Speed C is Dependant Upon Source?

[omin]

Will you please stop spouting off your opinions about who is undermining what theory until you demonstrate that you have mastered the theories yourself? You are still hung up on some very basic issues and you would benefit the most from getting those cleared up, rather than doing all this philosophizing (there's that word again) on things you clearly do not understand.

Physical theory has no contradictions;there may only be categories of existence, which may be compared to arrive at categorization and quantification. Physics is very, very, very little the Boolean exist or don't exist misrepresentation. It's here or there and how much in comparison to this much of what's over here. We may only speak what exists, that's physics and when we reach the limit of our senses and our physically derived probabilities diminish in positive value, we say I don't know.

If a thing has no mass(boolean!), it may not have the property distance. If it doesn't have the property distance, it may not have the property speed. If it doesn't have the property speed, it may not have the property acceleration. So, if not mass, none of these may derived. If none of these may be derived, nor can energy be represented. (To arrive at a rate of speed, you must sense what is speeding.) Without acceleration (what happens when we mean force) an object is outside our sense because there is lack of contact; therefore you do not know that it exists or will never know it exists unless contact occurs, which demands the absolute prerequisite mass. Knowledge depends upon mass and velocity, and finally contact (force). Have you ever been hit, by only, and I emphasize only, the velocity of the sun? Mass is absolutely necessary for a change in velocity or (action and reaction) to occur.

To assert the thought of phenomenon c, you must use the basic physical theories that build up to the point that allow us to begin to think about phenomenon c. Fundamental concepts necessary to arrive at the thought of phenomenon c are atleast mass, speed, velocity and acceleration. These concepts are absolutley necessary to get to the concept c, so c depends upon them. Once we arrive at the discussion c (or energy), saying authoritively, "you may now not use the theory we used to arrive here", is self-negating. You may build the pyramid, but if you destroy the base, the peak comes down with it.

In calling this a philosophical point is accuarate, but it's more accurate that it's physics in this discussion, because it's expressive of the principle in N III Law as it relates to the physical phenomena in which we are discussing.

There is but one road to c and it is through Newton.

 

[omin]

The displacement effect the light has on the satelite occurs during:
1. the light impact
2. during photon absorbtion
3. during photon manifestation
4. during photon emision
5. or some mix?

Thinking about billiards balls, in a collision between a moving one and a stationary one, the moving one stops. What if the stationary one were larger than the moving one? The moving one bounces back, right? Taking the limit, if the stationary ball is almost infinitely large, it doesn't move much and the moving ball bounces back with almost the same speed/energy as it started with. Since light can't travel at almost C, it must be very, very, very slightly redshifted. Seems like maybe we just oversimplify and get rid of the "almost."

Can a change in frequency of light and the mass of the object from which the light reflects be used as variables to attempt to give us the mass of light? If you believe light has no mass, I've heard the lecture, nevermind, unless of course you have a more convincing lecture.

No matter what the final speed of the atom, the final speed of the photon is always the same, c. All that is different for photons with different momentum is the energy of the photon. The speed of the atom, however, is a function of the atoms final proper mass (the proper mass of the atom must have decreased in this process) and the atom's momentum.

The matter of an atom decreases proportionate to the energy of a photon it emits. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Therefore, the photon represents this difference in matter of the atom?

An Instataneous C?
Clearly, things are touching other things in this circumstance(N III Law), where photons emit from atoms and the atoms recoil. The photon manifests in an atom that has a velocity less than c (unless inner structural elements are already at c). There appears to be elements in a state of pre-photonic form in the atom. In the process of manifesting a photon, things must be accelerated into form, since they are in pre-photonic form, not yet a photon. Formation requires N III Law, unless the photon's inertia in this example is entirely unaffected and the whole process is determined and occurs without acceleration. Once the photon is a photon, it is said to have instantaneous c. To claim instataneous state c is justified only as a state. All states before the photon instantaneous c state then must be acceleration states? Meaning photon forming states.

How can all the elements that collapse form and reform during this process always be separate, in an isolated inertia?

If photon from atom separation is instataneous and the photon is instataneously at c, it either moves away from the instataneious velocity of the atom at separation at c, moves along the aether at c, moves along some other resistive field at c, or (instant c means instant intertia) moves based upon it's own physical dimensions at c (which would be determined by the atom!)

 

[BobG]

Omin,

Are you an antique book collector? I'm thinking the last book printing your theory came out sometime before 1910 at the latest.

 

[quantumdude]

Omin,

If you had a point to your last post to me, you have successfully hidden it by couching it in gibberish. The only thing intelligible enough to comment on is this:

There is but one road to c and it is through Newton.

Do you mean "there is but one means to derive the invariance of the speed of light"? If so, then you are wrong. Einstein derived it from the covariance of Maxwell's equations (not any of Newton's laws).

 

[omin]

That's okay guys. Whatever.

Explanation requires competence. You are either competent enough to explain things from my so called primitive 1910 understanding or not. If it's so primitive, why is it so hard to explain? Having trouble with simple things are ya?

So far, I've gained very little from the discussion, and that is the positive amount. The ability to convey things to someone interested in this forum has been demonstrated. Some things have been conveyed. But, it's been unnecessarily cluttered with loads of insults and incompetent explanation. I'm less likely to respond to you now. I resent being taunted into idiotic insult games through your pompous tones in your responses. Not that I've never been involved in it my life, but it's cleary understood by me to be the defense mechanism of intellect weakness and have never been a efficient use of time, except the time it took to end it. I'm here to have attention to those who have respect for the discipline and have respect for those who are seeking an understanding of the discipline.

You can write what you want but I'd rather you not respond to my posts unless your ready to be serious and express some repsect to those who may stand on your shoulders, since you claim you are further ahead. That means stop being a "Mr. I Know Everything, You Don't Know What Your're Talking About and your 'You are Gibbering Claims'" and begin debate that gets somewhere. People don't walk into a classrom because they know everything thing. Did you know that? You proved you haven't been aware of that by your attitude toward me! I'll debate and try to understand, but I'm finished with this riduculous tone. If it behooves you to keep it up, I'll just ignore you.

And, furthermore, I'm intelligent enough to know this is valuable to you.

 

[omin]

What do you mean by invariance?

 

[Doc Al]

What do you mean by invariance?

A key property of light is that its speed is invariant, meaning that it has the same value as measured in any inertial frame.

 

[quantumdude]

Explanation requires competence.

So does learning.

You are either competent enough to explain things from my so called primitive 1910 understanding or not. If it's so primitive, why is it so hard to explain? Having trouble with simple things are ya?

I've got a news flash for you: A great deal of the responsibility for your education falls to you. You would do well to lose this attitude of "If you can't spoon feed this to me in terms that I can understand, then you aren't competent at explaining physics". Not only will it exasperate anyone who tries to help you, but it means that you are shirking your responsibility to yourself as one who claims to be serious about learning.

So far, I've gained very little from the discussion, and that is the positive amount.

Well then look in the mirror. You get out what you put in. That has always been true, and it always will be true.