Ok,
I will admit light always leaves it source at c.
(sound always leaves it source the same way)

But how can a lightsource's light be constant
to say an object traveling towards it at 0.5c.

Let's say a lightsource is here on Earth.
so it is in a rest frame WRT to Earth,
and light moving away from such a source
is traveling at c outward from it.
How could such a lightspeed still be the same speed
to an object heading towards it at 0.5c?
How can light violate relative motion like that?

Spaceman wrote:
Ok,
I will admit light always leaves it source at c.
(sound always leaves it source the same way)

But how can a lightsource's light be constant
to say an object traveling towards it at 0.5c.

Let's say a lightsource is here on Earth.
so it is in a rest frame WRT to Earth,
and light moving away from such a source
is traveling at c outward from it.
How could such a lightspeed still be the same speed
to an object heading towards it at 0.5c?
How can light violate relative motion like that?

How indeed. It just doesn't seem right given our day to day experience.
Nonetheless if that highly counterintuitive behavior is taken as a
postulate along with another, that the laws of physics are the same in
all inertial coordinate systems, then a set of equations logically
follows, the Lorentz transformation, which predict all the data from
experiments designed and executed so far to test their physical validity
as well as matching all astronomical observations. Go figure.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
| How indeed. It just doesn't seem right given our day to day experience.
| Nonetheless if that highly counterintuitive behavior is taken as a
| postulate along with another, that the laws of physics are the same in
| all inertial coordinate systems, then a set of equations logically
| follows, the Lorentz transformation, which predict all the data from
| experiments designed and executed so far to test their physical validity
| as well as matching all astronomical observations. Go figure.

So you are saying a contraction of what is occuring?
the waves?
How could it be the waves contracting and only contracting to fit
the observers speed towards the light source?
and not contracting to something that the observer was passing
on the way towards the lightsource?

You seem to have rubber waves that just "expand or contract"
for any certain observer?
Your Length contraction explanation is total crap in the case
I stated.

"Spaceman" wrote in message
...
| Ok,
| I will admit light always leaves it source at c.
| (sound always leaves it source the same way)
|
| But how can a lightsource's light be constant
| to say an object traveling towards it at 0.5c.
|
| Let's say a lightsource is here on Earth.
| so it is in a rest frame WRT to Earth,
| and light moving away from such a source
| is traveling at c outward from it.

I am adding something to this that I forgot to add.


Along the path towards the lightsource is a platform
that is moving ahead of Earth but it moving
the same as Earth as to cause a 0 relative
speed WRT to Earth.

Now as the object that is heading towards Earth
is reading the lightsource, it is passing this platform
that is "at rest" WRT to Earth and it is also taking
measurements of the lightsource and this platform is
detecting no change in wavelength at all. (of course)
so....
How could such a lightspeed from the source on Earth
be the same speed to the object heading towards it at 0.5c?
and how could the wavelength change without the relative
speed being the cause.

Spaceman wrote:

[snip]

If you are actually interested in learning [doubtful] rather than
wasting everyone's time [likely], go to the library.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/rel_booklist.html

"Spaceman" wrote in message ...

How could such a lightspeed from the source on Earth
be the same speed to the object heading towards it at 0.5c?
and how could the wavelength change without the relative
speed being the cause.

The short answer is time and length dilation between
frames of reference.

The long answer will probably be several days of
"Is not", "Is so", "That's bull****", and "You're
arguing with empirical facts". I wonder if we
shouldn't just skip to the end?

Spaceman wrote:
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
| How indeed. It just doesn't seem right given our day to day experience.
| Nonetheless if that highly counterintuitive behavior is taken as a
| postulate along with another, that the laws of physics are the same in
| all inertial coordinate systems, then a set of equations logically
| follows, the Lorentz transformation, which predict all the data from
| experiments designed and executed so far to test their physical validity
| as well as matching all astronomical observations. Go figure.

So you are saying a contraction of what is occuring?

Gosh, I don't think that's what I said whatever it might mean.

the waves?

The waves?

How could it be the waves contracting and only contracting to fit
the observers speed towards the light source?

Waves contracting?

and not contracting to something that the observer was passing
on the way towards the lightsource?

Huh?


You seem to have rubber waves that just "expand or contract"
for any certain observer?

Really? Where?

Your Length contraction explanation is total crap in the case
I stated.

Did I say "length contraction"?

Sorry, I can't recognize anything I said in what you responded with.

Here's one for ya. What's the frequency of an oscillating EM field
propagating in space? How would you measure it? Ken, you might want to
chime in on this one too.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

Is sun radiation composed of photons? If it is, then they are not
neutral.

Is the sun radiation made of photons? If it is, then they are not
neutral.

James

You left the original reasoning of Copernicus which would have given
you the answer you needed.As planetary heliocentric motion is seen
directly from Earth then so is the noticeable effect due to finite
light distance.Becasue Newton jumped to the Sun in his misguided
attempt to resolve why the planets appeared to move backwards against
the background stars he cuts out the ability to understand how the
original determination of finite light distance was seen and understood
through the motion of the Earth against Jupiter and its moon Io -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that
is to say, a little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in
the aphelion distances, so as to maintain an equality in the
description of the areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers,
and particularly demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his
satellites; by the help of which eclipses, as we have said, the
heliocentric longitudes of that planet, and its distances from the sun,
are determined."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

I do not expect anybody to immediately get how Newton mangled the
original Copernican insight with the Roemerian insight to come up with
that mess as none of you ever really developed a feel for the
astronomical material but bounce of each other with 'facts' that are
neither good nor right.

Not one person James,not one single person has bothered to acknowledge
that absolute/relative space is exactly where Newton went wrong but in
terms of how he explained or attempted to explain Copernican
heliocentricity.Even with the heliocentric time lapse footage,the
explanations of Galileo,Copernicus and Kepler before you,you would
still prefer to taunt each other and travel in the same pointless
circle or that you would find it so easy to disregard the person who
can point out exactly where the differences exist.

Nobody likes to be lectured to James and certainly not me however what
can be said of the original works of Copernicus and its later
refinements by Kepler and Roemer that were destroyed in such an
obviouis way by Newton.I have done nothing but promote a favorable
account of the reasoning behind heliocentricity as Copernicus presented
it against the rubbish of Newton.Without the correct view you can
relative and absolute yourselves into oblivion,it will always be empty
as you propose it but workable as the Newtonian flaw.

Easy taunting these guys who know no better James but perhaps before
you continue to do it maybe you will find yourself developing the same
tactics they use to cover the fact that they have little interest in
the astronomical material.Again,had you stuck with the resolution for
Copernican heliocentricity you would have had your answer and be using
the insight for productive ends.