Interesting.
You add some names of some people that may or may not have studied the matter, including more writing than I'm likely to read, and I have no choice but to grunt and carry on.
Because they have a website, doesn't mean they have to be right - it's a basic appeal to authority. That much I can see.
Think I'll just sit in the background again, there are people here much cleverer than I.
PS - light, whether it's speed in a vacuum is constant or not, is still far too fast. Much faster than anyone could ever truly comprehend.
You add some names of some people that may or may not have studied the matter, including more writing than I'm likely to read, and I have no choice but to grunt and carry on.
Because they have a website, doesn't mean they have to be right - it's a basic appeal to authority. That much I can see.
Think I'll just sit in the background again, there are people here much cleverer than I.
PS - light, whether it's speed in a vacuum is constant or not, is still far too fast. Much faster than anyone could ever truly comprehend.
Last edited:
I first read of the constant of light with reference to the frequency occupying what humans discern as red. reported as changing in Electronics World. Setterfield takes it in my opinion way too far to disproportionately satisfy a religious creation angle that the earth is not as old as presumed. GSRresearchpapers Setterfield
By the time you have read this lets hope it has not changed too much. Most of us have to find a resistor or hang out our washing, or at least put on our socks, before Dr Who
Cheers / Chris
By the time you have read this lets hope it has not changed too much. Most of us have to find a resistor or hang out our washing, or at least put on our socks, before Dr Who
Cheers / Chris
Completed his doctorate in 1905. Four papers in the Annus Mirabilis, so we can be generous and call it a tie. As for the last, probably true unless you were correct. Crank science won't get you past a committee, but making radical advances that hold up will get you your credential and a pretty lucrative career.
In any case, you answered my question. No education in physics, no publications, just a facility for finding links to cranks (or occasionally to real scientists whose work you don't understand).
I don't think so. Remember the 3 second delay on the moon missions? Easy to comprehend. How about the 4 minute delay to Mars?
In those cases, it's the distances involved I simply can't relate to - it's either the speed or distance. For me, the next city is a reasonably long way on a bike. In a car, half-way down the country is far.
Maybe it's just me, but it'd get to a point where the distances don't fit into my mind any more.
Tiny dot on a tiny dot sort of thing - as Douglas Adams has shown us, we can't afford to have a sense of perspective
Chris
PS - I wasn't actually around for the moon landings, being born in '94. I have, however, seen the videos on youTube, including all the comments saying how fake it all is.
Maybe it's just me, but it'd get to a point where the distances don't fit into my mind any more.
Tiny dot on a tiny dot sort of thing - as Douglas Adams has shown us, we can't afford to have a sense of perspective
Chris
PS - I wasn't actually around for the moon landings, being born in '94. I have, however, seen the videos on youTube, including all the comments saying how fake it all is.
Which means what?? Moving the conductor is local to the conductor, so the "instantaneous" is of course obvious, and local, no violation.
Moving the magnet is not local to the wire, so again, the delay due to C is obvious.
The magnet does not have to see the wire move in order for the wire to generate a voltage.
The magfield is already at the wire..
If that is what Dingle stated, he needs to go back to the thought experiment and fix it.
Cheers, John
Didn't take you long to get to the Jew haters. There's plenty more, I'm sure you can dig them up as well, the crank sites love 'em.
Deutsche Physik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deutsche Physik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
“ It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed . . .
The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry.
It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”[3]
”
The quotation originates from here:
Aether theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“ It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed . . .
The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry.
It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”[3]
”
The quotation originates from here:
Aether theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thim, H.W.;
Microelectron. Inst., Johannes Kepler Univ., Linz, Austria
This paper appears in: Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions on
Issue Date: Oct. 2003
Volume: 52 Issue:5
On page(s): 1660 - 1664
ISSN: 0018-9456
References Cited: 25
Cited by : 2
INSPEC Accession Number: 7778275
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/TIM.2003.817916
Date of Current Version: 27 October 2003
Sponsored by: IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Society
Abstract
An experiment is described showing that a 33-GHz microwave signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic Doppler formula. The sensitivity of the apparatus used has been tested to be sufficient for detecting frequency shifts as small as 10-3 Hz which corresponds to the value of (v/c)2 = 5.10-14 used in the transverse Doppler shift experiment reported here. From the observed absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is concluded that either the time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave background radiation.
IEEE Xplore - Absence of the relativistic transverse Doppler shift at microwave frequencies
Microelectron. Inst., Johannes Kepler Univ., Linz, Austria
This paper appears in: Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions on
Issue Date: Oct. 2003
Volume: 52 Issue:5
On page(s): 1660 - 1664
ISSN: 0018-9456
References Cited: 25
Cited by : 2
INSPEC Accession Number: 7778275
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/TIM.2003.817916
Date of Current Version: 27 October 2003
Sponsored by: IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Society
Abstract
An experiment is described showing that a 33-GHz microwave signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic Doppler formula. The sensitivity of the apparatus used has been tested to be sufficient for detecting frequency shifts as small as 10-3 Hz which corresponds to the value of (v/c)2 = 5.10-14 used in the transverse Doppler shift experiment reported here. From the observed absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is concluded that either the time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave background radiation.
IEEE Xplore - Absence of the relativistic transverse Doppler shift at microwave frequencies
- Status
- Not open for further replies.