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 28 Apr 2005 01:13 On 26 Apr 2005 20:48:26 -0700, "G" <g...(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. I mean drat! I suspect that an absolute exists: God Knows
From: G on 28 Apr 2005 01:15 Dear bz Just that these things work on doppler shift only which means frequency shift only not speed changes that's all G
From: Henri Wilson on 28 Apr 2005 03:29 On 27 Apr 2005 22:13:18 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >On 26 Apr 2005 20:48:26 -0700, "G" <g...(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. > >I mean drat! I suspect that an absolute exists: God Knows I suspect that 'local' reference frames might exist around large accumulations of matter. Not sure how 'strong' they would be though. 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 28 Apr 2005 03:51 On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:19:11 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:4ovv61p49735hg861242gcer776bqlqng8(a)4ax.com: > >> >> Let's imagine we can spin a double sided mirror at 200 rps at a 48cms >> radius. The peripheral speed is about 60000 cms/sec, or 0.000002c. > >that is only 12,000 rpm. I know we can go 90,000 rpm or 1500 rps. >> >> If the experiment is carried out over 300 metres, light travel time is >> around 1 microsec. > >right. > >> >> O------------300m--------------L---S > >I wouldn't say that 300 m would be >> >> A light source L is placed near the rotating mirrors, S. The reflected >> light moves at c+2v. > >1) there will be no rotating mirrors. The light source, which will launch >a beam of light tangential to a single point on the edge of the wheel will >be an optical fiber fed from a laser at center of the rotating wheel. Well, you should consult George Dishman. He claims that light from a moving mirror is not affected by the mirrors's speed. A laser beam passing along a bent fibre is like a beam deflected infinitesimally by each of an infinite number of mirrors. > >I want the source of the photons to really be moving. No c+2v, it will be >c+v and c-v as we rotate the source in different directions. > >At some moment during the rotation, the beam will be aimed directly down >the line that passes by detectors 1 and 2. Have you considered how weak it will be at trhe receiver. Even at 300 metres it will flash past very quickly. The width of your detector will limit the accuray of the sensing time. The experiment would have been carried out already if it had any hope of working. > >> The difference you need to resolve between c+2v and c-2v is 8E-12 secs. > >There are scopes that will do much better than that. > >> Not exactly an easy task!!!! > >> The mirror positions only have to distort by 100 microns to throw the >> whole thing out. > >There will be no rotating mirrors. I don't need to worry about throwing >things out. My beam just has to hit the two detectors, one after another >and they must be stable enough so that there is no correlation between >variations in the speed of the source and vibrations of the detectors. Why do you need TWO detectors? One is enough. ..if it has a fast enough response time. > >The beam splitter for the first detector may need to be a screen rather >than a half silvered mirror, so that no one can say that >adsorption/reradiation by a stationary object has changed the speed of the >photons back to c. I thought you would place a fibre source (or a mirror) on each side of the rotating wheel so one was approaching as the other departed. That allows you to have only one detector. 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 28 Apr 2005 05:04
"G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote in news:1114665307.159604.104170 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > Dear bz > > Just that these things work on doppler shift only which > means frequency shift only not speed changes > > that's all > > G Which is exactly what I am trying to demonatrate to the BaT people. They think that c'=c+v They think that the speed of light is dependent on the velocity of the source. They actually think that the wavelength is constant and the speed varies. -- 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 |