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 22 Jun 2005 17:31 bz wrote: If I say that there is no evidence that there is an absolute aether, that is an assertion. I have offered no evidence to back up my statement. A.D. I'm not discussing your "ifs", I'm discussing real statements made by Einstein. Einstein asserted: "also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and he also asserted "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A." Reference: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Putting these two together, we have a constant speed of light in all frames of reference. Now what, in you view, makes these two assertions one a postulate and the other a definition, if as you claim he had only two postulates? As far as I'm concerned his definition of time is just another postulate, and one I do not accept. Neither do I accept his second postulate. Einstein offered no evidence to back up his statements, they are unsupported assertions. Actually his first postulate he states by way of example: "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. " That is of course a reference to MMX, for those that think he never heard of it and the first postulate is a formal declaration of Galilean relativity extended to optics and electrodynamics. > A.D. >> A wave source emits one crest every second, and the crest travels away >> from the source a distance of one meter in one second. > bz: > This is clearly not light we are talking about. As light does not travel at 1 meter per second, I felt I needed to make clear the fact that you were not talking about light waves. A.D. It is if I change the unit of 1 meter to 1 light-second, I'm now discussing light. Actually I'm discussing a wave in general, and I see no reason to nit-pick over a triviality, a unit of distance. bz: If you say that it WAS light you were talking about, then you must support the velocity of 1 meter per second. A.D. I'm changing the unit "one meter" and calling it "one light-second". You are nitpicking my choice of units. > A.D. > I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of argument, and I'm > certainly not going to debate semantics, in law or otherwise. bz: Arguing semantics is a waste of time. Making sure we are using the same words in the same way is a good way to SAVE time. A.D. Correct, so why did you assert "Einstein bases his SR on two POSTULATES. A postulate is a clearly stated assumption. It is not an assertion." (your capitals) if you are not arguing semantics? > If you do > not accept that light has wave properties, we are not going to agree on > anything. bz: Where have I said anything that makes you think that I do not believe light has wave properties? AD: Right here: "This is clearly not light we are talking about." - bz. BTW, your slinky doesn't have a constant wavelength :-) > bz: > c'=c+v is wrong because it REQUIRES k to be '1'(one). > 2 = 1 + 1*k is wrong because it requires k to be '1' (one). A wonderful > piece of logic. Have a nice day. bz: In the above case, k being 1 produces no contradiction with experimental data. A.D. c' = c+v has no contradiction with empirical data. Experimental data is subject to interpretation. bz: In the case of light, experimental data shows that in any c'=c+vk, k is less than 400 parts per million or more. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html [quote] If the light emitted from a source moving with velocity v toward the observer has a speed c+kv in the observer's frame, then these experiments place a limit on k. Experiments Using Cosmological Sources Comstock, Phys. Rev. 10 (1910), p267. DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, pg 1297- 1298 (1913); DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, pg 395-- 396 (1913). Zurhellen, Astr. Nachr. 198 (1914), p1. Observations of binary stars. k < 10-6. K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977). Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the source-6 velocity dependence of the speed of light. k < 2*10-9. Heckmann, Ann. D'. Astrophys. 23 (1960), p410. Differential aberration, galaxies versus stars. These experiments are all subject to criticism due to extinction effects in the interstellar gas; see for instance J.G. Fox Am. J. Phys. 30, p297 (1962); AJP 33, 1 (1964). The standard reference for optical extinction is Born and Wolf, Principles of Optics. -------------- Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources Beckmann and Mandies, Radio. Sci. 69D (1965), p623. A moving mirror experiment. Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964). Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), p271. Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e- annihilation (with center-of-mass v/c ~ 0.5) to be c within 10%. Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964). - Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), p B1071. Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c + v, and are consistent with SR. Because of the high energies of the gammas in Alvaeger, extinction is not a problem for it; Filipas and Fox specifically designed their experiment to avoid extinction. [unquote] In order to support your assertion that c'=c+vk where k=1, you must produce valid arguments that explain how the above experimental data may be consistent with your theory. A.D. I don't have time to answer ever single experiment you refer to, so let's take just one. Alvaeger et. al. bombarded a beryllium block to produce pions which then decayed to gamma photons. What they omitted to mention was that they didn't measure the speed of the pions, although they did state their lifetime. it turns out that even at the speed of light, the lifetime of the pions was so short that they didn't get out of the beryllium. Now, you might consider a block of beryllium to be a vacuum, but I do not. So their ~0.99975c is an estimate at best, certainly not a measurement, and would be irrelevant even if it was. There is one more point I need to mention. I have never claimed to have a theory. All theory I'm using belongs to others, great men like Galileo, Newton, Huyghens, Kepler and Doppler. I have modelled c+v, and it is consistent with the light curve of Algol. A.D.
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 22 Jun 2005 17:32 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:1119441996.587027.124540(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > 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. > > Jerry wrote: > > "Actually, we don't." > > > Actually, Jerry, YOU cannot say WE don't because you haven't modelled > it, all you can say is that YOU don't. Henri and I do. > Henri was the first I knew of to take the matter seriously and built > his model, independently, after I had informed him of it. Henri Wilson and Arthur Androcles Dent, Two Modern but Alas Retired Giants of Logic: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogicBull.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html Dirk Vdm
From: Henri Wilson on 22 Jun 2005 18:42 On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:27:53 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:ml4hb115c9f242d49h6f3are0e2r4l2g16(a)4ax.com: > >>>> 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. Do you deny that all astrophysicists assume all starlight travels to little planet Earth at c? Is that not the epitome of Einsteinian fundamentalism? > >The authors generally explore various possible interpretations of the data >in the paper and explain why one makes the most sense. Sometimes light speed doesn't matter a great deal. Other times it does. > >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. Do you deny that all astrophysicists assume all starlight travels to little planet Earth at c? Is that not the epitome of Einsteinian fundamentalism? Do you not agree that if it were NOT true, the whole picture would change dramatically? >> ...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. My brightness curves are a bit misleading because at present, they are not in phase with anything in particular. I am working on the problem. 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 22 Jun 2005 18:51 On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:32:43 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:1119441996.587027.124540(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >> > 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. >> >> Jerry wrote: >> >> "Actually, we don't." >> >> >> Actually, Jerry, YOU cannot say WE don't because you haven't modelled >> it, all you can say is that YOU don't. Henri and I do. >> Henri was the first I knew of to take the matter seriously and built >> his model, independently, after I had informed him of it. > >Henri Wilson and Arthur Androcles Dent, Two Modern >but Alas Retired Giants of Logic: > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogicBull.html > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html > >Dirk Vdm > Thank christ Androcles is back. Now we can have some genuine wisdom here again. I was getting really worried when Androcles, Jim Greenfield and John Kennaugh disappeared almost simltaneously...it looked as though the physics mafia had gotten to 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: Henri Wilson on 22 Jun 2005 18:59
On 21 Jun 2005 18:42:27 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. The period of RT Aur has remained contant to within seconds for over twenty years. How do you explain that? > >You are a century behind the times, Arthur. > >Jerry 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. |