On Sep 10, 11:08Â am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
>> 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. Â 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? Â You can't
>> even keep it in your mind and not forget the difference
>> between electromagnetic waves and electromagnetic
>> charge. Â 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?
This is where I say, "gotcha!" Guess what? DC
doesn't have a frequency. DC is not a wave at all.
Now, Mr. Berry, meet Dingle.
> 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.
So now you are trying to pretend you never made
the mistake, but I did. Shameful.
>>> 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. Â 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.
You are not authorized to tell me what I am
not authorized to tell you that you are authorized
to say. Look, we are a free people. You can't
force us to kneel down and pray to the Institute
for Creation Physics.
>>> 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. Â Phase
>> velocity changes in different media are not a product
>> of relative velocity. Â 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.
Where did I prove that again? This space is provided
for you to reproduce that proof:---->
> Apparently you are still too stupid to understand the
> difference between physical wavelength and "percieved"
> wavelength.
Apparently you are still too stoopid to stick to the
subject at hand.
> You poor thing,
> I do feel sorry for you.
Well, good. I'm glad someone sympathizes with my
plight here. Talking to walls isn't easy, you know.
>
> offer to the science of physics in this group>
You forgot to redact the word "dingleberry" from your
message. And the word "stupid." Here's another word
for you to redact: hypocrit.
> You should learn how to measure relative speed someday,
> you may actually find out all speeds are relative.
Did I ever say anything else?
> 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.
> :)
I guess it all depends on your frame of reference.
I don't think the speed of dingleberries is invariant.
