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: Arthur Dent on 21 Jun 2005 19:51 bz wrote: Arthur, I am afraid I am not sure what your point is. Are you arguing against what I said or supporting it? Are you claiming c'=c+v is correct? If so, what about all the experiments that have demonstrated that for c'=c+vk k must be a very small number? If not, what point are you trying to make? I'm agreeing with your philosophical viewpoint: "An assertion is a claim unsupported by evidence." I've asked you to look at Einstein's assertion concerning time that is a claim unsupported by evidence. Consider the following: A wave source emits one crest every second, and the crest travels away from the source a distance of one meter in one second. So, at t = 0, an observer 2 meters from the source sees a crest. For the non-moving source, we have: \ /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 meters, t=0 /\ /\ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 t= 0.1 /\ /\ / \ / \ \ / \ / \ / \ / \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 t = 0.2 /\ /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ \ / \ / \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 t = 0.3 /\ /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 t= 0.4 /\ /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \/ \ 0---------1---------2 t = 0.5 /\ /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 t = 0.6 /\ /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ \ / \ / \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 t= 0.7 /\ /\ / \ / \ \ / \ / \ / \ / \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 t = 0.8 /\ /\ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 t = 0.9 \ /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 t = 1.0 Two crests have been seen by the observer at 2 meters, 1 second apart, I meter apart, so the wave is moving to the right at 1 meter/second. For the moving source we have: \ /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 t=0 /\ /\ \ / \ \ / \ / \ / \ / \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 t= 0.1 /\ /\ / \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \/ \/ 0---------1---------2 t = 0.2 /\ /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ \ / \ \/ 0---------1---------2 t = 0.3 /\ /\ / \ / \ / \ / / \ / \/ 0---------1---------2 t= 0.4 /\ / / \ / / \ / / \ / / \/ 0---------1---------2 t = 0.5 The source is now at 0.5 meters, there is a crest at 2 meters for the observer to see, the wave has moved 1 meter (crest to crest) in 0.5 seconds, or at 2 meters/second. It's frequency of emission has not changed, not has its velocity with respect to the source. So yes, I really do believe that the velocity of light is c+v . Nor do I accept Einstein's definition of time, since the same wave reflected back to the source would be missing some crests on the return. Frequency is a number, N, of crests passing a point divided by the time it takes to do so, as in cycles per second, or Hertz. If the wave reflects back with unaltered wavelength, unaltered speed, then either N has changed or the frequency has changed to obtain the same time. For a constant frequency and a constant wavelength, N is a measure of time. Henri may seem a little gruff and his h-aether is pure bull, but it remains a fact that if we model c+v mathematically we do indeed get the light curves of cepheids, recurrent novae, flare stars and eclipsing binaries. Maybe its a fluke, but I don't correlate easily with that much coincidence and consider Einstein, who was not an astronomer, sitting in his armchair and saying "I think..." (without any experiment support his ideas), to be a little to eager to agree with Lorentz and Fitzgerald. Certainly I do not support aether theories, and nor do I support time dilation and length contraction, so Ritz's ballistic light seems to be the only logical conclusion and is in agreement with empirical observation. Like you, the set of things I do not know is infinite, but I can reason independently on the things I have read of mortal man and find they have some wild imaginations that they like to call "facts". Progress in science is made by individuals, not by those that run with the know-it-all mob that only repeat what they've been taught and bay like hounds after the lonely fox with inquisition mentality, ready to tear him to shreds for having ideas they do not agree with. I'm quite sure that Einstein's preoccupation with time began when H.G. Wells' "Time Machine", published when Einstein was a teenager, and MMX gave him the link with light. All of us base our ideas on what we've heard about, and it is quite difficult to be rational when we are convinced we are right. I will answer your question "If so, what about all the experiments that have demonstrated that for c'=c+vk k must be a very small number? " with "Fit is NOT evidence that the equation is right" although here the equation in question is tau = t /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and not c' = c+v. Which will you reject? That preferred by the mob or that preferred by one or two thinking indivuals? A.D. (aka Androcles)
