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: Nick on 24 Mar 2005 01:14 Not accelerating ones.
From: bz on 24 Mar 2005 05:31 "Nick" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:1111644867.340144.91590 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: [note: I have fixed nicks failure to quote as his comment is meaningless without context -bz-] > Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in > news:EOs0e.98282$r55.61174(a)attbi_s52: > >> Subject: Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant? >> From: Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> >> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro >> >> Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>> Do you really believe everything in every text book? >>> Do you believe everything in the newspapers? >>> Do you believe everything on TV? >>> >>> Or are you like the good christians and muslims who only believe the >>> truths written in the bible and the koran? >>> >> >> Empirical Data: Speed of light is constant for all observers. >> >> > Not accelerating ones. > proof? -- 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: kenseto on 24 Mar 2005 08:56 "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111617889.524245.129830(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > kenseto wrote: > > No ....you would not be able to do that. You can determine the state > of > > absolute motion of the earth surface experimentally by doing the > experiment > > described in the following link (page 3): > > http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf > > Which direction is "vertical"? The vertical direction is perpendicular to the horizontal direction. It is defined whereever you are. > > You realize that "vertical" for somebody at longitude 30E > is "horizontal" for somebody at longitude 120E, right? You need to realize that vertical or horizontal is not reference to anything. A tree is vertical. You are standing vertically....etc. > > So are you saying that the state of absolute motion of > the earth happens to be "horizontal" with respect to the > exact location where Michelson and Morley did their > experiment? Sigh.....the arms and thus the light rays are defined as moving horizontally in every experimental locations. > > Why do people all over the earth get the same result > when they repeat the Michelson-Morley experiment? It > can't be "horizontal" with respect to all of them, can it? The null result of the MMX suggests that the apparatus is moving vertically. Why? That's the only direction of motion that will give the null result for all the orientations of the horizontal arms. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 24 Mar 2005 09:34 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96217F0FC3412WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > news:24Z%d.14316$cC6.10056(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > > What you said is hogwash. If we define that the wave length of a > > specific light source remains constant in all frames then the observed > > Doppler shift is due to the varying speed of light from these different > > sources. > > > > Are you going to say that doppler shift of sound is ALSO due to varying > the speed of sound? A car drops a fire cracker on the ground and sets off > a fire cracker on the hood of the car at the same time. The 'bang' from > the fire cracker on the ground and the one on the hood of the car reach me > at the same time. The bang from the one on the hood of the car is dopplar > shifted, the one on the ground is not. They both travel through the same > air. Why should one travel at a different speed than the other? I assume that you mean that the fire cracker is at rest wrt the ground when it goes off. In that case there is no Doppler shift. The fire cracker on the car would be Doppler shifted. The sound generated by that fire cracker would be closer to the detector with the passage of incremental time and this is the cause of the doppler shift. There is no valid way to measure the speed of sound from a moving fire cracker because there is no valid way to measure the distance between the fire cracker and the detector at rest when the fire cracker generate the first sound wave. > > Why do you think that the sound/light bouncing off of a moving object > changes speed? > > I know that the waves do NOT change speed. Yes, waves in a medium do not change speed if you measure speed at the rest frame of the medium. > > How do I know that they don't? I can measure their speed between two > points AFTER they have bounced off of something and come back to me. Their > transit between the two points will be at the speed of light. When you are measuring light speed between two points in your frame you are not measuring speed from a source moving wrt you. You are measuring the speed of light in your own frame....one of the point acts as a source and the other acts as a receiver. This is true no matter where the source of light is coming from. > > Their energy is changed by bouncing off of a moving object, their > frequency has changed, but their speed is not changed. There is no valid way to measuring the speed of light between a moving source and a stationary receiver. Why? Because there is no valid way to measure the distance between the moving source and the detector when the first photon is generated. Ken Seto
From: Randy Poe on 24 Mar 2005 10:42
kenseto wrote: > "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1111617889.524245.129830(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > No ....you would not be able to do that. You can determine the state > > of > > > absolute motion of the earth surface experimentally by doing the > > experiment > > > described in the following link (page 3): > > > http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf > > > > Which direction is "vertical"? > > The vertical direction is perpendicular to the horizontal direction. It is > defined whereever you are. [snip] > The null result of the MMX suggests that the apparatus is moving vertically. > Why? That's the only direction of motion that will give the null result for > all the orientations of the horizontal arms. OK, just wanted to clarify. So the earth's state of absolute motion is straight up from my toes to my head. At the same time, the earth's state of absolute motion is from left to right, since that's the direction assigned by another observer. At the same time, the earth's state of absolute motion is diagonally from my lower right to my upper left, since that's the direction assigned by another observer. Do you have an explanation for how an "absolute motion" can be all these things at once? If some observers measure the absolute motion as being toward the sun, and others not, how can they both be right? - Randy |