On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:19:38 -0700 (PDT), "Autymn D. C."
wrote:

On Mar 24, 2:40*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:41:00 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe
wrote:
Oops. You were talking about an experiment from a
moving source. So you don't have a measurement of the
frequency of the moving source.

The only known and reliable measurements from moving sources are brightness
curves of variable stars.

why? Answer my first post, dumbass.

Almost all can be attributed to their light being emitted at [c+vcos(t/T)] wrt
Earth.

Body-dependent celerity along with universal recession should mean the
Earth is awash in much-slow liht, about .7c to .1c. Where?

experiment where frequency and wavelength were measured
and multiplied to obtain a value of c.

That approach applies only to waves traveling in a medium.
Light is particulate.....and you are blind, indoctrinated and totally devoid of
any ability to think.

The whole univers is the medium; otherwise, there would be no matter
and no liht, which is not particulate at all.

http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+liht+not-a-thing
http://google.com/groups?q=relativity-for-dummies

Only dummies would want to read about Enstein's version of relativity.

To do so would requi
* - a measurement of frequency
* - a measurement of wavelength
* - multiplying them together
* - obtaining a value of c.

The frequency of an oscillator such as a spinning wheel doesn't change with
observer movement. It has NO 'wavelength' so that cannot change either.

Its transverse wavespan is its diameter; its longitudinal wavespan is
its hemiperimeter; the proper waves, its wavespan and wavestint, may
not drift with the observer's movement, but its apparent waves will in
all respects under or over relativity or whatever your belief is.
Doppler effect, cretin.

Total crap, idiot.

An oscillator doesn't have a natural wavelength.
When a spinning bullet is fired from a gun, it has an intrinsic frequency.
It is possible to assign to it a meaningful 'absolute wavelength', defined as
the distance travelled in THE SOURCE FRAME during one rotation. Generally, the
distance traveled during one rotation is frame dependent and of no particular
significance. It is the frequency of the oscillation that is doppler shifted.

The ABSOLUTE WAVELENGTH of a water wave doesn't change with boat speed. The
frequency at which wavecrests are negotiated changes.

The boat is above the watter; it doesn't run on the same watter waves
but on a watter spray which skips waves.

http://google.com/groups?q=sound-propelled+horns

Generally speaking, doppler shift of light is simillar to this and due to the
c+v effect.

Answer my first post or die.

Learn to spell.



-Aut



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Mar 26, 1:45*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:19:38 -0700 (PDT), "Autymn D. C."
wrote:
On Mar 24, 2:40*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:41:00 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe
wrote:
Oops. You were talking about an experiment from a
moving source. So you don't have a measurement of the
frequency of the moving source.

The only known and reliable measurements from moving sources are brightness
curves of variable stars.

why? *Answer my first post, dumbass.

Which you did not. All the betatrons and nucleatrons prove you wrong.

The whole univers is the medium; otherwise, there would be no matter
and no liht, which is not particulate at all.

http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+liht+not-a-thing
http://google.com/groups?q=relativity-for-dummies

Only dummies would want to read about Enstein's version of relativity.

Dummies as in those who can't speak, who are smarter than you as they
don't make up causes and effects.

Its transverse wavespan is its diameter; its longitudinal wavespan is
its hemiperimeter; the proper waves, its wavespan and wavestint, may
not drift with the observer's movement, but its apparent waves will in
all respects under or over relativity or whatever your belief is.
Doppler effect, cretin.

Total crap, idiot.

An oscillator doesn't have a natural wavelength.
When a spinning bullet is fired from a gun, it has an intrinsic frequency.

All oscillators are at least two bodies; between them a intrinsic/
natural energy and therefrom span and time. Both scale in other
frames by the lihthorn's scale. If time didn't scale, we couldn't
make gamma waves.

It is possible to assign to it a meaningful 'absolute wavelength', defined as
the distance travelled in THE SOURCE FRAME during one rotation. Generally, the
distance traveled during one rotation is frame dependent and of no particular
significance. It is the frequency of the oscillation that is doppler shifted.

