Re: Speed of Light?
Warren York ( infonet@home.com )
Thu, 12 Aug 1999 01:44:20 -0500
Russell Garber wrote:
>
> Please bear with me as sometimes if you think about one thing to long,
> non-sense starts to make sense and vice-versa, but I have never completely
> understood about the Speed of Light being constant. Before going into
> details, I will explain a bit about what I mean. My understanding of this
> is that it is stated that the speed of light is constant in all frames. I
> will give an example to what I mean by all frames using the old person
> riding on train example: A person riding in a train moving at say, 50 mph
> (the actual speed doesn't really matter) throws a baseball towards the
> front of the train at say, 50 mph. To other people on the train the ball
> obviously is moving at 50 mph, but to a person outside the train (on the
> ground not moving) the two speeds add together, and the ball is thus
> travelling near 100 mph. In contrast to this, with the speed of light
> being constant, the speed observed by the people on the train <----- (for
> simplicity sake, lets say that the person on the train had a laser pen, and
> the train was filled with a substance so as the beam could be seen, and
> that the speed of light was slow enough to by observed by the naked eye...
> I know it is a lot to ask, but it doesn't really make a difference, because
> the speed is constant, and the result would be the same, right?) ----->
> would be exactly the same that was observed by the person on the ground.
> Can someone explain the reason for this without statements such as:
> Modern Physics, etc. are based on this and it works out in the
> calculations, etc... and other statements such as that, that don't really
> explain anything, at least not in terms easily understandable. Also, in
> the actual speed of light calculations done, was Earth's rotation speed
> taken into account? Wouldn't the actual speed of light be that which was
> measured here on Earth, plus partially the speed of Earth's rotation on
> it's axis, plus partially the speed that Earth is travelling around the
> sun, plus partially the speed that our Solar System is moving through the
> galaxy, etc...? Has any speed of light measurement ever been done in
> space? Has any speed of light measurements been done on moving platforms,
> with the speed taken in two different frames, that can prove this? This
> has always confused me, and most likely because we are always told, that it
> just is, and that we have to accept it, and thus never being explained in
> easily understood terms. Can someone please explain this using the
> out-of-the-ordinary thinking that is present on this web site, in lay mans
> terms? And please, only stick to the point, and don't pick apart the
> nature of the examples given, etc, as it does not help. Thanks in advance
> for your help.
=========================================================================
Hello Russell and all:
I believe I can answer your question about the speed of light being
constant.
First off I will make it short for I just had an encounter with some
Bee's
and I am in allot of pain at the moment. Last score, I killed 12, they
stung me 5 times. I guess that makes me the winner but I don't feel like
one.
Second I see where people are starting to confuse themselves about the
speed of light being a constant. Sure light speeds will change through
different media but we are looking for a standard to go by and that is
considered as in a vacuum. If we did not have different speeds through
different media we would not have the color spectrum from a prism.
Anyway
back to the case at point. (ouch)
Why does lights constant no matter what frame it is viewed from? Simple,
that is why it is called revlativistic speed. The speed of light or
186K miles/sec. Anyway leaving the math out of it and just giving you a
mental image it goes like this. All other relative speeds below C fall
into their own frames. What frames are we talking about? Speed & TIME
frames but lets leave TIME out of it for a second to give you a clear
picture. (TIME is not what you consider it at such speeds but it is not
important to give you the view I am trying to make at this level) So
what is it that is relative in this case that we are looking at? The
different speeds from C and below only for now. So the man on a train
going 50 miles an hour turns on a pen light and throughs a ball also.
The ball goes 25 miles per hour while the light is going at C. Now if
we back up one and look at the man on the train from the ground we now
are looking at the speed of the train plus the ball and light. Now the
balls speed is added to the speed of the train from the view of the man
on the ground but the light is still only C. Now back up one more step
as you did earlier and now your view of the speed is from space. You
see the speed of the earth plus the rotation of the earth plus the speed
of the train plus the speed of the ball all added as vectors but not
the light. It is still only C. This is because it is max speed over
all the other speeds added together and is in the form of Energy or
photons. Everything else is in the form of matter. The train, the ball
the earth and so on. Now what is the common denominator between all the
frames of view? Not the speed for each is different so it is only a
common item not a common factor. Not the matter vs energy for all are
in the form of matter except the light which is energy (no rest mass).
Not the Space for the light has traveled 186K miles/sec. The only
thing left that is common in relativity or Space/TIME is TIME. Now,
here is where I must stop for the TIME I am talking about in this form
is not the same time one views from the matter world. It is relative
TIME. All of TIME if you will, still part of Space/Time but a common
factor for all the speeds. At this point you will have to understand
just what TIME really is in this state and how it is engineered by
nature into the form you now know and recognize as TIME passage.
Time is both a common factor and item for all the relative speed frames.
If I had a black board I could explain just what TIME is and how it
can be engineered in a lab condition. (altered from natures normal state
of being) This is the same method one would use to develop a true
Warp or TIME drive for matter. Warren