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: sue jahn on 23 Jun 2005 04:43 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns967DCB094520WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:gprjb1ll6nepkofq8cqkbpf6hfmjc4cp5c(a)4ax.com: > > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:45:14 +0000 (UTC), bz > > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > > >>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. > > > > ....an idea he stole directly from LET. > > Stole? Science builds upon former successes and former failures. This is > not stealing, it is science. > > >>> 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. > > > > that's a strange statement from an SRian. > > I keep telling you that I don't have faith in any particular theory. > > > You also believe that all starlight is emitted at c wrt little planet > > Earth. > > SR says that all light moves at c WRT every mass in the universe, including > our little insignificant ball of left over star vomit. > > > the two claims are incompatible. Frequently AE refers to a passive *observer* when he really should model the near-field effects of an EM coupling structure which is not passive but actually modify the E and H plane components of an incident wave. << A surprising result is that even though the infinitesimal dipole is minute, its effective aperture is comparable to antennas many times its size! >> http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Dipole-antenna So give the good professor a c minus in electromagnetism and hear out his argument that Maxwell's Equations is *generally* compatable with a constant speed of light. IOW... Rene' Descartes was not on the creator's payroll. Sue... > > My statements are compatible. I have no idea which two 'claims' you say are > incompatible. > > >> > >>> 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. > > > > until recently, there was no sci.physics.relativity > > There were physicists in labs all over the world looking for holes in > published articles. > > > If Einstein were here today, he would be shot down in flames. > > All he did was re-orientate aether theory. > > His work is still here today. People keep shooting at it and missing. > > > He reasoned that if every observer's clocks and rods are contracted > > according to LET, then light emitted by any one of them would arrive at > > any other at c, as measured by the latter's contracted rods and clocks. > > > > Unfortunately, it breaks down because v appears in quadratic form and > > not linear. > > Unfortunately many physical processes are not linear. > > >>> 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. > > > > SR cannot be tested directly because there is no known way to measure > > OWLS from a moving source. > > OWLS/TWLS, it doesn't matter unless you believe in aether. > > > GR has been tested with te Pound-Rebka experiment. It matches the BaT > > perfectly. Light increases speed when falling down a gravity well, just > > like anything else. > > Pound-Rebka matches SR/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. > > > > They don't know how or where to look. > > The HST receives light at speeds other than c all the time. > > I look forward to you providing irrefutable evidence for that assertion. > > > > -- > 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: Jerry on 23 Jun 2005 06:39 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 21 Jun 2005 18:42:27 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > >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? Try again. Fitting some published photometric curves, I find the mean period of RT Aur to be 3.729 days, with a random peak-to-peak scatter of 0.010 days. (This is over twice the uncertainty in my fitting routine, which was about 0.004 days given the limited data that I had available.) The catalog value for the period is 3.728115 days, so my fitting routine didn't do too badly. Where does the +/- 0.010 days scatter come from, Henri? It's too much to explain away as bad data. Here is a counter-challenge for you, Henri. Explain the variations in RU Cam in terms of the BaT. -------- AAVSO Photoelectric Observations of RU Cam John R. Percy and Yvonne Tang RU Cam is a population II Cepheid which "stopped pulsating" in 1965-66. Actually, it did not stop pulsating completely; the amplitude decreased from over a magnitude to about 0.20, and remained stable at that level from 1967 to 1982, according to the work of Bela Szeidl and his colleagues. The period has fluctuated erratically between 17.4 and 26.6 days, but this may be the result of random, cycle-to-cycle fluctuations. As noted below, the HIPPARCOS satellite found a mean period and amplitude of 22.24 days and 0.20 magmitude, during its 3.5-year mission. http://www.aavso.org/observing/programs/pep/pepnewsletter/may1998/main.shtml Jerry
From: bz on 23 Jun 2005 06:39 "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ba7168$0$18636$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns967DCB094520WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> news:gprjb1ll6nepkofq8cqkbpf6hfmjc4cp5c(a)4ax.com: >> >> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:45:14 +0000 (UTC), bz >> > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> > >> >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> >>news:c85hb1pbcn3b1prl24iecftpetgd09gb65(a)4ax.com: >> >> ..... >> >>Actually it is the exact reverse, The earth is NOT special. Every >> >>place in the universe is equally special. >> > >> > that's a strange statement from an SRian. >> >> I keep telling you that I don't have faith in any particular theory. >> >> > You also believe that all starlight is emitted at c wrt little planet >> > Earth. >> >> SR says that all light moves at c WRT every mass in the universe, >> including our little insignificant ball of left-over star-vomit. > ...because AE had never heard of the term "effective aperture" >> >> > the