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 2 Jul 2005 22:11 On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:29:26 -0400, "Rebmun" <rebmun(a)isp.com> wrote: > >"bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message >news:Xns96819C0CC7A8DWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1119814579.784047.167960(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> >>> >>> >>> bz wrote: >>>> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >>>> news:1119578949.505498.21960(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >>>> >>>> > 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, >>>> > >>>> >>>> The pulses must start from A and from B >>>> at the same time so that they travel the same distance. >>>> >>> LOL! >>> The light leaves A, takes time to get to B, reflects at B >>> and then returns to A. >> >> There is nothing to indicate reflection. >> >> [quote] >> We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be >> defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required >> by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel >> from B to A. [unquote] >> >> "we establish by definition that the "time" required for light to travel >> from A to be equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A." >> >> Notice, he does NOT say the time to travel from A to B and be reflected >> back to A. He says nothing about mirrors or reflections. >> >> He is talking about requirements for syncronizing clocks and explains that >> we must assume that it takes light the same time to travel the same path, >> no matter which way it is traveling that path. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > >The speed of light is a universal constantfro what should be the obvious >reason that the matter which we use in the instruments which measure that >speed use the velocity of light to control their parameters. In absolute >terms, the speed of light changes between velocity and elevation reference >frames. It is this effect which produces the relativisitc effects and >releases the energy of gravitation. The idea that the speed of light is a >constant follows from Dr. eisntein's hare-brained error in the derivation of >relativity and his attempt to plaster over that error by ascribing the >gravitational field to "curved space". > Good one, redbum. 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 2 Jul 2005 22:18 On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 07:57:37 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >"Rebmun" <rebmun(a)isp.com> wrote in message >news:b5c$42c6a4ce$d8080e06$4723(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >... >> The speed of light is a universal constantfro what should >> be the obvious reason that the matter which we use in >> the instruments which measure that speed use the >> velocity of light to control their parameters. In absolute >> terms, the speed of light changes between velocity and >> elevation reference frames. It is this effect which >> produces the relativisitc effects and releases the energy >> of gravitation. The idea that the speed of light is a >> constant follows from Dr. eisntein's hare-brained error in >> the derivation of relativity and his attempt to plaster over >> that error by ascribing the gravitational field to "curved >> space". > >Thus speaks the liar, spammer, and defamer Ernest Wittke. > >Who just raised even more errors in his logic. If our >instruments are affected by "local c", then in fact c *is* a >constant when measured. So it isn't so hare-brained that you >didn't just prove it yourself. > >Not that I expect reasoned discourse from you. > >David A. Smith > 'Uncurved space' is that which is curved in space that is considered curved in uncurved space. Put more simply, curved space is that which would be uncurved in space that is actually uncurved but would be considered curved wrt space that is considered curved in uncurved space. Get it? Which all goes to prove that light speed changes as it negotiates a gravity gradient. 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 2 Jul 2005 23:42 "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42c6f946$0$18650$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > OPPs! You are correct...sort of. The paths outside of > the image are real but you need a curved mirror to prove it > so that half wave adjacent paths don't cancel. I don't think > you'd disagee that 1/2 a telescope mirror is dimmer than a > whole telescope mirror... which was my point. I agree that 1/2 a telescope mirror IS dimmer. I just tried it. I put a black piece of paper over half my telescope's mirror and sure enough the image got dimmer. I thought it was just because it only collects half as many photons. > So when I am finished blushing Sounds like red shift, to me. > I'll be the one to recheck my clocks and arrows Beware the gin slings and error of out-rage-us for-tunes. and: > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22shut+up+and+calculate%22 &btnG=Google+Search "SUAC QM" It makes sense to me. If it works, flaunt it. Reminds me of the song 'Who shot the cat' ... or was that cat the Sherriff? Personally, I solve the entangled photon puzzle with the 'coin sawn in half' model. Split a coin so you have separate head and tail halves. Mail each half to different friends. As soon as one opens the letter, they immediately, instantly, faster than light, know what the other friend got. FTL communications. -- 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 3 Jul 2005 00:09 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:q5hec1luv5qut62lrpe17joau4mc2eskde(a)4ax.com: > On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:10:01 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:g4pcc1tpbcjvqqnn4cknab54vt3dnmci1g(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:19:49 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:hp01c1lh3je73ctsvk8ltttsih401i30q9(a)4ax.com: >>>> >>> >>>>>>> Here is another reference: >>>>>>> http://weblore.com/richard/ru_cam_ex_cepheid_star.