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: Sam Wormley on 27 Mar 2005 23:42 Tom Roberts wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: > >> There has NEVER been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted >> by an observation. NEVER! > > > I would not say that so unconditionally -- there are numerous > observations that at least appear to contradict SR or GR. And there are > some phenomena that call into question the validity of GR. For instance: > dark matter > dark energy > the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer and other spacecraft > As far as I am concerned, the scientific jury is still out on these (and > probably will be for some time...). > > But I can say that there have been no reliable and reproducible > experiments or observations that contradict SR within its domain of > applicability. > > > Tom Roberts tjroberts(a)lucent.com Until there is credible evidence that they are wrong, they remain the tools of choice in their domains. To find something wrong and understanding the reason will be very exciting!
From: Henri Wilson on 28 Mar 2005 03:33 On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:48:48 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. > > > There has NEVER been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted > by an observation. NEVER! If any prediction of SR is correct (which I doubt) it is because the equations of LET apply in 'local aether frames'. Einstein's version of aether theory is plain nonsense. 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 28 Mar 2005 03:47 On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:54:28 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:i9ke41pi6c62gfr6mkb14efoeher4odrg4(a)4ax.com: > >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:36:41 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>because photons always travel at the speed of light, which is constant. >> >> There is no such animal as 'speed of light' or 'speed of anything' for >> that matter. Speed must be specified relative to something else. > >Light travels at c relative to any observer. Who said? > >>>>>Why, when we measure the speed of those photons, do the photons seem >>>>>to move at the same speed? >>>> >>>> Silly boy. Nobody has measured the OW speed of light under any >>>> circumstance. >>> >>>Define 'one way speed of light'. > >You still haven't defined the 'one way speed of light'. listen bz, read up on this before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. > >>>I fire a laser pulse at two detectors, 1 at 1 meter and 1 at 10 meters >>>from the laser. I have a timer located mid way between the two >>>detectors. >>> >>>When the pulse hits the first detector, it starts the timer >>>When the pulse hits the second detector, it stops the timer. >>> >>>Taking into account all the propagation delays, I calculate the time >>>that it took the light pulse to travel between detector 1 and detector >>>2. >>> >>>Why is this not the 'one way speed of light'??? >> >> Ask any of your SRian colleagues. > >I ask you because you made the claim that the doppler effect was due to >changes in speed of light rather than changes in wavelength. It can be. 'Frequency' of an EM signal is the number of wavecrests passing per second. Naturally, that is dependent on observer speed relative to the source. ...but please recall that I have raised the question about how a diffraction grating can measure doppler shifted light. > >> >> Clue: How do you synchronize the separated clocks? > >In my experiment there is no need for separated clocks. You have two separated clocks but haven't realized it. > >>>>>How distant must the source be? Why must it be distant? I can't see >>>>>any reason that photons from a distance source should be different >>>>>from those from a nearby source. >>>> >>>> The effect will only work in a pure vacuum....far purer than anything >>>> we can produce here. >>> >>>Oh, that makes it nice. I can claim a special effect that can only be >>>measured when the moon is full and in the constellation 'southern >>>cross'. You can't disprove my claim because the moon is never in the >>>constellation when it is full. [it is, in fact, never in the southern >>>cross.] >> >> unrelated drivel. > >The claim that the effect will only work in a pure vacuum is similar. It >means the effect will never be observed. I say there is a critical density of matter, below which all kinds of strange things happen. > >>>>>In my mind, 5 feet is distant compared to the wavelength of light. >>>>>Will you allow me to call 5 feet 'distant'? >>>> >>>> ULF wavelengths are longer. >>>> They are EM. >>> >>>ULF? Do you mean UHF? ULF would be ultra low frequency, and we would be >>>talking about wavelengths in the thousands of km. >> >> Well, ain't that longer that 5 feet? > >Yes, but what did it have to do with my question as to what you considered >to be 'distant'. 5 feet is NOT distant compared with say, the wavelength of 100 hz EM. > >>>What does that have to do with light? We were talking about light, >>>weren't we? Why did you suddenly jump to talking about 196.7 MHz >>>(lamda=5 ft). Lets get back to light. 5 feet is about 3 million >>>wavelengths for 500 nm light. That seems 'distant' to me. >> >> Sorry, you aren't making much sense. It was YOU who raised the 5 feet >> issue, not I. > >I was trying to extablish what you consider 'at a distance'. because you >said the 'light changes speed rather than wavelength' can only be observed >at a distance. I asked if 5 feet was far enough when talking about light. > >If you say NO, I will ask why not. If you say YES, then we can go into the >lab and test your theory. > >So how far is 'distant'? Sorry, I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. 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 28 Mar 2005 03:58 On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:45:51 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:29:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >>> >>> And light moves at 'c' wrt its observers! >> >> And which experiment demonstrates that? > > All of them to date! Wormley, it is true according to the ballistic theory that TWLS experiments DO reveal the true value of OW light speed between objects mutually at rest. It is indeed 'c'. I gather you are agreeing with this. However nobody has ever measured the OW light speed from a moving source. I gather you will also agree with this. 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: Jerry on 28 Mar 2005 05:21
Henri Wilson wrote: > Wormley, it is true according to the ballistic theory that TWLS > experiments DO reveal the true value of OW light speed between > objects mutually at rest. It is indeed 'c'. > > I gather you are agreeing with this. > > However nobody has ever measured the OW light speed from a > moving source. False. One-way light speed from moving sources has been measured many times. The results are quite unambiguous. The speed is always c. Alvaeger, Farley, Kjellman and Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964) Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, p. 147 (1964) Beckmann and Mandies, Radio. Sci. 69D (1965), p623. Brecher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977) Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135, 1071 B (1964) Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963) Google search shows that the above references have been provided to you, or on threads known to be read by you, multiple times. You have never bothered to look them up, and have always discounted their unambigous message without having read them. Jerry's big brother P.S. Jerry is a gender-neutral name. About 20% of all Jerrys are female. (For example, supermodel/actress Jerry Hall) My sister's real name is also gender neutral. |