two claims are incompatible. In another article sue said: > Frequently AE refers to a passive *observer* when he really should > model the near-field effects of an EM coupling structure which is > not passive but actually modify the E and H plane components of > an incident wave. > << A surprising result is that even though the infinitesimal dipole is > minute, its effective aperture is comparable to antennas many times its > size! an infinitesimal dipole MUST be very minute! Any effective apeture will be infinitely larger. :) >>> > http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Dipole-antenna > > So give the good professor a c minus in electromagnetism and > hear out his argument that Maxwell's Equations is *generally* > compatable with a constant speed of light. You have to realize that, in 1905, the 'state of the art' radio transmitters used spark gaps to create Hertzian waves. There were no microwave ovens or cell phones. > IOW... Rene' Descartes was not on the creator's payroll. I hope it doesn't throw you, but methinks you have Descartes before Dehorse. :) ..... > ...because mass in not always proportional to "effective aperture" but > it is usually close. Big things have big cross sections. In astronomy > big = 10 * (small) LOL ..... >> > SR cannot be tested directly because there is no known way to measure >> > OWLS from a moving source. >> >> OWLS/TWLS, it doesn't matter unless you believe in aether. > Is a sea of leptons considered aether ? No! Leaping leptons, Batman! To take arms against a sea of leptons and by opposing, send them? Only if the leptons permiate all space and provide the medium for propagation of all EM waves. Do you so claim? .... >> > GR has been tested with te Pound-Rebka experiment. It matches the BaT >> > perfectly. Light increases speed when falling down a gravity well, >> > just like anything else. >> >> Pound-Rebka matches SR/GR. > Nope... How does it invalidate SR/GR? Henri is misinterpreting the Pound-Rebka experiment. The top 'clock' runs faster than the bottom clock due to less 'G' field seen by the top clock. This can be tested by using other 'clocks' in similar experiments. All clocks should show the SAME shift, whereas falling photon doppler shifts should be proportional to the frequency. [I really need to look at formulae or the numbers to make sure these will not give the same numbers, but I doubt they will]. > GPS launch presets do not agree with the LPI interpretation of PR and > Vessot. > > http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPI > AS000068000002000115000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&jsessionid > =3051831093837402530 Downloaded. Now to read, but it looks like they may provide the answer for us. > IOW... Gravity reduces the frequency of an oscillating mass. > Gravity does not blueshift "falling fotons"... an absurb causality > violation anyway. Henri's impedence is high. It will take a lot of energy to overcome the BaTer's faith barrier. > Sue... -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu -- 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: sue jahn on 23 Jun 2005 07:35 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns967E39A905234WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in > news:42ba7168$0$18636$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > > > > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > > news:Xns967DCB094520WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >> news:gprjb1ll6nepkofq8cqkbpf6hfmjc4cp5c(a)4ax.com: > >> > >> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:45:14 +0000 (UTC), bz > >> > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> > > >> >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >> >>news:c85hb1pbcn3b1prl24iecftpetgd09gb65(a)4ax.com: > >> >> > .... > >> >>Actually it is the exact reverse, The earth is NOT special. Every > >> >>place in the universe is equally special. > >> > > >> > that's a strange statement from an SRian. > >> > >> I keep telling you that I don't have faith in any particular theory. > >> > >> > You also believe that all starlight is emitted at c wrt little planet > >> > Earth. > >> > >> SR says that all light moves at c WRT every mass in the universe, > >> including our little insignificant ball of left-over star-vomit. > > ...because AE had never heard of the term "effective aperture" > >> > >> > the two claims are incompatible. > > In another article sue said: > > Frequently AE refers to a passive *observer* when he really should > > model the near-field effects of an EM coupling structure which is > > not passive but actually modify the E and H plane components of > > an incident wave. > > << A surprising result is that even though the infinitesimal dipole is > > minute, its effective aperture is comparable to antennas many times its > > size! > > an infinitesimal dipole MUST be very minute! > Any effective apeture will be infinitely larger. :) I might agree. The *infinitesimal* part was some google serendipty. I tho't it worth a closer look. Glad you did. When you reach a point of diminishing returns in adding "just one more element" to a Yagi you get some sense for what the writer is saying. > > >>> > > http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Dipole-antenna > > > > So give the good professor a c minus in electromagnetism and > > hear out his argument that Maxwell's Equations is *generally* > > compatable with a constant speed of light. > > You have to realize that, in 1905, the 'state of the art' radio > transmitters used spark gaps to create Hertzian waves. There were no > microwave ovens or cell phones. > > > IOW... Rene' Descartes was not on the creator's payroll. > > I hope it doesn't throw you, but methinks you have Descartes before > Dehorse. :) LOL > > .... > > > ...because mass in not always proportional to "effective aperture" but > > it is usually close. Big things have big cross sections. In astronomy > > big = 10 * (small) LOL > > .... > > >> > SR cannot be tested directly because there is no known way to measure > >> > OWLS from a moving source. > >> > >> OWLS/TWLS, it doesn't matter unless you believe in aether. > > Is a sea of leptons considered aether ? > > No! Leaping leptons, Batman! To take arms against a sea of leptons and by > opposing, send them? Better I had said charges but there are still some that won't accept that they come in 0.511MeV chunks. ;-) > > Only if the leptons permiate all space and provide the medium for > propagation of all EM waves. Do you so claim? No doubt in my mind that I can use a charged hair comb to wiggle a pith-ball on the moon. I am quite confident of this because I will be using a force a trillion trillion trillion times greater that that which couples the moon to the ocean's tide. > > ... > >> > GR has been tested with te Pound-Rebka experiment. It matches the BaT > >> > perfectly. Light increases speed when falling down a gravity well, > >> > just like anything else. > >> > >> Pound-Rebka matches SR/GR. > > > Nope... > > How does it invalidate SR/GR? I didn't use the word invalidate, you did. :o) The staunch fire, brimstone and untenured proponents like to keep the target on the move but here is one prevalent POV. << A more powerful and far-reaching equivalence principle is known as the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP). It states that: WEP is valid. The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment is independent of the velocity of the freely-falling reference frame in which it is performed. The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment is independent of where and when in the universe it is performed. The second piece of EEP is called local Lorentz invariance (LLI), and the third piece is called local position invariance (LPI). For example, a measurement of the electric force between two charged bodies is a local non-gravitational experiment; a measurement of the gravitational force between two bodies (Cavendish experiment) is not. The Einstein equivalence principle is the heart and soul of gravitational theory, for it is possible to argue convincingly that if EEP is valid, then gravitation must be a ``curved spacetime'' phenomenon, in other words, the effects of gravity must be equivalent to the effects of living in a curved spacetime. As a consequence of this argument, the only theories of gravity that can embody EEP are those that satisfy the postulates of ``metric theories of gravity'', which are: Spacetime is endowed with a symmetric metric. The trajectories of freely falling bodies are geodesics of that metric. In local freely falling reference frames, the non-gravitational laws of physics are those written in the language of special relativity. The argument that leads to this conclusion simply notes that, if EEP is valid, then in local freely falling frames, the laws governing experiments must be independent of the velocity of the frame (local Lorentz invariance), with constant values for the various atomic constants (in order to be independent of location). The only laws we know of that fulfill this are those that are compatible with special relativity, such as Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Furthermore, in local freely falling frames, test bodies appear to be unaccelerated, in other words they move on straight lines; but such ``locally straight'' lines simply correspond to ``geodesics'' in a curved spacetime (TEGP 2.3 [147]). >> --Clifford M. Will http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2001-4&page=node3.html > > Henri is misinterpreting the Pound-Rebka experiment. The top 'clock' runs > faster than the bottom clock due to less 'G' field seen by the top clock. Yes... Unless it is a massless SUMO type clock you just interpret it as an accelerometer reading. Sue's broken record: http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/status.htm http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/parcs.htm ... <--- recursive elipsis :o) > > This can be tested by using other 'clocks' in similar experiments. All > clocks should show the SAME shift, whereas falling photon doppler shifts > should be proportional to the frequency. [I really need to look at formulae > or the numbers to make sure these will not give the same numbers, but I > doubt they will]. > > > GPS launch presets do not agree with the LPI interpretation of PR and > > Vessot. > > > > http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPI > > AS000068000002000115000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&jsessionid > > =3051831093837402530 > > Downloaded. Now to read, but it looks like they may provide the answer for > us. I sure hope so because it too late in the week to be considering causality violations. Sooner or later we have to see a blueshifted clock make a tick before it occurs ... Eh ? > > > IOW... Gravity reduces the frequency of an oscillating mass. > > Gravity does not blueshift "falling fotons"... an absurb causality > > violation anyway. > > Henri's impedence is high. > It will take a lot of energy to overcome the BaTer's faith barrier. ....or a few hours study of Maxwell and Weber. I can't do it for him. Sue... > > > Sue... > > > -- > bz > > please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an > infinite set. > > bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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: Arthur Dent on 23 Jun 2005 08:00
Ya keep on tellin' us about antennae and citing web pages that have experiments associated with them, and the theory behind them, BUT... the air around the antennae has ALWAYS been part of the experiment. Then when someone suggests that things might be a little different if the air was taken away, you invent an all pervading gas throughout the entire universe and cite a web page to support that. Some of us can think outside the box. AD. |