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 4 May 2005 00:05 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:7qsf71d94ubq0qsap7m19gvegpbjv05lo6(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 3 May 2005 08:23:27 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:25vd71t3tmebj977tft966i2i7am3vok1v(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Tue, 3 May 2005 02:04:20 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>> Pretty good glue. >> >>An epoxy. The same thing that holds together the carbon fibers of the >>disk itself. >> >>>>The mass of a light fiber is very low, the G forces are not going to >>>>have much effect, at all. >>> >>> It is just as practical to glue a couple of mirrors onto it. >>> Balance is critical of course. >> >>Any useful mirror will be much more massive that an optical fiber. Have >>you ever played with fiber optics? > > You don't seem to have much understanding of practical physics. > Your 'fibre' has to be a certain diameter or you wont get enoung light > through it. The fiber will be short. Attenuation will be low. Coupling in and out are the biggest problem. > The laser will melt it. At 5mW or even 50mW???? What kind of lasers have you been working with, anyway? I have worked with lasers that WOULD melt it. The 500W CW laser I worked with would vaporize it. But that was a CO2 laser and in the IR. Not useful for this experiment. We can alway pulse the laser off and on, if we get worried about melting the fiber. > > A thin mirror will be much lighter. and much less stable. > It also gives you c+2v. true. But I think I can live without the factor of 2. ..... >>>>I thought Bat said the change takes place at the source ONLY. >>> >>> No. Wavelength, frequency and speed are all measured in the source >>> frame. >> >>We can measure them in any frame but everything except the speed will be >>different in different frames. > > See, you are already indoctrinated. Ther is absolutely NO proof that > light speed is c in all frames. It is an old aether concept. Then I must have been sniffing old ether. Because it makes sense to me. ..... >>>>> What a target 'sees' is not what matters. >>>>> The point is, nothing physically changes because of anything an >>>>> observer does. >>>> >>>>So, If I (an observer) take a space ship toward the nearest star and >>>>accelerate at a constant 1 G (I have plenty of fuel). I don't see any >>>>blue shift in the light from the stars I am approaching? I don't see >>>>any red shift in light from our sun? >>> >>> Of course you do. >>> The speed of the light relative to you is increasing or decreasing so >>> the 'wavecrests' pass you at different rates. >>> >>> But the light doesn't change in any way simply because you are looking >>> at it! >> >>Correct. But saying 'the light doesn't change in any way' could be taken >>to say 'the light will look the same in every way as it would if I were >>at rest'. > > No it is NOT te same. > Light that is traveling through space does its own thing, independent of > observers. Until it hits something. >> >>However when I measure the energy, it will be different. >>The frequency I measure will be different. >>The wavelength I measure will be different. >>But the speed with still be c. > > That's a postulate not a fact of life. > OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. The postulate has not been falsified. >>> That's about doppler shift due to movement. It has nothing to do with >>> GR. >> >>I have been understanding you [or some other BaT advocates] as saying >>that ALL doppler shift is due to c'=c+/-v. And I understood you as >>saying that the shift all takes place at the source, none at the >>observer. >> >>Have you changed your mind or did I misapprehend you? > > You misunderstood completely. You didn't take the opportunity to set thing straight. >>>>> A source sends pulses of EM in a particular direction. >>>>> Detween each pulse, it also fires a rigid rod, the ends of which are >>>>> adjacent to the pulses. >>>> >>>>I assume the rigid rods travel at the same speed as the pulses. Magic >>>>rods with no mass so they can travel at C. >>> >>> Aything can travel at any speed relative to anything else...if you can >>> find enough energy to get it there. >> >>There doesn't appear to be enough energy in the universe to move >>anything with rest mass at c wrt anything in the universe. > > 1/2mc^2 is a large quantity of KE. None the less, the closer the mass gets to c the greater the mass and the more energy it takes to increase its speed a little more. >>> The reason few things in the universe are moving very quickly wrt >>> other objects is pure and simple. It is like a gas at 2.7K. It is very >>> difficult to accelerate anything to near c wrt its original state. >> >>or wrt any other state. > > There are gas outbursts from various supernovae that appear to be > traveling wrt Earth at >c. An optical illusion. [quote from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/f/fa/faster-than- light.htm] Superluminal motion in quasars In many radio galaxies, with Microquasars apparent velocities faster than light are observed. The effect was predicted