Re: c = constant

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:25:35 +0100, "Harry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"HenriWilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>SNIP
>
>> Have you completely lost your power of reason? I am PROVING length
>invariance,
>> not assuming it.
>
>I must have missed that. Where/when? did you prove that ?
>
>> >> Like I said once, "an SRians is someone who believes that every time he
>moves,
>> >> half the universe shrinks and the other half expands".
>
>Yes. But although it is illogical, it is not "hard" proof.

The proof that real properties do NOT depend on velocity is trivial. They are
NOT observer dependent. See for instance my demo
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/contractions.exe


>> >>>>burden of showing length contraction. To do that, they must rely on
>the
>> >>>>postulates of Einstein.
>
>As far as I know, "length contraction" has never been tested directly
>(without other assumptions), except with the experiment of Marinov - and he
>claimed that the results agreed with his assumption of no length
>contraction.
>
>SNIP
>
>> Mass, length and time dilations are visual illusions caused by the fact
>that we
>> haveto use light for communication. Ini an instantaneoius universe, they
>> wouldn't exist.
>
>Now what about energy? Mass expresses stored and/or entrained energy.
>Experiments confirm the increase of this for electrons and ions.
>No EM time delay involved!

My explanation for this is that the additional energy is stored in a 'reverse
field bubble' around the moving charge. Mass doesn't increase at all - but the
equation is similar to the gamma factor.

>
>> The reason I say gamma is wrong is that 'v' must occur linearly not as a
>> quadratic. Otherwise an object or wave moving towards us would appear the
>same
>> as one moving away. We know that is not true.
>
>Huh?

A clock appears to run fast when moving towards us but slow when moving away.
According to SR it runs slow either way (becasue of the v^2 term).

>
>> >>>That light speed is independent of the source is well verified, as are
>> >>>the deductions from that principle.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Long range, maybe but short range source dependency is a most likely
>scenario.
>> >>
>> >Based on what evidence or theory?
>>
>> My H-aether theory. The MMX clearly supports short range source
>dependency.
>> Light emitted from remote space objects have only one reference, their
>sources.
>
>If light speed is relative to the source, how come it does not depend on the
>source?

If light emitted from a completely remote source does not move at some velocity
relative to that source, what do you suggest it moves relative to?

>
>SNIP
>
>> >Two hundred years of experiments have failed to show a dependence of
>> >light speed on the source or the observer.  The light postulate is the
>> >simplest explanation.
>>
>> OK please explain how light from differently moving remote sources is
>supposed
>> to end up traveling through space at the same speed. Is a property of
>space
>> responsible?
>>
>> Relativity hasn't a clue how to answer this basic question.
>
>And you, same question?

My H-aether theory provides a possible rudimentary explanation.

>
>Harald
>


Henri Wilson. 
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm