Lately relativity zombies have started a fierce campaign against the
principle of constancy of the speed of light. They don't like it, they
don't want to hear about it, they constantly repeat it is redundant,
they sincerely hate anybody who reminds them of its essentiality. Even
Einstein's words:

"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"

don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?

Pentcho Valev

"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"

don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?

*******************

Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
not the speed?????????

wrote in message
oups.com...
| "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
| light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
| is false"
|
| don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
|
| *******************
|
| Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
| not the speed?????????

"Maybe" isn't good enough. Prove it.
Androcles.

wrote in message
oups.com...
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"

don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?

*******************

Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
not the speed?????????

Maybe changing frequency is evidence for changing speed of light?????????

Androcles wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
| "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
| light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
| is false"
|
| don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
|
| *******************
|
| Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
| not the speed?????????

"Maybe" isn't good enough. Prove it.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prelims/2004ivan9.jpg
Within the outer eyewall existed several 1-2 n mi2
patches of 120-122 kt inbound Doppler velocities
(some individual gates contained 123.4 kt velocities)
at around 6,000 ft ASL. Using 122 kt as being
representative of a smoothed peak and applying a
reduction factor of 0.85 (standard reconnaissance
flight-level reduction for 6000 ft) yields a surface
estimate of 104 kt. In addition to the Doppler radar
velocity data, a 700 mb flight-level wind of 120-kt was observed just
south of Gulf Shores, AL at 0724 UTC 16 September (Figure 2c) in the
same general area where the aforementioned maximum Doppler radar
velocities were
observed.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml?text

Sue...

Androcles.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Lately relativity zombies have started a fierce campaign against the
principle of constancy of the speed of light.

Cite?

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of
the
| | light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
| | is false"
| |
| | don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
| |
| | *******************
| |
| | Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's
frequency,
| | not the speed?????????
|
| "Maybe" isn't good enough. Prove it.
|
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prelims/2004ivan9.jpg
| Within the outer eyewall existed several 1-2 n mi2
| patches of 120-122 kt inbound Doppler velocities
| (some individual gates contained 123.4 kt velocities)
| at around 6,000 ft ASL. Using 122 kt as being
| representative of a smoothed peak and applying a
| reduction factor of 0.85 (standard reconnaissance
| flight-level reduction for 6000 ft) yields a surface
| estimate of 104 kt. In addition to the Doppler radar
| velocity data, a 700 mb flight-level wind of 120-kt was observed just
| south of Gulf Shores, AL at 0724 UTC 16 September (Figure 2c) in the
| same general area where the aforementioned maximum Doppler radar
| velocities were
| observed.
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml?text
|
| Sue...

That's only when there is permittivity and permeability lurking
around, and even then not a proof.
You need not look like a wallflowe... err... daisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence

Androcles.

Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of
the
| | light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
| | is false"
| |
| | don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
| |
| | *******************
| |
| | Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's
frequency,
| | not the speed?????????
|
| "Maybe" isn't good enough. Prove it.
|
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prelims/2004ivan9.jpg
| Within the outer eyewall existed several 1-2 n mi2
| patches of 120-122 kt inbound Doppler velocities
| (some individual gates contained 123.4 kt velocities)
| at around 6,000 ft ASL. Using 122 kt as being
| representative of a smoothed peak and applying a
| reduction factor of 0.85 (standard reconnaissance
| flight-level reduction for 6000 ft) yields a surface
| estimate of 104 kt. In addition to the Doppler radar
| velocity data, a 700 mb flight-level wind of 120-kt was observed just
| south of Gulf Shores, AL at 0724 UTC 16 September (Figure 2c) in the
| same general area where the aforementioned maximum Doppler radar
| velocities were
| observed.
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml?text
|
| Sue...

That's only when there is permittivity and permeability lurking
around, and even then not a proof.

How large would you like to make the "lurk" (r)
before you calculate the permittivity ?

The factors of 4Ï€ in the equations come from
the 4Ï€ steradians of solid angle surrounding a point.
If the radial electric field from a point charge q
is q/r2, then the flux of the electric field across
a sphere of radius r with center at the charge is
4πr2(q/r2) = 4πq. This implies that div E = 4π� when
the divergence theorem is used to turn this into a differential
relation.
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/hlu.htm

You need not look like a wallflowe... err... daisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence

Ah! Now that is progress. I see you have an estimate
of calcite crystals on your double-star path.
How goes the lithium count... or is that being
hoarded by other posters for psychotropic use?

Sue...


Androcles.

In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:20:55 GMT
:

wrote in message
oups.com...
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the
light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false"

don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?

*******************

Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's frequency,
not the speed?????????

Maybe changing frequency is evidence for changing speed of light?????????

One could possibly take it as such, yes. It's not very
good evidence -- other possibilities include the SR
space-time "twist", for example.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of
the
| | light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity
| | is false"
| |
| | don't mean anything to them anymore. Why is that?
| |
| | *******************
| |
| | Maybe because the speed of the source changes the light's
frequency,
| | not the speed?????????
|
| "Maybe" isn't good enough. Prove it.
|
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prelims/2004ivan9.jpg
| Within the outer eyewall existed several 1-2 n mi2
| patches of 120-122 kt inbound Doppler velocities
| (some individual gates contained 123.4 kt velocities)
| at around 6,000 ft ASL. Using 122 kt as being
| representative of a smoothed peak and applying a
| reduction factor of 0.85 (standard reconnaissance
| flight-level reduction for 6000 ft) yields a surface
| estimate of 104 kt. In addition to the Doppler radar
| velocity data, a 700 mb flight-level wind of 120-kt was observed
just
| south of Gulf Shores, AL at 0724 UTC 16 September (Figure 2c) in the
| same general area where the aforementioned maximum Doppler radar
| velocities were
| observed.
| http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml?text
|
| Sue...

That's only when there is permittivity and permeability lurking
around, and even then not a proof.

How large would you like to make the "lurk" (r)
before you calculate the permittivity ?

The factors of 4Ï€ in the equations come from
the 4Ï€ steradians of solid angle surrounding a point.
If the radial electric field from a point charge q
is q/r2, then the flux of the electric field across
a sphere of radius r with center at the charge is
4πr2(q/r2) = 4πq. This implies that div E = 4π� when
the divergence theorem is used to turn this into a differential
relation.
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/hlu.htm

You need not look like a wallflowe... err... daisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence

Ah! Now that is progress. I see you have an estimate
of calcite crystals on your double-star path.
How goes the lithium count... or is that being
hoarded by other posters for psychotropic use?


Told you before...
You can play with all the epsilon1,2,3,4,5,6,7,...and mu1,2,3,4,5,6,7...
you like.
You can't have epsilon0, mu0. Off limits, locked away in the vacuum
cupboard.
You can't open the door either, it's held shut by air pressure.
Androcles.



Androcles.