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 29 Jun 2005 19:12 On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:19:52 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:ntr3c116fsqmuqunbm83fochjvniuh6r4o(a)4ax.com: > >> It might be worth looking at but I still think the effect would be far >> to small to detect in normal telescopes. What you want, Bob, is an extra >> long version. > >Or a phased array of telescopes. Aberration should show up quite nicely. Maybe. How would you know if it was real or not? 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 29 Jun 2005 19:46 On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:32:05 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >news:1120014657.091091.94540(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > big snip >> LOL! Not only handwaving, but groping at straws as well. >> If that were possible, Algol C and Algol D would be included. >> Not only that, but c+v changes the spectrum as well. > >I would expect c+v to change the spectrum, but it does NOT produce two >separate sets of doppler shifted spectrum lines [each associated with one >stellar type]. > >c+v would produce, broadening of the lines. It should never produce separate >sets of lines because we should always be seeing some c photons along with >c+v and/or c-v photons. We should never see c-v only or c+v only [barring a >large, dark, eclipsing body that hides the star from our view except when it >is going away and/or approaching us]. I must interrupt. that is not correct as long as the observer is below the critical distance...and it normally is. If thermal source speeds are ignored, only one wavelength should be observed at any instant. Near a brightness peak, doppler shift could however change rather quickly from + to -. One must also remember that all the stars we are considering are in orbit around something else and that something may or may not be cool and dark. So two distinct doppler patterns may be observed. That is the case for the star HD 81075 that Andersen keeps harping on. It is a binary pair of roughly equal size and in near circular orbit. >> You have a strong prejudice in the speed of light being constant. > >I have a strong inclination to look at all available data. > >Until some c+v and c-v photons are detected in the laboratory, I will need to >see strong evidence before I will accept a c+v/c-v explanation for a distant >phenomina that has other explanations. In any practical experiment, path lengths of millions of kms are required to compare OWLS from differently moving sources. There is not much chance of finding them in a lab. > >Extraordinary claims require extraordianary evidence. > >> I,BEING objective, decided to add the velocity of the star to the >> velocity of light to see if it reproduces the same data. It does. >> Having the simpler model of the system, I win. > >If you can explain the LACK of c+v/c-v photons in the laboratory, or produce >some. > >Perhaps you can have someone build a railgun and have them catapult a small >laser diode/battery in a vacuum chamber. Accelerate the laser to a few >thousand mph. Measure the time of flight speed of the photons emitted by the >laser. Show that they were going faster than c. >Or use my earlier suggestion of mounting a laser at the hub of a spinning >wheel and using fiber optics to conduct the light from the laser to launch it >tangentially to the edge of the wheel, thereby having a captive moving source >that should, using an ultracentrifuge rotor for a wheel, allow you to reach >supersonic speeds with your light source. > >But, before c+v/c-v light is acceptable, it MUST be demonstrable in the >laboratory or someone is going to have to come up with a very good >explanation of why it is NOT observable. Henri has NOT come up with such an >explanation. But you simpy cannot perform an experiment of this nature on Earth. Even if you did it on the tops of two high mountains 30 kms apart, the biggest travel time differences are going to be too small to detect. The maximum practical source velocity is never going to be much larger than about 0.0000002c. (Remember you must be able to determine its exact position). You will be trying to detect time differences of around 10^11 seconds. It's just not on....even today. > >> I've heard it all before, old son, and I've got the answers. Some may >> be a little too hard for you to comprhend, though, even though they are >> simple once you create your own model of ballistic light. Not that you >> will bother, right? > >I have been helping Henri improve his program by asking him questions and >looking over his code. That is true and I am grateful. I am still finding minor errors and improving the whole program generally. >> Even >> Henri used a circular orbit for his first attempt, though I warned him >> not to. c+v is very simple to understand, but modelling it is another >> story, you have to use Kepler's law to do it right and reproduce >> the light curves we see in Nature. A circular orbit is simply an orbit >> with an eccentricity of zero and is the exception rather than the rule. >> If you want to learn, old son, you have to do your homework and you >> have think outside the box. > >If I didn't think 'outside the box', I would have left you and Henri long >ago. Bob, since you are a relative newcomer here, you never had the pleasure of witnessing how 'Androcles' alias 'Arthur Dent' got stuck into someone he really didn't like. I can assure you, he must consider you one of the more intelligent people here or he wouldn't be so kind. 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 29 Jun 2005 21:16 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:6la6c1hcq62088s3q50bs98nri6tbarq7c@ 4ax.com: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:19:52 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:ntr3c116fsqmuqunbm83fochjvniuh6r4o(a)4ax.com: >> >>> It might be worth looking at but I still think the effect would be far >>> to small to detect in normal telescopes. What you want, Bob, is an >>> extra long version. >> >>Or a phased array of telescopes. Aberration should show up quite nicely. > > Maybe. > How would you know if it was real or not? How do we know if anything is real? We cross check against data from other stars in the same region of the sky. We cross check against other cepheids. We cross check against visual binaries, spectroscopic binaries, etc., etc. If there are c'=c+v photons out there, we should be able to detect them. Active optics are going to revolutionize astronomy. Phased arrays of active optics will be awesome. -- 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 29 Jun 2005 22:35 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:iua6c192htva42b8dkla55und6pg6991ok(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:32:05 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>"Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >>news:1120014657.091091.94540(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: >> > big snip > >>> LOL! Not only handwaving, but groping at straws as well. >>> If that were possible, Algol C and Algol D would be included. >>> Not only that, but c+v changes the spectrum as well. >> >>I would expect c+v to change the spectrum, but it does NOT produce two >>separate sets of doppler shifted spectrum lines [each associated with >>one stellar type]. >> >>c+v would produce, broadening of the lines. It should never produce >>separate sets of lines because we should always be seeing some c photons >>along with c+v and/or c-v photons. We should never see c-v only or c+v >>only [barring a large, dark, eclipsing body that hides the star from our >>view except when it is going away and/or approaching us]. > > I must interrupt. > that is not correct as long as the observer is below the critical > distance...and it normally is. You must remember that Arthur is explaining the strange waveshape of Algol, which is a spectroscopic binary, as entirely due to BaT rather than due to a close binary with mass streaming from one star to another. > If thermal source speeds are ignored, only one wavelength should be > observed at any instant. Near a brightness peak, doppler shift could > however change rather quickly from + to -. I disagree. By BaT, slower photons and more rapid photons are arriving at the same time. This is what makes the star look brighter. These photons will have different doppler shifts. They will be arriving at the same time. This will broaden the lines. > One must also remember that all the stars we are considering are in > orbit around something else and that something may or may not be cool > and dark. So two distinct doppler patterns may be observed. That is the > case for the star HD 81075 that Andersen keeps harping on. It is a > binary pair of roughly equal size and in near circular orbit. If the 2nd body is cool & dark, there should NOT be signs of spectroscopic binarys. No doubling of spectral lines. Cepheid don't usually show doubling of spectral lines. Of course cepheids may also be part of a spectroscopic or even optical binary system. In those cases you should see double lines. Of course, if the stars are different types, you will see the lines characteristic of each type of star, showing doppler shift, but not doubling, unless the lines represent lines found in both types of star. >>> You have a strong prejudice in the speed of light being constant. >> >>I have a strong inclination to look at all available data. >> >>Until some c+v and c-v photons are detected in the laboratory, I will >>need to see strong evidence before I will accept a c+v/c-v explanation >>for a distant phenomina that has other explanations. > In any practical experiment, path lengths of millions of kms are > required to compare OWLS from differently moving sources. > There is not much chance of finding them in a lab. Practical experiment and path length of millions of kms do not go together. We do NOT need OWLS to establish c'=c+v. All we need is a rapidly moving source that we can control the speed of and TOFLS. >>Extraordinary claims require extraordianary evidence. >> >>> I,BEING objective, decided to add the