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: Jim Greenfield on 26 Apr 2005 19:58 bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:<Xns96314A7BC2DA3WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>... > jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in > news:e7b5cc5d.0504062211.6957dcb5(a)posting.google.com: > > > ertain crystals emmit light of a fixed frequency. What is the > > chemical reaction within the crystal, which causes it to alter its > > emmitted wavelength, according as to how it is observed??? > > Hint: the wavelength emmitted by the crystal does NOT alter from its > > point of view; the Doppler shift noted by the observer is due to the > > change in VELOCITY. > > > > The relative velocity between source and observer. > NOT the velocity of the photons. DHR's claim c invariant c= fu We know u is invariant, because the ruby does NOT change into a sapphire. We know that SOMETHING changes due to the motion, as we observe the doppler. A little grade seven algebra tells YOU, and even Wormey, that in a three part equation, when one changes (in this case f) then another MUST change----- it is NOT u because the ruby remained a ruby, so it IIIIIISSSSSSSSSS c!!!!!!!!! Jim G c'=c+v
From: Henri Wilson on 26 Apr 2005 20:23 On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:32:18 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. There is not one iota of evidence that light from distant stars is ever traveling at c wrt planet Earth. Why the hell should it? Are you one of those religious cranks who still believes that Earth is the focal point of the universe? 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: Jim Greenfield on 26 Apr 2005 20:24 bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:<Xns9631E0BE0500FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>... > jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in > news:e7b5cc5d.0504071818.32282c6b(a)posting.google.com: > > > bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > > news:<Xns96314B27BA908WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>... > >> jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in > >> news:e7b5cc5d.0504062211.6957dcb5(a)posting.google.com: > >> > >> > Well I'll take my crystal, which we KNOW, and by definition, emmits a > >> > signal of known fixed frequency / wavelength in the lab, and YOU > >> > explain how it does NOT exhibit that colour on the film, when I bring > >> > the film and crystal beam together. > >> > No magic; film which we trust, and a crystal also > >> > > >> > > >> > >> What is your magic crystal? > >> The crystal of a laser diode or LED? That is a crystal and it emits a > >> specific frequency/wavelength/color. > > > > Any that produces a "fixed" signal. > > I assume that you agree with Paul D, in that film records the rate of > > impingement of light waves (sic photons). > > Nope. The film responds to the ENERGY of the photon. *********See below > > > We agree that the wavelength emitted by the crystal doesn't alter. > > agreed. > > > By the simplist algebra, that leaves only ONE possibility for the > > motion of the crystal ref the source showing a different colour on the > > film-- > > "c" in c=fu has CHANGED > > nope. the relative velocity has added changed the > frequency/energy/wavelength that the film sees. ****** Above we have the claim that the photon's energy has been changed by the motion of the reciever (lol), and here the converse, although the "relative velocity" is obviously between the film and the photon; NOT the film and the SOURCE of the photon > > >> > >> What makes you think it will not exhibit the color that would be > >> represented by the doppler shifted emission? Said doppler shift being > >> due to relative velocity of source and film. So HOW did the photon's ENERGY change???????????? Hint: because it is going FASTER! > > > > Nope! As above, this should read "relative velocity of PHOTONS and > > film." > > the relative velocity of photons and film is c. > Do you think the dopplar shift in sound is due to changes in the speed of > sound? And do you think that the propagation of a pressure front through a gas has ANYTHING to do with photons traversing a vacuum?? Jim G c'=c+v
From: Henri Wilson on 26 Apr 2005 20:43 On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:31:31 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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: It is now upgraded and complete. Very enlightening. I have assumed that the light speed does not change at each reflection. > >At first glance it doesn't look as though the >returning beams hit the detector. That's because they don't....not at the high rotation rates used here, anyway. The beams both move sideways. At high speeds, the path length difference under BaT appears to be slightly less than half that according to SR. I assume that this also applies at low speeds. So the sagnac effect still works under source dependency. > >I'm not sure what the "rotation rate" control >represents as higher rates seem to make the table >turn slower. Have a look at the latest version. Much improved.. Same address as above. When each light ray reaches a mirror, its direction changes. I do this by detecting the change in pixel color. You will notice how the mirrors also change color after a reflection. That was necessary to overcome the fact that the lines oin the screen have steps and every now and then the reflected beam was superimposed on the 'step' , which sent it off in the wrong direction. > >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. I have doubled the spot size as the beams approach eachother. When this happens, they have both traveled the same distance. That distance is the same for all parameter settings. If you want to transpose this into Java, it should not be all that difficult. The code is straightforward maths stuff, with lots of 'if...thens' > >George > 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: Jim Greenfield on 26 Apr 2005 20:53
"PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1113049668.267119.88490(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>... > Henri Wilson wrote: > > On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > > > > >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) > > ><H@> > > > wrote > > > > >>>> Empirical fact of life, Jim. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>>Confirmable, as well. The SR and the BaT predict different > results > > >>>for such things as spectroscopic binaries, even if one can't > > >>>measure the speed directly. > > >> > > >> You are very confused now Ghost. Getting desperate I would say. > > > > > >Am I? > > > > > >Here's a hint for you. Assume two stars traveling around a common > > >center at 30 km/s = 10^-4 c, although we can't tell the speed > directly. > > >What would be the wavelengths observed as these stars orbit each > other, > > >assuming a spectral line initially at 500 nm [*] and an approximate > > >distance of 10 lightyears? > > > > > >BaT: > > > > > >The star is spewing out particles at lightspeed, relative to itself. > > >These particles are of course 500 nm apart. However, since the > > >star is moving toward us, the particles in realspace will be a > > >tad longer apart -- namely, 500.05 nm apart. The other star > > >moving away from us will generate light of wavelength 499.95 nm, > > >as measured by us. The delta is 120.0000012 GHz between the two > signals. > > > > Question, Ghost: > > What is this 'realspace'? > > Is it another name for the aether? > > > > You are definitely very confused Ghost. > > The wavelength is the same no matter how you look at it. > > > > Proof: let the star fire a identical rods between each > particle....... > > > > S_._._._._._._._._._._._. > > > > You can see that the distance between particles is constant. > > > > [snip] > > This is precisely the problem. You imagine that a wavelength is emitted > from the source, fully formed, its length predestined. This is not the > case. Look at it this way: the source emits "blips" every so often. The > blips represent wavefronts (or whatever) that travel at a fixed speed > *relative to the observer* away from the source. But if the source is > moving away from the direction of transmission, the distance between > the blips/fronts (or whatever) will be larger than if the source were > stationary relative to the observer. Likewise, if the source is moving > along the direction of transmission, the distance between the > blips/fronts (or whatever) will be smaller. > > PD PD, the alchemist! Phosforous lumenesces with certain frequency(s). This defines its composition/ what it is. Apply motion, and PD must follow that it is no longer phos, as the frequency appears changed. Hint: The distance between the blips remains the same; the intervals between their impinging on the detector alters due to change in VELOCITY! Phosphorous does not change into a different element. Jim G c'=c+v |