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: bz on 28 Apr 2005 05:29 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:iv4171dfq7360sat39573jv7cu08ff3cdm(a)4ax.com: > 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. Yes, but an optical fiber is going to be much more stable under the high g conditions that will exist at the edge of the spinning disk. > >> >>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. Yes. A laser beam at 1 km is still going to be detectable. Heck, I can see returns from my laser pointer, when I hit stopsigns over 1/2 mile away. This experiment does NOT depend on the laser beam being well collimated. I could use an LED instead. I just want a moving source with a stable, known wavelength. > Even at 300 > metres it will flash past very quickly. Sie Sie, the photons will flash past at c. > The width of your detector will limit the accuray of the sensing time. The width of the Photo multiplier tube will have nothing to do with the sensing time. It will limit how WIDE the pulse is, but not how long it takes to travel the distance. > The experiment would have been carried out already if it had any hope of > working. Oh, the logical flaws in that argument. Most people don't feel a need to falsify c'=c+v. ...... >> >>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 response time doesn't even have to be all that fast, it just needs to be constant. I want to measure how long it takes for the photons to pass between two points that are a constant distance apart. I want to see if the velocity of the source has ANY effect on the time it takes to pass those two points. That is the only way I can convince you and other BaT, c'=c+v people that c is independent of source velocity. > >> >>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. No. I don't want to see both sides of the rotating wheel, just one point. I will rotate the wheel in the other direction to get the opposite doppler shift. > > That allows you to have only one detector. You can't measure time of flight between two points unless you compare the arrival time at the two points. I want to actually MEASURE how long it takes the photons to move between the two point. But remember, I don't need the absolute value for the time of flight, I just need to demonstrate that the time of flight is independent of the velocity of the source. The 'captive' moving source, on the edge of the rotating disk, will show that the velocity of the photons emitted is independent of the velocity of the source. I predict that doppler shift WILL be observed. c'=c + v will NOT be observed. -- 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 28 Apr 2005 16:17 On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:02:02 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:28107116lmsk694q33fpre15ufn6uk47rs(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:04:23 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>... 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. >> >> Except that the position of A' moves during the time light goes from A to >> A'. >> Is that not important? > >The diagram is easiest to understand in the mirror >frame so the motion would be a rotation of the >mirror about a point midway between B and A'. Take >the mid-point as the reflection of a notional ray >which exactly joins the source to the detector. >The effect is to make it either slightly concave >or slightly convex depending on which beam we are >considering but the motion is so small in the time >involved the effect is negligible compared to the >inherent spread of even a laser. > >> I assume the distance B-A' is related to some property >> of the mirror surface. > >No, you can simply think of it as the width >of the light beam but really it is just two >arbitrarily close hypothetical rays within >the beam. It should be clear that the angles >are independent of the width, only the ratio >of the speeds affects the result. All Right. Here's something for you to think about, then: / | | s O | | / Imagine a pair of 45 degree mirrors spinning around a central source, s. If such a configuration was used to test the BaT, what would you expect the light beams speed to be towards a distant observer, O. > >>>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! >> >> If it was traveling at about 0.005c maybe. > >For a fibre gyro detecting say 1 degree per >minute of rotation with a loop of fibre a >few cm in diameter, what is the tangential >speed? These things are amazingly sensitive. >I'm only guessing of course but if you try >to do some modification of the law of >reflection, I think you might find this is >a real problem even for cars travelling at >sub-orbital speeds ;-) > >.... >>>> 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 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. >> >> How do you know it is the wrong result? > >Because you said "At high speeds, the path >length difference under BaT appears to be >slightly less than half that according to >SR.". The SR prediction was first tested in >1913 and has been checked many times since >then so there is no doubt it is accurate. >For example it is the basis of the design >for the fibre gyro industry and they would >soon scream if it didn't work. Of course, what you claim to be an 'SR prediction' is really the 'AETHER' prediction. If it IS true, it is not the result of any silly maths postulate. It is the physical consequence of the fact that the Earth apparently DOES have a natural reference frame aound itself. > >>>... 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. >> >> Well, I'm not at all convinced. There are a few other factors to consider >> yet. > >Yes, that's where I see your real challenge. >You would need to exhaust all the possible >effects before you could be convinced, but >I think this experiment has a far better >chance of giving you an answer than any >other. The simplest ballistic model is >ruled out but there are a number of ways >you might try to construct a theory that >fits the data. Well, George, you claimed there would be NO fringe shift under the BaT model. That appears to be incorrect. You will also notice that the beams behave almost identically at lower speeds, for both models. The 'factor of two' is only obvious at very high rotation speeds. > >> I'm not sure about the correct departure angle from the source. >> >> Also, I have to look at the reflection at each mirror more closely. > >The launch angle is easy, it is whatever is >necessary for the light to reach the detector. Presumeably, if he apparatus is set up whilst NOT rotating, the beams will be aligned so that both hit the mirror at the same spot. The animation shows that both move sideways during rotation, under both models. That is not what I expected and I will be having a closer look. It could be a second order effect that shows up at very high rotation speeds. I will improve the program using much higher precision and, like I said, with a magnification of the point where the beams meet. I will also make it produce some actual figures. >You only get interference if two beams fall on >the same spot simultaneously (it is of course >the emission time that differes slightly while >we are finding the arrival time difference). Well apparently they DO NOT....according to both the BaT and aether. they bith move sideways in the SAME direction but by different amounts. > >The harder part is that the required launch >angle depends on the angles at all the >reflections. The diagram we discussed at the >top then relates that back to the