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: YBM on 27 Apr 2005 16:01 Henri Wilson a ýcrit : > 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. http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious.jpg http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious2.jpg http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious3.jpg Of couse your mileage may vary, you could get error 12 or error 14. Sometime the program doesn't crash for ten seconds or so.
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Apr 2005 16:05 On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:39:15 +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: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 . Do the sums. This idea has been thrashed out before. It hasn't a hope in hell of working. On the other hand, I have proposed a very feasible OWLS comparison experiment using a radio relay station on the edge of the moon. It requires three components: a distant transmitter moving rapidly away from Earth, a R/X on the moon's edge and a base receiver on Earth. The experiment goes like this: A short and recognizeable pulse of EM is emitted by the moving transmitter when the three components are approximately aligned. The moon relay detects the signal as it goes past at c+v and immediately re-transmits its own similar signal down to Earth (at about c) If the theory is correct, the two pulses should arrive separately. If the transmitter is moving away from Earth at 0.0001c, the arrival time difference over 380,000 kms should be about 125 ms. A correction has to be made for the (predetermined) delay in the moon relay process. 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 16:18 On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:01:43 +0200, YBM <ybmess(a)nooos.fr> wrote: >Henri Wilson a ýcrit : >> 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. > >http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious.jpg >http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious2.jpg >http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious3.jpg > >Of couse your mileage may vary, you could get error 12 or error 14. >Sometime the program doesn't crash for ten seconds or so. Get a decent computer, idiot.. 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 16:26 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:p5sv619burqs4c63c49pd7896v8tjklqnv@ 4ax.com: > >> >>There is NO NEED TO MEASURE OWLS accurately!!!!!! > > OK, there is only need to '''compare''' OWLS from two differently moving > sources. TIME OF FLIGHT light speed. (TOFLS) TOFLS from the same source as the speed of the source is changed from -600 mph to +600 mph in steps of say.... 20 mph. 90,000 rpm ccw to 90,000 rpm cw each revolution gives us a new data point, a new batch of photons going down the line from detector 1 to detector 2. We just need to see if the time for that flight changes as we change the speed. cables from detector 1 and detector 2 are identical in length and do not change during the experiment. The scope measures time from pulse 1 to pulse 2. You say 'do the math'. I have. There are scopes that will tell us if the photons make the trip from detector 1 to detector 2 faster as the source is moving toward the detectors. > > That is very difficult. It has never been done. > > My proposed experiment can achieve it. > > Please contact NASA and ask them to do it so we can finally stop all this > arguing.,,. > I will be glad to lobby for your experiment. You lobby for mine. -- 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: George Dishman on 27 Apr 2005 17:04
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:2smt61dfvhv39do69dtek7f2lsa68u9up0(a)4ax.com... > 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... >> >>> 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. It does the job nicely :-) > I have assumed that the light speed does not change at each reflection. That is correct in both theories, and it appears you have kept the law of reflection as well which is also correct if the speed doesn't change. I have said that before but I did a quick sketch to explain why: http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/Huygens.gif I'm sure you can sort out the relation between the angles but hopefully this explains how the slope of the wavefront would get changed. Of course this would give some very odd results. Hold a mirror at 45 degrees to look along a road and a car driving towards you would seem to be in the ditch since its angle of reflection would not be the same as the stationary landscape! >>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. The problem is that you have to change the launch angle in the lab frame. Note the slight change of angle in the Java version: http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/SagnacAngles.html There is a degree of dispersion and a different part of the beam will reach the detector. In reality, the speeds are of course much smaller than this exaggerated view and the beam width needed is tiny, far smaller than real sources. Correcting that won't change your conclusion to any great degree: > 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. You have mentioned V/sqrt(2) in the text boxes which is the projection of the tangential speed onto the chord of the light path. I think the factor would therefore be 1-1/sqrt(2) or about 29% of the SR prediction. > So the sagnac effect still works under source dependency. Right but for the four mirror setup the delay is wrong by about a factor of about three. Now consider a similar setup but with eight mirrors, what would the 1/sqrt(2) factor be? Can you see it will be closer to 1 because the chord is nearer to being parallel to the mirror hence the delay will be less than in the four-mirror setup? Then consider the fibre gyro. As you said when we started, you can think of it as the same experiment but with a very large number of reflections, each at grazing incidence. The projection factor then tends to a limit of exactly 1 and the delay tends to zero. That is my qualitative argument, fibre gyros shouldn't work at all with a ballistic light model. You have gone beyond that and found the quantitative result that even a four mirror setup gives the wrong result for a ballistic model. I'm impressed Henri. > 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. Much better and the difference is clear now. Fixing the launch angle would be good but it isn't essential. The key is that the experiment has been run by many people and the amount of the delay has been measured very accurately so an error even of a factor of two would be obvious. > 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. That works nicely, good idea. > 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' I won't have a chance for some time, I have to set up a VPN and remotely debug a database :-( Once I get that cleared, I might have a go but I'll adjust the launch angles too. best regards George |