The speed of light is NOT constant - Page 4 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

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 2nd September 2011, 09:32 PM   #31
diyAudio Member
 
7n7is's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: VA
The crystals spheres theory was highly accurate, but was replaced with Newtonian physics.
Look up stellar aberration experiments with binary stars.

Also read this http://www.physics.umd.edu/news/phot...5_Research.pdf

Last edited by 7n7is; 2nd September 2011 at 09:36 PM.
 
Old 2nd September 2011, 09:44 PM   #32
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
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.
That suggestion has been made repeatedly in the past. Mr. is has steadfastly refused to learn basic physics. It is doubtful that one more entreaty will cause him to do so. He is quite adept, however, to finding links to crank sites. Occasionally to real ones where the material is poorly (if at all) understood.

Repeatedly and deliberately posting false information is a violation of forum rules.
__________________
The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it.- George Smiley
 
Old 2nd September 2011, 11:17 PM   #33
diyAudio Member
 
7n7is's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: VA
I never posted false information and I know physics better than most people on this message board.

Look what this physics professor says about Lorentz symmetry.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/news/phot...5_Research.pdf

Last edited by 7n7is; 2nd September 2011 at 11:20 PM.
 
Old 2nd September 2011, 11:50 PM   #34
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7n7is View Post
I never posted false information and I know physics better than most people on this message board.
Where did you get your doctorate? Maybe a list of four or five peer-reviewed publications?
__________________
The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it.- George Smiley
 
Old 3rd September 2011, 12:56 AM   #35
eyoung is offline eyoung  United States
diyAudio Member
 
eyoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sunny SC,USA 15 min south of Charlotte NC
Didn't Einstien write about this something about waves and particle,effects of gravity. I think Mr Bohr(sp) had a little to add to it. As I barely understand transistors and electricity, I will leave this discussion to the people with brains and sit quietly in the margins...

Quietly listening, Elwood
__________________
"Lead me not into temptation...I can find it myself."
 
Old 3rd September 2011, 03:13 AM   #36
diyAudio Member
 
1audiohack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Las Vegas Nevada
7n7is, this stuff keeps you awake at nights doesn't it. That's really too bad. So the speed of light is not constant, so what? How does any of this affect your life or those around you in any meaningful way? How is the pursuit of this going to help you in your life? Right, it's not. It's just a distraction.

The sun came up this morning didn't it. Yup.
 
Old 4th September 2011, 02:40 AM   #37
jcx is offline jcx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..
Default Freezer magnets == evidence for Special Relativity?

this looks like fun - I ordered his book

http://johnwarthur.com/The%20Fundame...%20080820a.pdf

2.10.2 Significance of Magnetism in the Theory of Special Relativity
Text books on special relativity usually cite a familiar list of ‘relativistic corrections’ which have been
duly confirmed experimentally, furnishing evidence in favor of the theory. In some of these books,
magnetism is then shown to arise as a consequence of the theory, but very few, if any, ever mention
magnetism as being the only basic evidence for the theory of special relativity that we can observe in
everyday situations. All relativistic ‘corrections’, being typically of order (v/c)2, are very small at
ordinary velocities. Here v is the velocity of, say, a moving particle or other frame of reference, and
by ‘ordinary velocities’, we mean velocities such that v/c is no greater than about 10-5. The key
difference that makes magnetism so readily observable at ‘ordinary’ velocities is that while the electric
force between bodies filled with electrically neutral matter vanishes, the relativistic correction does not
do so when they maintain a current. The magnetic force can therefore be observed quite readily when
it is not masked by the presence of a net electric force which would be many orders of magnitude
greater. While we can indeed encounter very large magnetic forces, this is due to the fact that the
underlying electric forces, if unbalanced, would be quite enormous by comparison!
A much more subtle point is that Ampere’s force law, Equation (11), does not obey Newtonian
relativity as the forces exerted by one infinitesimal current element (or moving charge) upon another

are not generally equal and opposite. This can be readily seen from Equation (11) for the case of two
current elements, one parallel to the spatial vector r12 separating them while the other is perpendicular
to it. The force acting on the perpendicular element is zero while the force acting on the parallel
element is not, so that they evidently cannot be equal and opposite. To an observer at rest, therefore,
there is a nonzero net force acting on the pair even in the absence of any external influence. How well
forgotten is this inconvenient fact! Inconvenient, though, only because its explanation draws us into
special relativity, something all but advanced textbooks on electromagnetic theory generally seek to
avoid.
Surprising as this kind of behavior may seem even today, the whole supposition that the force between
charges varies with their velocities flies in the face on Newtonian relativity, as we can make the forces
come and go depending on the motion of the observer. The variable element, the magnetic force, is
therefore at the very heart of special relativity and not just one of the consequences of it.
2.10.3 Magnetism as Evidence for the Theory of Special Relativity?
Magnetism is has been part of the everyday world for centuries. It is in fact so commonplace that we
do not even recognize it as evidence for the theory of special relativity, like Monsieur Jourdain in
Molière’s play [43], who was greatly surprised, and impressed, to discover he had been speaking prose
all his life. The main evidence generally cited in support of special relativity is the Michelson-Morley
experiment together with the aberration of starlight pointing to the constancy of the speed of light and
the absence of an ether, and Fizeau’s experiment on the speed of light in moving liquids (see Section
5.4 below). In view of what we have just discussed in the preceding section, it is a pity, therefore, that
we rarely see statements such as:
Because we know that magnetic poles do not exist, magnetism must be explained in terms of
existing forces. Since the theory of special relativity applied to the electric force would give
rise to a force identical to the magnetic force, we must consider the observation of
magnetism as prima facie evidence supporting the theory of special relativity.
Rather, we see it stated the other way round, with magnetism being treated as an application rather
than being placed along with the other evidence. This, however, is simply part of the legacy, a result of
how the subject developed.

© IEEE 2008, Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Volume 50, No 1, February 2008

Last edited by jcx; 4th September 2011 at 02:54 AM.
 
Old 4th September 2011, 03:24 PM   #38
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Yes, in the apparent absence of magnetic monopoles, magnetism is good evidence for SR. This is not as widely known as it should be. Maybe it is because most engineers, and many scientists, learn about electricity and magnetism as two different but related things when in fact they are one thing - electromagnetism. What we call a magnetic field is just an electric field distorted by a Lorentz transformation (or vice versa).

Permanent magnets use spin, an outcome of relativistic quantum mechanics, for which there is no classical analogue at all. Spin is a bit like angular momentum, except that you may have to turn right around twice to get back to where you were.
 
Old 7th September 2011, 02:04 PM   #39
diyAudio Member
 
7n7is's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: VA
Herbert Dingle pointed out that the so called relative motion between a conductor and magnet that Einstein used as an example of relative motion in his famous 1905 article isn't really relative motion. If you move the conductor in a magnetic field you get an instantaneous change in current. If you move the magnet, the changing magnetic field (electromagnetic wave) has to travel at the speed of light to reach the conductor before there is a change in current in the conductor.

dingle shep - Google Search



Also, look up stellar aberration from binary stars like I told you to. It shows there is a prefered electromagnetic frame of reference, ie. aether.
 
Old 7th September 2011, 02:08 PM   #40
diyAudio Member
 
7n7is's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: VA
According to Bryan Wallace the speed of light between Venus and the Earth is not constant.

The Farce of Physics
 

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 05:24 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2