SR supporters seem to take *ZERO* notice of symmetri when regarding
motion when they claim that light moves invariant in vaccum with a
velocity of 300 000 km.

Studying their argument a bit closer one find out that their group
velocity in Euclidian space actually end up to be Newtons c+v with
other clothes, in Minkowski spacetime.

Ships that pass an Euclidian cordinate systems origo along the x-axis
*AT DIFFERENT VELOCITIES* firing a lightpulse positive along the x-
axis at t0 will have different lengths of the light path in the
euclidian cordinate systems after 1 second AKA t1

In fact according to a t0 *OBSERVER IN ORIGO* they they will perfectly
match the Newtonian notion of c+v, and even c-v if ship pass origo
negative along the x-axis.

Just look at my my earlier thread velocity dependent trajectories and
you will see.

You see the diagonal argument does not just apply to lightpulses fired
along the y-axis, the argument is perfectly valid for lightpulses
fired along the x-axis the ships travelling direction if positive or
negative.

Best regard Jonas Thörnvall

SR supporters seem to take *ZERO* notice of symmetri when regarding
motion when they claim that light moves invariant in vaccum with a
velocity of 300 000 km.

Studying their argument a bit closer one find out that their group
velocity in Euclidian space actually end up to be Newtons c+v with
other clothes, in Minkowski spacetime.

Ships that pass an Euclidian cordinate systems origo along the x-axis
*AT DIFFERENT VELOCITIES* firing a lightpulse positive along the x-
axis at t0 will have different lengths of the light path in the
euclidian cordinate systems after 1 second AKA t1

In fact according to a t0 *OBSERVER IN ORIGO* they they will perfectly
match the Newtonian notion of c+v, and even c-v if ship pass origo
negative along the x-axis.

Just look at my my earlier thread velocity dependent trajectories and
you will see.

On Feb 26, 3:09 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:





SR supporters seem to take *ZERO* notice of symmetri when regarding
motion when they claim that light moves invariant in vaccum with a
velocity of 300 000 km.

Studying their argument a bit closer one find out that their group
velocity in Euclidian space actually end up to be Newtons c+v with
other clothes, in Minkowski spacetime.

Ships that pass an Euclidian cordinate systems origo along the x-axis
*AT DIFFERENT VELOCITIES* firing a lightpulse positive along the x-
axis at t0 will have different lengths of the light path in the
euclidian cordinate systems after 1 second AKA t1

In fact according to a t0 *OBSERVER IN ORIGO* they they will perfectly
match the Newtonian notion of c+v, and even c-v if ship pass origo
negative along the x-axis.

Just look at my my earlier thread velocity dependent trajectories and
you will see.

You see the diagonal argument does not just apply to lightpulses fired
along the y-axis, the argument is perfectly valid for lightpulses
fired along the x-axis the ships travelling direction if positive or
negative.

Best regard Jonas Thörnvall

What kind of vacuum are you refering to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_spacehttp://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what..html

Sue...- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

On 26 Feb, 21:37, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:





On Feb 26, 3:09 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

SR supporters seem to take *ZERO* notice of symmetri when regarding
motion when they claim that light moves invariant in vaccum with a
velocity of 300 000 km.

Studying their argument a bit closer one find out that their group
velocity in Euclidian space actually end up to be Newtons c+v with
other clothes, in Minkowski spacetime.

Ships that pass an Euclidian cordinate systems origo along the x-axis
*AT DIFFERENT VELOCITIES* firing a lightpulse positive along the x-
axis at t0 will have different lengths of the light path in the
euclidian cordinate systems after 1 second AKA t1

In fact according to a t0 *OBSERVER IN ORIGO* they they will perfectly
match the Newtonian notion of c+v, and even c-v if ship pass origo
negative along the x-axis.

Just look at my my earlier thread velocity dependent trajectories and
you will see.

You see the diagonal argument does not just apply to lightpulses fired
along the y-axis, the argument is perfectly valid for lightpulses
fired along the x-axis the ships travelling direction if positive or
negative.

Best regard Jonas Thörnvall

What kind of vacuum are you refering to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_spacehttp://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/...

Sue...- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

In metric units, c is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second
(1,079,252,848.8 km/h). Note that this speed is a
*********definition, not a measurement***********.

