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 30 Apr 2005 19:33 On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:15:23 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:t9g5719fgr1vp75itnqtqroov6pahefora(a)4ax.com: > >>>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. The stability of the timing system here is the big problem. That's why I use only ONE detector and two mirrors in my suggested configuration of this experiment. spinning source ------------>Detector 1 The spinning spource has mirrors on both sides so one is approaching and the other receding. At 300 metres, the difference in arrival times will be about 10^-11 seconds. So the pulse durations would not want to be much more than this. Very difficult. If you use two detectors, they still have to be capable of resolving time differences of this magnitude. > >> >>> >>>>>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. Well, theoretically there is nothing wrong with the method (I looked into it several years ago, as did others) but the stability of the system has to be better than 10^-11 over the length of the experiment. I suppose it could be repeated enough times for some kind of pattern to be determined. There is also the 'pinhole' problem. You want to make the pulse as sharp as possible but in doing so, you also reduce its intensity. How do you envisage getting enough energy into the light source for it to bee detectable at long distance? Again, even under the highest vacuums achievable on Earth, there might be still enough gas in the tube to constitute an 'absolute' medium. The experiment must be performed in deep space. > >>> >>>>>>>> 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. It has been...probably many times over the last 130 years. The difference is that NOW we actually just about have the capability to perform it. > >>> >>>> 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? Look up the term 'extinction' as applied to light. Light very rapidly changes speed in any transparent medium even a very rare gas. I think Tom Roberts has stated that the extinction length in normal air is around 3cms. My H-aether theory suggests that there is a critical level of 'vacuum' below which light is NOT significantly influenced by the presence of matter. > >If so, then BaT is invalid for almost any emission source I can imagine. Never anticipate the results of an experiment. What is the point of performing it if you have already made up your mind about the outcome. The MMX was supposed to measure our speed through the absolute aether. It's null result ws interpreted in many ways. Few accepted that the theory behind the experiment was completely wrong. ther are plenty of people around today who still believe that an absolute frame exists. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that 'local EM reference frames' exist around large accumulations of matter. > >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. Light MUST move at c wrt its source. On emission it has no other reference. Light from a remote star doesn't know where it is going to end up. How could its speed be determined by its eventual target? Variable star brightness curves now verify this point, ie, that light travels through space at different speeds. Can you not see why SR is complete joke? 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 30 Apr 2005 19:34 On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:18:56 GMT ><nssv61d19gtunb4mtcstc0be42rjp6n9b4(a)4ax.com>: >> 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.. > >There are issues if the computer's power supply isn't up to spec. >If YBH can remove one of his disk drives and it works better, >he might have to beef up the power supply. > >However, the above links look more like software bugs. He obviously didn't have enough ram. > >[.sigsnip] 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 30 Apr 2005 23:00 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:8s28715ncsue4o6p919l90lo5jn0q8iqdq(a)4ax.com: > As you know, bz, any devout believer will try to defend his faith to the > death. I am devoted to seeking the truth. > >> >>I try to treat everyone who is reasonably polite toward me with respect. >>If they start calling me stupid or other names, I warn them once and >>then killfile them. He has been reasonably polite, so far. > > Sometimes it is hard to be polite on this NG. > That makes being polite more valuable. -- 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: bz on 30 Apr 2005 23:18 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:ui3871p1te995gg3j0q79uftucsm8d5i65(a)4ax.com: > On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:15:23 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:t9g5719fgr1vp75itnqtqroov6pahefora(a)4ax.com: ..... >>> 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. > > The stability of the timing system here is the big problem. It should be stable enough for the proposed experiment. > That's why I > use only ONE detector and two mirrors in my suggested configuration of > this experiment. > > spinning source ------------>Detector 1 > > The spinning spource has mirrors on both sides so one is approaching and > the other receding. > At 300 metres, the difference in arrival times will be about 10^-11 > seconds. So the pulse durations would not want to be much more than > this. I don't understand where your source is or the arrangement of your mirrors. If it is along a line that is at 90 degrees from the line from the mirror to detector 1, the only one mirror will send the beam to detector 1, the other mirror will send the beam in the opposite direction from detector1. Could you explain? > > Very difficult. space your arrival and departing mirrors 180 degrees apart. > > If you use two detectors, they still have to be capable of resolving > time differences of this magnitude. Again, each needs to be able to respond consistently. Neither needs to be able to resolve the small difference in time between the light hitting detector 1 and the light hitting detector 2. ..... >>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. > > Well, theoretically there is nothing wrong with the method (I looked > into it several years ago, as did others) but the stability of the > system has to be better than 10^-11 over the length of the experiment. I > suppose it could be repeated enough times for some kind of pattern to be > determined. Good. We are finally agreed. > > There is also the 'pinhole' problem. You want to make the pulse as sharp > as possible but in doing so, you also reduce its intensity. How do you > envisage getting enough energy into the light source for it to bee > detectable at long distance? The dB losses can be calculated. The required laser power can be calculated. I suspect that we will not need many miliwatts of power output from our laser, but if we do, there are powerful lasers available. > Again, even under the highest vacuums achievable on Earth, there might > be still enough gas in the tube to constitute an 'absolute' medium. > The experiment must be performed in deep space. But much of the intersteller media also has enough gas to meet your criteria of whatever an 'absolute' medium is. >>>>>>>>> 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. > > It has been...probably many times over the last 130 years. > The difference is that NOW we actually just about have the capability to > perform it. Ok, so you agree that the experiment can 'work'? > >> >>>> >>>>> 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? > > Look up the term 'extinction' as applied to light. > Light very rapidly changes speed in any transparent medium even a very > rare gas. I think Tom Roberts has stated that the extinction length in > normal air is around 3cms. > My H-aether theory suggests that there is a critical level of 'vacuum' > below which light is NOT significantly influenced by the presence of > matter. And what is that level? > >> >>If so, then BaT is invalid for almost any emission source I can imagine. > > Never anticipate the results of an experiment. What is the point of > performing it if you have already made up your mind about the outcome. > The 'accept' and 'reject' criteria should be agreed upon before the experiment is performed. That requires anticipating what the results may be. > The MMX was supposed to measure our speed through the absolute aether. > It's null result ws interpreted in many ways. Few accepted that the > theory behind the experiment was completely wrong. > ther are plenty of people around today who still believe that an > absolute frame exists. True, there are. There are also people that think the earth is flat. > I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that 'local EM reference > frames' exist around large accumulations of matter. If so, the effects of the aether are very small. ..... > Light MUST move at c wrt its source. we agree. > On emission it has no other > reference. Light from a remote star doesn't know where it is going to > end up. agreed. > How could its speed be determined by its eventual target? The speed isn't. The frequency/wavelength is determined by the relative velocity of the target wrt the source. > Variable star brightness curves now verify this point, ie, that light > travels through space at different speeds. We disagree. You have given a pretty strong argument that the photons get absorbed and re-emitted as they are passing through intersteller space. Since the gasses that they pass through are NOT traveling at the same speed as the source, the photons can't be re-emitted with that speed. EITHER the photons have always been traveling at a constant speed wrt all observers or the photons are soon traveling at a constant speed wrt all observers. The only 'reminder' that they carry with them as to the velocity of the source wrt the light emitted is the frequency/wavelength that they originally had. > > Can you not see why SR is complete joke? On the contrary. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu -- 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 1 May 2005 20:08
On Sun, 1 May 2005 03:18:35 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:ui3871p1te995gg3j0q79uftucsm8d5i65(a)4ax.com: > >> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:15:23 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>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. >> >> The stability of the timing system here is the big problem. > >It should be stable enough for the proposed experiment. > >> That's why I >> use only ONE detector and two mirrors in my suggested configuration of >> this experiment. >> >> spinning source ------------>Detector 1 >> >> The spinning spource has mirrors on both sides so one is approaching and >> the other receding. >> At 300 metres, the difference in arrival times will be about 10^-11 >> seconds. So the pulse durations would not want to be much more than >> this. > >I don't understand where your source is or the arrangement of your mirrors. > >If it is along a line that is at 90 degrees from the line from the mirror >to detector 1, the only one mirror will send the beam to detector 1, the >other mirror will send the beam in the opposite direction from detector1. > >Could you explain? The two mirrors are facing the same way. They spin around centre c. |m c SO |m The source is a continuous laser beam. The beam returns at c+2v. As the speed of the rotation is increased, any difference in travel time should be observable. The problem is to set the mirrors so that they are exactly opposite and remain so at high rotations. It should even be possible to make the mirrors slightly concave so as to greatly increase the intensity of the spot. This might work over 3000 metres or more....just. But it would probably have to be done in space. > >> >> Very difficult. > >space your arrival and departing mirrors 180 degrees apart. > >> >> If you use two detectors, they still have to be capable of resolving >> time differences of this magnitude. > >Again, each needs to be able to respond consistently. Neither needs to be >able to resolve the small difference in time between the light hitting >detector 1 and the light hitting detector 2. Then there is no point in having two detectors. > >.... > >>>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. >> >> Well, theoretically there is nothing wrong with the method (I looked >> into it several years ago, as did others) but the stability of the >> system has to be better than 10^-11 over the length of the experiment. I >> suppose it could be repeated enough times for some kind of pattern to be >> determined. > >Good. We are finally agreed. I never disagreed on that. All I disagreed with was its practicability. > >> >> There is also the 'pinhole' problem. You want to make the pulse as sharp >> as possible but in doing so, you also reduce its intensity. How do you >> envisage getting enough energy into the light source for it to bee >> detectable at long distance? > >The dB losses can be calculated. The required laser power can be >calculated. I suspect that we will not need many miliwatts of power output >from our laser, but if we do, there are powerful lasers available. 'Suspecting' is not good enough. Do the sums. The circumference of a 6000 metre diameter circle is, say, 20000 metres. You want to spin the mirrors at say 1000 rps. If the reflected spot is 1 cm width, the detectable energy is going to be somewhat less that 10^-10 the source energy. > >> Again, even under the highest vacuums achievable on Earth, there might >> be still enough gas in the tube to constitute an 'absolute' medium. >> The experiment must be performed in deep space. > >But much of the intersteller media also has enough gas to meet your >criteria of whatever an 'absolute' medium is. Maybe, maybe not. >>>>>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. >> >> It has been...probably many times over the last 130 years. >> The difference is that NOW we actually just about have the capability to >> perform it. > >Ok, so you agree that the experiment can 'work'? It is worth reconsidering...just. >>>> 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? >> >> Look up the term 'extinction' as applied to light. >> Light very rapidly changes speed in any transparent medium even a very >> rare gas. I think Tom Roberts has stated that the extinction length in >> normal air is around 3cms. >> My H-aether theory suggests that there is a critical level of 'vacuum' >> below which light is NOT significantly influenced by the presence of >> matter. > >And what is that level? I don't know! It's probably a bit like superconductivity. There is a fairly sudden threshhold. >> The MMX was supposed to measure our speed through the absolute aether. >> It's null result ws interpreted in many ways. Few accepted that the >> theory behind the experiment was completely wrong. >> ther are plenty of people around today who still believe that an >> absolute frame exists. > >True, there are. There are also people that think the earth is flat. > >> I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that 'local EM reference >> frames' exist around large accumulations of matter. > >If so, the effects of the aether are very small. The effects of a 'local aether' would be exactly the same as SR. Didn't you know that SR and LET maths are identical? > >.... >> Light MUST move at c wrt its source. > >we agree. > >> On emission it has no other >> reference. Light from a remote star doesn't know where it is going to >> end up. > >agreed. > >> How could its speed be determined by its eventual target? > >The speed isn't. Something determines the time it takes to travel from its source to other places. What is that something? > >The frequency/wavelength is determined by the relative velocity of the >target wrt the source. Irrelevant. That's true whatever theory you use. > >> Variable star brightness curves now verify this point, ie, that light >> travels through space at different speeds. > >We disagree. You haven't even looked. > > >You have given a pretty strong argument that the photons get absorbed and >re-emitted as they are passing through intersteller space. No they don't. Not in empty space at least...otherwise we would get blurred images of galaxies. > >Since the gasses that they pass through are NOT traveling at the same speed >as the source, the photons can't be re-emitted with that speed. > >EITHER the photons have always been traveling at a constant speed wrt all >observers or the photons are soon traveling at a constant speed wrt all >observers. What are you saying? The gases they encounter during flight are not all going to be at rest wrt the SRians on planet Earth. > >The only 'reminder' that they carry with them as to the velocity of the >source wrt the light emitted is the frequency/wavelength that they >originally had. Which can only be specified in relation to the speed wrt their source. > >> >> Can you not see why SR is complete joke? > >On the contrary. It is a farce. > >-- >bz > >please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an >infinite set. > >bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu 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. |