What is your point?

Answer my first post or die.

Learn to spell.

I know how to spell; the world doesn't. Learn Middel English; it's
the onely good one.

-Aut

On Mar 25, 5:30 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:57:43 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe
wrote:

On Mar 25, 1:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.

Right. Or either one might have any speed at
all, barring other knowledge gained from experiment.

What experiment might that be?

All experiments involving the properties of
electromagnetic radiation.

c = lambda*f

If all you have is lambda, c might be any
(positive) value at all.

'c' is a universal constant.

In the general wave equation "speed = wavelength
times frequency", c is "speed of propagation
of wave". The symbol is commonly used to represent
speed of sound in such contexts also.

Light speed...like all speeds...is relative to each source/observer situation.

Very good. A true statement.

And the measured value turns out to be 3*10^8 m/sec
in all experimental tests.

Of course other experiments are not consistent with
that result, and I was under the impression that rather
sensitive speed measurements getting both wavelength and
frequency have precluded speed differences.

Correct again.

What experiments might that be?

Experiments where wavelength and frequency were
both measured, like he said. Such as this one:
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf

First done by Froome with microwaves in 1958.

Androcles likes to pretend he's invoking Ockham's
Razor. Let's apply Sir William's principle to two
hypotheses:

(1) Light is light. The way it acts on earth tells
us how light from the stars behaves.

(2) No matter how many experiments we do on earth,
light from the stars obeys different rules which
can never be reproduced on earth.

Light initiallly move at c wrt its source, both on Earth and in the stars.

And this changes? But that's an effect that can't
be reproduced on Earth?

Somehow, I think Sir William would lean toward #1.

Experiment shows us that when wavelength is
shifted, so is frequency. Androcles would claim
that Ockham's principle says: "yes, that's what
you always observe in the laboratory, but for
starlight it isn't true."

Please define 'frequency of light'.

Number of oscillations per unit time in the
electric or magnetic field.

The thing measured with a frequency counter.

The parameter a radio tuning circuit is sensitive
to.

The thing that allows you to listen to only one
radio station at a time.

Experiment shows us that every direct measurement
of the speed of light results in c.

....that's because the source is always at rest.....so one would expect the
answer to be c.

Incorrect.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
| On Mar 25, 5:30 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:57:43 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe

| wrote:
|
| On Mar 25, 1:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine
| wrote:
| Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
| definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
| going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.
|
| Right. Or either one might have any speed at
| all, barring other knowledge gained from experiment.
|
| What experiment might that be?
|
| All experiments involving the properties of
| electromagnetic radiation.
|
| c = lambda*f
|
| If all you have is lambda, c might be any
| (positive) value at all.
|
| 'c' is a universal constant.
|
| In the general wave equation "speed = wavelength
| times frequency", c is "speed of propagation
| of wave".

Not by Einstein's definition.

" Let a ray of light start "
" Any ray of light moves "
" the ray be emitted"
" Let a ray of light depart from A"
" From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted "
" by considering rays moving along the two other axes"
" If we call the angle between the wave-normal (direction of the ray)"

In any event, study this standing wave:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nding_wave.gif
It has a wavelength and a frequency, yet its speed is zero.
If you move it past your eye to give it a speed, what changes?



| The symbol is commonly used to represent
| speed of sound in such contexts also.


Symbols mean whatever we want them to mean in the context we use them,
I refer to Phuckwit Duck with the symbols u,t,n,c, but not necessarily in
that order.
Referring to a definition every conversation is pointless unless there is
ambiguity,
which in your case there is.



|
| Light speed...like all speeds...is relative to each source/observer
situation.
|
| Very good. A true statement.

Very good. A true statement. So it is not always c and Einstein's third
postulate,
the "time" postulate, is ridiculously ridiculous and should be ridiculed,
not worshipped.


| And the measured value turns out to be 3*10^8 m/sec
| in all experimental tests.

