Reply With QuoteDidn't you post the same thing back on the 7th September 2009 in post #4 of this threadOriginally Posted by nakakayama
http://www.ukskeptics.com/showthread...ends-on-Aether
On the moon's surface, there is a passenger car. It's roof is made of glass. From just above, light waves (plane waves) of a star are entering this roof horizontally. These plane waves reach floor horizontally also (it must be so geometrically). If Einstein's "right triangle" is right, when the passenger car moves, number of waves that stay between the roof and floor may increase. And it may be the same to an observer who is in the passenger car (it's irrational. speed of light ray in the moving car is appearance).
Didn't you post the same thing back on the 7th September 2009 in post #4 of this thread
http://www.ukskeptics.com/showthread...ends-on-Aether
He did.
And popping back in to post it after 7 months too!
.
On Mars's surface, there is a dancing wombat. Its shoes are made of plastic.
But the speed of light is still constant.
Proof? I find this very hard to believe as everyone knows wombats cant dance.
skb
[P.S. : To the post on 1 Feb 10] The speed of wave front (horizontal) in above passenger car (moving) may be visible to be the same to an observer who stands on the moon's surface.
Perhaps it's because English is not your first language (am I right) that I am having difficulty following this. If it's physics, then could you use the universal language of science and express it mathematically?
I have to say that if you are right, then you will prove Einstein wrong and get the Nobel prize. On that basis, I am a little surprised that you feel it necessary to communicate this revelation in physics via this somewhat modest website (no offence to John).
The wombat has had a few beers and is chatting up a couple of foxy chicks. This may be visible to be the same to an observer who stands on Mars's surface.
Last edited by Croydon Bob; 3rd February 2010 at 10:43 AM. Reason: to make it less clear
This is the beautiful thing about science. It doesn't rely on thought and imagination. It doesn't rely on maths and logic. It doesn't rely on experiments. It relies on a combination of all three.
The problem with your claims is that you are basing them solely on your imagination. You will never get anywhere with this approach. It doesn't matter how great you think your ideas are and how silly you think other people's are, your thoughts are utterly meaningless without some attempt to compare them to the real world. Rather than just telling us how you imagine things should be, do the maths to see what results your assumptions should actually lead to in the real world. Then go to the real world and take actual measurements to see what really happens.
For the maths part, it has been calculated many times what should be observed if the speed of light is either constant or variable. When we then take real measurements, it turns out that a constant speed of light gives answers that match extremely closely with reality, while a variable one simply doesn't. In addition, we can even directly measure the speed of light itself. Every time this is done, we get the same answer.
So you see, your ideas might be a lovely mathematical exercise in how the world would be if the speed of light was not a constant (although it's hard to tell, and your incoherence rather suggests you don't understand enough basic physics for that to be the case), but they simply have no meaning in the real world.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks