Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
Jim Kelley wrote:
If the length of the second were different, then so would be the speed of light ... Cesium clocks at sea level, on a mountain top, and in an airplane all measure different lengths of the second. Are you saying the speed of light is different at those three locations? -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: If the second were "smaller", then light could obviously no longer travel 3x10^8 of our meters in one of them. It is the frequency that is red-shifted, not the velocity. A shorter second results in a lower frequency. Relativity won't allow the velocity of light to change but everything else changes including meters and seconds. Quantum mechanics does however: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._stoplight.htm On a more humble level, Light changes speed as it passes through different mediums, such as water. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:26:48 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote: On a more humble level, Light changes speed as it passes through different mediums, such as water. WOW! According to Cecileo, does this mean that time slows down (speeds up?) TOO? Does the Vatican know about this? Must be why bath time is resisted by so many children. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote:
According to Cecileo, does this mean that time slows down ... It means that light travels at the speed of light, no matter what. One thing had to be nailed down and Einstein chose the speed of light. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:40:10 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: According to Cecileo, does this mean that time slows down ... It means that light travels at the speed of light, no matter what. One thing had to be nailed down and Einstein chose the speed of light. So Einstein is responsible for both setting the speed of light AND time slowing down? Is this a case of Einstein is all and Cecileo is his prophet? No wonder the Vatican is turning the screws. Take two excedrin and write us again in the morning if your thumbs don't hurt. |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote:
So Einstein is responsible for both setting the speed of light AND time slowing down? In a way, the answer is "yes". If the length of a second is inviolate, then the speed-of-light is not a constant since those are contradictory concepts. A system of physics could have been based on an "absolute objective second" of time, but it results in a total package with a lot of problems as yet unsolved. An absolute velocity of light in a vacuum seems to solve a lot of those problems but results in length being a variable and time being a variable while length and time are the dimensions of velocity. Personally, I think everything is a variable and therefore, there are no constants, except of course, for your constant kibitzing. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:07:02 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: So Einstein is responsible for both setting the speed of light AND time slowing down? In a way, the answer is "yes". And now that he has been dead for 50 years, is it safe to say years given he was responsible for the speed of light AND time slowing down? Was in it fact a moment ago that he died? Or should that be an Æon? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: So Einstein is responsible for both setting the speed of light AND time slowing down? In a way, the answer is "yes". And now that he has been dead for 50 years, is it safe to say years given he was responsible for the speed of light AND time slowing down? I addressed that very point in the part that you deleted. So I must ask: What was your ulterior motive in those deliberate deletions? Are you unwilling (or incapable) of discussing the actual subject of this "thread gone astray"? Is this akin to your assertion that the reflection from a piece of anti-reflective coating of glass is brighter than the surface of the sun? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:27:48 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: So Einstein is responsible for both setting the speed of light AND time slowing down? In a way, the answer is "yes". And now that he has been dead for 50 years, is it safe to say years given he was responsible for the speed of light AND time slowing down? I addressed that very point in the part that you deleted. Hmm, research reveals nothing of your having said anything about Einstein's death. Nothing about his being responsible for the speed of light, and certainly nothing about his being responsible for slowing time down. Instead of making bland exclamations, can you actually offer us facts that Einstein is responsible for both setting the speed of light AND time slowing down? This God-like quality that you have invested in him and then taken some of it away with the equivocation of In a way, the answer is "yes". doesn't really say anything does it? The world waits in wonder at your assertion of Einstein's ability to set the speed of light and time - especially when it had been investigated and quantified by many earlier workers, notably Michelson and Morely. |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:40:45 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote: The world waits in wonder at your assertion of Einstein's ability to set the speed of light and time - especially when it had been investigated and quantified by many earlier workers, notably Michelson and Morely. Hi All, Well it stands to reason there is nothing to be said in this regard On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:40:10 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: One thing had to be nailed down and Einstein chose the speed of light. as Einstein was never responsible for any such thing. Fact of the matter was previous to Michelson and Morely's work, a Scottish fellow by the name of Maxwell had already DEFINED the speed of light. Michelson and Morely merely confirmed it in the absence of a disturbing Æther. Their confirmation merely extended the experimental resolution of a quantity already known. Instead, Einstein took Maxwell's DEFINED speed of light, and observed that it would be constant in any Inertial Frame of Reference. This means that the same beam of light (whose source or origin is immaterial) is measured in a fixed frame (nonsense of course, but this is Einstein's thought experiment), it will be equally determined by a moving frame. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|