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 18:39 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1115237503.081086.71010 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > > Just cause we love ya BZ > Light explores all paths. > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node24.html that will take a while to read. > http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/lectures/reste/reste.html interesting. > http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm4.html interesting. If there is something in particular that you are trying to point out, you will need to be a bit more explicit. > > ------ > Sue.... > -- 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 4 May 2005 18:36 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:jqgi71d7k343jc4p69sqdbcpiurct6g5n1(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 4 May 2005 18:15:22 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in >>news:slrnd7i5h9.t2e.dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net: > >>> >Henri thought the pulses would be too weak to detect so I upped the >>> >power a bit. >>> >>> Henry is batting a perfect 0.000. Just remember that you have a >>> better >>> chance of being right by flipping coin than by listening to henri. >>> >>> > >>> >Yeah, I don't really care about the absolute time of flight, just >>> >relative, as I change speed of the rotating source. >>> >>> You could also obtain twice the time difference by arranging to have >>> light sources on opposite points of the wheel: >>> >>> >>> -> [det] >>> 0 >>> -> [det] >>> >> >>I guess the two detectors can look down a tube toward the source so they >>don't see the other source. [or maybe use one detector] >> >>Henri suggested a similar experiment but he wants to use two mirrors. >>One source and one detector. > > Note how Bilgey gets his good ideas from me. He may have developed it independently. Doesn't matter, in any case because you wrote about it, first. >>I prefer moving the light sources and losing the factor of two due to >>the reflection. >> >>In both cases, I am not quite sure how the radial velocity as the light >>beams sweap across the detectors can be related to the time of flight of >>the photons. I am sure it can be done, but it seems SO much easier to >>just measure the time of flight between two points > > It isn't. >> > > Incidentally, bz, you seem to have missed my improved experiment that > requires no CROs or expensive photodetectors. I saw it the first time. Give it a try. I think that the syncronized mirror adds problems, but it should be interesting. I would like to see your mathematical analysis of it. > Here it is again: > > I have now devised an ingenious way of performing this experiment > without the need for an expensive photodetector or CRO. Distance can be > reduced to 300 metres or less. > > It uses my configuration with two mirror facing opposite ways on a > rotating wheel. > > |m \m3 > O S | |plate o > |m shield > > As the wheel spins, light is reflected from the laser source back > towards an observer, o, who is positioned behind an etched glass plate. > A shield is positioned between this plate and the wheel to prevent > direct light impinging on the plate. > A third mirror is placed just in front and slightly to one side of this > plate. During the experiment, this mirror is arranged to spin exactly in > synch with the wheel. It is phased so that each reflected flash is > deflected onto the optical plate and at the same time considerably > narrowed. What if is lags or leads a bit? I suppose you could make have a phase adjustment and from the adjustment needed to superimpose the lines, you might be able to measure the difference in velocities. Are you sure that normal doppler shift variations in frequency won't have any effect? > Thus, two reflected pulses that are NOT traveling at the same speed will > NOT illuminate the same point on the plate. Instead the observer will > see two bands of light, the separation between which should increase > with rotation speed. Please explain exactly how you come to these conclusions. > Since the operation is continuous, the amount of energy striking the > plate should be sufficient to be observed easily, if not visually then > for instance with a line of cheap photodetectors. > > Synchronization of the mirror3 with the wheel can be achieved using a > frequency source midway between them. -- 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 4 May 2005 19:36 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:8qei71lfgseh3fcdn2i7ultddn5v05glcf(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 4 May 2005 10:08:08 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:hdrg719ufum44asb0c92h0g90moh4d8nb7(a)4ax.com: >> > >> >>> 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. > > Particles BEHAVE as though their mass becomes larger. But it doesn't. Interesting. How do you tell the difference between 'behaves as if' and 'behaves as if'? Normally when something behaves as if, we say that it does whatever it behaves as if. > Particles become more difficult to accelerate as their speed increases > wrt the accelerating fields. That is because the particles themselves > surround themselves with a 'reverse field bubble' which reduces the > effective 'driving field'. Interesting idea. And when the reverse field bubble pops as the particle collides with something, it acts exactly like there was extra mass, right? > Not only that, it is probably that fields take time to operate. Most things take time to operate. How much is the question. Are you saying it would take more time to operate than if there was 'real mass'[whatever that is]? >>> 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. > > 'observe?' See, measure. >>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. > > there you go. You prove my point. > > You agree that if I speed myself up the mass will appear to decrease. > > Obviously, my change in speed can have no effect on the mass itself. What makes that seem obvious. How do you measure mass? You compare the force it exerts upon other masses to what a known mass would exert when accelerated. Right? > So, as you go faster, your mass and the mass of your test equipment all increase. When you go to measure the mass of the mass itself, you will measure a smaller value for its mass. >>> So what is the obvious REAL answer. >> >>Reality is stranger than you think. > > SR is plain nonsense. Nonsense! >>>>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. > > You seem to have been blinded by the propaganda of hthe inbred physics > establishment. Show me facts. Show me data. Show me something that SR does not explain. Then show me a theory that does explain those facts and all other observations and I will bow down before you and your theory. >>> 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. > > Become a muslim then. But we were speaking of science and faith in theories. I have none. As for religions, Muslims don't have a monopoly on 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. > > An oversimplification. My description? Of course. I would have to go through his entire explaination to avoid oversimplifying. Wolff's explanation? Please undo the oversimplification. >>>>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. > > You only have to read the typical replies from the SRian lackeys we have > on this NG. I have read little for either side to be proud of. > Half the time they don't even read the article. They condemn it out of > principle. Their ultimate debating 'weapon' is the claim that '"you > don't understand relativity". Well, a good salesman can sell you his competitors product, explain all of its benefits, get you enthusiastic about it, then turn around and show you its flaws, and where his product is better. I don't see any good salemen around here. I think that if you stop running down SR and insulting those that believe in it, show them its good points and bad points, you will have a much better chance of getting someone to seriously consider your viewpoint. Those that call anyone that doesn't agree with them 'idiots and morons' can NOT do a good idea of presenting their ideas in a logical manner. > I can honestly say th I have never seen one original contribution from > an SRian supporter here. All the controlled discussion and creative > stuff comes from those of us who can see what is wrong with the theory I have yet to see much constructive from EITHER side. >>Perhaps that is the way you approach science, but that is not the way >>scientists approach science. > > You are obviously just starting out. I will be 60 in a few more days. I have been a scientist at heart since I was about 9 years old. I have been at this university since 1981. I have some idea how science works. > You are in for a few rude shocks. > Success in science depends on 1) who you know, 2) how good you are at > writing up another person's ideas in a disguised way and 3) conforming > to the views of the establishment. That doesn't sound like any of the scientist I have ever worked with. >>>>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'. > > I think my example showed perfectly well why you cannot make such > assumptions. I don't see how you You have challenged my 'IF...THEN'. Please explain it to me like you would to an 8th grader. >>>>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. > > I didn't go into details but the statement is basically correct. > If charge DID NOT flow between clouds and ground there would be NO > lightning. Agreed? There are may "IF ... didn't ... wouldn't" that apply to lightning. [quote from http://thunder.msfc.nasa.gov/primer/primer2.html] With the initial breakdown of the air in a region of strong electric fields, a streamer may begin to propagate downward toward the Earth. It moves in discrete steps of about 50 meters each and is called a stepped leader. As it grows, it creates an ionized path depositing charge along the channel, and as the stepped leader nears the Earth, a large potential difference is generated between the end of the leader and the Earth. Typically, a streamer is launched from the Earth and intercepts the descending stepped leader just before it reaches the ground. Once a connecting path is achieved, a return stroke flies up the already ionized path at close to the speed of light. This return stroke releases tremendous energy, bright light and thunder. Occasionally, where a thunderstorm grows over a tall Earth grounded object, such as a radio antenna, an upward leader may propagate from the object toward the cloud. This "ground-to-cloud" flash generally transfers a net positive charge to Earth and is characterized by upward pointing branches. [unquote] >>> 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. > > that is an attempt to take the 'truth' to a higher level of 'proof'.. That is how science works. >>>>> 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. > > bz, how many times do I have to inform you that nobody has ever measured > the OWLS of ANY photon. > > Are you inherently stubborn or just plain dumb? Many people claim to have done so. You say that what they have measure does not meet YOUR definition of OWLS. I believe that you believe you are right. I believe that they believe they are right. You have not convinced me that you are right. All you have convinced me of is that you believe you are right. I don't consider myself inherently stubborn or just plain dumb and I don't consider you as inherently stubborn or just plain dumb either. I think we have a difference of opinion on many things. > >>>>>>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. > > It tunrs out, according to the BaT, that for any TW light sl\peed > experiment in which all components are at rest, OWLS = TWLS. > > TWLS is persistently measured via this type of experiment as having the > value 'c' to high accuracy. That is even more evidence that the BaT is > correct. > When two theories are supported by the data, then the data does not provide evidence for selecting either theory over the other. This is one of those cases. You can't say that data which supports SR and BaT is evidence for BaT over SR. You need an experiment where SR and BaT predict DIFFERENT results. >>>>>>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. > > My program simlates what happens....plain and simple. Your program simulates what YOU think happens. The map is not the territory. Your program is not reality. Now, if you explain exactly what your program does and how it does it and why you think it models 'what happens' then I might be persuaded, but lines on the screen don't convince me of anything without a lot more explanation than your programs provide. > SR is based on a quite obvious fallacy that stemmed directly from aether > theory. Prove it. >>> 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. > > I don't have to. The stupidity of SR's very foundations are obvious. If it were obvious, then everyone would see it. Just because it seems obvious to you does not imply it is obvious. You have failed to make it obvious to many others. Does that mean they are stupid or does it mean you are not as good at conveying 'what is obvious to you' to others. >>Your program does what you tell it to do. The photons don't care about >>your program. > > So all the simulations used to desing engineering marvels don't work, > either? I use simulations frequently. Our department uses many different kinds of simulations every day. To use a simulation I must know what they are based upon and their limitations. I have NO idea what your 'simulation' is based on nor what its limitations are. >>>>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. > > You suspect..... That's right. That is my private, unsupported by any evidence 'theory' that is consistent with all I know but subject to revision as soon as I get data that contradicts it. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+csm(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 5 May 2005 02:19 On Wed, 4 May 2005 22:36:54 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:jqgi71d7k343jc4p69sqdbcpiurct6g5n1(a)4ax.com: > >> On Wed, 4 May 2005 18:15:22 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> >>>dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in >>>news:slrnd7i5h9.t2e.dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net: >> >>>> >Henri thought the pulses would be too weak to detect so I upped the >>>> >power a bit. >>>> >>>> Henry is batting a perfect 0.000. Just remember that you have a >>>> better >>>> chance of being right by flipping coin than by listening to henri. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >Yeah, I don't really care about the absolute time of flight, just >>>> >relative, as I change speed of the rotating source. >>>> >>>> You could also obtain twice the time difference by arranging to have >>>> light sources on opposite points of the wheel: >>>> >>>> >>>> -> [det] >>>> 0 >>>> -> [det] >>>> >>> >>>I guess the two detectors can look down a tube toward the source so they >>>don't see the other source. [or maybe use one detector] >>> >>>Henri suggested a similar experiment but he wants to use two mirrors. >>>One source and one detector. >> >> Note how Bilgey gets his good ideas from me. > >He may have developed it independently. >Doesn't matter, in any case because you wrote about it, first. > >>>I prefer moving the light sources and losing the factor of two due to >>>the reflection. >>> >>>In both cases, I am not quite sure how the radial velocity as the light >>>beams sweap across the detectors can be related to the time of flight of >>>the photons. I am sure it can be done, but it seems SO much easier to >>>just measure the time of flight between two points >> >> It isn't. >>> >> >> Incidentally, bz, you seem to have missed my improved experiment that >> requires no CROs or expensive photodetectors. > >I saw it the first time. Give it a try. > >I think that the syncronized mirror adds problems, but it should be >interesting. I would like to see your mathematical analysis of it. It adds enormous sensitivity. You don't need any maths. It is obvious what will happen. It might be best to place a vertical slit of maybe a couple of cms width in front of the third mirror so a narrow vertical band appears on the plate. > >> Here it is again: >> >> I have now devised an ingenious way of performing this experiment >> without the need for an expensive photodetector or CRO. Distance can be >> reduced to 300 metres or less. >> >> It uses my configuration with two mirror facing opposite ways on a >> rotating wheel. >> >> |m \m3 >> O S | |plate o >> |m shield >> >> As the wheel spins, light is reflected from the laser source back >> towards an observer, o, who is positioned behind an etched glass plate. >> A shield is positioned between this plate and the wheel to prevent >> direct light impinging on the plate. >> A third mirror is placed just in front and slightly to one side of this >> plate. During the experiment, this mirror is arranged to spin exactly in >> synch with the wheel. It is phased so that each reflected flash is >> deflected onto the optical plate and at the same time considerably >> narrowed. > >What if is lags or leads a bit? I suppose you could make have a phase >adjustment and from the adjustment needed to superimpose the lines, you >might be able to measure the difference in velocities. Its phasing can be adjusted using the image itself. The rotation speed of both the wheel and the 3rd mirror must be identical. The image of one line (eg the c+v) can be kept at one position on the plate using a a servo feedback system. That's not hard. > >Are you sure that normal doppler shift variations in frequency won't have >any effect? None whatsoever. How could it? The 3rd mirror is close to the plate. > >> Thus, two reflected pulses that are NOT traveling at the same speed will >> NOT illuminate the same point on the plate. Instead the observer will >> see two bands of light, the separation between which should increase >> with rotation speed. > >Please explain exactly how you come to these conclusions. I think this is a bit too hard for you to understand. Let's see what criticism Bilgey comes up with. > >> Since the operation is continuous, the amount of energy striking the >> plate should be sufficient to be observed easily, if not visually then >> for instance with a line of cheap photodetectors. >> >> Synchronization of the mirror3 with the wheel can be achieved using a >> frequency source midway between them. 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: Sue... on 5 May 2005 02:31
Henir, Study some Weber. Coulomb... the comb attracts the pith balls. That is light. Sue... |