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 Jun 2005 19:45 On 23 Jun 2005 19:09:09 -0700, "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >bz wrote: >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1119567979.270217.176120(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > >> > and since I do not accept >> > his analysis of time, I see no reason to question Doppler. Therefore a >> > red shifted photon is one that is subluminal. >> >> I will accept it as subluminal IF you can show, by timing its passage between >> two points, that it is moving slower than c. > >Challenge accepted. > >Let there be two points in a vacuum, A and B. >Let A and B be increasingly separated as a function of time. >(That just means one is moving away from the other. We could perhaps >use Earth and Mars as A and B) >Let the speed of light be finite. (I think 300,000 km/sec has been >quoted, >and that is much less than infinity/sec, it takes around half an hour >to get a signal to Mars and back) >Let a ray of light be emitted from A toward B. >Let it arrive at B when B is at a distance d from A. >During the interval of time (finite and > 0)it takes for the light to >return to A, the distance between A and B will be greater than d. >Call this distance d' > d. >By Einstein's definition that it takes the same time to make the return >trip from B to A as it took to travel from A to B, and the distance >between A and B now being greater when the light returns, it follows >that there are two speeds of light, c' = d'/t and c = d/t, by the >standard definition of speed. If you have some other definition of >speed, keep it to yourself, please. >Which you call subliminal and which you call superliminal is up to you, > >but one speed is greater than the other, by Einstein's own definition. >A non-relativist would simply say it takes longer because it has >further to go, >but he'd also employ the vector addition of velocities, (c +/- v)t for >the distances, and not the composition of velocities. > > >> >> > You've been shown. Denial is the argument of a relativist. >> >> Show me photons that MOVE slower than light [in vacuum] and you will have my >> applause. > >Thank you. Read the above. You may now clap. > >> >> [einstine says] >[snip] >Who cares what the lunatic said? He was totally off his rocker when he >said >it takes the same time for light to travel from A to B as it takes from >B to A, >his entire argument was built on that and was subjective and >irrational. Was he off his rocker?....or just very devious? His 'brute force' definition of clock synching was aimed at eliminating the need for an aether. (According to LET, the times should be different in the two opposite directions). However we know now that according to the BaT, light SHOULD take the same time to travel in each directions between two fixed objects. A|--------<-L>---------|B Light is emitted at c wrt both A and B. It will take L/c seconds in both directions. So is this evidence that Einstein was really a believer in Ritz's theory? I think so! But he wasn't going to tell anyone. >Also, I've heard he claimed the speed of light is the same in all >frames of reference, but that was hearsay. Oft repeated hearsay, but >hearsay nevertheless. >What he did say was c = 2AB/(t'A - tA), taking the mean speed out and >back. >If you went up a hill from A to B for one mile at 30 mph, turned around >and came back to A, how fast would you have to go to get a mean speed >of 60 mph? yes. He was so indoctrinated with the aether concept, he had to try to find a compromise. His E-synch definition provided that...and made him famous for nothing. >Arthur Dent. 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: bz on 25 Jun 2005 19:46 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:4uprb15hj6u8rgi7825mu1dter2e3k4kln(a)4ax.com: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:47:09 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:fhdmb1lluh03i1q5b1tih0n07p97cl1v70(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:21:14 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in >>>>news:1119523145.287480.310190(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >>>> >>>>> Henri Wilson wrote: ..... >>>>Download RT AUR data from >>>>http://www.aavso.org/data/download >>download Delta Cep from the url given above. >>Tell me where you see 'constant to within seconds for that length of >>time.' > > quote: > > "Delta Cep is one of the few easily-visible variables, its magnitude > changing from 3.5 to 4.3 and back over an amazingly regular period of 5 > days 8 hours 47 minutes and 32 seconds, the star acting like a natural > clock. " > The data would seem to indicate that the author of the phrase quoted might have waxed a bit too much about the regularity of the waining of Delta Cep. -- 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: Henri Wilson on 25 Jun 2005 19:54 On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:58:37 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >news:1119580301.499846.166140(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > >> >>> However, if you look closely at waves along the axis, you will see that >>> they, also, will NOT follow c'=c+v [unless you compress all the space >>> out from in between the turns. >> >> Of course they do. >> >> You are carrying the slinky, making waves. > >No. The ends of the slinky are fixed in place. We can send waves along the >slinky, we do not MOVE the slinky's ends. > >> The waves have some >> velocity c relative to you. I drive toward you in my car, >> you have some v relative to me, and the slinky wave you carry has a >> velocity c+v relative to me. > >Nope. The slinky is fixed in place. Your motion wrt the slinky brings the >wave crests to you sooner because there is less distance for them to travel. > >BTW, your vehicle is limited in speed. It must not go as fast or faster than >the waves go on the slinky. > >As they go by your two detectors, you find that the time for a crest to pass >between the two detectors is identical, no matter what speed your car is >moving (within the limits mentioned above). > >> That's straightforward Galilean vector addition of velocities. >> If you want to wave the slinky while driving, toward me, that's ok too. >> Relative to me the slinky wave is c+v. > >Not if the slinky behaves like light. > >>> >, or walk toward >>> > it or away from it, >>> > and the speed of the slinky wave is c+v in my frame of reference if >>> > it is c in the slinky's frame >>> > of reference. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of relative >>> > motion, >>> >>> Perhaps I don't understand what YOU mean by relative motion. >> >> Hmmm... Let's try this. You are spacewalking outside the International >> Space Station, on a safety tether. > >Then what ever happens, as long as the tether is not taunt, I am moving at a >rather low velocity wrt the ISS. If it were taunt, I could be rotating around >the station at a high velocity, until I got all wrapped up in what I was >doing. > >> The ISS is going around the Earth >> taking 1.5 hours to complete a full orbit, passing over some fixed >> point below repeatedly. We say it is travelling at 17,000 mph, because >> in one hour it will be 17,000 miles further away. You have almost zero >> relative motion to the ISS, and you too are travelling at 17,000 mph. So >> is your speed 17,000 mph, or is it 0 mph? > >17000 mph wrt 'some fixed point on earth' >0 mph wrt the ISS. > >The radius of a 1.5 hr orbit around earth is 6.314e3 km or 3861 mi. >V.orb for such an orbit is 7.231 km/s or 16,174.36 mph > >> Jeez, I shouldn't have to be doing this kiddy stuff. > >You asserted that I didn't understand relative motion. > >>> > but I do not see a way >>> > to pardon it or discuss such simple concepts further with you. >>> >>> That is a pity. >>> >>> I have never found someone who didn't know something I didn't know. >>> I could always learn something from anyone. >> >> You refuse to learn from Henri, prefering to jibe, and he knows a hell >> of a lot. > >Oh, I am learning from Henri. I am helping him test his program and model. >I think he is wrong, and that his program should ALSO show what the results >would be in an Einstein universe. Until he can show his results are BETTER >than Einstein's, he will only have half a theory. My program produces observed light curves. It is backed by a mass of evidence. The 'Einstein universe' is an extension of the christian belief that the Earth is the centre of the universe and its inhabitants hold a special status. Why else would anyone believe that all starlight is emitted at exactly c wrt little planet Earth? >That means that he must understand Einstein's theorys BETTER than his >critics. He hasn't reached that point yet. Why would I want to understand a theory that is logically wrong from start to finish. A light beam that is vertical in one frame does not lean over and become diagonal in another. It remains vertical in all frames. Bob, I am happy to be able to provide a 100% plausible explanation for variable star activity based on basic principles and hard evidence. >>> I have also never met anyone that knew so much that they couldn't learn >>> something worthwhile from me. >>> You appear to be an exception to the rule. >> >> If you have something to teach I'll listen. I just dont see the point >> of arguing for the sake of it. > >Neither do I. > >>> So long and thanks for the fish. 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 Jun 2005 20:00 On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 04:43:35 -0400, "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >"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: >> 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. Maxwell's equations require values for two constants. There is no reason to believe that relatively moving observers will obtain the same values for those constants. There is also no reason to believe that they would have any way of knowing if their values were different (LET). There is also no proof that light emitted by a moving source will adjust its speed in another frame, to conform with Maxwell. >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 > 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: Arthur Dent on 25 Jun 2005 20:26
bz wrote: > "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > news:1119684669.886770.228170(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > > > > > bz wrote: > >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > >> news:1119649563.403402.140870(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > .... > > Egads, try to explain a simple principle and the confusion is rife. > > Sarcasm mode: > > What 100 days would that be, I wonder... > > yep. I did mess up. > > > Did I mention 101 days somewhere? > > nope. I done it all by my self. Focusing on days. Ok, no problem. :-) > > > I don't think so. > > Let me see I can get anyone to understand without getting them > > confused. > > > > "Let there be a source of light moving in an elliptical orbit, the > > barycentre of which is exactly 100 light years away." > > > > Is there 100 days or 101 days mentioned in that? No, I didn't think so. > > There is 36525 days mentioned, because there are 365.25 days in a year, > > if y'all want to drawl my figures. > > One big problem with Henri's program is lack of 'sanity testing' of the > figures. Ok... > > Lets perform a little sanity testing. Gladly. > > Max radial velocity is (1 day / 3.652e4 day) = 27.379 ppm c, rather than 1% > of c as I said earlier. That is 8.208 km/s, 1.836e4 mph. > > You now have an orbital radius (assuming circular) of 2.805e5 mi (4.515e5 > km) or 3.018e-3 AU. > > Quite a small orbit. This may be a bit of a problem. Oh? The last time I heard, planets were being discovered because the primary was seen wobbling in a small orbit. I like small orbits. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3856401.stm > > Yes. It is. When I assume one star has a mass of one Sol, and solve for the > other mass, I come out with a negative mass, so our total steller masses > must be smaller. > Lets try Jupiter's mass. No luck. Oh dear. That looks like trouble. How about Earths mass? > [don't worry, I will show you later how you can do this yourself.] I'm familiar with Kepler's laws, I invented this system as a demonstration of a principle. I really don't care if the system is 10 light years away, a thousand light years away or 100 light years away, and I don't care if the light arrives one hour late or one day late, the principle doesn't change. But do carry on, this is interesting. > > Yep. You could have one body with the earths mass and another body with > 75.3 times the mass of the earth and get them to orbit each other in 4 > days. > > Of course, you won't have two stars. You won't have one star because even > Jupiter (at 317 Earth masses) is too small [not enough mass] to light off > the fusion furnace. See, the thing is, when I wrote a computer program to simulate a light curve, I don't put in things like negative masses or huge orbits. We simply plug in the known period, because that is empirical data and not to be argued with. Algol (beta-Perseus), supposedly an eclipsing binary, has a period of 70 hours whatever the masses of the stars might be, so whatever you are calculating, it had better agree with the known period. I can change the one day difference simply by changing the distance to the system. For example, the data I put into my program looks like this: Distance 30,000 parsecs. Period 5.0 days Eccentricity 0.2 Semi major axis 0.2 AU (yep, a very tiny orbit) Yaw 110 degrees Pitch 75 degrees and that produces a cepheid-type light curve with a peak-to-peak variation of about one magnitude. I don't need to put the masses into the program since I'm not computing the period, that is given data. When I put in Distance 30,000 parsecs. Period 3.0 days Eccentricity 0.6 Semi major axis 0.015 AU (yep, an even tinier tiny orbit) Yaw 180 degrees Pitch 85 degrees (yep, almost face on) I get an eclipsing variable (Algol) type curve, again with a peak-to-peak of about a magnitude. So I contend that there is NO eclipse of one star by the other, Algol is a single star with a large planet in orbit around it, and we are seeing the orbit almost face on, not edge on. But you know what is really interesting? Take a look at this curve http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif I've modelled that, too. Yep, 7 magnitudes. Of course it peaked even higher than that, the astronomer didn't start recording until after he saw it flare up. He thinks it's a nova, of course, but to me its a constant emitter and the light curve is an illusion caused by an eccentric long period orbit. Stick around for 200 years and you'll see it again. Why is it special? The double maxima, of course, and the curve bwtween them. c+v reproduces that, and you have no relativistic explanation for it. A lot of nova show this double maxima. > > > > > > "On a Sunday, 100 years ago, let the source emit light from position A, > > D > > C A -----------------> > > B > > and let this light arrive on Earth on Sunday of this coming week." > > > > So the light left the star in June of 1905, on a Sunday, and travelled > > 36,525 light-days (that is a unit of distance, and rounded) at 300,000 > > km/second (that is a speed, also rounded) and gets here next Sunday. > > Drawn to scale, the Earth is off to the right of the screen (in the > > direction of the arrow) a little way. Not in the next room, not in the > > next city, but on the next continent. I don't know what it is in > > meters, nor am I going to work it out, but its a helluva lot. 36,525 > > days * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours * 300,000 kilometers. I'll > > call this distance d, then y'all won't have to check my figures. > > > > "On Monday (100 years ago), the star has moved to B and is moving away > > from the Earth at velocity v. > > It emits light that is approaching us at c-v, and being slightly > > slower, it takes 100 years and one day to get here, and arrives on > > Tuesday of next week instead of Monday, a day late." > > So, when the photons arrive, > 1 day late, we will "know" they traveled at c-27.379ppm of c. > > We instantly know the star was traveling at 27.379 ppm of c as it rounded > the point in its orbit when its speed away from us was maximum. > > > That's emission on a Monday in June of 1905. The star had some velocity > > away from us. > > Yep. The numbers ARE important. Ok, use a real system, like Algol. > It was going away from us at 1.836e4 mph or 5.1 miles per second or 8.208 > km/s > > > It also has a tiny bit of distance further away from us but that gets > > lost in rounding up, the change in distance is extremely UNimportant. > > Not when we are doing sanity checking on the orbital parameters. Ok, use a real system. I chose 1 day and 100 light years to explain the principle and the system doesn't really exist. You'd complain if I called an old bicycle a penny-farthing because it had different sized wheels, saying they are not penny-size or farthing-size. We still > don't know them but we do know the speed. We ALSO know it takes 4 days to > make a complete circuit. No we don't know that at all, I made that up to explain a principle. You'd nitpick if I said your heart was a pump, complaining it has no electric motor to drive it. That gives us enough to solve some problems. > > For a circle, C=2 pi r. Lets assume we have a circular orbit. > [We could, of course, do it for an elipse, approximating the perimeter as 2 > pi sqrt(1/2 (a^2+b^2).... or if you really want to be accurate > 4 a integral{[from 0 to pi/2 radian](sqrt(1=(a^2-b^2)/a^2 sin(theta)^2) > dtheta}... but lets just assume a cicular orbit, ok?] > > take orbital speed times 4 days to get the distance traveled in one orbit. > That is our circumference. Divide that by 2 pi and you have the radius of > the orbit. > > In this case, it is 2.805e5 mi, 4.515e5 km or 3.018e-3 AU. > > This mythical star MUST be orbiting the center of mass at about 0.003 times > the earths distance from the sun. Kinda close, right? That's fine, I have no objection to that. > > Ok... Working from the orbital parameters (period, velocity, radius) you > can compute the masses. > > You can start from Period = 2 pi sqrt(a^3/(G*(M1+M2)) > > where a is principle axis of the orbit which is the radius for a circular > orbit. > > We know the period, 4 days, we know a, the radius 4.5e5 km. We don't know > masses, so we can just assume and see what happens. > > I manipulated the equation a bit and solved for M2. > M2 is (4 a^3 pi^2 - M1 G P^2)/(P^2 G) > > When I plugged in The mass of the sun for M1, I got a negative number for > M2. That told me the orbit was not possible around our sun. You are in trouble, then, because Algol is supposed to be a binary with a period of 70 hours. Maybe the companion has negative mass, but I rather suspect you are not doing your sums right :-) Still, I don't mind if you prove Algol cannot be a binary, since it isn't a binary in the c+v model anyway. > > I found one earth and another body of 75.503 earth masses would orbit just > fine. > > You can, of course, use any combination of masses that total near 76 times > the mass of the earth. > > So, all your problems are solved, right? > > > Not quite. This leaves you with a minor problem: No, old son. It leaves YOU with a problem. You now need to explain the Algol system since according to your calculations, it cannot be an eclipsing binary. > > 76 earth masses is too small a star to be visible at 100 light years. > It is too small a star to be visible at 1 AU. > It is too small a star to be visible at 0.003 AU. > It is too small to be a star. > > Do you see why Henri's program (and yours) needs to do some sanity > checking? > > Please. Confirm my calculations for yourself. No need: Your calculations confirm Algol isn't what everyone else says it is and the companion star has negative mass. :-) > > .... > > > If you really want to quantify the situation instead of simply looking > > at it qualitatively, it might be advisable to understand it first. > > You are right that I was wrong when I started from 101 days. > > Would you care to examine your figures again? > Me? Examine MY figures again? Why should I? I made up the 100 ly and the 4 day orbit. I could just as easily have said the system was a thousand light years away, and that cuts your velocity by 10. The orbit I'm using is just a wobble, smaller than the star itself, caused by a Jovian planet (very hot, glowing, because of its proximity to the star)in orbit around it. You are the one struggling with negative masses, you do the sanity check. > no sarcasm intended. That's a good thing, because if you are going to shoot yourself in the foot it's better to use a rubber bullet :-) Arthur. |