Re: Speed of Light?

Warren York ( infonet@home.com )
Sat, 14 Aug 1999 18:29:15 -0500

John Berry wrote:
>
> > Warren writes:
> > Then what you are talking about is not the speed of light being
> > constant but the changes in the media it is moving through.
> >
> > Quote: "This happens because light travel at a constant speed only
> > thought a constant permeability".
> >
> > The speed of light is again based on a reference. Now if you choose
> > your vacuum tube a mile long again you must remove all outside
> > influences that might in some manner cause light to vary. Even the
> > tube itself may cause the phenomena and not the light. If the light
> > still varies then there must be something about the nature of light
> > we do not know. I don't feel nature plays with dice either. Ask again
> > if you still do not understand the point I am trying to make. I'm not
> > putting you down, I am only trying to say you have not given us enough
> > information to explain the actions you have reported.
> > ...
>
> So we agree, the speed of light can change if the permeability of space changes...
=======================================================================
Warren writes:
Yes. Looking at what is being called a constant in this consideration
should be considered more of a maximum limit where all other media's may
vary anywhere in-between but not past with lights speed.
>
> >
> >
> > > 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...
> > ======================================================================

> I'm pretty sure length contraction is considered real, but as I said there is a
> contraction/expansion effect that is not real at all.
=========================================================================
Warren writes:
Yes, I agree with this also but not sure about the real length
contraction.
Perhaps somebody else can enlighten us on this matter.
>
==========================================================================
> Who's GUT? I have a GUT that you don't know of, convention lost it's GUT.
> Do you have a spare GUT?
> ======================================================================
Warren writes:
That is a frenchmen named Grandeur Unifiedie Theoriee. Known for his
ability to do many things all at one time.

> This is getting silly, I'm arguing with you and your using I theory I don't understand.
> Here is what I stand by with respect to conventional theory:
>
> There are two types of length alteration at high speed, the contraction/expansion one is
> considered unreal, The contraction/contraction one is considered real, There are two types
> of time alteration, the expansion/contraction one is considered unreal, the
> contraction/contraction one is considered real.
>
> The contraction of length and or time from one point of view can keep the speed of light
> constant from one direction, but light in the other direction goes doubly overboard.
>
> The above are arguments about conventional theory, not your theory I know nothing of.
========================================================================
Warren writes:
OK, I'll buy that. Perhaps we should ask this GUT guy about it? Warren