Look again, cretin, you are making the wrong measurement:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nding_wave.gif
wavelength * frequency = 0 in all experimental tests.
wavelength * frequency = 1 in all experimental tests.
wavelength * frequency = c in all experimental tests.
wavelength * frequency = anything I want it in all experimental tests.



|
| Of course other experiments are not consistent with
| that result, and I was under the impression that rather
| sensitive speed measurements getting both wavelength and
| frequency have precluded speed differences.
|
| Correct again.
|
| What experiments might that be?
|
| Experiments where wavelength and frequency were
| both measured, like he said.

wavelength * frequency = 0 in all experimental tests.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nding_wave.gif
wavelength * frequency = 1 in all experimental tests.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nding_wave.gif
wavelength * frequency = c in all experimental tests.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nding_wave.gif
wavelength * frequency = anything I want it in all experimental tests.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nding_wave.gif



Such as this one:
| http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf
|
| First done by Froome with microwaves in 1958.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nding_wave.gif



| Androcles likes to pretend he's invoking Ockham's
| Razor. Let's apply Sir William's principle to two
| hypotheses:
|
| (1) Light is light. The way it acts on earth tells
| us how light from the stars behaves.
|
| (2) No matter how many experiments we do on earth,
| light from the stars obeys different rules which
| can never be reproduced on earth.
|
| Light initiallly move at c wrt its source, both on Earth and in the
stars.
|
| And this changes?

If the observer moves, yes.
Frequency remains invariant, speed is proportional to the angle to the first
maxima seen with a diffraction grating and you are a dickhead too stupid
to understand Doppler's c+v is ONE velocity, not a "closing rate" as the
local village idiot told you, and which I cannot distinguish as you've told
me.
And you are right, I can't. I call it a relative velocity and all velocities
are relative.



But that's an effect that can't
| be reproduced on Earth?

Police use doppler radar, dickhead, of course it can.
v = c(f'/f -1)
where f is the emitted frequency and f' the received (reflected) frequency.

If the police bounced a ball off the car that would work too, because
"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames
of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." - Albert
Einstein.
Do you hallucinate the ball doesn't change speed when it hits the baseball
bat?




|
| Somehow, I think Sir William would lean toward #1.
|
| Experiment shows us that when wavelength is
| shifted, so is frequency. Androcles would claim
| that Ockham's principle says: "yes, that's what
| you always observe in the laboratory, but for
| starlight it isn't true."
|
| Please define 'frequency of light'.
|
| Number of oscillations per unit time in the
| electric or magnetic field.

Very good. That is not the observed frequency, though, unless
you travel along with the photon.

wavelength * frequency = 0 in all experimental tests.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nding_wave.gif



|
| The thing measured with a frequency counter.

That is the observed frequency, different from "Number of oscillations per
unit time in the electric or magnetic field", UNLESS the receiver is
relatively
at rest wrt the transmitter.

| The parameter a radio tuning circuit is sensitive
| to.

That is the emitted frequency, making the "Number of oscillations per
unit time in the electric or magnetic field".



| The thing that allows you to listen to only one
| radio station at a time.

That is the observed frequency, different from "Number of oscillations per
unit time in the electric or magnetic field", UNLESS the receiver is
relatively
at rest wrt the transmitter.
You'd have to retune stations if you were riding a spacehip at any
appreciable
speed relative to the Earth, according to Doppler.
Those annoying whistling noises radio hams pick up on shortwave are
variations
in the speed of light. DAB radio does much to eliminate them.

|
| Experiment shows us that every direct measurement
| of the speed of light results in c.
|
| ....that's because the source is always at rest.....so one would expect
the
| answer to be c.
|
| Incorrect.

No he's not, you are.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:02:30 -0700 (PDT), "Autymn D. C."
wrote:

On Mar 26, 1:45*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:19:38 -0700 (PDT), "Autymn D. C."


An oscillator doesn't have a natural wavelength.
When a spinning bullet is fired from a gun, it has an intrinsic frequency.