before the first observations and explained as an optical illusion caused by a light travel time effect. The astronomical observation contain no physics which would not be compatible with the theory of special relativity. Actual derived velocities, however, are close to the speed of light (relativistic motion). They are the first examples in which a bulk of mass is moving close to the speed of light. In Earth-bound laboratories such large velocities are only seen on the level of a limited number of elementary particles. [unquote] ..... >>>>> Do you sincerely believe that these rods change length every time a >>>>> different observer looks at them? >>>> >>>>Only if the different observer is at a different velocity relative to >>>>the source. >>> >>> There is no connection between the observer and the light as it >>> travels. I am talking about an 'intrinsic' change in the light. >> >>And what 'intrinsic' properties does light have? >>I assume'intrinsic' means a property that is NOT source or destination >>dependent. >> >>Speed, spin (?), angular momentum, rest mass. Those are 'intrinsic' >>properties. I don't know of any others. > > Bilgey will try to tell you that a photon is a point particle with no > properties except energy. He claims all photons are identical. He could be right. Some say the same about electrons. > Just goes to show what an idiot he really is. Just because someone contemplates a theory that I think is wrong, that does not justify my calling them (or even thinking) that they are stupid. I have seen intellegent people of good will disagree STRONGLY about things. As Ashley Brillian says: "The more we disagree, the more chance there is that one of us is right." After all, if we all agree, and we are wrong, then we are all wrong and we probably never even know it because we think we are right because everyone agrees. Back when the earth was flat, anyone that thought it was round was an idiot, right? It wasn't really flat? But everyone knew it was so it must have been. (NOT) ..... >>I showed that if the concentration is 1 molecule per cc, then the effect >>on the light of traveling 1.4 million light years would be the same as >>traveling through 1 meter of hydrogen at STP. > > You cannot assume that. I can not assume WHAT? That IF the concentration (mostly hydrogen in intersteller space) is 1 molecule per cc, then the effect of traveling 1.4 million light years would be the same as traveling through one meter of hydrogen at STP? On what basis do you challenge that assertion? Did I drop a decimal place in my calculations? What is wrong with my 'IF...THEN'? ..... >>Agreed. AND I say that the photon will be found to be traveling at c wrt >>any observer's frame of reference. If that frame is different from the >>source frame the energy/frequency/wavelength will be different from that >>observed in the source frame. The speed will NOT be different. > > That comes from aether theory. An observer's rods and clocks both > 'contract' by exactly enough to make OWLS always measured as 'c'. > Einstein merey did away with the ONE absolute aether and made OWLS > constancy a postulate. > I repeat, there is absolutely no proof. In science, one never proves anything. If you are looking for proof, you are not a scientist. Science falsifies things. The theory has not been falsified. .... >>> All similar photons have the same properties in their respective >>> source frames. Why would anyone want to make claims about its >>> properties in any arbitrary frame. It would be totally useless. >> >>Not useless, it explains observed red and blue shifts. > > So does changing relative lightspeed. But changing relative lightspeed would populate our universe with photons traveling at many different speeds. All experiments have failed to find any. >>>>> What properties are possessed by photons then? >>>> >>>>Spin, angular momentum, frequency, energy, polarity, and velocity. >>>> >>>>Speed is always c. >>> >>> wrt its source. >> >>Wrt its source. Wrt any target. > > Why should you think that. Because it is consistent with all observations. >>>>Rest mass is always zero. >>> >>> maybe..but debatable. >>> What constitutes mass. >> >>E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) >> >>so m = (c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2))/E > > The term 'gamma' is a myth based on Einstein's erroneous assumption that > a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal beam in another. Are you on the level? Give me your slant on the subject. > > My demo: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe shows why. I looked at it. It makes perfect sense to me that photons look different from different reference frames. Their direction of travel looks different and their energy looks different. I also looked at the electron traveling wave picture. Why did you pick that number of cycles? -- 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: G on 4 May 2005 02:01 Henri "SR says everyone has his own personal aether. It is a purely unproven postulate." I agree own personal ether seems to be the thing to have these days. However you must be a fast mover "What is more, it has no bearing on the point I have made. " "Light moves from the source to Andromeda"... OK " with ONLY ONE speed" OK ", not an infinite number. " OK That is for the light moving from the source, the photon or wavefront travels only at one speed. However when anyone measures it anywhere, they find that the speed is always the same. Let me give a quick example. A spaceship travels from A to B, a distance s, at half the speed of light in time t The speed is given as s/t A beam of light travels from A to B at the speed of light c the speed is given as c = s/t1 If the astronuat on the spaceship measures the speed of light, it will appear to be moving at c during his measurement. This is because the spaceship has contracted relative to the drame of A and B. There are an infinite number of measurements that could be taken all of them measuring to c I feel there must be some logical and physical contradictions in the theory itself I know its derivation has some, but I need to find these out. Also: if you are using mirrors in exepriments: do mirrors bounce off or re- emit photons? G
From: Henri Wilson on 4 May 2005 02:35 On 3 May 2005 23:01:19 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >Henri > >"SR says everyone has his own personal aether. It is a >purely unproven postulate." > >I agree own personal ether seems to be the thing to have these days. >However >you must be a fast mover > >"What is more, it has no bearing on the point I have made. " > > >"Light moves from the source to Andromeda"... > >OK > >" with ONLY ONE speed" > >OK > >", not an infinite >number. " > >OK > >That is for the light moving from the source, the photon or wavefront >travels only at one speed. However when anyone measures it anywhere, >they find that the speed is >always the same. No, that's what you have been taught. It is not true. > >Let me give a quick example. > >A spaceship travels from A to B, a distance s, at half the speed of >light in time t >The speed is given as s/t > >A beam of light travels from A to B at the speed of light c > >the speed is given as c = s/t1 > >If the astronuat on the spaceship measures the speed of light, it will >appear to be moving >at c during his measurement. This is because the spaceship has >contracted relative >to the drame of A and B. There are an infinite number of measurements >that could >be taken all of them measuring to c > >I feel there must be some logical and physical contradictions in the >theory itself >I know its derivation has some, but I need to find these out. There are huge contradictions. SR says the there is NO aether but then claims that things DO physically contract when moving relative to another object. It is just a disguised aether theory. > >Also: if you are using mirrors in exepriments: do mirrors bounce off or >re- emit photons? I would like to know more about that too....espsecially concerning mirrors that are moving wrt the source. > >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 4 May 2005 03:00 On Wed, 4 May 2005 04:05:43 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:7qsf71d94ubq0qsap7m19gvegpbjv05lo6(a)4ax.com: > >> On Tue, 3 May 2005 08:23:27 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:25vd71t3tmebj977tft966i2i7am3vok1v(a)4ax.com: >>> >>>> On Tue, 3 May 2005 02:04:20 +0000 (UTC), bz >>>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>> Pretty good glue. >>> >>>An epoxy. The same thing that holds together the carbon fibers of the >>>disk itself. >>> >>>>>The mass of a light fiber is very low, the G forces are not going to >>>>>have much effect, at all. >>>> >>>> It is just as practical to glue a couple of mirrors onto it. >>>> Balance is critical of course. >>> >>>Any useful mirror will be much more massive that an optical fiber. Have >>>you ever played with fiber optics? >> >> You don't seem to have much understanding of practical physics. >> Your 'fibre' has to be a certain diameter or you wont get enoung light >> through it. > >The fiber will be short. Attenuation will be low. Coupling in and out are the >biggest problem. > >> The laser will melt it. >At 5mW or even 50mW???? > >What kind of lasers have you been working with, anyway? > >I have worked with lasers that WOULD melt it. The 500W CW laser I worked with >would vaporize it. But that was a CO2 laser and in the IR. Not useful for >this experiment. > >We can alway pulse the laser off and on, if we get worried about melting the >fiber. > >> >> A thin mirror will be much lighter. > >and much less stable. > >> It also gives you c+2v. > >true. But I think I can live without the factor of 2. > >.... >>>>>I thought Bat said the change takes place at the source ONLY. >>>> >>>> No. Wavelength, frequency and speed are all measured in the source >>>> frame. >>> >>>We can measure them in any frame but everything except the speed will be >>>different in different frames. >> >> See, you are already indoctrinated. Ther is absolutely NO proof that >> light speed is c in all frames. It is an old aether concept. > >Then I must have been sniffing old ether. Because it makes sense to me. > >.... >>>>>> What a target 'sees' is not what matters. >>>>>> The point is, nothing physically changes because of anything an >>>>>> observer does. >>>>> >>>>>So, If I (an observer) take a space ship toward the nearest star and >>>>>accelerate at a constant 1 G (I have plenty of fuel). I don't see any >>>>>blue shift in the light from the stars I am approaching? I don't see >>>>>any red shift in light from our sun? >>>> >>>> Of course you do. >>>> The speed of the light relative to you is increasing or decreasing so >>>> the 'wavecrests' pass you at different rates. >>>> >>>> But the light doesn't change in any way simply because you are looking >>>> at it! >>> >>>Correct. But saying 'the light doesn't change in any way' could be taken >>>to say 'the light will look the same in every way as it would if I were >>>at rest'. >> >> No it is NOT te same. >> Light that is traveling through space does its own thing, independent of >> observers. > >Until it hits something. > >>> >>>However when I measure the energy, it will be different. >>>The frequency I measure will be different. >>>The wavelength I measure will be different. >>>But the speed with still be c. >> >> That's a postulate not a fact of life. >> OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. > >The postulate has not been falsified. Only becasue the means were never available to do so. > >>>> That's about doppler shift due to movement. It has nothing to do with >>>> GR. >>> >>>I have been understanding you [or some other BaT advocates] as saying >>>that ALL doppler shift is due to c'=c+/-v. And I understood you as >>>saying that the shift all takes place at the source, none at the >>>observer. >>> >>>Have you changed your mind or did I misapprehend you? >> >> You misunderstood completely. > >You didn't take the opportunity to set thing straight. > >>>>>> A source sends pulses of EM in a particular direction. >>>>>> Detween each pulse, it also fires a rigid rod, the ends of which are >>>>>> adjacent to the pulses. >>>>> >>>>>I assume the rigid rods travel at the same speed as the pulses. Magic >>>>>rods with no mass so they can travel at C. >>>> >>>> Aything can travel at any speed relative to anything else...if you can >>>> find enough energy to get it there. >>> >>>There doesn't appear to be enough energy in the universe to move >>>anything with rest mass at c wrt anything in the universe. >> >> 1/2mc^2 is a large quantity of KE. > >None the less, the closer the mass gets to c the greater the mass and the >more energy it takes to increase its speed a little more. Don't sprout that SRian propaganda to me. Mass doesn't change with speed. That is obvious...nor does anything else. Give a lump of rock a push and what happens? SR claims it gets heavier in half the frames in the universe and lighter in the other half. So what is the obvious REAL answer. > >>>> The reason few things in the universe are moving very quickly wrt >>>> other objects is pure and simple. It is like a gas at 2.7K. It is very >>>> difficult to accelerate anything to near c wrt its original state. >>> >>>or wrt any other state. >> >> There are gas outbursts from various supernovae that appear to be >> traveling wrt Earth at >c. > >An optical illusion. More evidence of your indoctrination. > >[quote from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/f/fa/faster-than- >light.htm] >Superluminal motion in quasars >In many radio galaxies, with Microquasars apparent velocities faster than >light are observed. The effect was predicted before the first observations >and explained as an optical illusion caused by a light travel time effect. >The astronomical observation contain no physics which would not be compatible >with the theory of special relativity. Actual derived velocities, however, >are close to the speed of light (relativistic motion). They are the first >examples in which a bulk of mass is moving close to the speed of light. In >Earth-bound laboratories such large velocities are only seen on the level of >a limited number of elementary particles. They will try to wriggle out of anything that might disprove their 'religion'. >[unquote] > >.... >>> >>>Speed, spin (?), angular momentum, rest mass. Those are 'intrinsic' >>>properties. I don't know of any others. >> >> Bilgey will try to tell you that a photon is a point particle with no >> properties except energy. He claims all photons are identical. > >He could be right. Some say the same about electrons. Well what makes an electron an electron and not a photon? > >> Just goes to show what an idiot he really is. > >Just because someone contemplates a theory that I think is wrong, that does >not justify my calling them (or even thinking) that they are stupid. > >I have seen intellegent people of good will disagree STRONGLY about things. > >As Ashley Brillian says: "The more we disagree, the more chance there is that >one of us is right." > >After all, if we all agree, and we are wrong, then we are all wrong and we >probably never even know it because we think we are right because everyone >agrees. > >Back when the earth was flat, anyone that thought it was round was an idiot, >right? > >It wasn't really flat? But everyone knew it was so it must have been. (NOT) The