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Cepheids are known for their precise variability which can be >>>>>>> measured to a fraction of a second." >>>>>> >>>>>>'can be measured to a fraction of a second' does not necessarily >>>>>>mean 'is constant to a fraction of a second'. >>>>>> >>>>>>There is no question that some cepheids are 'regular' for some >>>>>>period of time. There is also no question that most, if not all >>>>>>cepheids show some variations. >>>> >>>>> Weren't you the one who recently accused ME of moving the goalposts? >>>> >>>>Which goalposts did I move? I have been trying to show you that the >>>>'constancy of the cepheid' is overblown. >>> >>> That's not what the experts say. >> >>You have never been shy about challenging the 'experts' especially when >>the data does not support what the 'so called experts' say. >> >>You can download the data yourself. The data that I have seen does not >>justify the claim. > > Bob, all cepheids are noted for the constancy of period. > Some drift by seconds over a year. This is perfectly as predicted by the > BaT. You are neglecting the variation in period called 'period noise'. You are neglecting the variations in the data cause by the difficulty in estimating the exact magnitude of a star. You are neglecting the variations in the data cause by errors in time recording. All of these introduce an uncertainty into the measurement of the period. Those who look at the data after it has been smoothed and fitted to numerous data points may be tempted to say that the period is constant. Some have done so. It is misleading to do so. The data does NOT say that the period is constant. If the data is honestly handled, the estimated error will be included. Failure to include the error statistics leads some to believe, wrongly, that the period is exact. We can't honestly say that. >>>>> The BaT would predict that the periods of most cepheids should >>>>> steadily increase or decrease by varying degrees due to 'time >>>>> compression'. >>>> >>>>So, eventually the period reaches infinity or zero? >>> >>> No Bob. They would vary sinusoudally usually over very long periods of >>> time and only slightly....maybe up to a factor of four. >> >>Does time compression only apply to distant cepheids? > > Mainly, but it depends on the large orbit and the speed around that > orbit. ('large orbit' refers to the orbit around which the binary > barycentre is moving. Small orbit is that of a member of the binary pair > around the barycentre.) The barycenter for a binary star system does not move[except around the barycenter of its star cluster/galaxy], or are you talking about a trinary system? >>>>And AE says quite clearly that the earth is not unique. Every FoR >>>>throughout the universe sees the same miracle. >>> >>> If you believe in miracles there is no room for you in science. >>> Paul Andersen believes in fairies. >> >>I don't believe in miracles, but if they exist when starlight arrives >>here at c, then the same miracle happens everywhere. >> >>Note: I am not calling it a miracle. I just call it a property of light. > > I call it a meaningless unproven postulate that has set physics back 100 > years. > It is one of the most tested postulates that has ever been proposed. >>>>> Why don't you retaliate with this theory: >>>>> Light leaves stars at an infinite range of speeds. WE on Earth can >>>>> only detect that which is moving at c wrt us. >>>> >>>>It would require an infinite amount of energy to run my flashlight. >>> >>> You had better charge the battery then. >> >>In my universe, photons only go at one speed, so my flashlight doesn't >>need an infinite amount of energy. > > Speed is always relative to something. > Right. In my universe, photons only go at one speed. That speed is the same when measure relative to any FoR attached to any body that has rest mass in the universe. >>I was pointing out that your theory would violate conservation of >>energy. > > None of MY theories violates that. > there is one theory that does however. > > It is the theory that explains why so much energy exists in the universe > at all. > >>>>> That should make you think. It might not be as silly as it sounds. >>>> >>>>It is only viable if you throw away the principles of conservation of >>>>mass and energy. >>> >>> I didn't say it was variable. I said it possesses all velocities. >>> We only detect one. >> >>If it possesses all velocities, it must also possess all energies. > > It might not move at all...just appear to. Get real. >>> Is that a possibility? >> >>Not in this universe. >> >>> ......Like using a wave analyser on white noise. >> >>A wave analyser on white noise shows all frequencies are present in >>equal amounts. The energy is spread across the spectrum. If you put a >>passband filter on the signal, you will only pick up a small percentage >>of the power within that passband. >> >>The amplifier, however, had to output much more power than makes it >>through the filter. >> >>Your idea will not fly. > > Where's your imagination, Bob? No thanks, I'll stick to science. Thank you anyway. > I'm only trying to give Einstein a way out of his mess. > Einstein doesn't need an out. He has long ceased to worry. >>>>>>Cepheids show some distinctive characteristics, such as rapid cyclic >>>>>>shifts in stellar type. >>>> >>>>> That is related to observed brightness and 'estimated' size. >>>>> I would expect variations in estimated luminosity. >>>> >>>>That is relative to the shape of emission spectrum and the absorption >>>>lines in the spectrum after doppler shift is correct for. >>>> >>>>It is related to the size and temperature of the star. >>> >>> There are about four inter-related factors. A mistake in one will >>> throw the others out. >> >>That is why your program needs sanity checking. >> >>> If for instance a star appeared cooler than it really was, ..because >>> of gravitational redshift >> >>Such red shift does not make the star appear cooler. Red shift shifts >>the peak of emission but it also shifts absorbtion lines. The >>temperature estimates take red shift into account. > > How do you know if the absorption lines have shifted by the same amount > as the emission spectrum?...You don't. You look at the intensity of the spectrum. If the effect is due to doppler shift, things shift together. If they don't shift together, you have something other-than/in-additon-to doppler shift taking place. >>>, (the BaT type...same as GR) then its size would >>> have to be exaggerated to account for the amount of energy it was >>> radiating, as estimated from its peak spectral wavelength and its >>> distance from us. >> >>Only if they fail to correct for doppler shift. > > the uncertain doppler shift? I am not certain which uncertain doppler shift you are talking about. >>>>BaT should not cause changes in the type of star. Only changes in the >>>>atmospheric chemistry of the star can do that. >>> >>> But what is seen, based on constant c, might not be what is real. >> >>Science only deals with what is observable, identifiable and verifiable. > > Scientists should look beyond the 'obvious'. They do. Observable, identifiable, verifiable does not imply obvious. >>When you start talking about what we see not being what is really >>happening, then you step outside of science, into religion. > > The raindrops moving diagonally past Einstein's train window still took > the same time to reach the ground. Nope. The passing train slowed them down. Some never even made it to the ground at all. Actually, it depends on who's clock is being use to measure their decent. -- 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... on 3 Jul 2005 01:44
bz wrote: > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in > news:42c6f946$0$18650$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > > > OPPs! You are correct...sort of. The paths outside of > > the image are real but you need a curved mirror to prove it > > so that half wave adjacent paths don't cancel. I don't think > > you'd disagee that 1/2 a telescope mirror is dimmer than a > > whole telescope mirror... which was my point. > > I agree that 1/2 a telescope mirror IS dimmer. I just tried it. I put a > black piece of paper over half my telescope's mirror and sure enough the > image got dimmer. > > I thought it was just because it only collects half as many photons. Put both halves of the mirror back together but with a 1/2 wavelength offset. If you still think the same you might need to dig up R.P. Feynman and give him a piece of your mind. > > > So when I am finished blushing > > Sounds like red shift, to me. > > > I'll be the one to recheck my clocks and arrows > > Beware the gin slings and error of out-rage-us for-tunes. > > and: > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22shut+up+and+calculate%22 > &btnG=Google+Search > > "SUAC QM" It makes sense to me. If it works, flaunt it. How about QED ? It works better than QM, but not good enough to flaunt. > > Reminds me of the song 'Who shot the cat' ... or was that cat the Sherriff? > > Personally, I solve the entangled photon puzzle with the 'coin sawn in > half' model. Split a coin so you have separate head and tail halves. > Mail each half to different friends. As soon as one opens the letter, they > immediately, instantly, faster than light, know what the other friend got. > FTL communications. > I like that analogy. It might have saved Zeilenger et al a lot of money they spent flipping coins in a lab instead of a casino. The problem is with coins that have no tail. They have a head and a not_head. Outside of the near-field, why can't ya use a conductive reflector to turn a not_head signal into a head signal? <<Reflections will reverse the sense of circular polarization. >> https://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/POLARIZA.HTM I am aware of the many claims of "quantum magic" http://www.google.com/search?q=%22parametric+down+converter%22+entangle&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N but you know what extraordinary claims demand. I think the availability of quantum dot devices is sorting out some of the so called experimentalists that were just playing probability tricks on themselves. Sue... > > > -- > 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 |