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: Sam Wormley on 24 Mar 2005 18:11 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:07:32 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > >> Empirical Data: Speed of light is constant for all observers. > > > Correct!! > > Empirical Data shows that the TWO WAY speed of light has been measured as > constant and equal to c over many years and with a variety of techniques. > One way from GPS satellites is right onb the money!
From: Sam Wormley on 24 Mar 2005 18:13 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:52:39 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > >>kenseto wrote: >> >> >>>The speed of light is measured to be constant because we arbitrarily assumed >>>that the Doppler shift is due to wave length change. If wave length is >>>assumed to be contant then the speed of light is different from different >>>sources. >>> >> >> Seto is wrong here as the speed of light is constant. >> >> I thank Seto for registering at crank dot net. >> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net > > > Sorry, this is one occasion when Ken is correct. > > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The speed of light is constant.
From: Henri Wilson on 24 Mar 2005 18:16 On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:02:17 -0500, PDraper <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 3/22/05 9:31 AM, in article w%V%d.6496$rL3.4855(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com, >"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >> >> The speed of light is measured to be constant because we arbitrarily assumed >> that the Doppler shift is due to wave length change. If wave length is >> assumed to be contant then the speed of light is different from different >> sources. >> >> Ken Seto >> >> > >This is hogwash. Speed of light is verified to be constant independent of >Doppler-related phenomena. Thus, it is NOT an arbitrary assumption that >Doppler shift is due to wave length change. Since the speed of light is >known experimentally to be constant, then we know that the Doppler shift is >a shift in wavelength (or frequency). Why don't you people learn something about this subject instead of preaching endless nonsense. One Way light speed has never been measured. I repeat ONE WAY LIGHT SPEED HAS NEVER BEEN MEASURED!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >*Assuming* the wave length to be constant would demand that the speed of >light is not constant, contrary to measurements. 'Frequency of light' refers to the 'number of wavecrests reaching the observer per second. It is clearly dependent on relative light speed. > >PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 24 Mar 2005 18:20 On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:01:34 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >"PDraper" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:BE65B9C9.3686%pdraper(a)yahoo.com... >> On 3/22/05 9:31 AM, in article w%V%d.6496$rL3.4855(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com, >> "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > "robert j. kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.net> wrote in message >> > news:3aamtkF6bbkreU2(a)individual.net... >> >> >> >> >> >> kenseto wrote: >> >> >> >>> That's becasue you failed to recognize that Doppler shift is due to >> > varying >> >>> speed of light. >> >> >> >> The speed of light in vacuo relative to any inertial frame is a well >> >> measured constant. It has been shown experimentally again and again and >> >> has yet to be falsified. The speed of light in vacuo is independent of >> >> th motion of the source or the observer. >> > >> > The speed of light is measured to be constant because we arbitrarily >assumed >> > that the Doppler shift is due to wave length change. If wave length is >> > assumed to be contant then the speed of light is different from >different >> > sources. >> > >> > Ken Seto >> > >> > >> >> This is hogwash. Speed of light is verified to be constant independent of >> Doppler-related phenomena. Thus, it is NOT an arbitrary assumption that >> Doppler shift is due to wave length change. Since the speed of light is >> known experimentally to be constant, then we know that the Doppler shift >is >> a shift in wavelength (or frequency). > >What you said is hogwash. If we define that the wave length of a specific >light source remains constant in all frames then the observed Doppler shift >is due to the varying speed of light from these different sources. Dead right Ken. > >> >> *Assuming* the wave length to be constant would demand that the speed of >> light is not constant, > >Exactly. That's why the Doppler shift is due to the varying speed of light >from a moving source. > >>contrary to measurements. > >No it is not contrary to measurements. Why? The reason why the speed of >light is measured to be constant is because a clock second use to measure >light speed contains the appropriate amount of absolute time. This cancels >out the effect of absolute motion on the speed of light. Now you revert to straight LET. I don't know why you don't become a fully fledged ballistician Ken. It is so easy. >The speed of light is a constant math ratio as follows: >Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a >clock second co-moving with the ruler. The speed of light in vacuum is 'c' wrt its source...and YES, 'c' is a universal constant. > >Ken Seto > 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: George Dishman on 24 Mar 2005 18:33
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:9th441lniu1vqkk2mr2gsrsoutv78lf0oi(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:59:17 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: .... >>> You will find that whenever they cannot answer a difficult >>> question, they will either resort to abuse and ridicule >>> (...you don't understand relativity!) >> >>When it is pointed out that a comment that >>contradicts what you will find in any textbook, >>it isn't ridicule, it is merely a statement of >>fact. Nobody will waste time on such strawmen >>but it's useful to point out why. > > Do you really believe everything in every text book? No, I check what I read, and so far all the textbooks I have seen on relativity explained it correctly with perhaps a few minor quibbles. When somebody writes "SR says ..." and goes on to say something that bears no resemblance to what SR says, then IMHO pointing that out is a helpful response and for most reasonable people will allow them to look for the source of their misunderstanding. That is not ridicule. > If Stan is promoting the ballistic theory of light then > he is much more likely to be correct than you are. See Jim Greenfield's reply, he has explained Stan's error succinctly. As we have discussed before, ballistic theory is disproved by the Sagnac Experiment. George |