Light speed is constan "c". I am puzzled
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: is light/radiative energy potential or kinetic or both?
Next: Timerate is a Slow C in gravity by Gamma mathematics
From: bigfletch8 on 6 Feb 2010 22:00 On Feb 7, 3:57 am, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > > has been seen by experiments. > > Past experiments gave values near "c". > The modern (operational) definitions of time, position and speed make > the speed of light to be 299792458 which we now call "c". > New experiments give the exact value of 299792458 *by construction*, > else the experimental setup is invalid by the defined measurement > procedure. > > > But a few minutes back I got an idea. > > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > > orthogonal. > > > Since a Sine wave is a curve. > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > No, light is not modeled as something traveling along a sine path. > Light is modeled as traveling along a straight line. *Along this > line*, the Electric and magnetic field change. Outside this line, > there is no light, no E nor B field. > > What you are describing is a common "visual" mistake made by many > novices. And many novices think that sensation we refer to as light happens outside the realm of the brain/sense system. They dont yet realise the subjective nature of the phenomena. BOfL
From: bigfletch8 on 6 Feb 2010 22:02 On Feb 7, 4:06 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On Feb 6, 1:57 pm, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Sanny" <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:a1c75804-b3d2-4784-84f8-c91feea8fba5(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > > > has been seen by experiments. > > > That is in a perfect vacuum. > > > Light can be slowed to almost a stop. > > > As for the rest of your post, remember the relativistic > > properties of anything aproaching C. That's why the > > closing speed of 2 photons in a vacuum is still C. > > Oh great! Now the gang's all here! With HVAC showing up along with > Sanny, "Mitch Raemsch" (winner of two Nobel prizes) and the rest we > now have all the kooks in one spot ready to come to an understanding > of... nothing! > > Sorry guys, light is NOT an electromagnetic wave. Attempting to use > that model as some ultimate explanation of the assumptions of SR is > only chasing your own tail. Fun, but no results. > > Sanny IS asking the right question however: If light were a wave in a > medium, then HOW can we explain all the quantum effects observed in > modern physics? In other words how can both assumptions somehow be > compatible? You have just been nominated for a BOfL prize :-). No matter, unlike Nobels equivalent ! BOfL
From: bigfletch8 on 6 Feb 2010 22:08 On Feb 7, 7:48 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 3:00 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Sanny wrote: > > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > > > orthogonal. > > > But since sine wave is a curve the perimeter of movement is larger > > > than the wavelength. > > > What is waving is not the path of the light, but rather the fields. That is, the > > word "wave" is really a PUN or a metaphor, and does not literally mean a wiggly > > path as for a waving rope. > > > > Light is actually photons. and photons follow a sinusoidally path. > > > Actually, photons don't follow ANY path. > > True, as they seems to flow or follow in all possible directions at > the same time from a given point source. > > > > > > Say photon moving from one wavelength to other [...] > > > Photons don't change wavelength. They may not have a definite wavelength, but > > they don't change. > > As far as we know, quantum FM photons don't exist, at least it's not > in their nature. > > > > > > Same with electrons. Electrons will jump higher when higher frequency.. > > > Electrons don't "jump". > > As far as you know. Are you suggesting that at Selene L1 of perhaps > 3e-21 bar, that a trillion volt charged electron will not jump from > atom to atom? > > > > > You REALLY need to learn something about the subject before attempting to write > > about it. > > > Tom Roberts > > Sanny always needs a lot of help, but then so do I. > > In this entire expanding universe, how many all-inclusive photons per > atom do we have by now? > > ~ BG More than you could poke a stick at ??? :-) BOfL
From: Ste on 6 Feb 2010 22:17 On 6 Feb, 17:06, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > has been seen by experiments. > > But a few minutes back I got an idea. > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > orthogonal. > > Since a Sine wave is a curve. > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > Lets imagine a light wave with amplitude "x" and wavelength "w" > > Now we say light travels a distance of Wavelength "w" at speed of "C" > > But since sine wave is a curve the perimeter of movement is larger > than the wavelength. > > When we increase the frequency of light the parameter enlarges even > further as the amplitude has risen. > > So higher frequency light has to travel a longer distance. As the sine > curve is more enlongated away from center. > > So Light wave moves up and down at a speed faster than "C" There is no evidence of that, and I think your interpreting the graphs too literally. Even sound can be plotted sinusoidally, but it doesn't move sinusoidally. Have you considered instead that the frequency component of light may be carried in the orthogonal axes, so that there is an expansion in orthogonal directions and a contraction longitudinally, and then a contraction orthogonally whereupon there is an expansion longitudinally? To think of a visual analogy, imagine a balloon, which you squeeze with your hands from two opposite sides, and the balloon expands orthogonally. Then, imagine the opposite effect, where the baloon contracts orthogonally (I suppose you could do this by putting both arms around the balloon in a circular fashion, and squeezing it to your chest). In any event, there is no verified law that says nothing can travel faster than 'c' even on a local basis. There is merely empirical evidence to suggest that light does not propagate over distances faster than 'c'. > Now we assume another case an Electron is fired at speed of "c" The > electron too travel like a wave. So electron will go up and down in > sine wave. An electron doesn't travel at 'c'.
From: Peter Webb on 6 Feb 2010 23:03
<bigfletch8(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ab4864d8-e899-4471-8ded-105afdaade2b(a)s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Feb 7, 1:08 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 12:06 pm, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > > has been seen by experiments. > > > But a few minutes back I got an idea. > > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > > orthogonal. > > > Since a Sine wave is a curve. > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > When it is said that light is a wave, it doesn't mean that it travel > along a sinusoidal path. It means that the field strength varies > sinusoidally, meaning the electric and magnetic fields get stronger > and weaker over space. It has nothing to do with the path that light > follows (which is a straight line). If space is curved, how come a 'straight line'? _______________________________________ Straight lines are defined as the shortest path between two points. These exist in cuved space as well. |