Yes, this is the defined lightspeed *******AS EXPRESSED BY A
METRIC****** that is "frame dependent"

Since the fundamental SI unit of length, the metre, has been defined
since
**********October 21, 1983***********

Yes this is the date they made the ********metric******* variable AKA
framedependent, you want to know how see below... Indeed a very slick
trick or if you want to call it con or fraud is up to you.

in terms of the speed of light; one metre is the
**********distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a
second.************

Yes, the meter is no longer a constant it is a *factor* depending
upon the worldline of the "actual inertial frame" that will measure
the meter and if we give up the meter as constant we automatically
give up the distance to.

We did give up the constant proper meters.

So when measuring the *LIGHSPEED* the distances light travel per
second will be a function of v=d/t, where distance of course is
measured in a *FRAME DEPENDENT METER* and come out us a factor of a
proper meter when applied to the Lorentz transformation.

If the meter now is variable and a factor between frames, i hope
everyone can see that the distance is to, and if the variable distance
is used to measure *LIGHTSPEED* i ....hope.... it is pretty much clear
to anyone that light does not travel invariant through vacuum space, i
may though be asking for to much.

Maybe it is not clear to everyone that light do not travel invariant
through the vacuum of space.
But then again i will tell you it is only *APPEARING TO DO SO* by
applying the Lorentz transformation.

Light never did travel invariant through space, it will however travel
invariant *BETWEEN FRAMES* ===IF ONLY SINGLE PAIRED COMPARED=== and
one apply the Lorentz transformation.

That is sadly not the same thing that the light will travel *INVARIANT
THROUGH VACUUM SPACE*, if applying a simple Euclidian cordinate space
of x,y,x it is *TRIVIAL* to show that is not the case.

However any SR supporter will refuse to use it and plot in t0 and t1
events in flat spacetime because that would invalidate their theory.

This is pretty much the truth about SR, maybe a misconception that did
grew to big to handle for the scientific community.

Best regards Jonas Thornvall- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 26, 4:51 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:





On 26 Feb, 21:37, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Feb 26, 3:09 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

SR supporters seem to take *ZERO* notice of symmetri when regarding
motion when they claim that light moves invariant in vaccum with a
velocity of 300 000 km.

Studying their argument a bit closer one find out that their group
velocity in Euclidian space actually end up to be Newtons c+v with
other clothes, in Minkowski spacetime.

Ships that pass an Euclidian cordinate systems origo along the x-axis
*AT DIFFERENT VELOCITIES* firing a lightpulse positive along the x-
axis at t0 will have different lengths of the light path in the
euclidian cordinate systems after 1 second AKA t1

In fact according to a t0 *OBSERVER IN ORIGO* they they will perfectly
match the Newtonian notion of c+v, and even c-v if ship pass origo
negative along the x-axis.

Just look at my my earlier thread velocity dependent trajectories and
you will see.

You see the diagonal argument does not just apply to lightpulses fired
along the y-axis, the argument is perfectly valid for lightpulses
fired along the x-axis the ships travelling direction if positive or
negative.

Best regard Jonas Thörnvall

What kind of vacuum are you refering to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_spacehttp://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/....

Sue...- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

In metric units, c is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second
(1,079,252,848.8 km/h). Note that this speed is a
*********definition, not a measurement***********.

Yes, this is the defined lightspeed *******AS EXPRESSED BY A
METRIC****** that is "frame dependent"

Since the fundamental SI unit of length, the metre, has been defined
since
**********October 21, 1983***********

Yes this is the date they made the ********metric******* variable AKA
framedependent, you want to know how see below... Indeed a very slick
trick or if you want to call it con or fraud is up to you.

in terms of the speed of light; one metre is the
**********distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a
second.************

Yes, the meter is no longer a constant it is a *factor* depending
upon the worldline of the "actual inertial frame" that will measure
the meter and if we give up the meter as constant we automatically
give up the distance to.

We did give up the constant proper meters.

So when measuring the *LIGHSPEED* the distances light travel per
second will be a function of v=d/t, where distance of course is
measured in a *FRAME DEPENDENT METER* and come out us a factor of a
proper meter when applied to the Lorentz transformation.