velocity of the star to the >>> velocity of light to see if it reproduces the same data. It does. >>> Having the simpler model of the system, I win. >> >>If you can explain the LACK of c+v/c-v photons in the laboratory, or >>produce some. >> >>Perhaps you can have someone build a railgun and have them catapult a >>small laser diode/battery in a vacuum chamber. Accelerate the laser to a >>few thousand mph. Measure the time of flight speed of the photons >>emitted by the laser. Show that they were going faster than c. >>Or use my earlier suggestion of mounting a laser at the hub of a >>spinning wheel and using fiber optics to conduct the light from the >>laser to launch it tangentially to the edge of the wheel, thereby having >>a captive moving source that should, using an ultracentrifuge rotor for >>a wheel, allow you to reach supersonic speeds with your light source. >> >>But, before c+v/c-v light is acceptable, it MUST be demonstrable in the >>laboratory or someone is going to have to come up with a very good >>explanation of why it is NOT observable. Henri has NOT come up with such >>an explanation. > > But you simpy cannot perform an experiment of this nature on Earth. > Even if you did it on the tops of two high mountains 30 kms apart, the > biggest travel time differences are going to be too small to detect. It could be done with a good scope. We don't need 30 km. 3 would do fine. 2,500 mph, 3700 ft/s is 3.72 ppm of c. We should be able to measure a change of 3 ppm in the speed of light, shouldn't we? A 10 cm radius disk spinning at 106,722 rpm would give you that kind of speed at the edge. Ultra centrifuges spin that fast. So, we have to run in a vacuum. Spin both ways, you have 7.44 ppm. Light travels 3000 meters in 10 microseconds. If we used a 3 km path, we could expect to see changes equivalent to 1.1 cm change in path length. Short term stability is all that is needed. We just need long enough to spun up and down in both directions. > The maximum practical source velocity is never going to be much larger > than about 0.0000002c. (Remember you must be able to determine its exact > position). You will be trying to detect time differences of around 10^11 > seconds. You are talking about 1e-5 ppm. I am talking about 6 ppm. You are talking about 134 mph. I am talking about 2500 mph. You are talking about 5721 rpm. I am talking about 100,000 rpm. Of course, if you want higher speeds, rifles have muzzle velocities of over 5000 fps. Fire a mirror or laser like a bullet. > > It's just not on....even today. We can get much higher than 134 mph. >>> I've heard it all before, old son, and I've got the answers. Some may >>> be a little too hard for you to comprhend, though, even though they >>> are simple once you create your own model of ballistic light. Not that >>> you will bother, right? >> >>I have been helping Henri improve his program by asking him questions >>and looking over his code. > > That is true and I am grateful. > I am still finding minor errors and improving the whole program > generally. I look forward to seeing the improved version. >>> Even >>> Henri used a circular orbit for his first attempt, though I warned him >>> not to. c+v is very simple to understand, but modelling it is another >>> story, you have to use Kepler's law to do it right and reproduce >>> the light curves we see in Nature. A circular orbit is simply an orbit >>> with an eccentricity of zero and is the exception rather than the >>> rule. If you want to learn, old son, you have to do your homework and >>> you have think outside the box. >> >>If I didn't think 'outside the box', I would have left you and Henri >>long ago. > > Bob, since you are a relative newcomer here, you never had the pleasure > of witnessing how 'Androcles' alias 'Arthur Dent' got stuck into someone > he really didn't like. > I can assure you, he must consider you one of the more intelligent > people here or he wouldn't be so kind. I try to treat everyone with respect. I enjoy communicating with people that treat others with respect. -- 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: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox on 30 Jun 2005 00:07
Dear bz: "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns9684DBB983C2WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... .... >> But you simpy cannot perform an experiment of this >> nature on Earth. Even if you did it on the tops of >> two high mountains 30 kms apart, the biggest travel >> time differences are going to be too small to detect. > > It could be done with a good scope. We don't need > 30 km. 3 would do fine. > > 2,500 mph, 3700 ft/s is 3.72 ppm of c. > We should be able to measure a change of 3 ppm > in the speed of light, shouldn't we? "We" bounce light off of very high energy electrons to generate TeV photons for further experimentation. There is no surprise that total_path_length / (time_of_detection - time_of_emission) = c. The resulting energy is boosted by as much as gamma^2, depending on the reflection angle. How much room does this leave for c' <> c? David A. Smith |