From: Jerry on 21 Jun 2005 21:42 Arthur Dent wrote: > Henri may seem a little gruff and his h-aether is pure bull, > but it remains a fact that if we model c+v mathematically > we do indeed get the light curves of cepheids, recurrent > novae, flare stars and eclipsing binaries. Actually, we don't. A century ago, the dominant theory among astronomers was that Cepheid variables were double stars. But even as early as 1901, a body of evidence began accumulating that was inconsistent with this hypothesis. Harlow Shapley reviewed the evidence against the double star hypothesis in a classic 1914 paper, "On the Nature and Cause of Cepheid Variation." (Thanks to bz for finding this paper.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1914CMWCI..92....1S&db_key=AST Among the various arguments Shapley made against the double star hypothesis is this: "Further observations of SW Andromadae, made since the last report, have confirmed the previous results, showing that the time of the rise to maximum light varies from the mean predicted time by ten or fifteen minutes within the short interval of two or three days, but evidently without exhibiting regular periodicity....If the observed oscillations were definitely periodic, it would perhaps be possible to attribute them in some kind of a binary system to orbital changes, such as the rotation of the line of apsides. But the sudden and unpredictable changes in the light-variation, very likely accompanied by analogous oscillations in the velocity- curve, introduce another difficulty into the binary system theory." Whereas the periodic occultations of eclipsing binaries such as Algol are regular to within seconds, Cepheid light curves show large timing irregularities that cannot be explained by any theory attributing the variability to orbital movements. You are a century behind the times, Arthur. Jerry
From: bz on 21 Jun 2005 21:45 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:c85hb1pbcn3b1prl24iecftpetgd09gb65(a)4ax.com: >>Every photon leaves its source at c wrt everything in the universe. >>That is a property of photons. > > Bob, light leaves its source at c. we agree on this. > > If you or anyone else proposes a theory that claims otherwise, then the > onus is on them to privide a physical reason for this not being so. we agree on this. > Einstein declared straight out that light does not leave its source at c wrong. He declared [postulated] that light leaves its source at c. > but at c wrt little planet Earth, even though little planet Earth didn't > even exist for most of the time. He also declared [postulated] that wherever and whenever it arrives at anywhere, its measured velocity is ALSO c. > This is an obvious ploy aimed at propping up the archaic religious > notion that humans hold a special place in the universe and Earth is its > centre. Actually it is the exact reverse, The earth is NOT special. Every place in the universe is equally special. > The Einsteinian religion has been rigorously defended by the > same kind of people for 100 years. For over 100 years scientists have repeatedly attacked Einstein's theories and tried to disprove them. Practially everyone who has closely studied Einstein's work has tried to think of a definitive test that will invalidate his postulates. None have succeeded. > There is not an ounce of supporting > evidence for any of it. There has never been any evidence against it, despite people trying their best to find such evidence. All such attempts have failed. You act like there has been a conspiracy to prevent people from testing SR and GR. To the contrary, the exact opposite has been happening. There is no conspiracy and scientists have repeatedly tried to disprove SR and GR. They have found, over and over, while searching for subluminal and superluminal photons, that the range of possible velocities becomes narrower and narrower, closer and closer to c. -- 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 21 Jun 2005 22:27 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:ml4hb115c9f242d49h6f3are0e2r4l2g16(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:36:42 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:l1geb1h9tr31h65v3k7vb8lhuvaj4078vp(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:47:40 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:dv2cb1h306g3shfult21bpga6a656k11l5(a)4ax.com: ..... >>> I suppose that close stars in highly eccentric orbits would experience >>> quite severe distortions ...and yes, maybe the radial speeds of these >>> tidal movements would be detectable. >> >>They ARE detected in the cases where double stars with small orbits are >>involved. >> >>http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/dsl.html >> >>> But I doubt if that is generally >>> the case. The speeds would be too small. >> >>You can't have small speed and rapid cepheid cycles. If you assume >>cepheids are multiple star systems, speed and rapid go together. >> >>>>You wont have homogeneous spherical masses. You will have huge tidal >>>>forces causing drag and rapid changes in orbital parameters. This >>>>argues against long term stable periods for Henri Cepheids. >>> >>> But long term stable periods are observed. How do you account for >>> that? The BaT predicts that the period might change slowly and at a >>> constant rate. >> >>Some will be more steady, some will be less steady. Some Cepheids are >>very unsteady. > > they migh not be 'cepheids'. Sounds like they are not HCs. Of course, anything that does not fit your model is not an HC. That makes HC's definition circular. >>> All theories relying on gaseous turbulent diffusion or chaotic >>> processes should predict an unsteady period, centering on a fairly >>> constant mean. >> >>All theories relying on orbits predict that the emission/absorption >>lines will be consistent throughout the cycle and will doppler shift >>together. >> >>Even in 1914 it had been established that cepheids did NOT satisfy this. >>Changes were obsereve in the star atmosphere during the cycle. > > assuming Einsteiniana. Henri, The papers on the subject clearly show that the scientists don't "assume" much. The authors generally explore various possible interpretations of the data in the paper and explain why one makes the most sense. Many papers are proposals for modifications or refinements to the models. You seem to have the idea that everything that is published just treats Einstein's SR as a postulate and goes from there, without question. That isn't the way things work. ..... >>> The radial velocity curve of RT Aur is exactly that of a star in >>> elliptical orbit, with e=0.25 and perihelion furthest from the >>> observer. >> >>volume = mass/density >>radius = 1/(2 pi) ( 6 Volume pi^2)^(1/3) >> >>When you know the masses required, you can calculate the radii required, >>provided you know the density. Density can be estimated from the stellar >>type. > > ...there are three assumptions in that statement. > > It is all speculation. > ....all assuming Einsteiniana. Pick any set of published figures you like or publish your own, but support your figures. You must support them as well as the figures you reject were supported. -- 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 21 Jun 2005 23:27
"Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119397916.526030.53500(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > bz wrote: > Arthur, > I am afraid I am not sure what your point is. > Are you arguing against what I said or supporting it? > Are you claiming c'=c+v is correct? > If so, what about all the experiments that have demonstrated that for > c'=c+vk k must be a very small number? > If not, what point are you trying to make? > > I'm agreeing with your philosophical viewpoint: > "An assertion is a claim unsupported by evidence." That is the meaning of the word 'assertion' as it is used in law. > I've asked you to look at Einstein's assertion concerning time that is > a claim unsupported by evidence. Consider the following: Einstein bases his SR on two POSTULATES. A postulate is a clearly stated assumption. It is not an assertion. > A wave source emits one crest every second, and the crest travels away > from the source a distance of one meter in one second. This is clearly not light we are talking about. > So, at t = 0, an observer 2 meters from the source sees a crest. > For the non-moving source, we have: > > \ /\ / > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 meters, t=0 > > > /\ /\ > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 t= 0.1 > > > /\ /\ > / \ / \ > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 t = 0.2 > > > /\ /\ > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > \ / \ / > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 t = 0.3 > > > /\ /\ > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 t= 0.4 > > /\ /\ > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > / \/ \ > 0---------1---------2 t = 0.5 > > > /\ /\ > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 t = 0.6 > > /\ /\ > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > \ / \ / > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 t= 0.7 > > > /\ /\ > / \ / \ > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 t = 0.8 > > /\ /\ > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 t = 0.9 > > \ /\ / > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 t = 1.0 > > Two crests have been seen by the observer at 2 meters, 1 second apart, > I meter apart, so the wave is moving to the right at 1 meter/second. Ok. > For the moving source we have: > \ /\ / > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 t=0 > > > /\ /\ > \ / \ > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 t= 0.1 > > > /\ /\ > / \ / \ > \ / \ > \ / \ > \/ \/ > 0---------1---------2 t = 0.2 > > > /\ /\ > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > \ / \ > \/ > 0---------1---------2 t = 0.3 > > > /\ /\ > / \ / \ > / \ / > / \ / > \/ > 0---------1---------2 t= 0.4 > > /\ / > / \ / > / \ / > / \ / > / \/ > 0---------1---------2 t = 0.5 > > > > The source is now at 0.5 meters, there is a crest at 2 meters for the > observer to see, > the wave has moved 1 meter (crest to crest) in 0.5 seconds, or at 2 > meters/second. > It's frequency of emission has not changed, not has its velocity with > respect to the source. Ok. But this has NOTHING to do with light. It has nothing to do with sound. Both have a 'speed limit' that waves can not exceed. In fact, your waves are rather an exception to the rule that most wave phenomina have a propagation speed that is constant within the medium. Take a tranverse wave on a slinky that is stretched with a certain amount of tension. We can probably adjust such a slinky to produce a propagation velocity of 1 meter per second. Now, we send your wave down the slinky from the fixed source, just as you did, and we observe the same think you saw. We next introduce a moving source. This will be a bit more difficult to model. We will have to make our wave source 'walk along the turns of the slinky' as it pushes and pulls the turns to make the transvers wave. If you can imagine this, you will see that the source partially 'catches up with' the waves it has already 'transmitted'. The waves get bunched up and the effective crests will be closer together when they reach the fixed observer. If you have the fixed source and a moving observer, the doppler shift will again be observed. > So yes, I really do believe that the velocity of light is c+v. If you can follow my 'slinky' waves, you may change your mind. > Nor do > I accept Einstein's definition of time, since the same wave reflected > back to the source would be missing some crests on the return. Sorry, I don't follow. The crests are closer together, not missing. > Frequency is a number, N, of crests passing a point divided by the time > it takes > to do so, as in cycles per second, or Hertz. If the wave reflects back > with unaltered > wavelength, Doppler shift alters the wavelength, frequency AND the energy [you will find that the relative velocity adds or subtracts from the kinetic energy by just the right amount to account for the change in wavelength and frequency] . The speed does not change. > unaltered speed, then either N has changed or the frequency > has changed to obtain the same time. BOTH have changed to keep the distance/time constant. > For a constant frequency and a > constant wavelength, N is a measure of time. > Henri may seem a little gruff and his h-aether is pure bull, but it > remains a fact that if we model c+v mathematically we do indeed get the > light curves of cepheids, recurrent novae, flare stars and eclipsing > binaries. And a bunch of other curves that have never been observed. > Maybe its a fluke, but I don't correlate easily with that much > coincidence and consider Einstein, who was not an astronomer, sitting in > his armchair and saying "I think..." (without any experiment > support his ideas), to be a little too eager to agree with Lorentz and > Fitzgerald. His theories have been and continue to be tested every day by astronomers and other scientist. Any of which would love to find a flaw in SR and GR. > Certainly I do not support aether theories, and nor do I support time > dilation and length contraction, so Ritz's ballistic light seems to be > the only logical conclusion and is in agreement with empirical > observation. Empirical observation show that many 'wave phenomina' show a 'doppler shift' when they involve a moving source. I am not sure that ANY wave phenomina exists that demonstrates a "c'=c+v" relationship [where c is whatever the characteristic propagation velocity is in the medium in question]. Can you provide ANY real examples? > Like you, the set of things I do not know is infinite, but I can reason > independently on the things I have read of mortal man and find they have > some wild imaginations that they like to call "facts". For sure. > Progress in science is made by individuals, not by those that run with > the know-it-all mob that only repeat what they've been taught and bay > like hounds after the lonely fox with inquisition mentality, ready to > tear him to shreds for having ideas they do not agree with. Each accepted theory is like the fox and the scientists I know are like the hounds hunting for a way to catch that fox in a mistake. The 'fox' can only stay free as long as no hound catches it. Once the fox is caught, the hound that caught it becomes the next fox that everyone chases. Henri doesn't understand that this is how science works. You also appear to suffer under the same confusion. I think Henri realizes [but occasionally forgets] that the way scientists help each other is by critiquing their theories. I am trying to help Henri by poking holes in his theories, but he patches the holes with crepe paper, rather than patching with steel. The water soaks right through the crepe paper. He says we don't see c'=c+v photons in particle accelerators because .....[and invents a reason on the spur of the moment, but the reason is essentually circular...we don't see them because we can't see them and we can't see them because we don't see them.] > I'm quite sure that Einstein's preoccupation with time began when H.G. > Wells' "Time Machine", published when Einstein was a teenager, and MMX > gave him the link with light. All of us base our ideas on what we've > heard about, and it is quite difficult to be rational when we are > convinced we are right. I have read that Einstein was NOT familiar with MMX at the time he wrote his paper. I am not sure if this is true or not. He doesn't meantion MMX in his 1905 papers. > I will answer your question > "If so, what about all the experiments that have demonstrated that for > c'=c+vk k must be a very small number? " > with > "Fit is NOT evidence that the equation is right" LACK of fit is evidence that the equation is wrong. c'=c+vk ONLY fits when k is very small. this clearly shows that c'=c+v is wrong because it REQUIRES k to be '1'(one). > although here the equation in question is tau = t /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and > not c' = c+v. > Which will you reject? That preferred by the mob or that preferred by > one or two thinking indivuals? I will reject any thing not supported by available evidence. Show me ANY wave phenomina in any real venue with a wave phenomina that shows a v=c wrt source and supports a c'=c+v for wave propagation THROUGH the medium. Even the photons emitted by charged particles moving faster than the speed of light in the medium [cherenkov radiation], those photons move at the speed of light in the medium NOT at c'=c+v. This is demonstrated by the angle of radiation, 'a' which is given by cos(a)= v_light/v_particle. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/cherenkov.htm l Don't worry, if you or someone comes up with evidence that shows c'=c+v under some [as yet untested] conditions, there will be plenty of people glad to let you become the next fox. Einstein has been the fox for over 100 years, we would like to chase some new ones. -- 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 |