Reinstein,

I understand why time dilation could be the only explanation for a constant C, but why exactly is C constant? It has been proven, but has anyone ever explained WHY exactly C is the same for any observer?

The "proof" that the speed of light is constant for all observers comes from aether-detection experiments performed by Michelson, Morley, Miller, and Illingworth, etc.

Even though none of the experiments showed that the speed of light for a moving observer is exactly equal to c, the scientific community embraced relativity and rounded the results of those experiments to c. :D

I personally wouldn't put a lot of faith in those experiments since they were all done on the surface of the Earth. For example, there is no way of knowing whether the gravitational field of the Earth was influencing the speed of light in those experiments.

To me, taking the fact that the speed of light is very close to c on the surface of the Earth, and from that fact to assume that the speed of light is c for all observers, at all speeds, everywhere in the universe is such a far-fetched overgeneralization that it shouldn't be called science.

Tom

Tom and MacM hijacked C too.

Take your arguements to the appropriate thread. The question asked is clarification of relativity, not an attack on the assumptions it is based on.

Reinstein, do yourself a favour and ignore these guys. It's cool if you disagree with relativity (well not really) but at least understand it first, before trying to show that it is inconsistent.

ryans,

Take your arguements to the appropriate thread. The question asked is clarification of relativity, not an attack on the assumptions it is based on.

Quote from Reinstein,

It has been proven, but has anyone ever explained WHY exactly C is the same for any observer?

In my post I tried to explain how the principle of invariance of light was "proven", and I explained why I don't think that the aether-detection experiments qualify as proof. I don't see how my correction of Reinstein's question is off-topic, or belongs in another thread.

Tom

This is not a proof. The proof comes from Maxwell's equations, as they always give the speed of propogation of an oscillating EM field to be c. But I hardly think that you will ever be able to sovle Maxwells equations in any case.

ryans,

This is not a proof. The proof comes from Maxwell's equations, as they always give the speed of propogation of an oscillating EM field to be c.

Sure, Maxwell's equation are proof if you assume that Maxwell's equations don't change at relativistic speeds.

The fact that clocks tick slower when travelling at high speeds can be interpreted as a change in Maxwell's equation at those speeds. Of course, relativity states that time dilation is responsible for slowing down the ticking of clocks at high speeds.

Tom

i thought that it was decided that unless someone explicitly asks for "unorthodox" theories, then the crackpots should keep their mouths shut.

james, isn t that the rule that we decided on?

lethe,

keep your theories in your own crackpot thread, please.

Just where do you see my theory? I posted a scientific research paper. I did not claim nor do they claim it proves anything about the failure of Relativity.

They do say and I just happen to agree, that if simular phenomena concerning the true nature of wave fronts around a moving source is found to apply to light - THEN - it becomes very signifigant.

The discovery of the (1-(v/c)^2)^.5 function there is very signifigant.


http://home.tiscali.be/leo.gooris/src2/

Thanks for admitting that you hadn't even read the material before having made all the remarks that you have. That took courage.

I disagree with your assessment but that is another matter.

BTW: I gather you have never spent much time in the northern mid-west. Coons age is not a racial slur.

I disagree with your interpretation of the question asked but just to show that I am not being hard headed I have removed the posts that you find SO outrageous.