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: G on 27 Apr 2005 00:03 Henri Relativity breaks down completely when it tries to make statements about what light is doing when not being observed. Intriguing: don't you mean "measured" and does it affect only light or time as well, aging... twins G
From: G on 27 Apr 2005 00:18 BZ "The shifts in frequency/wavelenght observed are simply due to changes in distance between source and detector as the waves are being emitted and detected. " See how radar works : Frequency changes, wavelenght changes , speed is the same http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/radar.htm http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/radarDoppler.php http://www.escortstore.com/policrdr.htm G
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 27 Apr 2005 01:00 In sci.physics, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 01:02:28 +0000 (UTC) <Xns9644CBDF14A7AWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in > news:e7b5cc5d.0504261558.5dfdc8c2(a)posting.google.com: > >> 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!!!!!!!!! > > Buy yourself a police lidar. > > stand by the road and take the doppler speed reading of an approaching car. > > ride in a car and take the doppler speed reading of an approaching sign. > > ride in a car and take the doppler speed reading of an approaching car. > > stand by the road, have someone with the lidar ride in a car and YOU > measure the doppler shift of the lidar as it approaches you. > > In all cases, the lidar frequency remains a constant, as far as the lidar > is concerned. > > In all cases, the results are consistent with the lidar photons traveling > at a constant speed of c with relation to the source, with relation to the > detector and with relation to any observers. > > The shifts in frequency/wavelenght observed are simply due to changes in > distance between source and detector as the waves are being emitted and > detected. > > If you have sufficiently sensitive equipment to measure the time-of-flight > of the photons from the lidar, you will find that it does NOT change as the > speed of the source or detector changes. It would have to be pretty sensitive to pick up an error of 5 parts per quadrillion (a car is usually traveling around 30 m/s = 67.1 mph = 10^-7 c; gamma =~ 1 + 5 * 10^-15). If lidar uses 500 nm light, 2 * 10^14 wavelengths of that light would be 100,000 km long, wrapping around the world 2 1/2 times, or a little more than 1/4 the distance from Earth to Moon. [rest snipped] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Apr 2005 01:24 On 26 Apr 2005 20:48:26 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >Henri > >But given the sameness (if we can assume it I think its called >Isotropy) >or constant expansion of the universe we can assume that the average >for a subset of the stars of the universe will be close to the average >for the entire universe, corrected for galalctive expansion.Surely >there must be someone with the data and brains to do this sort of >calucation. At NASA maybe? > >G Nah! It isn't true. Like I said, if you add up all the vector momenta in a sphere, it might equate to zero at one particular point....but you don't know how that sphere is moving wrt other similar spheres. 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: Henri Wilson on 27 Apr 2005 01:25
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:19:52 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net(a)nospam.com> wrote: >Dear G: > >"G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote in message >news: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) > >No. The speed of light is an established contant. By >convention, it is a fixed value. The time is the measurement. >The distance is the inference. > >> I thought the metre was defined in terms of >> wavelenght > >It was from ~1963 until 1983. Wavelengths (and counters) are >still used to measure things very accurately. But not >"correctly". > >David A. Smith > 'c' is universal constant. It also happens to be the speed of light relative to its source. 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. |