speed of light

like your reflection goes on dates with you.

Profound

(I can see myself in your eyes)

Every single person in my life is my mirror. Others are reflecting parts of my own consciousness back to me, giving me an opportunity to really see myself. The qualities I admire in others are my own The qualities I dislike in others are those qualities I dislike in my self

Profundity TZ, profundity...

prove it.

jonnythan's post was in 2009, but he isn't here any more, though I'm sure you will view his absence as some sort of proof that you are correct about something.

This is a contradiction.

First you say that the light moves totally independent to the source or observer.

Then you say the opposite, that the observer IS moving WITH to light, which MUST mean that he sees the light moving at the same speed as himself.

You cant have it both ways. unless you are Einstein, who performs miracles.

you can prove it then?

people read threads, old and new, my comment is open to anyone.

Your post appeared to be asking jonnythan a question.

I was trying to help you.

yeah, thanks, your a pal

You are welcome.

If I've understood everything correctly, these are two separate concepts. One deals with the speed of light itself and the other deals with the relative speeds of the observer and the source.

Lets take these concepts individually. Suppose that someone is throwing a ball at 5 mph to another person. This is our proxy for the speed of light. Now suppose that at the same time both people are moving away from each other cumulatively at 2 mph. It could be that one person is moving away from the other at 2 mph, or that each person is moving away from the other at 1 mph each. This is what causes blue/red shift.

Every way in which our technology allows to test for the speed of light comes back with the same answer, regardless of the velocity of either the source or the observer. By that same token, all of the math checks out as well.

The speed of light sprang from an observation, and that later became a general assumption.

It's like you've argued about circular definitions.

Although currently the speed of light and a standard length are circular, at one time the speed of light was thought to be infinite and a standard length was a mans arm. .. we've learned since then


Any frame, or reality is based on some sort of standard reference. At the moment, we are limited to determining EM velocity as a constant, along with time (for practical purposes) as a reference. I would imagine in some reality, there is a larger frame where EM is variable along with time, in reference to a greater dimension.

...if there is a 4th or 5th dimension, "Our eyes can't look in that direction"

So, with the speed of light as a basis for the frame of reference for our reality, you will not be able to measure it as anything different.

I have no explanation why EM is so special in our reality.

thats a reasonable analogy. but as Einstein's postulates claim, the way physics work will be identical for any observer, so if both these observers are reading the incoming ball speed at 5 mph, then the light wave cant be stretched because that would mean that the light physics was different as witnessed buy a moving observer.

The 2nd postulate claim was that there was no way to tell if you were moving or not. But if one observer saw a red shift, or blue shift then he would know he was moving, and in which direction and how fast.

Plus in your 5 mph example, each recipient of the ball would measure it coming in at 5 mph minus his own speed, or 3 mph as he is moving further away.

Einstein confirms this as he shows in many carriage and observers experiments that the light has to travel further to reach the moving guy. So the moving guy will always deduct his speed from the light speed, which is the only rational way to do it. Never the less, light will still be moving at light speed, its only the moving observer that measures it at plus or minus according to his own relative speed. This is the sane, logical way to view light, and fits in with red shift, and all the rest of classical physics.

Einstein's logic goes like this: It's 6 foot long, and it's NOT 6 foot long.

except that there is no clear experiment that shows that a moving observer will still get the same value as the stationary observer. that part is conjecture, and if we assume it correct, we get stupid claims like length contracts and time shrinks.