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 27 Apr 2005 01:26 On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 01:06:42 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:klmt619ss22uufd5eeffv4kgeivds3ji1q(a)4ax.com: > >> 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? >> > >There is not one iota of evidence that light from any source travels at a >speed different from c with respect to source, detector or any other >observer, in a vacuum. There is. Variable star brightness curves. > >> Are you one of those religious cranks who still believes that Earth is >> the focal point of the universe? > >No. > >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. > >Or try it with sound. >Buy yourself a tone generator. Radio shack sells some small tone >generators. > >Turn it on. Put it on the end of a string. Have someone swing it around >their head. > >You will hear the tone change as it approaches and goes away from you. >The tone generator frequency is not changing. > >Swing it around YOUR head so that it maintains a constant distance from >one of your ears. That ear will hear a constant tone. > >The doppler shift in sound is due to changes in distance between source >and detector, NOT ballistic changes in the speed of sound. > >You can mount the tone generator on a spinning wheel, you can use a pulse >generator to turn on and off the tone generator at a specific point during >the rotation of the wheel. > >You can position a couple of microphones at different distances from the >source. > >You can observe the transit time between mike 1 and mike 2. >You will find it is independent of the rotation speed of the tone source. >If you look at the wavelength/frequency of the tone detected by the >microphones, you will see that it DOES change with the speed. > >Both sound and light travel through specific media at constant speeds >irrespective of the speed of the source or detector. You are an ordinary old aetherist. There is NO aether. 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 01:29 On 26 Apr 2005 17:53:49 -0700, jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote: >"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. They will never learn, Jim. Did you get that email I sent you last week.. > >Jim G >c'=c+v 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 27 Apr 2005 03:07 "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote in news:1114575518.140559.265870 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > 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 > What point are you trying to make? I know a bit about how radar works, I used to fix them for a living. -- 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: bz on 27 Apr 2005 03:24 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in news:lqi3k2-96u.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > >> 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. > oh, for the actual experiment, I would use something other than a car moving at 67 mph. In fact I would measure the reflection from the edge of a spinning disk. Use the rotor from a vacuum ultracentrafuge that spins at over 90,000 rpm. You can get supersonic speeds. And, for the c'=c+v people that claim that the ENTIRE doppler shift is due to changes in the speed of the photons, I don't need to do gamma, I just need to do mph. In either case, with a good oscilliscope, (assuming we could borrow a demo model), the worlds fastest oscilloscope [circa 2002] had 6GHz bandwidth, 20GHz sampling rate. http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/tek/tek129.html6 GHz is 1e-10 seconds. A 10000m/s doppler shift, if it changed the speed of the photons, would result in a 3.33e-5 shift in speed. 10000 m/s could be achieved with a 100 cm radius disk spinning at 95493 rpm. [this would have to be in a vacuum as it would be supersonic in air]. We would need about 1 mile between detectors in order to be able to see the time difference with the above scope. I am sure there are faster scopes now. There are ways to get much better time resolution. Those would decrease the path length needed. We could use much higher speeds. That would reduce path length needed. -- 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: bz on 27 Apr 2005 03:43
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:0i8u61dgbpaen1lpdfkbk474tvmpbkfa2d(a)4ax.com: > > You are an ordinary old aetherist. I disagree. > There is NO aether. I agree. Invarience of the speed of light in a vacuum does not depend on an aether. -- 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 |