Â 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. Â Go ahead. Â Your task is
>> before you. Â 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.
Does it involve a perpetual motion machine? Perhaps
an orgone generator and krillian photography? Can
you bring Velikovsky back from the dead with it?
Evidently, the scientific community doesn't take your
little wamboozie machine seriously, because they are
still stuck on stoopid, believing that c has been observed
to be absolute. If you used satellites, at least they may
listen, because it would involve some more expensive
expertise. The union would be pleased.
Anyway, guess what? The scientific community has
already confirmed to its satisfaction that c is absolute,
not relative to the velocity of the observer or the source.
Perhaps you should look up those experiments and
debunk them for us in the space provided here:---->
>>> 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.
Well, if you represent the future, I guess there's a dark
age ahead.
>>>> Hint: frequency and speed are two independent variables.
>
>>> Hint: speed changes frequency detected.
>
>> Beside the point. Â My statement was in a response to
>> your conflation of speed and frequency. Â 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. Â Hell, it
>> could have been gamma rays photons I was
>> referring to. Â 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. Â 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.
A redshift of z > 4 indicates an (apparent) recession
velocity (we won't get into gravitational redshift, because
there's no need to confuse you any more) in excess
of 93%% of the speed of light. The highest redshift
observed in a quasar is z = 6.43 for the object known
as CFHQS J2329-0301. Source:
Willott, Chris J. et al., Four Quasars Above Redshift 6
Discovered by the Canada-France High-z Quasar Survey,
The Astronomical Journal (2007), v. 134, pp. 2435–2450
Neat, huh?
And, actually, galaxies with higher redshifts than that
have been observed.
>> 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
Was this in Arkansas? Did you also show him how to
run AC current through the air, and how to build your
perpetual motion machine?
> 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.
> :(
I am comprehending you just fine. The issue is that
you don't seem to realize you are wrong. Yet. Or
you are just pretending for the sake of being contrarian.
