Sock wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

You are at the bottom of the stooopid hole.

http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/131617-26.jpg

1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.

Look in the mirror Uncle Alice

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

....**** you, too.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Sock wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

You are at the bottom of the stooopid hole.

http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/131617-26.jpg

1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.

Look in the mirror Uncle Alice

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

....**** you, too.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On May 14, 3:55*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Sock wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

You are at the bottom of the stooopid hole.

http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/131617-26.jpg

1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
*2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.

Look in the mirror Uncle Alice

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments....
*Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

...**** you, too.
--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
*(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The accelerated particle sees no length contraction.

MItch Raemsch

On May 14, 5:07*pm, wrote:
On May 14, 2:13*am, PD wrote: On May 13, 10:04*pm, wrote:

Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval.

That statement is inconsistent with experiment.

*Please elaborate.

Nope, it doesn't.


As I see it it is pretty simple. Light will only move through space a
little bit above matter's 99% motion behind it.

Well, you see, Mitch, it doesn't have anything to do with what you
find sensible or how you see it. Physicists don't check the validity
of what they come up with by *thinking* or judging whether it makes
sense. They check it against experiment.
Fortunately, nature is interesting and we see plenty of stuff that
doesn't make sense at all -- at first. Part of the fun is finding out
enough about what's going on -- through further experiment -- to be
able to piece it together and have it make sense. But when it's pieced
together, it looks a whole lot different than what made sense before.
What made sense before gets *replaced* by a new understanding that is
driven by surprising experimental results that are actually seen in
nature.

So what's surprising here is the *experimental* observation that if
you have something traveling at 99% of c, light *still* takes off at c
from that something, whether you are watching the something go by or
whether you are riding all on the something.

Now there is the trick of figuring out how to make that make sense,
because it sure doesn't make sense at first blush.

PD

On May 14, 4:39*pm, PD wrote:
On May 14, 5:07*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 2:13*am, PD wrote: On May 13, 10:04*pm, wrote:

Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval.

That statement is inconsistent with experiment.

*Please elaborate.

Nope, it doesn't.



As I see it it is pretty simple. Light will only move through space a
little bit above matter's 99% motion behind it.

Well, you see, Mitch, it doesn't have anything to do with what you
find sensible or how you see it. Physicists don't check the validity
of what they come up with by *thinking* or judging whether it makes
sense. They check it against experiment.
Fortunately, nature is interesting and we see plenty of stuff that
doesn't make sense at all -- at first. Part of the fun is finding out
enough about what's going on -- through further experiment -- to be
able to piece it together and have it make sense. But when it's pieced
together, it looks a whole lot different than what made sense before.
What made sense before gets *replaced* by a new understanding that is
driven by surprising experimental results that are actually seen in
nature.

So what's surprising here is the *experimental* observation that if
you have something traveling at 99% of c, light *still* takes off at c


I agree it takes of at 100% of the speed of light through space while
behind light you are going at 99% through space. This leaves a 1%
difference through space. Addition of velocities keeps things below
light speed.


from that something, whether you are watching the something go by or
whether you are riding all on the something.

Now there is the trick of figuring out how to make that make sense,
because it sure doesn't make sense at first blush.

PD

On May 14, 7:53*pm, wrote:
On May 14, 4:39*pm, PD wrote:



On May 14, 5:07*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 2:13*am, PD wrote: On May 13, 10:04*pm, wrote:

Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval.

That statement is inconsistent with experiment.

*Please elaborate.

Nope, it doesn't.

As I see it it is pretty simple. Light will only move through space a
little bit above matter's 99% motion behind it.

Well, you see, Mitch, it doesn't have anything to do with what you
find sensible or how you see it. Physicists don't check the validity
of what they come up with by *thinking* or judging whether it makes
sense. They check it against experiment.
Fortunately, nature is interesting and we see plenty of stuff that
doesn't make sense at all -- at first. Part of the fun is finding out
enough about what's going on -- through further experiment -- to be
able to piece it together and have it make sense. But when it's pieced
together, it looks a whole lot different than what made sense before.
What made sense before gets *replaced* by a new understanding that is
driven by surprising experimental results that are actually seen in
nature.

So what's surprising here is the *experimental* observation that if
you have something traveling at 99% of c, light *still* takes off at c

I agree it takes of at 100% of the speed of light through space while
behind light you are going at 99% through space.

Nope, you're not getting it.
Someone holds a flashlight and shines light toward Cincinnati. It will
be going at c away from you.
Now you accelerate, chasing after the light, until you are going 99%
of the speed of light with respect the guy with the flashlight.
Now if you measure the speed of the light going toward Cincinnati,
you'll find that it is still going at c with respect to you, not 1% c.