trouble with SRians is that they think they have ALL the answers. They don't have any. I have made the point many times that physics has only scratched the surface when it comes to the really important questions. It is very primative. > >.... >>>I showed that if the concentration is 1 molecule per cc, then the effect >>>on the light of traveling 1.4 million light years would be the same as >>>traveling through 1 meter of hydrogen at STP. >> >> You cannot assume that. > >I can not assume WHAT? >That IF the concentration (mostly hydrogen in intersteller space) is 1 >molecule per cc, then the effect of traveling 1.4 million light years would >be the same as traveling through one meter of hydrogen at STP? > >On what basis do you challenge that assertion? Did I drop a decimal place in >my calculations? What is wrong with my 'IF...THEN'? Try doing the same with a cube of water molecules..... let the light arrive at an angle. > >.... >>>Agreed. AND I say that the photon will be found to be traveling at c wrt >>>any observer's frame of reference. If that frame is different from the >>>source frame the energy/frequency/wavelength will be different from that >>>observed in the source frame. The speed will NOT be different. >> >> That comes from aether theory. An observer's rods and clocks both >> 'contract' by exactly enough to make OWLS always measured as 'c'. >> Einstein merey did away with the ONE absolute aether and made OWLS >> constancy a postulate. >> I repeat, there is absolutely no proof. > >In science, one never proves anything. >If you are looking for proof, you are not a scientist. That is often claimed...very debatable. I think it is possible to prove things within certain axioms. For instance it is pretty conclusively proved that lightning is caused by a flow of electric charge between clouds and the ground. The fact that we don't actually know what electricity is doesn't really matter. > >Science falsifies things. >The theory has not been falsified. > >... >>>> All similar photons have the same properties in their respective >>>> source frames. Why would anyone want to make claims about its >>>> properties in any arbitrary frame. It would be totally useless. >>> >>>Not useless, it explains observed red and blue shifts. >> >> So does changing relative lightspeed. > >But changing relative lightspeed would populate our universe with photons >traveling at many different speeds. What's wrong with that? Stars and planets do it all the time. > >All experiments have failed to find any. > >>>>>> What properties are possessed by photons then? >>>>> >>>>>Spin, angular momentum, frequency, energy, polarity, and velocity. >>>>> >>>>>Speed is always c. >>>> >>>> wrt its source. >>> >>>Wrt its source. Wrt any target. >> >> Why should you think that. > >Because it is consistent with all observations. Bull. Nobody has ever measured it. > >>>>>Rest mass is always zero. >>>> >>>> maybe..but debatable. >>>> What constitutes mass. >>> >>>E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) >>> >>>so m = (c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2))/E >> >> The term 'gamma' is a myth based on Einstein's erroneous assumption that >> a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal beam in another. > >Are you on the level? Give me your slant on the subject. > >> >> My demo: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe shows why. > >I looked at it. > >It makes perfect sense to me that photons look different from different >reference frames. Their direction of travel looks different and their energy >looks different. What makes the green photons move at a different speed from the purple laser ones. SR is nonsense. It is rehashed aether theory. It claims that a vertical beam in one frame appears diagonal in another that is moving. However when you point a laser at that same angle in the moving frame, its photons clearly don't move at the same speed. > >I also looked at the electron traveling wave picture. Why did you pick that >number of cycles? Just an illustration....not a quantitative example at all. 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 4 May 2005 06:08
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:hdrg719ufum44asb0c92h0g90moh4d8nb7(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 4 May 2005 04:05:43 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:7qsf71d94ubq0qsap7m19gvegpbjv05lo6(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Tue, 3 May 2005 08:23:27 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:25vd71t3tmebj977tft966i2i7am3vok1v(a)4ax.com: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2005 02:04:20 +0000 (UTC), bz >>>>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: ..... >>>>However when I measure the energy, it will be different. >>>>The frequency I measure will be different. >>>>The wavelength I measure will be different. >>>>But the speed with still be c. >>> >>> That's a postulate not a fact of life. >>> OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. >> >>The postulate has not been falsified. > > Only becasue the means were never available to do so. That implies [and I have no doubt] that