All oscillators are at least two bodies; between them a intrinsic/
natural energy and therefrom span and time. Both scale in other
frames by the lihthorn's scale. If time didn't scale, we couldn't
make gamma waves.

It is possible to assign to it a meaningful 'absolute wavelength', defined as
the distance travelled in THE SOURCE FRAME during one rotation. Generally, the
distance traveled during one rotation is frame dependent and of no particular
significance. It is the frequency of the oscillation that is doppler shifted.

What is your point?

To educate YOU. The period of any oscillator IN ITS OWN FRAME represents and
DEFINES an absolute time interval.
If a spinning wheel is approached at high speed AND CORRECTION IS MADE FOR
COMMUNICATION TRAVEL TIME, its period will be measured as the same as in its
OWN FRAME.

Doppler shift is due to a change in 'wavecrest arrival' and can be used as an
indicator of relative source speed solely BECAUSE oscillation period is an
absolute time interval.

Answer my first post or die.

Learn to spell.

I know how to spell; the world doesn't. Learn Middel English; it's
the onely good one.

-Aut

'Aut' - Autistic...



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Mar 26, 5:04*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:02:30 -0700 (PDT), "Autymn D. C."



wrote:
On Mar 26, 1:45*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:19:38 -0700 (PDT), "Autymn D. C."

An oscillator doesn't have a natural wavelength.
When a spinning bullet is fired from a gun, it has an intrinsic frequency.

All oscillators are at least two bodies; between them a intrinsic/
natural energy and therefrom span and time. *Both scale in other
frames by the lihthorn's scale. *If time didn't scale, we couldn't
make gamma waves.

It is possible to assign to it a meaningful 'absolute wavelength', defined as
the distance travelled in THE SOURCE FRAME during one rotation. Generally, the
distance traveled during one rotation is frame dependent and of no particular
significance. It is the frequency of the oscillation that is doppler shifted.

What is your point?

To educate YOU. The period of any oscillator IN ITS OWN FRAME represents and
DEFINES an absolute time interval.
If a spinning wheel is approached at high speed AND CORRECTION IS MADE FOR
COMMUNICATION TRAVEL TIME, its period will be measured as the same as in its
OWN FRAME.

Doppler shift is due to a change in 'wavecrest arrival' and can be used as an
indicator of relative source speed solely BECAUSE oscillation period is an
absolute time interval.

Answer my first post or die.

Learn to spell.

I know how to spell; the world doesn't. *Learn Middel English; it's
the onely good one.

-Aut

'Aut' - Autistic...

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

KOOK FIGHT!

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe
wrote:

On Mar 25, 5:30 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:57:43 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe
wrote:

On Mar 25, 1:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.

Right. Or either one might have any speed at
all, barring other knowledge gained from experiment.

What experiment might that be?

All experiments involving the properties of
electromagnetic radiation.

So you can't name any....I didn't think so....

c = lambda*f

If all you have is lambda, c might be any
(positive) value at all.

'c' is a universal constant.

In the general wave equation "speed = wavelength
times frequency", c is "speed of propagation
of wave". The symbol is commonly used to represent
speed of sound in such contexts also.

You are referring to waves in a medium. Speed, wavelength and frequency are
defined wrt the frame of the medium. This does NOT apply to light, which is
particulate.

Light speed...like all speeds...is relative to each source/observer situation.

Very good. A true statement.

Therefore light speed = c+v, wrt observer.

And the measured value turns out to be 3*10^8 m/sec
in all experimental tests.

........there have been no such experimental tests.

Of course other experiments are not consistent with
that result, and I was under the impression that rather
sensitive speed measurements getting both wavelength and
frequency have precluded speed differences.

Correct again.

What experiments might that be?

Experiments where wavelength and frequency were
both measured, like he said. Such as this one:
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf

First done by Froome with microwaves in 1958.

It doesn't tell us what 'frequency of light ' actually is.

Androcles likes to pretend he's invoking Ockham's
Razor. Let's apply Sir William's principle to two
hypotheses:

(1) Light is light. The way it acts on earth tells
us how light from the stars behaves.