I know this seems weird and counterintuitive, but that is what is seen
*experimentally*. Trying to make sense of that takes more work that
you've put into it so far.

This leaves a 1%
difference through space. Addition of velocities keeps things below
light speed.

from that something, whether you are watching the something go by or
whether you are riding all on the something.

Now there is the trick of figuring out how to make that make sense,
because it sure doesn't make sense at first blush.

PD

On May 14, 5:08*pm, PD wrote:
On May 14, 7:53*pm, wrote:





On May 14, 4:39*pm, PD wrote:

On May 14, 5:07*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 2:13*am, PD wrote: On May 13, 10:04*pm, wrote:

Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval.

That statement is inconsistent with experiment.

*Please elaborate.

Nope, it doesn't.

As I see it it is pretty simple. Light will only move through space a
little bit above matter's 99% motion behind it.

Well, you see, Mitch, it doesn't have anything to do with what you
find sensible or how you see it. Physicists don't check the validity
of what they come up with by *thinking* or judging whether it makes
sense. They check it against experiment.
Fortunately, nature is interesting and we see plenty of stuff that
doesn't make sense at all -- at first. Part of the fun is finding out
enough about what's going on -- through further experiment -- to be
able to piece it together and have it make sense. But when it's pieced
together, it looks a whole lot different than what made sense before.
What made sense before gets *replaced* by a new understanding that is
driven by surprising experimental results that are actually seen in
nature.

So what's surprising here is the *experimental* observation that if
you have something traveling at 99% of c, light *still* takes off at c

I agree it takes of at 100% of the speed of light through space while
behind light you are going at 99% through space.

Nope, you're not getting it.
Someone holds a flashlight and shines light toward Cincinnati. It will
be going at c away from you.
Now you accelerate, chasing after the light, until you are going 99%
of the speed of light with respect the guy with the flashlight.
Now if you measure the speed of the light going toward Cincinnati,
you'll find that it is still going at c with respect to you, not 1% c.

I know this seems weird and counterintuitive, but that is what is seen
*experimentally*. Trying to make sense of that takes more work that
you've put into it so far.



This leaves a 1%
difference through space. Addition of velocities keeps things below
light speed.

from that something, whether you are watching the something go by or
whether you are riding all on the something.

Now there is the trick of figuring out how to make that make sense,
because it sure doesn't make sense at first blush.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you can follow light at 99% then light only goes 1% more into the
distance.
See that?

Mitch Raemsch

On May 14, 11:22*pm, wrote:
On May 14, 5:08*pm, PD wrote:



On May 14, 7:53*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 4:39*pm, PD wrote:

On May 14, 5:07*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 2:13*am, PD wrote: On May 13, 10:04*pm, wrote:

Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval.

That statement is inconsistent with experiment.

*Please elaborate.

Nope, it doesn't.

As I see it it is pretty simple. Light will only move through space a
little bit above matter's 99% motion behind it.

Well, you see, Mitch, it doesn't have anything to do with what you
find sensible or how you see it. Physicists don't check the validity
of what they come up with by *thinking* or judging whether it makes
sense. They check it against experiment.
Fortunately, nature is interesting and we see plenty of stuff that
doesn't make sense at all -- at first. Part of the fun is finding out
enough about what's going on -- through further experiment -- to be
able to piece it together and have it make sense. But when it's pieced
together, it looks a whole lot different than what made sense before..
What made sense before gets *replaced* by a new understanding that is
driven by surprising experimental results that are actually seen in
nature.

So what's surprising here is the *experimental* observation that if
you have something traveling at 99% of c, light *still* takes off at c

I agree it takes of at 100% of the speed of light through space while
behind light you are going at 99% through space.

Nope, you're not getting it.
Someone holds a flashlight and shines light toward Cincinnati. It will
be going at c away from you.
Now you accelerate, chasing after the light, until you are going 99%
of the speed of light with respect the guy with the flashlight.
Now if you measure the speed of the light going toward Cincinnati,
you'll find that it is still going at c with respect to you, not 1% c.

I know this seems weird and counterintuitive, but that is what is seen
*experimentally*. Trying to make sense of that takes more work that
you've put into it so far.

This leaves a 1%
difference through space. Addition of velocities keeps things below
light speed.

from that something, whether you are watching the something go by or
whether you are riding all on the something.

Now there is the trick of figuring out how to make that make sense,
because it sure doesn't make sense at first blush.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you can follow light at 99% then light only goes 1% more into the
distance.
See that?

Of course it's logical. It's also wrong. It doesn't match experiment.


Mitch Raemsch

On May 15, 1:13*am, PD wrote:
On May 14, 11:22*pm, wrote:





On May 14, 5:08*pm, PD wrote:

On May 14, 7:53*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 4:39*pm, PD wrote:

On May 14, 5:07*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 2:13*am, PD wrote: On May 13, 10:04*pm, wrote:

Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval.

That statement is inconsistent with experiment.

*Please elaborate.

Nope, it doesn't.

As I see it it is pretty simple. Light will only move through space a
little bit above matter's 99% motion behind it.

Well, you see, Mitch, it doesn't have anything to do with what you
find sensible or how you see it. Physicists don't check the validity
of what they come up with by *thinking* or judging whether it makes
sense. They check it against experiment.
Fortunately, nature is interesting and we see plenty of stuff that
doesn't make sense at all -- at first. Part of the fun is finding out
enough about what's going on -- through further experiment -- to be
able to piece it together and have it make sense. But when it's pieced
together, it looks a whole lot different than what made sense before.
What made sense before gets *replaced* by a new understanding that is
driven by surprising experimental results that are actually seen in
nature.

So what's surprising here is the *experimental* observation that if
you have something traveling at 99% of c, light *still* takes off at c

I agree it takes of at 100% of the speed of light through space while
behind light you are going at 99% through space.

Nope, you're not getting it.
Someone holds a flashlight and shines light toward Cincinnati. It will
be going at c away from you.
Now you accelerate, chasing after the light, until you are going 99%
of the speed of light with respect the guy with the flashlight.
Now if you measure the speed of the light going toward Cincinnati,
you'll find that it is still going at c with respect to you, not 1% c.

I know this seems weird and counterintuitive, but that is what is seen
*experimentally*. Trying to make sense of that takes more work that
you've put into it so far.

This leaves a 1%
difference through space. Addition of velocities keeps things below
light speed.

from that something, whether you are watching the something go by or
whether you are riding all on the something.

Now there is the trick of figuring out how to make that make sense,
because it sure doesn't make sense at first blush.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you can follow light at 99% then light only goes 1% more into the
distance.
See that?

Of course it's logical. It's also wrong. It doesn't match experiment.

What experiment?





Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 15, 3:07*pm, wrote:
On May 15, 1:13*am, PD wrote:



On May 14, 11:22*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 5:08*pm, PD wrote:

On May 14, 7:53*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 4:39*pm, PD wrote:

On May 14, 5:07*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 2:13*am, PD wrote: On May 13, 10:04*pm, wrote:

Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval.

That statement is inconsistent with experiment.

*Please elaborate.

Nope, it doesn't.

As I see it it is pretty simple. Light will only move through space a
little bit above matter's 99% motion behind it.

Well, you see, Mitch, it doesn't have anything to do with what you
find sensible or how you see it. Physicists don't check the validity
of what they come up with by *thinking* or judging whether it makes
sense. They check it against experiment.
Fortunately, nature is interesting and we see plenty of stuff that
doesn't make sense at all -- at first. Part of the fun is finding out
enough about what's going on -- through further experiment -- to be
able to piece it together and have it make sense. But when it's pieced
together, it looks a whole lot different than what made sense before.
What made sense before gets *replaced* by a new understanding that is
driven by surprising experimental results that are actually seen in
nature.

So what's surprising here is the *experimental* observation that if
you have something traveling at 99% of c, light *still* takes off at c

I agree it takes of at 100% of the speed of light through space while
behind light you are going at 99% through space.

Nope, you're not getting it.
Someone holds a flashlight and shines light toward Cincinnati. It will
be going at c away from you.
Now you accelerate, chasing after the light, until you are going 99%
of the speed of light with respect the guy with the flashlight.
Now if you measure the speed of the light going toward Cincinnati,
you'll find that it is still going at c with respect to you, not 1% c.

I know this seems weird and counterintuitive, but that is what is seen
*experimentally*. Trying to make sense of that takes more work that
you've put into it so far.

This leaves a 1%
difference through space. Addition of velocities keeps things below
light speed.

from that something, whether you are watching the something go by or
whether you are riding all on the something.

Now there is the trick of figuring out how to make that make sense,
because it sure doesn't make sense at first blush.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you can follow light at 99% then light only goes 1% more into the
distance.
See that?

Of course it's logical. It's also wrong. It doesn't match experiment.

What experiment?

Time of flight of photons from decaying pi-zeros with nonzero
momentum. That's one. There are at least a half dozen others. Do you
know how to look this experiment up in the library?




Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -