🚀 go-pugleaf

Sam Wormley wrote: > > Mathlete wrote: > > Sam Wormley wrote:
Mathlete wrote: > >>
> >>>Having an expression for c gives us the
> >>>opportunity to differentiate it (say) with respect to proper time
> >>>and get an expression for the acceleration of ... there seems
> >>>to be so much controversy, can we legally talk about acceleration
> >>>of photons.? There was a time when the velocity of light was thought
> >>>to be infinite. When a photon is emitted by the electron of the hydro-
> >>>gen atom: does it start it's journey INSTANTANEOUSLY at the value
> >>>of c?
> >>
> >>   You have a lot of misunderstanding among these words. The speed of
> >>   light is a constant of nature and is the same for all observers.
> >>   Light and its interaction with matter is beautifully modeled by
> >>   Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
> >
> >
> > Thank you for being polite. We need more of that. With respect to the equation
> > that gave an explicit expression for c, (which I know to be constant for all Inertial
> > observers in Minkowski Space-Time), I am simply asking under what circumstances
> > can you plug experimentally measured values of  v, u and t into the right side
> > of that equation and get the correct value of c on the left?.
> >
> > I know that if you differentiate a constant you will get zero. But the history of science is
> > full of quantities that were thought to be constant (or even infinite as the speed of light
> > was once thought to be) but turned out to be not so constant after all.
> >
> > The relative error in the predictions of QED (when compared with experiment) is
> > the lowest among all the scientific disciplines including GR. QED is
> > the result of the union of Quantum Mechanics and SR (and not GR).
> >
> > What I am basically wondering about is: can we generalize SR "one step up" and obtain
> > generalizations of such things as the elegant and canonical Lorentz Transformations?
> >
> > I wonder also what is the speed of that photon 1/10^12 of a second after it is
> > emitted by the electron in the hydrogen atom. Is it already 186,000 miles per
> > second ?  Assume that we can "turn off" the Heisenberg Uncertainty
> > principle in this analysis.
> >
> 
>    No matter when you measure the speed of that photon it comes out c.

$    Dimwit.
                          brian a m stuckless
  >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>

>    Why are you assuming c would have a different value during a shorter trip?