Constancy of the velocity of light
in [Physics]
|
Prev: TV shows like "Mentalist" is possible only in Brain Locus theory #24 Brain as Radio Receiver Theory
Next: chapt22 questions I have no answer for #230 Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory
From: Androcles on 30 Dec 2009 13:28 "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message news:hhg574$jbd$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> The foremost classic example of inertia of thought is found here: >>>> http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html > > Instead being unbiased which reduces scientists to well adjusted > simpletons, the goal should be that we are interested in what can do with > science but we should be indifferent toward and strictly in line with > facts. > Facts are for engineers. Scientists write theoretical papers nobody reads. > Ok. So what would it take to design an experiment to disprove? > You can neither prove nor disprove an axiom. B meets A when A meets B, how could it be otherwise? > I can think of one: > > You have a wheel turning with three strips of photoreactive material or > just something that can be burnt by a laser. > > You then take three light sources, say lasers. > > Callibration > First you turn on all the lasers by plugging them into one power strip > getting them into the same state. Then you unplug the power strip and > plug it in again while they fire at the stationary wheel. > > Once you have a reasonable expectation of simultaneity, you move the > lasers a certain distance apart. This time you turn the wheel at various > speeds until you can guarantee that by the displacement of the burn line > you can show which one gets there first. This is to determine the minimum > rotational speed of the wheel to be able to tell the difference in the > material whether a burn line is displaced. > > Naturally you could use a few methods of creating long enough paths so > the experiment can fit in the laboratory. But let's leave that to > improvements. > > After calibrating you set the lasers each on a separate track. This time > you make sure they fire from the same distance to the turning wheel, but > obviously at different speeds. > > If the burn lines are displaced then you have c+v. If they are not then > you have c. > > You may have to do this in near vacuum because after absorption and re > emission by intervening gas atoms all bets are off. > > Anyone up to this? > > It's rather crude and could be MacGyvered a little but there you have it. > > Other experiments can be done using three rotating screens with holes and > moving light sources. But then you would have to calibrate while > experimenting which is not really ideal. > You haven't heard of Georges Sagnac, have you? Intervening gas atoms be damned, all bets are back on again.
From: Androcles on 30 Dec 2009 16:30 "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message news:hhge67$877$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> You want a simple experiment? >> Move a source of light that is a long way off in an ellipse. It's >> already set >> up for you. All you have to do is interpret the data. > > Umm... hmm. That's interesting. > > Except the Sun isn't moving away. We are. Therefore the velocity of light > should be the same in all directions. Ballistic relativity would say we > should measure a difference, but that's about it. Of course there is also > the galactic orbital velocity. I said a long way off, not eight light minutes away. By that I mean (say) 30 light years. That leaves plenty of time for fast light to catch up with or pass slow light emitted earlier. Create the model and see if it matches actual data. The most you need is a computer and a program. Would you like one?
From: Androcles on 30 Dec 2009 17:10 "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message news:hhgifu$5cu$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Create the model and see if it matches actual data. The most you need >> is a computer and a program. >> Would you like one? > > Hmm you got source code? > Better, I now have it on an Excel spreadsheet. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls You want weird, you get weird. But its only weird to those that don't understand it.
From: Androcles on 30 Dec 2009 17:06 "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message news:hhgidm$5cu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:30:27 +0000, Androcles wrote: > >> "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message >> news:hhge67$877$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> You want a simple experiment? >>>> Move a source of light that is a long way off in an ellipse. It's >>>> already set >>>> up for you. All you have to do is interpret the data. >>> >>> Umm... hmm. That's interesting. >>> >>> Except the Sun isn't moving away. We are. Therefore the velocity of >>> light should be the same in all directions. Ballistic relativity would >>> say we should measure a difference, but that's about it. Of course >>> there is also the galactic orbital velocity. >> >> I said a long way off, not eight light minutes away. By that I mean >> (say) 30 light years. That leaves plenty of time for fast light to catch >> up with or pass slow light emitted earlier. Create the model and see if >> it matches actual data. The most you need is a computer and a program. >> Would you like one? > > I would expect the recent past and the long gone past to get scrambled a > bit. Which would throw the universe into weirdness where old field values > act before new ones. > Data is data, intuition is intuition. What will happen when weird data doesn't agree with your expectations? The most you need is a computer and a program. Would you like a program or can you make your own? Wanna see the data?
From: Androcles on 31 Dec 2009 17:23
"Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message news:hhiujg$n8k$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> They prefer to wave their hands, pick their noses, don't know which of >> Newton's laws are which and bore you to tears with what you already >> know. Here's the proof: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0 > > Don't blame Lenny for the fact college students have no intuition about > falling rocks to begin with. > Could you wave your hands a little further from your body when you say that, please, only I'm not quite convinced yet. Seeing a student make him correct a sign causes me to say "Don't blame the college students for the fact, the fact, the fact (excuse my stutter, Pinocchio's nose grew but I get a write impediment) that Lenny has no intuition about falling rocks to begin with." > It was a cold rainy morning when I thought that if larger masses fell > faster then the atomic theory would cause them to explode or implode. Oh, and a touch higher, too... a little more finger movement... yes, I'm almost there... I've got my conviction receptors turned all the way up, giving my full attention to your every wave... err... word. How about this toy? It's called an ornery. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm |