🚀 go-pugleaf

Uncle Al wrote:
>Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>
>> http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/07/was-the-speed-of-light-
>>faster-in-the-early-universe-new-theory-says-yes.html
>> "A brilliant young physicist Jo�o Magueijo  asks the heretical
>> question: What if the speed of light - now accepted as one of the
>> unchanging foundations of modern physics - were not constant?"
>[snip rest of crap]
>
>If so,
>
>   1) E = mc^2 would be arbitrary re reshouffling of mass-equivalent
>nuclear binding energies in fission and fusion warhead detonations.

        The equation predates Einstein. c only varies due to the speed
of the source which does not apply to nuclear bombs and even if it did
measurement of the 'yield' is not accurate and depends on how much of
the mass was converted to energy. (It is hard to locate what isn't used
up and measure it).

>   2) Particle accelerator pulse timing, packet reshaping, and
>collision outputs would be toast.

Basically there were two choices open to Einstein. One was to assume
Maxwell's wave in aether theory is immaculate and that the problem lay
with mechanics - chuck away 3 long established and apparently sensible
axioms of mechanics. The other was to assume the fault lay with EM
theory and correct it. To do that what was needed is that the speed of
light obeys the PoR i.e. it is relative like all other speeds, and to
modify Coulombs law such that force of attraction diminishes with speed
by the factor gamma. Anything dependent on the ratio of q to m is
mathematically the same. Essentially there is no way of telling whether
mass gets larger with velocity or the effective of q gets smaller.

>   3) GPS would not work.

Both theories predict the need for the same clock adjustment. What SR
calls time dilation is the same as ballistic theory calculates from a
simple velocity triangle - did you have anything else in mind.

>   4) Supernova imaging across the EM spectrum would show dispersion.
>   5) Widescreen color CRTs would not be color-correctable.

New one on me. but I suspect the answer I gave to 2 applies.

>   6) Fiberoptic pulse transmission would blur.

Why?

>   7) Atomic and molecular spectrocopies would be inconsistent.
>   8) http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2031 would evince anomalies.
>   9) http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 would evince anomalies.
>  10) http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1134 would evince anomalies.

-- 
John Kennaugh