[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: starship-design: relativity

"Kyle R. Mcallister" wrote:

> > I don't recall where I found this, but it's kind of interesting:
> >
> >  http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce_toc.html
> I've read it before. The entire thing. It is nonsensical. To deny that the
> Lorentz contraction and time dilation takes place is to deny not just
> theory, but a plethora of experiments, which any good scientist should not
> do. Light speed does not add to the speed of the light emitting object in a
> c+v fashion.

Then someone had better tell JPL/NASA, who, according to Wallace, have been
using the c+v formula in their solar system calculations. Can someone verify
this, please?

Besides, Wallace reports being treated to a great many behaviors that "any good
scientist should not do."

The fact is, as I have recently been finding in many various readings, that new
ideas, and their proponents, are regularly savaged by the scientific
establishment. The general public is getting wind of this, and they tire of
scientific corruption as much as political.

Bottom line: if you work in the field, _listen_, and respond with clear
explanations, clear and complete data, and a fair trial of reasonable
questions. Dogmatism is not an acceptable response; it merely signals that you
are afraid of the question. I've been there, so I know.

I'm not qualified to judge the merit of Wallace's theories, but some of his
questions seem reasonable, and he gets little more than severe abuse for asking

Now, roll up your mouse pad and stick it between your teeth, because I'm about
to make you bite down really hard.

It seems to me that c+v makes sense of an otherwise obvious conundrum: let's
say you have a light source which is receding from you at some considerable
velocity (or approaching, it doesn't matter). If, as relativity asserts, light
always travels _only_ at c, then the light reaching you has to actually _change
its speed_ to be at exactly c when it reaches you. In other words, if a light
source moves, _and_ c is always constant, then an observer _must_ see c+v.
There is, to me, only one condition under which c+v will _not_ apply, and that
is when the observer frame of reference is the light source itself.

As well, within my limited understanding, it seems to me that an annulment of
c+v will _also_ be an automatic annulment of the Doppler effect and the red
shift; these seem to be mutually exclusive to relativistic c.