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: The Ghost In The Machine on 27 Apr 2005 09:00 In sci.physics, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:43:05 +0000 (UTC) <Xns96451BA76960FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > 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. > I'll admit I'm wondering if there's a good analysis (complete with raw data) on this. http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm and http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/binaries.htm might be a good start on some of the theory involved, though they fail to take into account the thermal spreading of the generated photons -- a spreading that should be very tiny for terrestrial experiments, but might make quite a difference over light-years. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 27 Apr 2005 09:00 In sci.physics, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:07:16 +0000 (UTC) <Xns96451594B8C94WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > "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. For a police radar unit one might as well use Newtonian doppler; the gamma effect is so small it's not worth designing into the equipment. :-) Let a light source L move from an observer O at speed v = 10^-7 c. The transformation equations are of course: x_O = (x_L - v * t_L) * g t_O = (t_L - v * x_L / c^2) * g Since x_L = 0 these simplify slightly: x_O = (- v * t_L) * g t_O = t_L * g Now O can't see the light at (- v * t_L) * g; the lightrays must move a little bit more and take a little more time; the observed time is therefore t = t_O + abs(x_O / c) = t_L * g + (v/c) * t_L * g = t_L * g * (1 + v/c) I'm not sure how this effect will work for single photons, but for pairs of photons it's pretty clear. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: bz on 27 Apr 2005 09:12 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in news:9oc4k2-vs8.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: >> So what? speed of light is constant in air. > > Counterexample: illusionary puddles caused on a hot day > over a long dry road. > nit picking! speed of light is constant in air.... [assuming the air is homogenious, at constant temperature and pressure and not in motion.] Is that fully qualified enough? :) -- 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 09:26 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in news:o4d4k2-vs8.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > In sci.physics, bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote > on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:43:05 +0000 (UTC) > <Xns96451BA76960FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: >> 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. >> > > I'll admit I'm wondering if there's a good analysis (complete with > raw data) on this. > > http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm > > and > > http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/binaries.htm > > might be a good start on some of the theory involved, though they > fail to take into account the thermal spreading of the generated > photons -- a spreading that should be very tiny for terrestrial > experiments, but might make quite a difference over light-years. > They also make some 'fatal errors' in plotting the intensity. They have intensities at two different values on some of the plots. Functions are not allowed to 'loop' like they show. A function must take on a single value. Otherwise it is not a function. Perhaps the 'average' of the two values should be used. I need to spend more time looking over the papers. -- 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: The Ghost In The Machine on 27 Apr 2005 11:00
In sci.physics.relativity, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:26:08 +0000 (UTC) <Xns964555D1E1D94WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in > news:o4d4k2-vs8.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > >> In sci.physics, bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote >> on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:43:05 +0000 (UTC) >> <Xns96451BA76960FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: >>> 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. >>> >> >> I'll admit I'm wondering if there's a good analysis (complete with >> raw data) on this. >> >> http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm >> >> and >> >> http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/binaries.htm >> >> might be a good start on some of the theory involved, though they >> fail to take into account the thermal spreading of the generated >> photons -- a spreading that should be very tiny for terrestrial >> experiments, but might make quite a difference over light-years. >> > > They also make some 'fatal errors' in plotting the intensity. > > They have intensities at two different values on some of the plots. > > Functions are not allowed to 'loop' like they show. A function must take on > a single value. Otherwise it is not a function. > > Perhaps the 'average' of the two values should be used. > I need to spend more time looking over the papers. > The more or less proper way to do it is to compute L(t_Earth), where L(t_star) is constant and t_Earth = t_star + x(t_star)/(c - v_star(t_star)) or some such. Of course, that's a BaT computation. An SR computation would say t_Earth= (t_star - x_star * v(t_star) / c^2) * g(t_star) where g(t) = 1/sqrt(1-v(t)^2/c^2). "Loops" can be handled by summing the values (since photons are bosons anyway, they add). I've written a program that does a numerical integration. I think Paul Anderson did, too. There are some issues in BaT that aren't in SR; the main one of interest is the thermal motion of the hot gas molecules in the star. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |