The speed of light is NOT constant - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31st August 2011, 09:09 PM   #21
Zen Mod is offline Zen Mod  Serbia
Official Court Jester
diyAudio Member
Zen Mod's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ancient Batsch , behind Iron Curtain
well -somebody first need to prove that there is something to measure ;

what's that thing - "light" , anyway ?

my Papa is smarter than your Nelson !
clean thread; Cook Book;PSM LS Cook Book;Baby DiyA ;Mighty ZM's Bloggg;Papatreasure;Papa... by Mighty ZM
Old 1st September 2011, 12:53 PM   #22
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: VA
Special Relativity cannot be proven. SRT only applies to cases with no acceleration or gravity. Since there is gravity everywhere in our universe, no SRT experiment can be performed in the absence of gravity.
Old 1st September 2011, 01:18 PM   #23
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2007
The minor flaw in your argument is that general relativity includes special relativity as a limiting case. Every time GR has been tested it passes the test, while other rival theories seem to fall one by one. If GR is true, then SR has to be true too. BTW if you want proof then you have to do mathematics, not physics. Science never proves anything, and never claims to. It is only journalists and the public who demand proof, which shows they don't actually understand what they are asking.

One day GR will fail a test, and a new theory will be needed. This new theory will almost certainly include GR as a limiting case, so in turn will include SR too.

To be honest, I wish GR were not true because I don't like the idea of physics being hijacked by geometers but I can't argue with experimental data. You might wish SR were not true. The experiments say you are wrong.
Old 1st September 2011, 01:28 PM   #24
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
7n7is, there is merit in your thinking. In science, the general approach is to observe, produce a hypothesis for the observation and then test the hypothesis via experiment.

The scientific approach never produces PROOF.

It only produces evidence which supports or destroys a hypothesis. That is one of the reasons scientists speak of "theory". Theory does not mean "not fact", it means "most acceptable model".

To weaken a given hypothesis will require just ONE repeatable experimental observation which departs from the proposed model, even if there are numerous other experiments which confirm the hypothesis.

The outlier result will point to the fact that the hypothesis is incomplete and needs revising, assuming the experiments have been correctly done.

On the speed of light (c): There is no PROOF, only evidence, that it is constant in a given medium at this time.

Hope this helps.
Ryan, Chemical Synthesis Ph.D.
Old 1st September 2011, 01:34 PM   #25
hates ground loops
diyAudio Member
Rodeodave's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the alps
Blog Entries: 1
Originally Posted by Zen Mod View Post
what's that thing - "light" , anyway ?

"light is an electromagnetic disturbance, propagated through the field according to electromagnetic laws"

Turns out to be a disturbance, that so-called "light". Better close the blinds then...
Gravity - Making the G since 13.7 billion B.C.
Old 1st September 2011, 02:19 PM   #26
Pano is online now Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
Pano's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SW Florida
Blog Entries: 4
Originally Posted by Zen Mod View Post
what's that thing - "light" , anyway ?
Light is the opposite of Heavy. Or in Advertising speak, Lite is the opposite of "Full Flavored". Of course all this is relative.
Old 1st September 2011, 03:01 PM   #27
wg_ski is offline wg_ski  United States
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Originally Posted by Pano View Post
Or in Advertising speak, Lite is the opposite of "Full Flavored".
To heck with all this "lite". How about 80-proof? Warp drive was invented by a drunk.
Old 2nd September 2011, 08:53 PM   #28
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: VA
General Relativity has nothing to do with Special Relativity and has nothing to do with relativity in general. It was called this by Einstein and his followers to help cover up Einstein's plagiarism and use mystification to try to cover up the logical absurdities. Einstein wasn't the first to propose that a beam of light bent in a gravitational field. Soldner did that long before Einstein, so did Isaac Newton. Einstein plagiarized Gerber's and Hilbert's mathematics when working on GR, too.

Special Relativity has nothing to do with relativity, either. Its based on the wrong assumption that aether drift experiments measure an absolute velocity based on the wrong assumption that the aether is at absolute rest. Lorentz published in 1895 that the aether is NOT at absolute rest based on his theory. Also, undergraduate physics experiments prove gravity is NOT curved space since the path of a falling object or projectile in a gravitaional field is affected by its velocity. If it was curved space, all projectiles would follow the same path in spite of its velocity which doesn't happen. Eric Baird explains gravity with his aether density gradient theory, ie. the properties of the aether vary with gravitational potential. This explains the difference in speed of light with gravitational potential and the gravitational time dilation effect.

Stellar aberration experiments with binary stars also proves that the earth is moving through the transmitting medium of light, ie. the aether exists and the pre-Einsteinian aether theories are right and Einstein is wrong.
Old 2nd September 2011, 09:14 PM   #29
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2007
There is no point in continuing this discussion. Learn some physics, even if you disagree with it. Find out what a geodesic is, and see how in flat space it naturally includes SR. Find out how gravitational bending of light predicted by GR (confirmed by experiment) is different from the naive classical value.

I have nothing more to say.
Old 2nd September 2011, 09:27 PM   #30
diyAudio Member
leadbelly's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Originally Posted by wg_ski View Post
Warp drive was invented by a drunk.
And was best exploited by Jewish Canadian starship captains
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

Closed Thread

Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cosmological constant.... mikeks The Lounge 402 21st February 2005 03:27 PM
Constant current PRBS Pass Labs 6 24th March 2002 12:49 PM

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:25 PM.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2017 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2