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... on 1 Jul 2005 12:17 bz wrote: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:2st9c1h5qs4fi28oeqafls5t4pc0bqqjko(a)4ax.com: > > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:25:49 +0000 (UTC), bz > > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >>news:s7e7c1pu2p6dhipa07l6upr7oru6msuoft(a)4ax.com: > >> > > > >>> Nah! > >>> Below the critical distance no light overtakes any other. > >>> Light from certain parts of the orbit bunches together. Light from > >>> other parts becomes more dispersed. > >> > >>Then Algol can not be used as an example of a c' variable as it is a > >>spectroscopic binary. > > > > Stars that are regarded as eclipsing binaries may not be. > > Of course not. Of course, you must then explain the spectroscopic data, the > doppler shift data as well as the photometric data. All are consistent with > an eclipsing binary. > > > The same curve is produced by the BaT, using only one star. > > As I pointed out elsewhere, the companion star can eiethr be 'cool0 or > > its velocity may be such that it is well away from the distances > > required to affects its brightnes curve. > > All data must be consistent. Stellar type is inconsistent with BaT. > > >>>>These photons will have different doppler shifts. > >>>>They will be arriving at the same time. > >>>>This will broaden the lines. > >>> > >>> No you are wrong on that one Bob. Run the 'wavefront' section of my > >>> now improved program and you will see. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>> > >>> My theory is that most variables stars are either rotating around dark > >>> partners OR the partner is of such different size that its velocity is > >>> very different and it is way below the critical distance to the > >>> observer. > >>> > >>> The two members of a binary pair don't share the same critical > >>> distance. > >> > >>You need to develope a 'critical distance' formula, so that the term can > >>be rigorously defined. > >> > >>Is this correct: beyond the critical distance, a star no longer displays > >>the effects of BaT? > > > > beyond the CD, multiple images can be expected. > > But you have cited critical distance as a reason to NOT to see variation in > brightness, haven't you. > > >>Or is this correct: below the critical distance, BaT effects can not be > >>observed? > > > > The critical distance is very dependent on radial velocity. Many stars > > are just too close to exhibit much variation. > > They MUST be close for short variable cycles. You can't get wide separation > and rapid orbiting without velocities that are inconsistent with the > observed doppler shifts. > > > In the case of a pair > > whose masses are very different, the velocity of the larger one might be > > only a fraction of that of the smaller. So one star might show > > considerable variation in brightness while the other appears almost > > stable. the spectrum would still show the opposite doppler shifts of > > both. > > But it will show the velocities of each. Those must be consistent with the > orbital periods. In a two body system, the periods must be equal. The more > massive object must move slower and in a smaller orbit > > > >>>>We do NOT need OWLS to establish c'=c+v. > > > >>>>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. > >>> > >>> light takes about 3E-11 to move that far. > >> > >>3.7e-11 seconds. > >> > >>That is 37 pico seconds. > >>In the age of femto second laser pulses, that is an eternity. > >> > >>TDRs can see discontinuities 1.5 mm apart on a transmission line. > >>http://www.picosecond.com/objects/4020_high_res_TDR.pdf > >> > >>So it is certainly possible to capture and display our data with > >>sufficient time resolution. > >> > >>And we only need to see how much it CHANGES when we change the speed of > >>the source. > >> > >>>>Short term stability is all that is needed. We just need long enough > >>>>to spun up and down in both directions. > >>> > >>> You do it Bob. > >> > >>I wonder how many BaT enthusiasts there are in the world? > >>If there are 1000 and we can get each to kick in 500 bucks, we can do > >>it. We rent the equipment for 30 days and run the experiment. > > > > But it would have to be done on a couple of high mountains. Atmospheric > > effects would drown the time differences you are looking for. > > Do it in a vacuum chamber to avoid extinction. > > http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/200002news/200002han.html You have of course calculated the Ewald-Oseen Extinction distance for such a chamber ??? http://www.ece.eps.hw.ac.uk/~amc/em3/waveguide2/waveguide2_2.html http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html death by a 1000 cuts.....or being attacked by killer bees :o) Sue... 377 ohms ;-) > > >>>>> 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. > >>> > >>> You are talking about measuring the light travel time, NOT the > >>> diffference in two travel times. > >> > >>I am talking about the time for light to travel between two detectors. > >> > >>Recording that time for several different source speeds. > >> > >>> Your '6ppm' is what you need to measure OWLS to one significant > >>> figure. > >> > >>I don't need to know the absolute speed of light, just compare it as the > >>source speed is changed. > >> > >>>>Of course, if you want higher speeds, rifles have muzzle velocities of > >>>>over 5000 fps. Fire a mirror or laser like a bullet. > >>> > >>> You have to know exactly where it is when it reflects/emits the light. > >> > >>That is easy to determine, you just have it 'break' a beam of light. > >>You used two such beams to measure the bullets velocity. > >> > >>You bounce pulses off of the front surface continuously. > >>If you build a laser into the projectile, you have it emitting pulses > >>continuously. > >> > >>>>> It's just not on....even today. > >>>>We can get much higher than 134 mph. > >>> > >>> Sorry I was a factor of ten out there. 0.000002c. > >>> > >>> That involves spinning a one metre circumference (1ft diam) wheel at > >>> about 300 rps) or 18000 rpm. > >> > >>1 metre is 3.281 feet. :) > > > > You didn't read properly. Overworked today, maybe.... > > right. > > > I said 'metre circumference'. > > That is about 1 foot diameter. > > very close. 