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 11:00 In sci.physics.relativity, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:12:24 +0000 (UTC) <Xns9645537D82FECWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > 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? :) > *grin* Just so you're aware that there are issues measuring lightspeed in air that might swamp the relativistic result. Not that it's that much of an issue; a supersonic disc would have to spin in vacuum anyway. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: bz on 27 Apr 2005 11:39 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in news:c4l4k2-dm9.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > *grin* > > Just so you're aware that there are issues measuring lightspeed in air > that might swamp the relativistic result. Not that it's that much > of an issue; a supersonic disc would have to spin in vacuum anyway. > eggzactly! :) I wonder just how fast we can get the rim to go, given the proper shape for the disk and carbon fiber or some other high strength material. mount a laser in the center and use fiber optics to launch the beam tangential to the rim. (we don't want someone to argue that the inbound and outbound beams cancel some important effect) :) I bet we can get the apparatus down to managable size . -- 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 11:42 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in news:dvk4k2-dm9.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > 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. ..... >>> http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm >>> and >>> http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/binaries.htm ..... >> 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. > cool! Anything I can run in mathcad? -- 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: Henri Wilson on 27 Apr 2005 15:37 On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >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. Ghost, the 90deg phase shift controversy between apparent radial velocity and brightness is completely explained in my program. DeSitter made the fundamental blunder of believing that only light from the approaching part of an orbit caught up with slower light. In actual fact, brightness increases can occur due to all light emitted during the 'concave' part of an orbit. My analysis does in seconds what all these fellows could do in their entire lifetimes. It produces variable star brightness curves based on c+v. Eleven parameters are included. The curves are typical of those observed in a great number of variable stars. Get out that old windows based computer and have a look. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe How much more proof do you need. 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 15:41
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:42:19 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in >news:dvk4k2-dm9.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > >> 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. >> > >cool! >Anything I can run in mathcad? Get hold of a windows based machine and run my VBasic program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe It tells you the whole story. It shows how the BaT predicts most variable star brightness curves. 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. |