If the meter now is variable and a factor between frames, i hope
everyone can see that the distance is to, and if the variable distance
is used to measure *LIGHTSPEED* i ....hope.... it is pretty much clear
to anyone that light does not travel invariant through vacuum space, i
may though be asking for to much.

Maybe it is not clear to everyone that light do not travel invariant
through the vacuum of space.
But then again i will tell you it is only *APPEARING TO DO SO* by
applying the Lorentz transformation.

Light never did travel invariant through space, it will however travel
invariant *BETWEEN FRAMES* ===IF ONLY SINGLE PAIRED COMPARED=== and
one apply the Lorentz transformation.

That is sadly not the same thing that the light will travel *INVARIANT
THROUGH VACUUM SPACE*, if applying a simple Euclidian cordinate space
of x,y,x it is *TRIVIAL* to show that is not the case.

However any SR supporter will refuse to use it and plot in t0 and t1
events in flat spacetime because that would invalidate their theory.

This is pretty much the truth about SR, maybe a misconception that did
grew to big to handle for the scientific community.

If you can't explain what you mean by vacuum it
is all really moot isn't it.

Sue...

Best regards Jonas Thornvall- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

On 26 Feb, 22:58, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:





On Feb 26, 4:51 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

On 26 Feb, 21:37, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Feb 26, 3:09 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

SR supporters seem to take *ZERO* notice of symmetri when regarding
motion when they claim that light moves invariant in vaccum with a
velocity of 300 000 km.

Studying their argument a bit closer one find out that their group
velocity in Euclidian space actually end up to be Newtons c+v with
other clothes, in Minkowski spacetime.

Ships that pass an Euclidian cordinate systems origo along the x-axis
*AT DIFFERENT VELOCITIES* firing a lightpulse positive along the x-
axis at t0 will have different lengths of the light path in the
euclidian cordinate systems after 1 second  AKA t1

In fact according to a t0 *OBSERVER IN ORIGO* they they will perfectly
match the Newtonian notion of c+v, and even c-v if ship pass origo
negative along the x-axis.

Just look at my my earlier thread velocity dependent trajectories and
you will see.

You see the diagonal argument does not just apply to lightpulses fired
along the y-axis, the argument is perfectly valid for lightpulses
fired along the x-axis the ships travelling direction if positive or
negative.

Best regard Jonas Thörnvall

What kind of vacuum are you refering to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_spacehttp://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/...

Sue...- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

In metric units, c is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second
(1,079,252,848.8 km/h). Note that this speed is a
*********definition, not a measurement***********.

Yes, this is the defined lightspeed *******AS EXPRESSED BY A
METRIC****** that is "frame dependent"

Since the fundamental SI unit of length, the metre, has been defined
since
**********October 21, 1983***********

Yes this is the date they made the ********metric******* variable AKA
framedependent, you want to know how see below... Indeed a very slick
trick or if you want to call it con or fraud is up to you.

in terms of the speed of light; one metre is the
**********distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a
second.************

Yes, the meter is no longer a constant it is a *factor*  depending
upon the worldline of the "actual inertial frame" that will measure
the meter and if we give up the meter as constant we automatically
give up the distance to.

We did give up the constant proper meters.

So when measuring the *LIGHSPEED* the distances light travel per
second will be a function of v=d/t, where distance of course is
measured in a *FRAME DEPENDENT METER* and come out us a factor of a
proper meter when applied to the Lorentz transformation.

If the meter now is variable and a factor between frames, i hope
everyone can see that the distance is to, and if the variable distance
is used to measure *LIGHTSPEED* i ....hope.... it is pretty much clear
to anyone that light does not travel invariant through vacuum space, i
may though be asking for to much.

Maybe it is not clear to everyone that light do not travel invariant
through the vacuum of space.
But then again i will tell you it is only *APPEARING TO DO SO* by
applying the Lorentz transformation.

Light never did travel invariant through space, it will however travel
invariant *BETWEEN FRAMES* ===IF ONLY SINGLE PAIRED COMPARED=== and
one apply the Lorentz transformation.

That is sadly not the same thing that the light will travel *INVARIANT
THROUGH VACUUM SPACE*, if applying a simple Euclidian cordinate space
of x,y,x it is *TRIVIAL* to show that is not the case.

However any SR supporter will refuse to use it and plot in t0 and t1
events in flat spacetime because that would invalidate their theory.

This is pretty much the truth about SR, maybe a misconception that did
grew to big to handle for the scientific community.

If you can't explain what you mean by vacuum it
is all really moot isn't it.

Sue...

Well since we now not talking about the subject anymore but are into
game play, i used the vacuum used by the SI team *WHEN THEY STATED
THAT ONE METER IS THE DISTANCE LIGHT TRAVELS IN A VACUUM IN
1/299,792,458 OF A SECOND*

And by the way they left a footnote
***note that this speed is a definition not a measurement***

I guess you will have to call them and ask what vacuum they had in
mind when they did the
********************************definition**************************
 bcs it must be fucking important to the discussed subject musn't it.

Best regards Jonas Thornvall

On Feb 26, 5:16 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:





On 26 Feb, 22:58, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Feb 26, 4:51 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

On 26 Feb, 21:37, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Feb 26, 3:09 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

SR supporters seem to take *ZERO* notice of symmetri when regarding
motion when they claim that light moves invariant in vaccum with a
velocity of 300 000 km.

Studying their argument a bit closer one find out that their group
velocity in Euclidian space actually end up to be Newtons c+v with
other clothes, in Minkowski spacetime.

Ships that pass an Euclidian cordinate systems origo along the x-axis
*AT DIFFERENT VELOCITIES* firing a lightpulse positive along the x-
axis at t0 will have different lengths of the light path in the
euclidian cordinate systems after 1 second  AKA t1

In fact according to a t0 *OBSERVER IN ORIGO* they they will perfectly
match the Newtonian notion of c+v, and even c-v if ship pass origo
negative along the x-axis.

Just look at my my earlier thread velocity dependent trajectories and
you will see.

You see the diagonal argument does not just apply to lightpulses fired
along the y-axis, the argument is perfectly valid for lightpulses
fired along the x-axis the ships travelling direction if positive or
negative.

Best regard Jonas Thörnvall

What kind of vacuum are you refering to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_spacehttp://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/...

Sue...- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

In metric units, c is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second
(1,079,252,848.8 km/h). Note that this speed is a
*********definition, not a measurement***********.

Yes, this is the defined lightspeed *******AS EXPRESSED BY A
METRIC****** that is "frame dependent"

Since the fundamental SI unit of length, the metre, has been defined
since
**********October 21, 1983***********

Yes this is the date they made the ********metric******* variable AKA
framedependent, you want to know how see below... Indeed a very slick
trick or if you want to call it con or fraud is up to you.

in terms of the speed of light; one metre is the
**********distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a
second.************

Yes, the meter is no longer a constant it is a *factor*  depending
upon the worldline of the "actual inertial frame" that will measure
the meter and if we give up the meter as constant we automatically
give up the distance to.

We did give up the constant proper meters.

So when measuring the *LIGHSPEED* the distances light travel per
second will be a function of v=d/t, where distance of course is
measured in a *FRAME DEPENDENT METER* and come out us a factor of a
proper meter when applied to the Lorentz transformation.

If the meter now is variable and a factor between frames, i hope
everyone can see that the distance is to, and if the variable distance
is used to measure *LIGHTSPEED* i ....hope.... it is pretty much clear
to anyone that light does not travel invariant through vacuum space, i
may though be asking for to much.

Maybe it is not clear to everyone that light do not travel invariant
through the vacuum of space.
But then again i will tell you it is only *APPEARING TO DO SO* by
applying the Lorentz transformation.

Light never did travel invariant through space, it will however travel
invariant *BETWEEN FRAMES* ===IF ONLY SINGLE PAIRED COMPARED=== and
one apply the Lorentz transformation.

That is sadly not the same thing that the light will travel *INVARIANT
THROUGH VACUUM SPACE*, if applying a simple Euclidian cordinate space
of x,y,x it is *TRIVIAL* to show that is not the case.

However any SR supporter will refuse to use it and plot in t0 and t1
events in flat spacetime because that would invalidate their theory.

This is pretty much the truth about SR, maybe a misconception that did
grew to big to handle for the scientific community.

