Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Henri Wilson on 26 Apr 2005 04:57 On 25 Apr 2005 21:09:06 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >Ghost > > Thanks for your response. I thought no -one was listening (LIKE >SETI?). . > >> In BaT, lightspeed is c relative to the source, *not* to >> the destination (unless said destination is motionless >> relative to the source). >> >> In SR/GR, lightspeed is c everywhere. > >OK > >> That's probably the primary difference between these two theories. >> >> > I can't see how the above statement could be true. Think of >> > the speed of light as a messenger and the source as the message >> > sender. >> >> You may be slightly confused. The speed of light is merely a >> measurement constant. If you're referring to the light *pulse* >> as being a message, that's fine. > >What is the speed of light? I mean what is the definition? Let me see >the Wiki > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Speed_of_light > >Photons travel through empty space at a speed of approximately 186,282 >miles (299,792 kilometers) per second. > >http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214455,00.html > > >In a vacuum, empty space, all photons move at the nominal speed of >light, c, defined as equal to 299,792,458 metres per second, or >approximately 3ý108 m s-1 Nothing has a 'speed'. It can only have a 'speed relative to another objetc'. Light travels at c wrt its source and continues to do that through space until its movement is altered by various factors it encounters along the way. Relativity breaks down completely when it tries to make statements about what light is doing when not being observed. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon > >I would like to discuss the speed of photons only, since >a stream of moving photons will leave a visible trace >know as a beam of light or ray of light which will occupy >different sets of distances at time t, which is confusing the issue >I hope you understand this. > >I will have to go back to the initial experimental light speed >experiments and come back to you... It has to do with >dropping absolutaenity. (My Term) Simultaneity IS absolute. 'NOW' here is 'now' everywhere. > >No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found. > >Your search - absolutaenity - did not match any documents. > > > >G HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: bz on 26 Apr 2005 08:32 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:mb0s61doqdt0208opilfnj54jrqdskr4pi(a)4ax.com: > Light travels at c wrt its source and continues to do that through space > until its movement is altered by various factors it encounters along the > way. > If you also say that light travels at c wrt the detector, we are in agreement as far as those two statements. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Herman Trivilino on 26 Apr 2005 09:02 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote ... >>There was the oft-used phrase "with respect to the fixed stars". > > Are they fixed? > On average, they may be. On average they MUST be, by definition of the concept! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 26 Apr 2005 10:00 In sci.physics, G <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote on 25 Apr 2005 23:23:24 -0700 <1114496604.017531.211310(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: > David > > So basically in laymans terms we can say the speed of light > is s/t where s is the distance between source and target and > t is the time between elapsed between switching on the light source > and the illumination of the target? (all in the same frame) > > I thought the metre was defined in terms of wavelenght It was, until about 1983. It was only accurate to 4 parts in a billion. http://www.sizes.com/units/meter.htm > > G > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: George Dishman on 26 Apr 2005 18:31
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:4htq6158ipi6ngp1ueqrvacan9aktauok3(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:39:51 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:ikgd61966v4b9r1gd195nkr8ddk6vjllk3(a)4ax.com... > George, I'm slowly getting there. It's not a trivial task. > Have a look at http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.exe > > This simulates the standard explanation. It looks close and certainly it is qualitatively correct. However, there seem to be some small problems. I haven't had much time to play with it but perhaps these are fairly easy to fix: At first glance it doesn't look as though the returning beams hit the detector. I'm not sure what the "rotation rate" control represents as higher rates seem to make the table turn slower. For the "Lspeed = c + v/root2" option and rate 23, the blue beam misses the mirror on the left hand side. > For small rotation rates, it doesn't tell us much. Would it be possible to add a counter which is started when one beam hits the detector and stops when the other arrives. That would give a measure of the time difference. George |