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: Henri Wilson on 29 Apr 2005 19:07 On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:44:08 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:ebq27114h0j7ooce3h3vo1d6se1o4dspmn(a)4ax.com: > >> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:11:51 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:b8h2719k4fhf6m6shbrsd7hqsbag8p3gh4(a)4ax.com: >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>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. >> >> The 'speed' of anything is a meaningless expression anywhere, anytime. > >Tell that to the policeman when he writes you a ticket. He measure car speed wrt the road. Learn something about physics will you. > >Speed is the magnitude of velocity, it is not meaningless. One may specify >direction to give more information, but speed is a useful term to use when >the direction does not matter. > >Speed of light is a commonly used and accepted term in physics. > >> >>> >>>> 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). >> >> For sound, speed is defined as relative to he medim in which it is >> conveyed. > >Didn't you just say the "'speed' of anything is a meaningless expression >anywhere, anytime"? Ah well "consistancy is the hobgobblin of small minds", >as someone once said. > >But the shift is observable and is due to relative motion of source and >observer. > >> For light in vacuum, there is no reference medium. > >So what? the shift is observable and is due to relative motion of source >and observer. > >> The only >> reference is its source. > >That is demonstrably false. Doppler shift of light, radar, and sound all >depend on the relative velocity of the source and the observer. > >> The claim that light travels at 'c' wrt all observers is unsubstantiated >> and nonsensical. > >The claim has never been falsified and makes sense to me. > >> >>> >>>> 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. >> >> The claim that light travels at 'c' wrt all observers is unsubstantiated >> and nonsensical. > >The claim that light travels at 'c' wrt all observers has never been >falsified. > >The claim that c'=c+v is unsubstatiated and seems nonsensical to me. > >> >> >>>> >>>>>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. >> >> Not so under SR. >> If so, it would not accommodate doppler shifts at all. > >It does accommodate doppler shift. The rate of passage of the wavecrests >(frequency) is changed by a non zero relative velocity of source and >observer. > >> >>> >>>> 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. >> >> That has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical distance between the >> points. > >We are talking here about 'point on the wave train', right? 'Wavecrests', >right? > >A moving observer will see those points passing at a rate that is dependent >upon the observers motion relative to the wave source. > >> Accept: OBSERVER MOVEMENTS DON'T AFFECT ANYTHING. > >I do NOT accept that. In fact, if you get a doppler lidar or radar and go >riding around in your car with it, you will soon find that the relative >velocity is what is measured. The observers movements certainly have an >effect. > >>>It works that way with the doppler shift due to a moving sound source. >>>Why wouldn't it work that way with light? >> >> Light doesn't travel through a medium. >> >>>> That is what you are other SRians claim...and in all seriousness!! >>>> HaHa!!!! >>> >>>Do you agree that BaT does NOT apply to sound? >> >> How could it. > >Exactly my point. However one could argue that the moving source, when >moving in the direction of wave propagation, will [and it really will] >impart an additional kinetic motion to the air molecules and make them move >faster. However this does not make the SOUND travel faster. > >> Sound is a moving disturbance in a fixed medium. > >We will agree that we are talking about observations taken in still air. > >> >>>Do you agree that the speed of sound is independent of the speed of the >>>source? >> > >> Of course the speed of sound in the medium is independent of the source. > >Do you agree that doppler shift, of sound, can be observed by a moving >observer, given a stationary source? > >Do you agree that doppler shift, of sound, can be observed by a stationary >observer, given a moving source? > >Do you agree that doppler shift, of sound, is due to the relative motion >between source and observer? > >Do you agree that multiple observers in different locations, of a moving >source will each observe a different frequency? > >> >>> >>>If you don't agree, then we can easily do experiments that will show you >>>are wrong. >> >> Where is the connection between sound and light. > >They both travel at constant velocities [usual disclaimers]. > >> >> You obviously have a lot to learn. > >All human beings do. Life would not be much fine if that were not true. >The set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. 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 29 Apr 2005 19:19 On 29 Apr 2005 01:34:33 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >BZ > Thanks: will correct that. We know the spaceship will be seen to be >going straight >up from the asteriod - seen by all observers as going straight up, >because >the spaceship is carried along by the asteroid > >What about the light pulse / photon? What will it be seen to do >for a moving observer? I just can't figure it out: we are in "space" >with >nothing to refer to .. except the stars? Given the effects will be very >small >for speeds very much less than c. > >Henri, I like to know your thoughts on this Place a very long vertical pole on the asteroid. Put clocks along it at regular spacing. Fire the spaceship and light pulse vertically and next to the rod. Let the clocks measure the time taken for (a) the spaceship to pass and (b) the light pulse to pass. Simple analysis will show that the light pulse is catching up to the spaceship at c-v. SR does not claim otherwise....which is one reason why it it is nonsense. It claims that an observer on the spaceship will MEASURE the aproach speed of light as being 'c'. > >G > >G 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 29 Apr 2005 19:32 On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:52:11 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:ftq271hf7qjtljjr8c9hgcehal99c8qlde(a)4ax.com: > >>>>>>> >>>>>>>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. >>> >>>Right, there would be 1000 flashes per second at 60000 rpm. >>> >>>> The brightness will be reduced by the ratio of the target width to the >>>> circumference of the circle. >>> >>>It will be reduced even more because I am going to make the beam go >>>through a couple of irises to make sure the beam is only going down one >>>rather narrow path. But, if it is too dim with one source, I can glue >>>multiple fibers from the source to the edge of the disk and increase the >>>number of pulses, or just let the experiment run longer. >> >> You haven't a clue. > >If we knew what would happen, we wouldn't need to run the experiment. >Clue me in. > >> You have to be able to discriminate between individual pulses. You will >> need an extremely fast and sensitive PM for that. > >I have to be able to detect individual pulses. Yes. CCDs and PM tubes are >available that detect single photons. The speed must be stable. What is their recovery time? The pulses are extremely weak and10^-11 secs apart. > >>>When you properly capture data from a repeating phenomina, you can sum >>>the data. Signals add, noise doesn't. Sum enough data and you get an >>>excellent signal to noise ratio. >> >> So what. >> Your experiment is to show that individual pulses froom a receding >> source take longer to reach you than the 'approaching' ones. > >If it does that then c'=c+v is supported and a lot of other things fall. >You are happy. > >If, as I suspect, it shows that TOFLS (time of flight light speed) is >independent of source velocity, then BaT is invalidated. It wont show anything but a load of noise. Still, I'm sure some bright SRian will find a statistical method that will turn ordinary noise into proof that Einstein was god. They have done it before. >>>>>Sie Sie, the photons will flash past at c. >>>> >>>> wrong. >>> >>>This is exactly the point upon which we disagree. >> >> I am refering to the time taken for the pulses to pass the detector, not >> the speed at which they pass. > >Are you talking about the pulse width, as seen by the detector? The pulse >width WILL change with the speed of the source. No, I'm talikng about the actual physical width of the detector 'window'. The flash will also have a physical width. That will change with pulse length and protation rate. What you want to calculate is the proportion of pulse energy that enters the detector as it flashes past once. You will also find that, at very high rotation rates, one pulse hasn't passed completely before the other one arrives. It hasn't a hope in hell of working. > >If we look at the leading edge of the pulse, it will travel at c between >the two detectors. > >If we look at the trailinge edge of the pulse, it too will travel at c >between the two detectors. OK, if you use two detectors in line, you will still have difficulty in determining the start and end points of each pulse. You will have to run the c+v flash and c-v flash in close succession and try to discriminate the time intervals to beter than 10^-11. > >>>>>> 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. >>> >>>I understand the experiment that I propose. I have no idea what you >>>understand about my experiment but earlier you thought I would be using >>>a double sided mirror and looking at coming and going at the same time, >>>so it just might be you that does not understand my proposed experiment. >>> >>>I am sorry if I have not been clear enough about it. I have changed >>>designs several times, but my intent has been to show that the >>>time-of-flight of light from a [captive] moving source is independent of >>>the speed of the source by showing that the transit time between two >>>points is constant regardless of the motion of the source. >>> >>>If I do that, it will invalidate BaT, right? >> >> You will not do it. > >Why do you think that? > >> It cannot work. > >Why do you say that? Because it would have been performed already if it would. > >> You would have yto perform it in remote space to be sure and then you > >Why? I don't expect gravity to be a significant factor. You don't want atmosphere or and fields of any description. > >> will find that it supports the BaT. > >That would depend entirely upon the results, wouldn't it? The results are prdictable. 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 29 Apr 2005 20:15 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:t9g5719fgr1vp75itnqtqroov6pahefora(a)4ax.com: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:52:11 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:ftq271hf7qjtljjr8c9hgcehal99c8qlde(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>Right, there would be 1000 flashes per second at 60000 rpm. >>>> >>>>> The brightness will be reduced by the ratio of the target width to >>>>> the circumference of the circle. >>>> >>>>It will be reduced even more because I am going to make the beam go >>>>through a couple of irises to make sure the beam is only going down >>>>one rather narrow path. But, if it is too dim with one source, I can >>>>glue multiple fibers from the source to the edge of the disk and >>>>increase the number of pulses, or just let the experiment run longer. >>> >>> You haven't a clue. >> >>If we knew what would happen, we wouldn't need to run the experiment. >>Clue me in. >> >>> You have to be able to discriminate between individual pulses. You >>> will need an extremely fast and sensitive PM for that. >> >>I have to be able to detect individual pulses. Yes. CCDs and PM tubes >>are available that detect single photons. The speed must be stable. > > What is their recovery time? Fast enough. > > The pulses are extremely weak and10^-11 secs apart. Where do you get that? At 60000 rpm the pulses are 1/1000 seconds apart. spinning source ------------>Detector 1---------------->Detector 2 detector 1 is actually a silvered metal SCREEN at 45 degrees to act as a beam splitter with detector 1 off to the side of the path. The pulse is detected as it passes detector 1 and a signal is sent to my scope. The pulse is detected as it reaches detector 2 and a signal is sent to my scope. I don't care about the exact latency of the detectors, as long as it is stable. I don't care about the cable lengths from the detectors to the scope. The cables will not change length as the speed of the source is changed. If the transit time from detector 1 to detector 2 is constant, regardless of the speed / direction of rotation of the spinning source, AND the distance from detector1 to detector2 is sufficient for me to detect the variation in photon speed predicted by BaT, then BaT is invalidated. > >> >>>>When you properly capture data from a repeating phenomina, you can sum >>>>the data. Signals add, noise doesn't. Sum enough data and you get an >>>>excellent signal to noise ratio. >>> >>> So what. >>> Your experiment is to show that individual pulses froom a receding >>> source take longer to reach you than the 'approaching' ones. >> >>If it does that then c'=c+v is supported and a lot of other things fall. >>You are happy. >> >>If, as I suspect, it shows that TOFLS (time of flight light speed) is >>independent of source velocity, then BaT is invalidated. > > It wont show anything but a load of noise. There will be a good signal to noise ratio. > Still, I'm sure some bright SRian will find a statistical method that > will turn ordinary noise into proof that Einstein was god. > They have done it before. > > >>>>>>Sie Sie, the photons will flash past at c. >>>>> >>>>> wrong. >>>> >>>>This is exactly the point upon which we disagree. >>> >>> I am refering to the time taken for the pulses to pass the detector, >>> not the speed at which they pass. >> >>Are you talking about the pulse width, as seen by the detector? The >>pulse width WILL change with the speed of the source. > > No, I'm talikng about the actual physical width of the detector > 'window'. The flash will also have a physical width. That will change > with pulse length and protation rate. > What you want to calculate is the proportion of pulse energy that enters > the detector as it flashes past once. > You will also find that, at very high rotation rates, one pulse hasn't > passed completely before the other one arrives. > > It hasn't a hope in hell of working. > >> >>If we look at the leading edge of the pulse, it will travel at c between >>the two detectors. >> >>If we look at the trailinge edge of the pulse, it too will travel at c >>between the two detectors. > > OK, if you use two detectors in line, you will still have difficulty in > determining the start and end points of each pulse. > You will have to run the c+v flash and c-v flash in close succession and > try to discriminate the time intervals to beter than 10^-11. > The c+v and c-v pulses don't have to be in close succession, and they won't be. The wheel will be spun at 60k rpm, 50k rpm, 40k rpm, 30k rpm, 20k rpm, 10k rpm, 0 rpm, -10k rpm, -20k rpm, ... - 60k rpm. At each speed, the transit time from detector 1 to detector 2 will be determined for the rise and the fall of the light pulse. >> >>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>I understand the experiment that I propose. I have no idea what you >>>>understand about my experiment but earlier you thought I would be >>>>using a double sided mirror and looking at coming and going at the >>>>same time, so it just might be you that does not understand my >>>>proposed experiment. >>>> >>>>I am sorry if I have not been clear enough about it. I have changed >>>>designs several times, but my intent has been to show that the >>>>time-of-flight of light from a [captive] moving source is independent >>>>of the speed of the source by showing that the transit time between >>>>two points is constant regardless of the motion of the source. >>>> >>>>If I do that, it will invalidate BaT, right? >>> >>> You will not do it. >> >>Why do you think that? >> >>> It cannot work. >> >>Why do you say that? > > Because it would have been performed already if it would. It had to be proposed before it could be done. >> >>> You would have yto perform it in remote space to be sure and then you >> >>Why? I don't expect gravity to be a significant factor. > > You don't want atmosphere or and fields of any description. You are now going to say that light has a constant velocity and BaT is invalid when there is an atmosphere or a field of any description? If so, then BaT is invalid for almost any emission source I can imagine. The disk will have to spin in a vacuum if we are to get speeds of over 600 mph. > >> >>> will find that it supports the BaT. >> >>That would depend entirely upon the results, wouldn't it? > > The results are prdictable. Yes, the results are predictable. -- 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: Bilge on 30 Apr 2005 01:04
bz: >"G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote in news:1114769646.014073.265000 >@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > >> BZ >> >> I agree with your statement on doppler shifts. Why don't you do the >> experiment and >> c ? > >I need to interest some people in getting the equipment together and running >the experiment. The direct measurement of the source independence has been done to much better precision that you could hope to acheive in any experiment using terrestrial light sources at any physically attainable velocity, or conceivable flight pat length, even if you could somehow obtain the best equipment in existence. There's been a test performed using the light from a binary pulsar system (PSR J0437-4715, stratten. et al). The pulsars orbit about a common center of mass such that the pilsars are moving away from or toward the earth with the maximum variation of their velocities at +/-13 km/sec. The pulsars are located a distance of about 140 parsecs. They measure the speed to constant with an uncertainty of 2 cm/year. Henri is a crackpot who makes stuff up just to read his own bullshit. He's tried to claim classical physcs is wrong based upon his idea that changing from center of mass coordinates to a different coordinate system violates conservation of energy. He's utterly hopeless. If he thinks he's about to be pinned down, he'll invent a new theory in an hour and then write a simulation he expects you to download as an executable and run because he thinks it's impossible for his programs to be or become infected with viruses. |