If you can't explain what you mean by vacuum it
is all really moot isn't it.

Sue...

Well since we now not talking about the subject anymore but are into
game play, i used the vacuum used by the SI team *WHEN THEY STATED
THAT ONE METER IS THE DISTANCE LIGHT TRAVELS IN A VACUUM IN
1/299,792,458 OF A SECOND*

OK, the free_space value.

According to the currently prevailing definition,
adopted in 1983, the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 metres per
second (approximately 3 × 108 metres per second, or about thirty
centimetres (one foot) per nanosecond). The value of c defines the
permittivity of

     ***   free space ***

(ε0) in SI units >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

See:
Propagation in a dielectric mediumhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_spacehttp://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html



And by the way they left a footnote
***note that this speed is a definition not a measurement***

It is measured and known for all kinds of dielectrics.



I guess you will have to call them and ask what vacuum they had in
mind when they did the
********************************definition**************************
 bcs it must be fucking important to the discussed subject musn't it.

It is on the web page, Free_space.

Sue...

Best regards Jonas Thornvall- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

Well since we now not talking about the subject anymore but are into
game play, i used the vacuum used by the SI team *WHEN THEY STATED
THAT ONE METER IS THE DISTANCE LIGHT TRAVELS IN A VACUUM IN
1/299,792,458 OF A SECOND*

OK, the free_space value.

According to the currently prevailing definition,
adopted in 1983, the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 metres per
second (approximately 3 × 108 metres per second, or about thirty
centimetres (one foot) per nanosecond). The value of c defines the
permittivity of

     ***   free space ***

(ε0) in SI units >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

See:
Propagation in a dielectric mediumhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.htmlhttp://e...

And by the way they left a footnote
***note that this speed is a definition not a measurement***

It is measured and known for all kinds of dielectrics.

I guess you will have to call them and ask what vacuum they had in
mind when they did the
********************************definition**************************
 bcs it must be fucking important to the discussed subject musn't it.

It is on the web page, Free_space.

Sue...

My god you are dense it is a definition, it is not a measured value, i
could make a bot understand
the problem with using a definition of ONE METER IS THE DISTANCE LIGHT
TRAVELS IN A VACUUM IN
1/299,792,458 OF A SECOND

The vacuum is only theoretical no measurement took place the meter is
a circular reference to
ONE METER IS THE DISTANCE LIGHT TRAVELS IN A VACUUM IN
1/299,792,458 OF A SECOND

They tell you that the meter is a function of a theoretical *MEASURED
TIME* of one second(frame dependent).

And that the distance it travels is *INVARIANT* 299,792 km.
Problem is that the unit used to measure distance AKA the *METER* is
not a spatial constant it is a spatial
variable dependent on the worldline AKA the vector and velocity of the
*INERTIAL FRAME*
that will measure............

**************THE DEFINITION********************

So the distance the light actually travel during a second in an
Euclidian frame could actually be any
less than 300 000 km since your *INERTIAL MEASUREMENT* only using a
*FACTOR* of a proper meter due to
*THE REDEFINITION OF THE METER* that states......

ONE METER IS THE DISTANCE LIGHT TRAVELS IN A VACUUM IN
1/299,792,458 OF A SECOND

The assumption that light travels invariant through space due to the
Lorentz transformation did make the
*REDEFINITION OF METER* possible.

AND IT DOES NOT AS ANYONE CAN SEE PLOTTING EVENTS IN AN EUCLIDIAN
CORDINATE SYSTEM.

"Distance" has an operational definiton.
"time" has an operational definition.
"speed" is defined as distance over time.

With those definitions (rem: procedures) the speed of light (in
vacuum...)
will always be be 299792458 m/s.

The speed of light is 299792458 m/s by construction.
We say "by definition" which is just an abuse of language.

The speed of light is 299792458 m/s by construction.
We say "by definition" which is just an abuse of language.

Only to an idiot. The speed of light is a defined quantity.

The speed of light is 299792458 m/s by construction.
We say "by definition" which is just an abuse of language.

Only to an idiot. The speed of light is a defined quantity.

Prove it. In what official documentation does it say that the speed of
light is defined as 299792458 m/s?

http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf