Re: Speed of Light?
Warren York ( infonet@home.com )
Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:58:57 -0500
John Berry wrote:
> the speed of light in a vacuum varies quite a bit, This was evident in the one
> mile long vacuum tube experiment which showed seasonal variation.
========================================================================
Warren writes:
Your missing the point. What are the factors that make light vary over
a one mile long vacuum tube each season? Again, the measurement is due
to
needing a standard or better word reference point to relate all the
other
factors involved that may change that speed. Just saying it varies tells
us nothing unless you can give the factors that cause it to differ.
Second,
does it vary by the same amount and if so at what point and why? I
believe
the books still back up the speed as a constant. The changes are due to
an
un-named factor you have not identified.
========================================================================
> Making a simple thing complex there...
> How they "Try' to do it is simply this.
> How Do you determine speed? distance over time right?
> So they say light has a constant speed, So everything else sees light at the
> right speed they have to change the distance (length contraction) and time (time
> dialation), Through this they try to get all reading the same speed by fiddelind
> with your clock and rule, However because they can only reduce the measure of
> both it only works in one direction, if you reverse it, it will increase the
> speed.
========================================================================
Warren writes:
I believe you are the one making it complex. I stated this explanation
was a mental view as requested by Russell without using math first off.
Second off you are welcome to give us your simple view and answer the
question in the manner requested by Russell also. I pointed out that I
was not going to get into TIME for it is not a concept you understand
as you are using the term here. If I were to introduce TIME in the
comment
then that would make it complex and no matter how you would like to keep
it simple you can not once TIME is introduced. You are using TIME here
as a term and not a factor that can be broken down into useable
components for construction only because you have never been exposed to
TIME having engineerable components. If you go back and read what I said
you will find I explained why light is a constant without using V X T =
D
and I stoped at TIME where it does get complex rather you like it or
not.
I did use the words though. V is the variable of the speeds from each
relative speed frame, T is the constant of the speed of light as viewed
in all frames and D is the Space traveled in each frame. TIME is still
the only factor that is common to all that is a reference. I did not get
into faster than C for you will need to understand TIME once again to do
this. I am trying to tell you that TIME is an engineerable factor but
without knowing what TIME is there is no way you can image that view.
You have not defined TIME as a component that is engineerable. As I
said,
I can demo it on a blackboard but it is a concept that is not simple.
If it were you would have been able to explain the mechanics yourself.
I am not going to debate this term with you or any other until you can
show me you understand the concept of what the components of TIME are
and how they can be engineered. My work has been to go beyond what is in
the dictionary for TIME. Why? I will quote you from my 1994 TIME paper.
"We are now trying to figure out a definition of chaos that doesn't
include
time." says mathematician Richard C. Chruchill. "At this point, I can't
come
up with anything that satisfies me."
"Such comparisons require an unambiguous definition of time, which isn't
possible in relativity." (Science News)
And you are telling me it is as simple as V X T = D? I'm sorry, I don't
buy that when it comes to QM and you should know it also if you have
ever worked with QM. It would be nice if it were but this is not the
case.
Warren