Hey,I've been reading Einstein's book "Relativity".
I'm stuck on light travelling at a constant, whether or not the
observer or emitter is moving.
What exactly is it travelling 3000000km/sec relative to? What frame of
reference are we using?
Thanks ahead of time.

PS. I'm a high school senior. I don't have that much math/physics under
my belt. I would highly appreciate it if you keep that in mind in your
explanation.

On 26 Nov 2005 10:03:50 -0800, " wrote:

Hey,I've been reading Einstein's book "Relativity".
I'm stuck on light travelling at a constant, whether or not the
observer or emitter is moving.
What exactly is it travelling 3000000km/sec relative to? What frame of
reference are we using?

The instrument doing the measuring. All other aspects are infered
or assumed from spectra and other data.

PS. I'm a high school senior.

There are other things to consider besides "speed".

The word "relativity" should give anybody a clue that
there are no absolute references or anything to index an
absolute reference frame to.

I don't have that much math/physics under my belt.

I don't either, but everything I have done requires
some aspect of physics, electronics, electromagnetism,
mechanics and hydraulics.

I would highly appreciate it if you keep that in mind in your
explanation.

Don't accept the explanations given by anyone that
claims "relativity" is wrong, this newgroup is infected by
many different kinds of pests that want to tell the world
what big egos and small IQs they have. :-)

The constant c is merely the value "measured"
by every accurate experiment, and nothing more than
that should be considered a "fact".

The only way the constant c could vary is if
gravity has some effect, but in all the confusion here
caused by so many different opinions, mostly negative,
it is difficult to tell even what the best text books say.

Joe Fischer P.S. Be sure not to send the same message twice.

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
news
On 26 Nov 2005 10:03:50 -0800, "
wrote:

I don't have that much math/physics under my belt.

I don't either,

We know that, which is why you are a complete arsehole
blabbering about something you have no nothing about.
Why don't you just shut the **** up, troll?

Androcles.

Joe Fischer wrote:
On 26 Nov 2005 10:03:50 -0800, " wrote:

Hey,I've been reading Einstein's book "Relativity".
I'm stuck on light travelling at a constant, whether or not the
observer or emitter is moving.
What exactly is it travelling 3000000km/sec relative to? What frame of
reference are we using?

The instrument doing the measuring. All other aspects are infered
or assumed from spectra and other data.

PS. I'm a high school senior.

There are other things to consider besides "speed".

The word "relativity" should give anybody a clue that
there are no absolute references or anything to index an
absolute reference frame to.

I don't have that much math/physics under my belt.

I don't either, but everything I have done requires
some aspect of physics, electronics, electromagnetism,
mechanics and hydraulics.

I would highly appreciate it if you keep that in mind in your
explanation.

Don't accept the explanations given by anyone that
claims "relativity" is wrong, this newgroup is infected by
many different kinds of pests that want to tell the world
what big egos and small IQs they have. :-)

The constant c is merely the value "measured"
by every accurate experiment, and nothing more than
that should be considered a "fact".

here are we have a problem, tha measurements of the
detectings are electrons, which dont propagates but
vibrate, so c is if you wish is a delay not speed, its tha
time it take to the surrounding electrons to start vibrating


The only way the constant c could vary is if
gravity has some effect, but in all the confusion here
caused by so many different opinions, mostly negative,
it is difficult to tell even what the best text books say.

Joe Fischer P.S. Be sure not to send the same message twice.

On 26 Nov 2005 14:55:16 -0800, "Neil G" wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
[snip]
The constant c is merely the value "measured"
by every accurate experiment, and nothing more than
that should be considered a "fact".

here are we have a problem, tha measurements of the
detectings are electrons,

Not usually or at least not always. There are
optical methods to make measurements and photographic
methods, and no telling how may other ways.

which dont propagates but
vibrate, so c is if you wish is a delay not speed, its tha
time it take to the surrounding electrons to start vibrating

I think electrical current through a conductor is electrons,
and that is measured at nearly what c is in empty space, depending
on the material of the conductor.

In any case, I don't know if "speed" or even "velocity"
gives the true picture of the propagation of light.
In the frame with the photon in empty space, light
is said to "travel" from source to detector in zero time.

Perhaps there should be a week indoctrination class
at the beginning of each semester to explain that what is
beiing taught this year is preparation for what is being
taught next year, and there may not seem to be any
connection between the two.

Or maybe a pill to cause loss of memory of everything
Newtonian when starting graduate school.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:
On 26 Nov 2005 14:55:16 -0800, "Neil G" wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
[snip]
The constant c is merely the value "measured"
by every accurate experiment, and nothing more than
that should be considered a "fact".

here are we have a problem, tha measurements of the
detectings are electrons,

Not usually or at least not always. There are
optical methods to make measurements and photographic
methods, and no telling how may other ways.

exactly,

exactly what i just said, also the detectings on the photographics
or whatever, thay are still electrons, it's obvious

kindly regards



which dont propagates but
vibrate, so c is if you wish is a delay not speed, its tha
time it take to the surrounding electrons to start vibrating

I think electrical current through a conductor is electrons,
and that is measured at nearly what c is in empty space, depending
on the material of the conductor.

In any case, I don't know if "speed" or even "velocity"
gives the true picture of the propagation of light.
In the frame with the photon in empty space, light
is said to "travel" from source to detector in zero time.

that's an artifact, similar to "gravity" for instance as you say


Perhaps there should be a week indoctrination class
at the beginning of each semester to explain that what is
beiing taught this year is preparation for what is being
taught next year, and there may not seem to be any
connection between the two.

ahaha


Or maybe a pill to cause loss of memory of everything
Newtonian when starting graduate school.

mister newton tok what was good at that time an made it
usefull, he is a classical and and an original


Joe Fischer

Thank you everyone! I now understand the Special Theory!

Sorry about posting the first message so many times... i didnt realize
i was doing it (computer was acting goofy)

Special thanks to Joe Fischer for the sound advice

Joe Fischer wrote:
On 26 Nov 2005 14:55:16 -0800, "Neil G" wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
[snip]
The constant c is merely the value "measured"
by every accurate experiment, and nothing more than
that should be considered a "fact".

here are we have a problem, tha measurements of the
detectings are electrons,

Not usually or at least not always. There are
optical methods to make measurements and photographic
methods, and no telling how may other ways.

which dont propagates but
vibrate, so c is if you wish is a delay not speed, its tha
time it take to the surrounding electrons to start vibrating

I think electrical current through a conductor is electrons,
and that is measured at nearly what c is in empty space, depending
on the material of the conductor.

In any case, I don't know if "speed" or even "velocity"
gives the true picture of the propagation of light.
In the frame with the photon in empty space, light
is said to "travel" from source to detector in zero time.

Perhaps there should be a week indoctrination class
at the beginning of each semester to explain that what is
beiing taught this year is preparation for what is being
taught next year, and there may not seem to be any
connection between the two.

Or maybe a pill to cause loss of memory of everything
Newtonian when starting graduate school.

Joe Fischer

xxein: I would prefer to use all emperical measurement to rebuild our
notion of physics from scratch.