> On Sep 9, 8:49 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. 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:---->
Here is where I say, Where the hell did you say it had
to be AC current?
I see you really have no clue about "e/m" waves and
the fact that not all 60Hz e/m waves are AC.
You truly should wake up some day.
>> 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.
You are not authorized to tell me what I am authorized to say
at all.
>> 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.
Again, you prove you have no clue how to measure
a "relative" speed.
Apparently you are still too stupid to understand the
difference between physical wavelength and "percieved"
wavelength.
You poor thing,
I do feel sorry for you.
offer to the science of physics in this group>
You should learn how to measure relative speed someday,
you may actually find out all speeds are relative.
Until you find such out, it is wonderful how you can ignore
relative motion to support a relative motion theory.
You are a dingleberry, stage 1.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
