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: Peter Webb on 24 Mar 2005 21:59 > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. No, you are a way bigger failure than that. All you have done is send a crank post to a science newsgroup. The sad thing is that you think that you are right, and Einstein and 100 years of empirical observation is wrong. If being unable to calculate the orbital period of Io correctly is your claim to fame, your total obscurity is well justified.
From: bz on 24 Mar 2005 21:05 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:mai641hga2gaj16ca6m8frfn6j6e1q0nk8(a)4ax.com: > 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!!!!!!!!!!!!! What about jupiters moons or GPS timing? But keep reading, I have a better experiment for you to run. >> >>*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. > Take a police lidar. Point it at the rotating blades of a fan. Glue some mirrors on the fan blades first. The returning signal will be doppler shifted, and neatly chopped too, right? beside the lidar, you put a couple of fast photo cells, a known distance apart, in line with each other. Put a beam splitter at the first cell that directs part of the beam to the first cell and lets the rest go to the more distant second cell. Measure the speed of the beam of light as it passes between the two points. You will notice several things: 1) As the fan turns faster, the beam is doppler shifted by greater and greater amounts. 2) the speed of the beam of light remains constant. 3) this is a 'one way' measurement of the speed of light between the two points. -- 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: Randy Poe on 25 Mar 2005 00:12 kenseto wrote: > "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1111678937.697292.158740(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > OK, just wanted to clarify. > > > > So the earth's state of absolute motion is straight up > > from my toes to my head. > > ??????? Where did you get this from?? That's one of the two choices of "vertical". Fine. If you don't like that, then it's straight down from my head to my toes. Or do you have another meaning for "vertical"? > Get this through your head: wrt the defined horizontal light rays the > apparatus is moving vertically. > > > > At the same time, the earth's state of absolute motion > > is from left to right, since that's the direction > > assigned by another observer. > > Sigh...this got nothing to do with another observer. The null result is > because the apparatus moving vertically wrt the defined horizontal light > rays. You mean it's impossible for somebody else on earth to do a MMX at the same time as me? If they do, what will they measure? Aren't you saying they'll find the state of absolute motion is "vertical", relative to them? Even if they're at a different place on earth than me? > Each object is in a state of absolute motion (motion wrt the light rays). If > you define that the light rays are moving horizontally then the apparatus > must be moving vertically to get the null results. Are we measuring the state of absolute motion of the earth or not? Is it in a direction which I call vertical when I am standing at 0 degrees longitude, 0 latitude? Is it also in a direction which I call vertical when I move my apparatus to 90 degrees longitude, 0 latitude? - Randy
From: macromitch on 25 Mar 2005 00:23 What about the world of empirical measurement Gen? Acceleration changes the speed of light.
From: bz on 25 Mar 2005 03:12
macromitch(a)internetCDS.com wrote in news:1111728197.630724.119550 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > What about the world of empirical measurement Gen? > > Acceleration changes the speed of light. > Prove it. I can demonstrate that reflection from a moving object changes the frequency without changing the speed. Bounce a beam of light off of a moving object, such as the blades of a fan. Measure the speed of the reflected beam as it goes by you. You will see the beam is doppler shifted in frequency. You will NOT see a change in the speed. Emperical enough for ya? -- 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 |