[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Two Times]]

Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:55:38 -0500

Message-ID: <385EDE08.6AFB@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:55:20 -0500
From: Massie <mrlab@ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Two Times]
References: <385E53AF.53DF@ix.netcom.com> <385E785D.8E6A299C@as.wm.edu> <385ED189.421@raex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

George Murphy wrote:
>
> George Andrews Jr. wrote:
> ........................
> > The physicist that I hang with do not question the speed of light's constancy; only
> > its value to the n'th place. In the past, measurement techniques were cruder and
> > therefore gave different values. Such is progress.
> >
> > The speed of an EM wave in a vacuum is a consequence of Maxwell's theory of
> > radiation and independent of observer or measurement. .........................
> But we can only place non-zero observational upper linmits on the rest mass
> of the photon: It might have a Compton wavelength on the order of 1000 LY, so that c
> (the speed which is unchanged by a Lorentz transformation) wouldn't be "the speed of
> light". EM fields then wouldn't obey Maxwell's equations but those of Proca. This
> wouldn't do the YECs any good though.
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
********

Actually the ratio of the rest mass (zero) and the kinetic mass is
infinity as required by Special Relativity. Bert M