1.044. interesting coincidence. > > >>I would rather spin a smaller wheel at a higher speed. We get more > >>pulses. And the technology is already there in the laboratory ultra > >>centrifuge. > >> > >>Regardless, it is possible to do. > > > > One foot diameter. > > ok. > > >>> So the time differences you want to resolve are around E-10. > >>> Maintaining a constant distance might be the biggest problem. > >>> > >> > >>We can measure the distance with another laser beam from a stationary > >>source right next to the rotating source [and securely mounted to the > >>same baseplate that the spinning source is mounted on.] > > > > Best if you can use the same source and a couple of mirrors, one moving > > and the other not....then you can be certain that the emission times are > > within the required tolerance. > > I was going to use use cw laser for the moving source. > I was going to time with two detectors. I am REALLY measuring time of > flight but don't care about exact time since I will be comparing times as > the rotation speed is varied. > > -- > 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 1 Jul 2005 13:44 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1120234662.207964.48120(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> >> Do it in a vacuum chamber to avoid extinction. >> >> http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/200002news/200002han.html > > You have of course calculated the Ewald-Oseen Extinction distance > for such a chamber ??? > > http://www.ece.eps.hw.ac.uk/~amc/em3/waveguide2/waveguide2_2.html The propagation mode it TE_oo, so we don't need to worry. > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html That one depends on the dyelectric used. We are using red dye 2, so as long as we don't drink it, we are ok. The Henri extinction distance is the one we gotta worry about. That is usually n-1 where n is the current instrument size. > death by a 1000 cuts.....or being attacked by killer bees :o) 2b or knot 2b. > Sue... > 377 ohms ;-) I take it you are spaced out. We will have trouble matchine your impudence. We can try a shunt feed. That should work with the proper sized stub. -- 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 1 Jul 2005 15:07 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns968681AC41F32WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in > news:1120234662.207964.48120(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > >> > >> Do it in a vacuum chamber to avoid extinction. > >> > >> http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/200002news/200002han.html > > > > You have of course calculated the Ewald-Oseen Extinction distance > > for such a chamber ??? > > > > http://www.ece.eps.hw.ac.uk/~amc/em3/waveguide2/waveguide2_2.html > > The propagation mode it TE_oo, so we don't need to worry. > > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html > > That one depends on the dyelectric used. > We are using red dye 2, so as long as we don't drink it, we are ok. You are filling the chamber with dye and pretending it is a vacuum ? << In a completely hollow guide waves with both and parallel to the axis of the guide are impossible. But with a conductor along the axis these waves are possible. Their dispersion relation is simply >> http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node6.html The TE10 mode is the dominant mode of a rectangular waveguide with a>b, since it has the lowest attenuation of all modes. Either m or n can be zero, but not both. http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/waveguide.htm Sue... > > The Henri extinction distance is the one we gotta worry about. That is > usually n-1 where n is the current instrument size. IMHO Henri is subscribing to the logic that a slow postal service can be improved by disbanding the slow postal service. ;-) Sue... > > > death by a 1000 cuts.....or being attacked by killer bees :o) > > 2b or knot 2b. > > > Sue... > > 377 ohms ;-) > > I take it you are spaced out. We will have trouble matchine your impudence. > We can try a shunt feed. That should work with the proper sized stub. > > > > -- > 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 1 Jul 2005 16:09 "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42c59480$0$18640$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns968681AC41F32WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in >> news:1120234662.207964.48120(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> >> Do it in a vacuum chamber to avoid extinction. >> >> >> >> http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/200002news/200002han.html >> > >> > You have of course calculated the Ewald-Oseen Extinction distance >> > for such a chamber ??? >> > >> > http://www.ece.eps.hw.ac.uk/~amc/em3/waveguide2/waveguide2_2.html >> >> The propagation mode it TE_oo, so we don't need to worry. >> >> > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.h >> > tml >> >> That one depends on the dyelectric used. >> We are using red dye 2, so as long as we don't drink it, we are ok. > You are filling the chamber with dye and pretending it is a vacuum ? That depends on the dyelectric constant. With the right dye, if you pump the chamber with a nitrogen laser, you can reduce the attenuation below zero. > << In a completely hollow guide waves with both and parallel to the > axis of the guide are impossible. But with a conductor along the axis > these waves are possible. Their dispersion relation is simply >> > http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node6.html > > The TE10 mode is the dominant mode of a rectangular waveguide > with a>b, since it has the lowest attenuation of all modes. > Either m or n can be zero, but not both. > http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/waveguide.htm When I send my laser beam down the S-band wave guide, I can't tell if I have TE or TM mode propagation. In fact, I get the same results on my x- band wave guide. Any idea why? >> >> The Henri extinction distance is the one we gotta worry about. That is >> usually n-1 where n is the current instrument size. > > IMHO Henri is subscribing to the logic that a slow postal service > can be improved by disbanding the slow postal service. ;-) Well, if the BaT theory worked, we could throw postmen at the letters to speed things up. :) -- 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 1 Jul 2005 17:15
377 ohms? Dorothy said there's no place like ohm, and she went all the way from Kansas to Oz. In a tornado, what? Mebbe tornado alley leads to Australia, but I prefer Diagon Alley, there's no yellow brick roads there. AD. |