> 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.
I don't understand what your talking about, It seems quite clear, the time it takes
light to go from one point to another varies in a vacuum, light is hence not constant,
This happens because light travel at a constant speed only thought a constant
permeability.
>
> ========================================================================
> > 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.
I used no math...
>
> 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
You lost me there, The faster you go the slower time passes, that fixes things on one
direction but leaves a big problem in the other direction...
As for length contraction that only does the same thing.
There are two kinds of length and time variation, one type of length alteration is not
considered real, it makes something coming at you seem longer and going away seem
shorter, this works in the wrong was for things to come right, when things come at you
time runs faster, and going away seems slower, also not in agreement with relativity,
just makes things worse.
Both length and time contraction makes things shorter when going away or towards, it
corrects the speed of light in one direction and makes it doubly bad in the other
direction.
John Berry