ratio of the >speeds so hopefully that reduces the variables >but the speed depends on the details of your >ballistic model so that's about as far as I >can go to help. There is a lot more to this problem than one would think. > >> I have already made up a new version of the program with a much higher >> resolution than 1 pixel. I took out the timer and replaced it with a 'for >> ..loop', using machine delay instead. >> The problem was that the mirrors were in place one pixel before the ray >> reached >> it but had moved before the ray left...and I thought the reflection angles >> might be slightly out. However the higher resolution made no noticeable >> difference so the current demo appears OK. > >OK, that's a good check of robustness. >Eventually, you should do this analytically >but it is essential to understand the various >processes involved first and I think your >simulation is invaluable for that. I have now put the faster and more accurate version on the website. > >> I also want to magnify the end section so that I can see exactly what >> happens >> at very low rotation speeds. > >It should be linear since the sense of the >delay swaps at zero speed. We will see. > >>>Once I get that cleared, I might have a go but >>>I'll adjust the launch angles too. >> >> I'll look into it. >> >> I might even have another go at Java with this one. It is relatively short >> and >> simple.. > >I found EJS took all the pain out of doing >the GUI which was the bit I found hard >when hand-coding Java. I will have a look. > >George > 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 16:26 On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:04:48 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"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. No they don't. They say: 1) 'speed of light' is a meaningless expression on its own. All speeds must be defined as relative. 2) Tthe speed of light happens to be 'c' wrt its source, 'c' being a universal constant. 3) Light from a moving source will move at c+v relative to the observer. >They actually think that the wavelength is constant and the speed varies. The frequency of an EM signal refers to the rate at which 'wavecrests' pass a point. Under the BaT, that rate is obviously dependent on relative light speed. How could the distance between any two point be physically affected by observer movement? There are lots of differently moving observers :) That is what you are other SRians claim...and in all seriousness!! HaHa!!!! 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 16:37 On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:29:19 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:iv4171dfq7360sat39573jv7cu08ff3cdm(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. > >Yes, but an optical fiber is going to be much more stable under the high g >conditions that will exist at the edge of the spinning disk. > >> >>> >>>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. > >Yes. A laser beam at 1 km is still going to be detectable. Heck, I can see >returns from my laser pointer, when I hit stopsigns over 1/2 mile away. But if you flash it past at a speed equivalent to a rotation rate of 60000 rpm your eyes would NOT detect one flash. The brightness will be reduced by the ratio of the target width to the circumference of the circle. > >This experiment does NOT depend on the laser beam being well collimated. I >could use an LED instead. I just want a moving source with a stable, known >wavelength. > >> Even at 300 >> metres it will flash past very quickly. > >Sie Sie, the photons will flash past at c. wrong. > >> The width of your detector will limit the accuray of the sensing time. > >The width of the Photo multiplier tube will have nothing to do with the >sensing time. It will limit how WIDE the pulse is, but not how long it >takes to travel the distance. No, you don't understand the experiment at all. > >> The experiment would have been carried out already if it had any hope of >> working. > >Oh, the logical flaws in that argument. > >Most people don't feel a need to falsify c'=c+v. Only because Walter Ritz died prematurely and the physics establishment was mezmorised by the circular maths of Einstein's 'alternative AETHER' theory. > > >..... >>> >>>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 response time doesn't even have to be all that fast, it just needs to >be constant. > >I want to measure how long it takes for the photons to pass between two >points that are a constant distance apart. > >I want to see if the velocity of the source has ANY effect on the time it >takes to pass those two points. > >That is the only way I can convince you and other BaT, c'=c+v people that c >is independent of source velocity. > >> >>> >>>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. > >No. I don't want to see both sides of the rotating wheel, just one point. >I will rotate the wheel in the other direction to get the opposite doppler >shift. > >> >> That allows you to have only one detector. > >You can't measure time of flight between two points unless you compare the >arrival time at the two points. > >I want to actually MEASURE how long it takes the photons to move between >the two point. > >But remember, I don't need the absolute value for the time of flight, I >just need to demonstrate that the time of flight is independent of the >velocity of the source. > >The 'captive' moving source, on the edge of the rotating disk, will show >that the velocity of the photons emitted is independent of the velocity of >the source. > >I predict that doppler shift WILL be observed. c'=c + v will NOT be >observed. 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 17:11
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:b8h2719k4fhf6m6shbrsd7hqsbag8p3gh4(a)4ax.com: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:04:48 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>"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. > > No they don't. > > They say: > 1) 'speed of light' is a meaningless expression on its own. we disagree. > All speeds > must be defined as relative. we agree with the exception of things like light and sound that have constant velocities (assuming vacuum for light, uniform media for sound). > 2) Tthe speed of light happens to be 'c' wrt its source, we agree. > 'c' being a universal constant. > 3) Light from a moving source will move at c+v relative to the observer. We disagree. Light moves at c wrt observer, wrt source, wrt all possible observers. > >>They actually think that the wavelength is constant and the speed >>varies. > > The frequency of an EM signal refers to the rate at which 'wavecrests' > pass a point. We agree. > Under the BaT, that rate is obviously dependent on relative light speed. True, also under SR, GTR, and Newtonian physics. > How could the distance between any two point be physically affected by > observer movement? There are lots of differently moving observers :) So? Each different observer can observe a different frequency, if their motion relative to the source is different. It works that way with the doppler shift due to a moving sound source. Why wouldn't it work that way with light? > > That is what you are other SRians claim...and in all seriousness!! > HaHa!!!! Do you agree that BaT does NOT apply to sound? Do you agree that the speed of sound is independent of the speed of the source? If you don't agree, then we can easily do experiments that will show you are wrong. -- 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 |