(2) No matter how many experiments we do on earth,
light from the stars obeys different rules which
can never be reproduced on earth.

Light initiallly move at c wrt its source, both on Earth and in the stars.

And this changes? But that's an effect that can't
be reproduced on Earth?

All experiments indicate that light moves at c wrt its source on earth.

Somehow, I think Sir William would lean toward #1.

Experiment shows us that when wavelength is
shifted, so is frequency. Androcles would claim
that Ockham's principle says: "yes, that's what
you always observe in the laboratory, but for
starlight it isn't true."

Please define 'frequency of light'.

Number of oscillations per unit time in the
electric or magnetic field.

Where is this field?

The thing measured with a frequency counter.

The parameter a radio tuning circuit is sensitive
to.

The thing that allows you to listen to only one
radio station at a time.

Radio waves are made of variations in photon density.
A great many photons are involved, all moving at c wrt the source.
It is possible that their fields interact and become synched.

Experiment shows us that every direct measurement
of the speed of light results in c.

....that's because the source is always at rest.....so one would expect the
answer to be c.

Incorrect.

Light speed measurements are all TW with the 'mirror' at rest wrt the source.
In that configuration, tAB = tBA' and light speed = 2D /tAA'. The answer is
always c, according to BaTh.

- Randy



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Mar 26, 3:04*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:02:30 -0700 (PDT), "Autymn D. C."
wrote:
On Mar 26, 1:45*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:19:38 -0700 (PDT), "Autymn D. C."
An oscillator doesn't have a natural wavelength.
When a spinning bullet is fired from a gun, it has an intrinsic frequency.

All oscillators are at least two bodies; between them a intrinsic/
natural energy and therefrom span and time. *Both scale in other
frames by the lihthorn's scale. *If time didn't scale, we couldn't
make gamma waves.

It is possible to assign to it a meaningful 'absolute wavelength', defined as
the distance travelled in THE SOURCE FRAME during one rotation. Generally, the
distance traveled during one rotation is frame dependent and of no particular
significance. It is the frequency of the oscillation that is doppler shifted.

What is your point?

To educate YOU. The period of any oscillator IN ITS OWN FRAME represents and
DEFINES an absolute time interval.
If a spinning wheel is approached at high speed AND CORRECTION IS MADE FOR
COMMUNICATION TRAVEL TIME, its period will be measured as the same as in its
OWN FRAME.

Doppler shift is due to a change in 'wavecrest arrival' and can be used as an
indicator of relative source speed solely BECAUSE oscillation period is an
absolute time interval.

A correction makes no measurement; it means the lone measurement is
wrong by the correctend. And my links shew you how times and tides of
a body are not absolute. Don't bother us again until you read them.

Answer my first post or die.

Learn to spell.

I know how to spell; the world doesn't. *Learn Middel English; it's
the onely good one.

-Aut

'Aut' - Autistic...

Aut as in http://dictionary.com/browse/aught or your god, not
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+autistic|Aspergian.

-Aut

On Mar 26, 4:00*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe
wrote:
In the general wave equation "speed = wavelength
times frequency", c is "speed of propagation
of wave". The symbol is commonly used to represent
speed of sound in such contexts also.

You are referring to waves in a medium. Speed, wavelength and frequency are
defined wrt the frame of the medium. This does NOT apply to light, which is
particulate.

Cretin:
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+inner+outter+size
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+sun+bird
http://google.com/groups?q=liht+not-a-thing

Is sound a mote? Is lotter or tealler (numer or litter) a mote? Is
money a mote?

Light speed...like all speeds...is relative to each source/observer situation.

Very good. A true statement.

Therefore light speed = c+v, wrt observer.

if light is nothing

And the measured value turns out to be 3*10^8 m/sec
in all experimental tests.

.......there have been no such experimental tests.

Would you like to be the first tester out in the deep vacvum?

Experiments where wavelength and frequency were
both measured, like he said. Such as this one:
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf

First done by Froome with microwaves in 1958.

It doesn't tell us what 'frequency of light ' actually is.

Frequency, illiterate apocopoietic muttishway for frequentia, a
nonfundamental derivature of wavestint, the intractional intertempo of
lihtwise chare, where liht is a shift in elèctronic states, where the
elèctròn as material quantum is the elèctric spatial, temporal, and
carical element of the univers.

Light initiallly move at c wrt its source, both on Earth and in the stars.

And this changes? But that's an effect that can't
be reproduced on Earth?

All experiments indicate that light moves at c wrt its source on earth.

Where c is variant with the scaloral mekanic energy of its medium.

http://google.com/groups?q=fotòn+plasmòn

The thing that allows you to listen to only one
radio station at a time.

Radio waves are made of variations in photon density.
A great many photons are involved, all moving at c wrt the source.
It is possible that their fields interact and become synched.

Where is all of the slow liht between .1c and .7c by universal
recession? The peak outputs of radio galaxies can be cohesivate in a
lihtpipe; by you, the farthest would be the slowest when this goes
against GR. The farthest are most repulsive, and thennes their
positive potential means a swifter-than-c apparent speed as the proper
span is smaller.

Where is all of the swift liht between 2c and 1000c by supversal
collision? There is no Zitterbewegung dropoff where gamma waves stop
growan in resolution for greatter speeds, either on Earth or by cosmic
rays. It's pretty easy to set up enfasic casicate collisions for
arbitrarily-great energies:

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakefield_accelerator
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_acceleration

-Aut

On Mar 26, 4:00*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe
wrote:
In the general wave equation "speed = wavelength
times frequency", c is "speed of propagation
of wave". The symbol is commonly used to represent
speed of sound in such contexts also.

You are referring to waves in a medium. Speed, wavelength and frequency are
defined wrt the frame of the medium. This does NOT apply to light, which is
particulate.

Cretin:
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+inner+outter+size
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+sun+bird
http://google.com/groups?q=liht+not-a-thing

Is sound a mote? Is lotter or tealler (numer or litter) a mote? Is
money a mote?

Light speed...like all speeds...is relative to each source/observer situation.

Very good. A true statement.

Therefore light speed = c+v, wrt observer.

if light is nothing

And the measured value turns out to be 3*10^8 m/sec
in all experimental tests.

.......there have been no such experimental tests.

Would you like to be the first tester out in the deep vacvum?

Experiments where wavelength and frequency were
both measured, like he said. Such as this one:
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf

First done by Froome with microwaves in 1958.

It doesn't tell us what 'frequency of light ' actually is.

Frequency, illiterate apocopoietic muttishway for frequentia, a
nonfundamental derivature of wavestint, the intractional intertempo of
lihtwise chare, where liht is a shift in elèctronic states, where the
elèctròn as material quantum is the elèctric spatial, temporal, and
carical element of the univers.

Light initiallly move at c wrt its source, both on Earth and in the stars.

And this changes? But that's an effect that can't
be reproduced on Earth?

All experiments indicate that light moves at c wrt its source on earth.

Where c is variant with the scaloral mekanic energy of its medium.

http://google.com/groups?q=fotòn+plasmòn

The thing that allows you to listen to only one
radio station at a time.

Radio waves are made of variations in photon density.
A great many photons are involved, all moving at c wrt the source.
It is possible that their fields interact and become synched.

Where is all of the slow liht between .1c and .7c by universal
recession? The peak outputs of radio galaxies can be cohesivate in a
lihtpipe; by you, the farthest would be the slowest when this goes
against GR. The farthest are most repulsive, and thennes their
positive potential means a swifter-than-c apparent speed as the proper
span is smaller.

Where is all of the swift liht between 2c and 1000c by supversal
collision? There is no Zitterbewegung dropoff where gamma waves stop
growan in resolution for greatter speeds, either on Earth or by cosmic
rays. It's pretty easy to set up enfasic casicate collisions for
arbitrarily-great energies:

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakefield_accelerator
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_acceleration

-Aut