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 25 Mar 2005 16:27 On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:11:45 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >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! The correction for transverse doppler exactly cancels the 'c+v' effect. 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 25 Mar 2005 16:28 On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:13:18 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >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 constant. 'c' is a universal constant. Light moves at 'c' wrt its source. 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 25 Mar 2005 16:41 On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:18:58 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:QVe0e.9440$rL3.8762 >@fe2.columbus.rr.com: > >> >> Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a >> clock second co-moving with the ruler. >> >> > >how do you get different photons to move at different speeds with respect >to a single frame of reference? Why shouldn't they? (in pure vacuum) > >Why, when we measure the speed of those photons, do the photons seem to >move at the same speed? Silly boy. Nobody has measured the OW speed of light under any circumstance. > > >In a recent post you say: > > >> What I said is that any observed Doppler >> shift from a distant source moving wrt the observer is due to different >> speed of light and not due to the changing of the wave length. >> > >How distant must the source be? Why must it be distant? I can't see any >reason that photons from a distance source should be different from those >from a nearby source. The effect will only work in a pure vacuum....far purer than anything we can produce here. > >In my mind, 5 feet is distant compared to the wavelength of light. Will you >allow me to call 5 feet 'distant'? ULF wavelengths are longer. They are EM. > >In another article, which you may have missed, I said: > >"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in >news:24Z%d.14316$cC6.10056(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > >> 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. >> > >.... > >Why do you think that the sound/light bouncing off of a moving object >changes speed? > >I know that the waves do NOT change speed. > >How do I know that they don't? I can measure their speed between two >points AFTER they have bounced off of something and come back to me. Their >transit between the two points will be at the speed of light. > >Their energy is changed by bouncing off of a moving object, their >frequency has changed, but their speed is not changed. > >This would seem to disprove your idea. > >Go buy a police doppler lidar and bounce the laser beam off of the blades >of a turning fan if you don't believe me. > >Measure the beam velocity as it goes past two points at different >distances from the fan. It will still be moving at c, but the frequency >will have changed by the doppler shift. 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: Sam Wormley on 25 Mar 2005 18:27 Henri Wilson wrote: > The correction for transverse doppler exactly cancels the 'c+v' effect. > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. You wouldn't be so stooopid, Henri, if you leart some physics.
From: Sam Wormley on 25 Mar 2005 18:29
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:13:18 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > >>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 constant. > > > 'c' is a universal constant. > > Light moves at 'c' wrt its source. > And light moves at 'c' wrt its observers! |