John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

...

Cecil:

I feel like a damn idiot, this guy has been at this for sometime (this
is from 2004), bet Richard has been having a laugh, look at the following:

Richard Harrison wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"

I have not seen that question before, but will speculate that Edwin
Hubble deserves the credit as he used "red shift" in the light from
other galaxies to show that they are speeding away from us and our
galaxy. In fact, they are accelerating so that the farther the galaxy is
away from us, the faster it is moving away.

From continuous acceleration, the distant galaxy will eventually reach
the speed of light. Then, light from the distsnt galaxy won`t reach us
because it will tag along with the fast moving galaxy.

There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.

Hubble has also shown that the Doppler effect would shift the frequency
lower as velocity of the retreating thing increases. Shift the frequency
low enough and the wave is no longer described as light but may be
classified as a millimeter radio wave.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

To be accererating, there would have to be a force .

Where would this force be coming from and what pray tell is directing
it?

The speed of light is a constant in all reference frames. If a light
source were to be moving at the speed of light away from an observer,
an impossiblity in itself, the light would still be moving at c towards
the observer.

The part about force is badly worded, I admit.

However, are you saying the speed of light is not constant in all
reference frames?

If so, you are a damn idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

...
The part about force is badly worded, I admit.

However, are you saying the speed of light is not constant in all
reference frames?

If so, you are a damn idiot.


Even the speed of sound is fixed in our atmosphere (approx. 770 mph at
sea level.) A moving object emitting sound can only "jam" the beginning
of the sound wave towards its end, effectively "shortening" that sound
wave and raising the pitch--the opposite can also occur.

We call this the doppler effect, it can also occur with light (has a
fixed speed in the ether) and yes, even our rf transmissions.

I found that old piece of text when checking up on exactly what type of
"discussions" you engage in; what I was pointing out with it is--YOU ARE
A TRUE TROLL!

You are, NO JOKE, the real thing!

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:

...
You are, NO JOKE, the real thing!

Regards,
JS


However, should I have been mistaken, we will continue our chats, but at
a later date ...

Goodbye
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
The part about force is badly worded, I admit.

However, are you saying the speed of light is not constant in all
reference frames?

If so, you are a damn idiot.


Even the speed of sound is fixed in our atmosphere (approx. 770 mph at
sea level.) A moving object emitting sound can only "jam" the beginning
of the sound wave towards its end, effectively "shortening" that sound
wave and raising the pitch--the opposite can also occur.

Pure babble.

Sound is a mechanical effect and requires a progation medium.

Light is an electromagnetic effect and does not require a medium.

One has nothing to do with the other.

We call this the doppler effect, it can also occur with light (has a
fixed speed in the ether) and yes, even our rf transmissions.

More babble.

That is not the doppler effect and there is no ether.

I found that old piece of text when checking up on exactly what type of
"discussions" you engage in; what I was pointing out with it is--YOU ARE
A TRUE TROLL!

You are, NO JOKE, the real thing!

And you are a true, babbling, ignoramus.

Lest someone believe your ignorant babble:

Speed of light and reference frames

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

"One consequence of the laws of electromagnetism (such as Maxwell's
equations) is that the speed c of electromagnetic radiation does not
depend on the velocity of the object emitting the radiation; thus for
instance the light emitted from a rapidly moving light source would
travel at the same speed as the light coming from a stationary light
source (although the colour, frequency, energy, and momentum of the
light will be shifted, which is called the relativistic Doppler effect).
If one combines this observation with the principle of relativity, one
concludes that all observers will measure the speed of light in vacuum
as being the same, regardless of the reference frame of the observer or
the velocity of the object emitting the light."

Doppler effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

"The Doppler effect, named after Christian Doppler, is the apparent
change in frequency and wavelength of a wave that is perceived by an
observer moving relative to the source of the waves. For waves, such
as sound waves, that propagate in a wave medium, the velocity of the
observer and the source are reckoned relative to the medium in which
the waves are transmitted."

Relativistic Doppler effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect

"The relativistic Doppler effect is the change in frequency
(and wavelength) of light, caused by the relative motion of the source
and the observer (like in the regular Doppler effect), when taking into
account effects of the special theory of relativity.

The relativistic Doppler effect is different from the true
(non-relativistic) Doppler effect as the equations include the time
dilation effect of special relativity. They describe the total
difference in observed frequencies and possess the required Lorentz
symmetry."

Speed of sound

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

"The speed of sound is a term used to describe the speed of sound
waves passing through an elastic medium. The speed varies with the
medium employed (for example, sound waves move faster through water
than through air), as well as with the properties of the medium,
especially temperature. The term is commonly used to refer specifically
to the speed of sound in air. At sea level, at a temperature of 21 ?C
(70 ?F) and under normal atmospheric conditions, the speed of sound is
344 m/s (770 mph)."

What is sound

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

"Sound is a disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through
matter as a longitudinal wave."

What is light

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

"Light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength that is visible
to the eye (visible light) or, in a technical or scientific context,
electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength."


Anything else you would like explained, like where rain comes from?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

...
Pure babble.

Sound is a mechanical effect and requires a progation medium.

Light is an electromagnetic effect and does not require a medium.

One has nothing to do with the other.


Anyone who has ever completed a high school physics course knows better ...

That is not the doppler effect and there is no ether.


Only an a person wishing to be viewed as an idiot would make that
statement and truly believe it ...

And you are a true, babbling, ignoramus.

Lest someone believe your ignorant babble:

Speed of light and reference frames

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light


Yep, I am total agreement with MOST of that, however, you interpretation
is in SERIOUS error, quit obviously ...

NOW ...

Goodbye,
AGAIN,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
Pure babble.

Sound is a mechanical effect and requires a progation medium.

Light is an electromagnetic effect and does not require a medium.

One has nothing to do with the other.


Anyone who has ever completed a high school physics course knows better ...

I see you snipped the references which showed that it is true.

That is not the doppler effect and there is no ether.


Only an a person wishing to be viewed as an idiot would make that
statement and truly believe it ...

I see you snipped the references which showed that it is true.

And you are a true, babbling, ignoramus.

Lest someone believe your ignorant babble:

Speed of light and reference frames

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light


Yep, I am total agreement with MOST of that, however, you interpretation
is in SERIOUS error, quit obviously ...

NOW ...

I see you snipped the references which showed what a babbling, ignorant
fool you are.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

...

Jim:

I have "walked a spell" with you now ...

What has been written, has been written, it stands ...

JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

Jim:

I have "walked a spell" with you now ...

What has been written, has been written, it stands ...

Meaningless babble.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Light is an electromagnetic effect and does not require a medium.

So you are not up on the latest scientific knowledge?
EM waves cannot flow in absolute nothing, i.e. outside
of our universe. The "empty" space in our universe
is *NOT* empty and indeed does posses a structure.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
wrote:
Light is an electromagnetic effect and does not require a medium.

So you are not up on the latest scientific knowledge?
EM waves cannot flow in absolute nothing, i.e. outside
of our universe. The "empty" space in our universe
is *NOT* empty and indeed does posses a structure.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

The mistake is the concept that Space is nothing not that the space is or
could be empty. Not a concept that is easy to explain.