How does the Light Move?

In article , Sam Wormley says...

Any acceleration (no matter how small) spoils synchronization.

You're being very tedious. What you are saying is certainly true, but
why you think you need to tell me this, I'm not sure.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On 12/21/09 10:52 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
In , Sam Wormley says...

Any acceleration (no matter how small) spoils synchronization.

You're being very tedious. What you are saying is certainly true, but
why you think you need to tell me this, I'm not sure.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY


Sorry--More for the benefit of other readers.
-Sam

In article , Sam Wormley says...

On 12/21/09 10:52 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
In , Sam Wormley says...

Any acceleration (no matter how small) spoils synchronization.

You're being very tedious. What you are saying is certainly true, but
why you think you need to tell me this, I'm not sure.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY


Sorry--More for the benefit of other readers.

Sorry for over-reacting, then.

--
Daryl

On Dec 21, 10:55*am, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
Sam Wormley says...



On 12/21/09 10:30 AM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Newberry says...

Velocity c with respect to what?

Operationally, constancy of the speed of light means this: Take two standard
clocks and synchronize them. Slowly move them a distance...

* What makes you think that "slowly" moving them makes a difference?

Because if clocks are moved about at speeds comparable to the speed of
light,

Speed of light with respect to what?

then they do not remain synchronized (unless their motions are
exactly identical).

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:26:44 -0800 (PST), Newberry
wrote:


Speed of light with respect to what?

SR does not attempt to answer that question.

This paper does however:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039
"......The spacecraft observations demonstrate again that the speed of
light is not invariant, and is isotropic only with respect to a
dynamical 3-space....."

On Dec 20, 3:52 am, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Note also that Einstein's second postulate is not actually
required to develop the theory. A suitable alternate is:
no signal propagates with infinite speed.

Tom Roberts' texts are either extremely stupid or extremely dishonest
(or both). Here is another one where Roberts solemnly declares that
even if the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
source as Newton's emission theory of light requires (even if "light
in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform"), Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity "would be
unaffected":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
Arindam Banerjee says...

Very good. Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of the
emitter.

No, it certainly does not.

It most certainly does. By rubbing out what I wrote, by not even
considering it, let alone debunking it, are you not proving yourself a
LIAR? Are not all you Einstieinians are the most dangerous scoundrels and
frauds on this planet, far far far worse than all the politicians and
terrorists? The sooner the public wakes up and knows you for what you types
are, the most abominable scum that called themselves men of science, won't
it be all the better for humanity? We can have interstellar travel within
20 years, and the Hydrogen Transmission Network to fix our energy and water
needs for all time. The only problem is that the einsteinian scum are
hogging all the research money, and won't let go.

It has been known for nearly 150 years that light is
a rapidly oscillating electromagnetic field described by Maxwell's
equations.
The speed of light is uniquely determined by two parameters: epsilon and
mu,
whe (1) the electric field E a distance r from a point particle of
charge Q
has magnitude Q/(4 pi epsilon r^2), and (2) the magnetic field B a
distance r
from a wire carrying current J has magnitude mu J/(2 pi r). The astounding
prediction of Maxwell's equations is that these two constants determined
from
time independent charges and currents imply the existence of travelling
electromagnetic waves of velocity c = 1/square-root(mu epsilon). The
velocity of
the emitter has no role whatsoever in the theory, which has been tested in
an
enormous number and variety of experiments.

Same lies repeated time and again do not constitute science. They are not
even religion. They are simply FRAUD. All you theoretical "scientists" are
FRAUDS.
Now, let any institution with any guts sue me.
We shall settle this matter in any LAW COURT where they have to consider the
grammar of the English language, and have a minimum level of HONESTY and
INTELLIGENCE.
I would like more interest in this matter. I will then post my work in
Internet once again, the way I have done for the last ten years! I am sad
to say that I have lost faith in human nature, thanks to the vile influence
of the einsteinians upon the public mind. Let us see, if ONE among you all
has the guts to ask me to post my work once again. If ALL are liars and
cowards, what is the point... Not in this medium at any rate!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
Arindam Banerjee says...

Very good. Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of the
emitter.

No, it certainly does not. It has been known for nearly 150 years that
light is
a rapidly oscillating electromagnetic field described by Maxwell's
equations.
The speed of light is uniquely determined by two parameters: epsilon and
mu,
whe (1) the electric field E a distance r from a point particle of
charge Q
has magnitude Q/(4 pi epsilon r^2), and (2) the magnetic field B a
distance r
from a wire carrying current J has magnitude mu J/(2 pi r). The astounding
prediction of Maxwell's equations is that these two constants determined
from
time independent charges and currents imply the existence of travelling
electromagnetic waves of velocity c = 1/square-root(mu epsilon). The
velocity of
the emitter has no role whatsoever in the theory, which has been tested in
an
enormous number and variety of experiments.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the
refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years,
desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light
would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the
required phase differences.

It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong
impression (based upon a huge bungle) about all the e=mcc stuff. It is most
unworthy for any man of honour to believe that crap, especially when I have
found out the correct equation linking mass and energy from first
principles.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.

Arindam Banerjee says...

The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the
refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years,
desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light
would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the
required phase differences.

Yes, that is true. The current understanding of dielectrics at the microscopic
level is this: An external electromagnetic field is applied to a material. In
response to this external field, charges and dipoles in the material move and
change orientation. This in turn produces its own response field, which adds to
the original external field. In the case of magnetic fields, the net result is
to increase the field, as magnetic dipoles tend to line up with external
magnetic fields. In the case of electric fields, the net result is to decrease
the field, because charges and electric dipoles move around to cancel the
external field.

The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the
vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of
the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic
fields in vacuum.

It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong
impression (based upon a huge bungle) about all the e=mcc stuff. It is most
unworthy for any man of honour to believe that crap, especially when I have
found out the correct equation linking mass and energy from first
principles.

I don't think so.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Arindam Banerjee says...


"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
Arindam Banerjee says...

Very good. Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of the
emitter.

No, it certainly does not.

It most certainly does. By rubbing out what I wrote, by not even
considering it, let alone debunking it, are you not proving yourself a
LIAR?

No. I described what actually happens in electromagnetic propagation. If you
want someone to seriously consider your alternative theory, send it in to a
physics journal.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY