Thread: how fast is the Earth moving?

does not light travel at a fixed rate in a vacumn?
can we not measure the speed of light in all directions and compare the different relative speeds?
I would assume the highest recorded speed would in the opposite direction then we are traveling at that moment.
I would also think a 90 degree off would give an exact speed of light (time wise) but would move off its center mark.

I dont want to hear the we have to measure our speed against some reference point. If the speed of light is constant no matter how fast we are moving, we should be able to detect that. Or perhaps we dont know the exact speed of light?

Lorddog

Originally Posted by lorddog

does not light travel at a fixed rate in a vacumn?

Yes.

Originally Posted by lorddog

can we not measure the speed of light in all directions and compare the different relative speeds?

Excellent idea. A really first rate idea. Measure the differences, as you say, and we'll find it faster in one direction than another and so we can figure out how fast we are 'really' travelling.

Michelson and Morley went to a great deal of effort to set up just such an experiment. They took immense care to ensure they would be able to detect quite small differences. To their amazement their was no difference. The speed of light was the same in all directions.

So everyone sat back and scratched their heads and a few years later a patent clerk had a bright idea and Relativity was born.

Originally Posted by lorddog

I dont want to hear the we have to measure our speed against some reference point.

If you don't want to hear it then you don't wan't and cannot receive an answer, because that's where it's at.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

So everyone sat back and scratched their heads and a few years later a patent clerk had a bright idea and Relativity was born.

Well, to be fair, a patent clerk with a Phd in Physics.

Originally Posted by Janus

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

So everyone sat back and scratched their heads and a few years later a patent clerk had a bright idea and Relativity was born.

Well, to be fair, a patent clerk with a Phd in Physics.

Technically not. His paper that introduced Special Relativity was received for publication on the 30th of June and his PhD dissertation was not submitted till 20 July. So at the time he wrote it he was not a Doctor.

To All

Our Earth is moving in its orbit at 30 kilometers per second.

The reason the 'speed of light' was moving at the same velocity in all directions in the M-M exp is because the source of their light was moving with the experiment (Earth).
Light moves through the electric fields that surround the light source.
So the velocity of light is uniform to the sources of that light.
So one has to add or deduct the velocity of the light source to get the real velocity relative to space or other surrounding objects in the universe. If the light source is moving 'laterally, then you do not add or deduct .

So relative to the observers, light does have slight differences in speed.
That is why we see redshifts and blue shifts where the objects are near to us or at distances that can be measured by measuring the galactic spiral redshifts on each side.

But my theory of the expansion of the light waves at great distances, accounts for the apparent illusion of space expanding.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The reason the 'speed of light' was moving at the same velocity in all directions in the M-M exp is because the source of their light was moving with the experiment (Earth).

Nope. They could just as well have used the light of the stars (if only it is strong enough), or the Sun (directly and/or the one reflected from the Moon). Or any other light source, including a fast-moving illuminating flare fired from another spacecraft in a different orbit - if only the light was travelling along such lines as the geometry of their experiment could be made to match.

The whole point is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, regardless of how the observer or the source are moving (relative to each other or anything else). Yes it is counterintuitive. That's why it took an Einstein to discover.

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The reason the 'speed of light' was moving at the same velocity in all directions in the M-M exp is because the source of their light was moving with the experiment (Earth).

Nope. They could just as well have used the light of the stars (if only it is strong enough), or the Sun (directly and/or the one reflected from the Moon). Or any other light source, including a fast-moving illuminating flare fired from another spacecraft in a different orbit - if only the light was travelling along such lines as the geometry of their experiment could be made to match.

The whole point is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, regardless of how the observer or the source are moving (relative to each other or anything else). Yes it is counterintuitive. That's why it took an Einstein to discover.

The sources of light are surrounded by 'electric fields'.
Space has no influence on the velocity of light. So the velocity of light is relative to its source and not space.
It it was relative to space, than we would see only light that is shifted to the Earth velocity. This is Nonsense.

I do not accept Einsteins science. The most important reason is because his M/E formuls is not credible.
I has a very important component missing and that is the frequency of 'c'.
Using 'c' in an energy formula has to include its frequency.
Besides, his formuls is a general form that deals with variable quantities besides the frequency that is also variable.

Another reason why I think Einstein is wrong is because his 'curvature of space'
that would influence the movements of the orbitting bodies like Mercury, would also cause the erosion of momentum of these bodies to cause his 'static' universe to collapse as he said.
But his idea was saved by the false BBT of space expansion.

Read my article on the 'Flat Space" universe.

Cosmo

Cosmo, please, if you really think you have made a discovery of such proportions as invalidating Einstein, at least give us your improved formula in its full glory so we can have a clue what you are talking about.

Cosmo, stop infesting every thread with your theory. This is considered spamming. Future posts will be deleted without warning. Shape up, or ship out.

Nearly the speed of light.

[quote="Cosmo"][quote="Leszek Luchowski"]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I do not accept Einsteins science. The most important reason is because his M/E formuls is not credible.
I has a very important component missing and that is the frequency of 'c'.
Using 'c' in an energy formula has to include its frequency.
Besides, his formuls is a general form that deals with variable quantities besides the frequency that is also variable.


Cosmo

Oh please! That's like saying that the formula of distance/velocity= time isn't credible for telling you how long it takes to drive a 10 miles at a 60 mph because it doesn't take into account the mpg of the car!

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

Cosmo, please, if you really think you have made a discovery of such proportions as invalidating Einstein, at least give us your improved formula in its full glory so we can have a clue what you are talking about.

See my post entitled 'A Major Discovery'

It should be on page one or two of the Cosmology sector.

Ophi
In this case, I am answering a question.

However in the future, I will quit, as you say, spamming.

I am just promoting the 'truth' as I interpret it.

Cosmo

[quote="Janus"][quote="Cosmo"]

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I do not accept Einsteins science. The most important reason is because his M/E formuls is not credible.
I has a very important component missing and that is the frequency of 'c'.
Using 'c' in an energy formula has to include its frequency.
Besides, his formuls is a general form that deals with variable quantities besides the frequency that is also variable.


Cosmo

Oh please! That's like saying that the formula of distance/velocity= time isn't credible for telling you how long it takes to drive a 10 miles at a 60 mph because it doesn't take into account the mpg of the car!

I thoght about the simplest formula for determing the energy of an event.
So I originally thought that distance x time would be the answer, but that is not quite right.

Two vehicles moving at the same speed, are using the same amount of energy, tight? Wrong!

A truck and a car moving at the same speed would not be equal as far as energy is concerned because the truck would be using 'more' energy.
So in an energy formula, mass has to be included.

So in an energy/light formula, the frequency or wavelength has to be included.

Cosmo

[quote="Cosmo"][quote="Janus"]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I do not accept Einsteins science. The most important reason is because his M/E formuls is not credible.
I has a very important component missing and that is the frequency of 'c'.
Using 'c' in an energy formula has to include its frequency.
Besides, his formuls is a general form that deals with variable quantities besides the frequency that is also variable.


Cosmo

Oh please! That's like saying that the formula of distance/velocity= time isn't credible for telling you how long it takes to drive a 10 miles at a 60 mph because it doesn't take into account the mpg of the car!

I thoght about the simplest formula for determing the energy of an event.
So I originally thought that distance x time would be the answer, but that is not quite right.

Two vehicles moving at the same speed, are using the same amount of energy, tight? Wrong!

A truck and a car moving at the same speed would not be equal as far as energy is concerned because the truck would be using 'more' energy.
So in an energy formula, mass has to be included.

So in an energy/light formula, the frequency or wavelength has to be included.

Cosmo

But isn't an energy/light formula, it is a mass/energy formula.

is an energy/light formula. which give the amount of energy a single photon of a known frequency will have.

, on the other hand, is the energy equivalence of a given mass. And the fact that it has c in it, and c is the speed of light, and light has a frequency is just a matter of free association and has no meaning beyond that.
c is just the speed of light, and nothing more(In fact, if you called it "maximum speed of information transfer", it would make no difference. ). c is just shorthand for

Because says nothing about what form that energy takes. It could be as light or, as in the case of a portion of th energy released in nuclear reactions, as kinetic energy of the remaining mass.

And even when some or all of it is converted to electromagnetic energy, that energy can be at any frequency. Its just a matter of how many photons are emitted. So frequency is irrelevant to E=mc². Just like MPG is irrelevant to how long it takes to drive a given distance.

[quote="Janus"][quote="Cosmo"]

Originally Posted by Janus

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I do not accept Einsteins science. The most important reason is because his M/E formuls is not credible.
I has a very important component missing and that is the frequency of 'c'.
Using 'c' in an energy formula has to include its frequency.
Besides, his formuls is a general form that deals with variable quantities besides the frequency that is also variable.


Cosmo

Oh please! That's like saying that the formula of distance/velocity= time isn't credible for telling you how long it takes to drive a 10 miles at a 60 mph because it doesn't take into account the mpg of the car!

I thoght about the simplest formula for determing the energy of an event.
So I originally thought that distance x time would be the answer, but that is not quite right.

Two vehicles moving at the same speed, are using the same amount of energy, tight? Wrong!

A truck and a car moving at the same speed would not be equal as far as energy is concerned because the truck would be using 'more' energy.
So in an energy formula, mass has to be included.

So in an energy/light formula, the frequency or wavelength has to be included.

Cosmo

But isn't an energy/light formula, it is a mass/energy formula.

is an energy/light formula. which give the amount of energy a single photon of a known frequency will have.

, on the other hand, is the energy equivalence of a given mass. And the fact that it has c in it, and c is the speed of light, and light has a frequency is just a matter of free association and has no meaning beyond that.
c is just the speed of light, and nothing more(In fact, if you called it "maximum speed of information transfer", it would make no difference. ). c is just shorthand for

Because says nothing about what form that energy takes. It could be as light or, as in the case of a portion of th energy released in nuclear reactions, as kinetic energy of the remaining mass.

And even when some or all of it is converted to electromagnetic energy, that energy can be at any frequency. Its just a matter of how many photons are emitted. So frequency is irrelevant to E=mc². Just like MPG is irrelevant to how long it takes to drive a given distance.

As I have said, mass is a factor in an energy formula, but the mass itself is not converted into energy.
That is where most people are wrong because the Eeinstein Formula implies that mass can be converted into pure energy.

I believe in the Laws of Conservation of Mass, Energy, Momentum and Charge.
So each component is a 'fixed' value.
For instance, mass may undergo a 'phase' transfer from solid to liquid to gas.
But by weight, the mass is still a fixed value by itself.

In a 'fission' bomb, there is no mass conversion to energy. The energy here is transformed from the 'potential' energy contained by the 'strong' force into kinetic energy. So the energy released here was transformed from potential to kinetic.
So in the above cases, their is no changes in the values of mass and energy.

Anyway, Einsteins formula uses only variable.values. So the omission of the frequency/wavelength is not practical.

Cosmo

I am not participating in this discussion any more, but I just want to point out that quite a few of the recent posts got the quotes wrong.

As a result, words I never wrote have been attributed to me.

Thank you for your discernment,
Leszek.

c is just the speed of light, and nothing more(In fact, if you called it "maximum speed of information transfer", it would make no difference. )

this reminded me of a thought i had a couple of years back, after a doobie

what if, the speed of light is just our maximum rate of perception? the framerate of time if you will.

any thoughts on the validity or implications of this? i've never bounced it off anyone, and don't think its worthy of its own thread.

Originally Posted by redrighthand

c is just the speed of light, and nothing more(In fact, if you called it "maximum speed of information transfer", it would make no difference. )

this reminded me of a thought i had a couple of years back, after a doobie

what if, the speed of light is just our maximum rate of perception? the framerate of time if you will.

any thoughts on the validity or implications of this? i've never bounced it off anyone, and don't think its worthy of its own thread.

Computers may have their origin from our brain functions but our brains are still not like computers.

Cosmo