you have faith in your theory. It doesn't mean your theory is right. ..... >>>>Have you changed your mind or did I misapprehend you? >>> >>> You misunderstood completely. >> >>You didn't take the opportunity to set thing straight. You still haven't. ..... >>> 1/2mc^2 is a large quantity of KE. >> >>None the less, the closer the mass gets to c the greater the mass and >>the more energy it takes to increase its speed a little more. > > Don't sprout that SRian propaganda to me. You make Special Relativity sound like some kind of crime against nature. > Mass doesn't change with > speed. That is obvious...nor does anything else. Now THAT is demonstrably false. A few minutes with a particle accelerator will show you are wrong. > Give a lump of rock a push and what happens? You increase its KE and its > mass. > SR claims it gets heavier in half the frames in the universe and lighter > in the other half. No. SR says that if you accelerate it[enough] wrt your frame of reference, from rest wrt your frame of reference, you will observe an increase in mass. SR says that if you (or the particle) are moving at high velocity wrt each other and you match velocities, (slow the particle or speed yourself up) then you will observe the particle has less mass. > So what is the obvious REAL answer. Reality is stranger than you think. >>>>> The reason few things in the universe are moving very quickly wrt >>>>> other objects is pure and simple. It is like a gas at 2.7K. It is >>>>> very difficult to accelerate anything to near c wrt its original >>>>> state. >>>> >>>>or wrt any other state. >>> >>> There are gas outbursts from various supernovae that appear to be >>> traveling wrt Earth at >c. >> >>An optical illusion. > > More evidence of your indoctrination. I have an open mind. I do NOT have an emotional investment in SR. If it falls, it falls. I will not be unhappy either way. That is not indoctrination. >>[quote from >>http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/f/fa/faster-than- >>light.htm] Superluminal motion in quasars >>In many radio galaxies, with Microquasars apparent velocities faster >>than light are observed. The effect was predicted before the first >>observations and explained as an optical illusion caused by a light >>travel time effect. The astronomical observation contain no physics >>which would not be compatible with the theory of special relativity. >>Actual derived velocities, however, are close to the speed of light >>(relativistic motion). They are the first examples in which a bulk of >>mass is moving close to the speed of light. In Earth-bound laboratories >>such large velocities are only seen on the level of a limited number of >>elementary particles. >>[unquote] > > They will try to wriggle out of anything that might disprove their > 'religion'. There are times I wish I had faith in a theory. It would be so comforting to live in a world of faith. >>>>Speed, spin (?), angular momentum, rest mass. Those are 'intrinsic' >>>>properties. I don't know of any others. >>> >>> Bilgey will try to tell you that a photon is a point particle with no >>> properties except energy. He claims all photons are identical. >> >>He could be right. Some say the same about electrons. > > Well what makes an electron an electron and not a photon? According to Wolff, it is the direction of the twist of the standing wave. >>> Just goes to show what an idiot he really is. >> >>Just because someone contemplates a theory that I think is wrong, that >>does not justify my calling them (or even thinking) that they are >>stupid. >> >>I have seen intellegent people of good will disagree STRONGLY about >>things. >> >>As Ashley Brillian says: "The more we disagree, the more chance there is >>that one of us is right." >> >>After all, if we all agree, and we are wrong, then we are all wrong and >>we probably never even know it because we think we are right because >>everyone agrees. >> >>Back when the earth was flat, anyone that thought it was round was an >>idiot, right? >> >>It wasn't really flat? But everyone knew it was so it must have been. >>(NOT) > > The trouble with SRians is that they think they have ALL the answers. > They don't have any. > > I have made the point many times that physics has only scratched the > surface when it comes to the really important questions. It is very > primative. I don't know any scientist that are the kind of 'Srians' that you seem to think exist. The scientists I know KNOW that they don't have all the answers. They are always looking for data that will disprove theories. Finding data that would disprove SR is their quest. Such would be publishable and revolutionary. You seem to think they have a reason to REJECT such data because it would challenge their faith in SR. Perhaps that is the way you approach science, but that is not the way scientists approach science. ..... >>>>I showed that if the concentration is 1 molecule per cc, then the >>>>effect on the light of traveling 1.4 million light years would be the >>>>same as traveling through 1 meter of hydrogen at STP. >>> >>> You cannot assume that. >> >>I can not assume WHAT? >>That IF the concentration (mostly hydrogen in intersteller space) is 1 >>molecule per cc, then the effect of traveling 1.4 million light years >>would be the same as traveling through one meter of hydrogen at STP? >> >>On what basis do you challenge that assertion? Did I drop a decimal >>place in my calculations? What is wrong with my 'IF...THEN'? > > Try doing the same with a cube of water molecules..... let the light > arrive at an angle. A cube of water molecules [vapor]? Why would I do that? The most common gas in interstellar space is hydrogen, not water. Or do you mean a cube of liquid water? Why would I do that? Water does not exist as a liquid in space. Your argument does not hold water. You are going to have to do better than that if you want to challenge my 'IF...THEN'. >>.... >>>>Agreed. AND I say that the photon will be found to be traveling at c >>>>wrt any observer's frame of reference. If that frame is different from >>>>the source frame the energy/frequency/wavelength will be different >>>>from that observed in the source frame. The speed will NOT be >>>>different. >>> >>> That comes from aether theory. An observer's rods and clocks both >>> 'contract' by exactly enough to make OWLS always measured as 'c'. >>> Einstein merey did away with the ONE absolute aether and made OWLS >>> constancy a postulate. >>> I repeat, there is absolutely no proof. >> >>In science, one never proves anything. >>If you are looking for proof, you are not a scientist. > > That is often claimed...very debatable. > I think it is possible to prove things within certain axioms. Given certain assumptions, you can always 'prove' things. That is logic. Logic is used in science. The job of science is to challenge the assumptions. > > For instance it is pretty conclusively proved that lightning is caused > by a flow of electric charge between clouds and the ground. Scientists study lightning to understand it better. Your statement is mostly observation, data, not a theory. However, the way you have stated it, it is wrong. Find the flaw in your statement. > The fact that we don't actually know what electricity is doesn't really > matter. Oh it matters. We continue to try to find out what electricity is. >> >>Science falsifies things. >>The theory has not been falsified. >> >>... >>>>> All similar photons have the same properties in their respective >>>>> source frames. Why would anyone want to make claims about its >>>>> properties in any arbitrary frame. It would be totally useless. >>>> >>>>Not useless, it explains observed red and blue shifts. >>> >>> So does changing relative lightspeed. >> >>But changing relative lightspeed would populate our universe with >>photons traveling at many different speeds. > > What's wrong with that? Stars and planets do it all the time. The thing that is wrong with it is that it is inconsistent with all our observations. We have never observed a photon traveling in a vacuum at a speed other than c, yet you would have almost all of them traveling at different speeds. >>All experiments have failed to find any. >> >>>>>>> What properties are possessed by photons then? >>>>>> >>>>>>Spin, angular momentum, frequency, energy, polarity, and velocity. >>>>>> >>>>>>Speed is always c. >>>>> >>>>> wrt its source. >>>> >>>>Wrt its source. Wrt any target. >>> >>> Why should you think that. >> >>Because it is consistent with all observations. > > Bull. > Nobody has ever measured it. No one has ever measured anything different. Lots of measurements have been made. You claim that none count because they are not 'OWLS' measurements. >>>>>>Rest mass is always zero. >>>>> >>>>> maybe..but debatable. >>>>> What constitutes mass. >>>> >>>>E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) >>>> >>>>so m = (c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2))/E >>> >>> The term 'gamma' is a myth based on Einstein's erroneous assumption >>> that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal beam in >>> another. >> >>Are you on the level? Give me your slant on the subject. >> >>> >>> My demo: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe shows why. >> >>I looked at it. >> >>It makes perfect sense to me that photons look different from different >>reference frames. Their direction of travel looks different and their >>energy looks different. > > What makes the green photons move at a different speed from the purple > laser ones. Your program. > SR is nonsense. It is rehashed aether theory. Even if it were, that is not the insult that you seem to think it is. > It claims that a vertical beam in one frame appears diagonal in another > that is moving. However when you point a laser at that same angle in the > moving frame, its photons clearly don't move at the same speed. I doubt that you have been able to make such an observation in reality. Your program does what you tell it to do. The photons don't care about your program. >>I also looked at the electron traveling wave picture. Why did you pick >>that number of cycles? > > Just an illustration....not a quantitative example at all. I suspect that a photon is only one cycle. -- 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 |