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 28 Mar 2005 10:08 kenseto wrote: > ...successive wave crests remains the same distance apart in the ether. Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml No aether That's bullshit, registered at crank dot net, Seto! http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net The speed of light is *independent* of its wavelength and frequency. Determined empirically. In all these years of posting, Seto makes no progress in physics whatsoever--and apparently chooses to wallow in his own ignorance and stooopidity. Thank you, Seto for registering at crank dot net. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
From: Sam Wormley on 28 Mar 2005 10:14 Henri Wilson wrote: > If any prediction of SR is correct (which I doubt) it is because the equations > of LET apply in 'local aether frames'. > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml No aether
From: nbmaia@gmail.com on 28 Mar 2005 12:01 You need to remember that SR not only says that time will change when observed by different reference frames at different speeds but also the distance will change. The speed of the light being the distance divided by time will remain constant (when in vacuum). kenseto wrote: > SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant. > > Questions: > Why a clock second used to define the speed of light is not an interval of > universal time?? > Why does SR say that a clock second in one frame does not correspond to a > clock second in another frame when the speed of light is a universal > constant?? > > Ken Seto
From: PD on 28 Mar 2005 12:56 kenseto wrote: > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1111679730.124029.134510(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:1111603845.657565.9240(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> > > wrote > > > > in > > > > > message news:q887h2-gbu.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net... > > > > > > In sci.physics, kenseto > > > > > > <kenseto(a)erinet.com> > > > > > > wrote > > > > > > on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:31:56 GMT > > > > > > <w%V%d.6496$rL3.4855(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "robert j. kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.net> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:3aamtkF6bbkreU2(a)individual.net... > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> kenseto wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > That's becasue you failed to recognize that Doppler shift > > > > > > >> > is due to varying speed of light. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The speed of light in vacuo relative to any inertial frame > > is a > > > > well > > > > > > >> measured constant. It has been shown experimentally again > > and > > > > again and > > > > > > >> has yet to be falsified. The speed of light in vacuo is > > > > independent of > > > > > > >> th motion of the source or the observer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The speed of light is measured to be constant because we > > > > arbitrarily > > > > > assumed > > > > > > > that the Doppler shift is due to wave length change. If wave > > > > length is > > > > > > > assumed to be contant then the speed of light is different > > from > > > > > different > > > > > > > sources. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume two orbiting stars, far away, with barycenter > > > > > > motionless with respect to Earth. > > > > > > > > > > This assumption is already wrong. There is no object in the > > universe > > > > that is > > > > > motionless wrt the Earth. The Earth itself is in a constant state > > of > > > > > absolute motion. > > > > > > > > The Earth itself is in a constant state of motion. You cannot state > > one > > > > way or the other whether that motion is absolute. > > > > > > All objects in the universe (including the earth) are in a state of > > absolute > > > motion. > > > > And you know this how? Given any 19,475 objects in the universe, > > demonstrate that it cannot be the case that 19,474 of them are > > absolutely moving and 1 of them is not. > > Sigh....All objects are observed to be moving wrt us and the universe is > observed to be in a state of accelerated expansion. Therefore all objects in > the universe are in a state of moving. Oh, come on. My coffee cup is not moving with respect to the table. And just because the *center* of the next galaxy happens to be moving with respect to the *center* of this galaxy does not mean that every star in that galaxy is moving with respect to our sun. I'll give you a simple example. I'm driving along a road at 20 mph and I throw my Mickey-D's French Fry wrapper backwards out the window at 20 mph. Is the wrapper moving or not, and with respect to what? I'll give you another example. Suppose I look at the relative motion of all the dots painted onto a balloon that is inflating. But the balloon is also resting on the table, and one of the painted dots is precisely at the point of contact between the table and the inflating balloon. Note that, as the balloon inflates, ALL of the dots are in a state of relative motion, including the one at the point of contact. But if the table defined zero velocity, there is one dot that is not moving, even though it has the same relative motion status as all the other dots on the balloon. It is simply NOT an empirical fact that everything is moving relative to everything else, and it is also thus an improper conclusion from that that everything is in a state of *absolute* motion. [Punchline: I'm not arguing with you that everything is in a state of motion. For every object, one can choose an inertial frame where that object is in motion, and since all inertial frames are physically equivalent, there is no object that can be said to be absolutely at rest. However, is it your improper logical jump that everything is therefore absolutely in motion. Rather, the proper statement is that there is *no such thing* as absolute motion or absolute rest. It is simply not the case that every object in the universe MUST be logically categorizable as absolutely at rest or absolutely in motion. Your logical misstep is based on this presupposition, which is in fact wrong.] > > > > > Observed relative motion for two objects A and B is the vector > > > components difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion > > and the > > > vector component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and > > B. > > > > > > >If it were, you would > > > > be able to rank objects in the universe according to their absolute > > > > motion, and you would be able to calculate or measure the absolute > > > > velocity of the Earth. > > > > > > No ....you would not be able to do that. > > > > Why not? Suppose I determine the absolute velocity of the Earth using > > your experiment below, and I measure the relative velocity of any > > object with respect to the Earth using YOUR algorithm (and I quote): > > "Observed relative motion for two objects A and B is the vector > > components difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion > > and the vector component of B's absolute motion along the line joining > > A and B." > > Now I algebraically solve for the absolute motion of that object. Now I > > repeat for other objects, and in the process, rank them by their > > absolute motion. Why can I not do this? > > You can determine the vector component of B's absolute motion this way. But > you would not know the true magnitude of B's absolute motion. > OK, and here is where your computational weakness is showing through. First of all, your definition of observed relative motion is incorrect. If I have a passenger on Train A and a passenger on Train B, and the two trains are going in opposite directions at 45 mph each on adjacent tracks. At the moment where the two passengers are directly across from each other (at their point of closest approach), their relative velocity with respect to each other is 90 mph. However, the component of their relative velocity along the line joining them is zero. There are other problems as well, but let's take it one error at a time. PD
From: kenseto on 28 Mar 2005 13:46
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts(a)lucent.com> wrote in message news:d293gr$1au(a)netnews.proxy.lucent.com... > kenseto wrote: > > I think these are one-way isotropy experiments. OWLS is isotropic but the > > value of OWLS is not c. > > It is not mathematically possible for OWLS to be isotropic and have a > value different from TWLS, which is known to be c for any > locally-inertial measurement (including numerous highly-accurate > laboratory measurements). For a specific distance of separation between the two synchronized clocks OWLS can be measured to be the same in all directions (isotropic). However, the value of OWLS is not c because of the absolute motion of the distant clock is in the vertical direction. This causes the first portion of the light ray to miss the detector and thus the distant clock will register a larger arrival time for the light ray. This means that the value of OWLS is dependent on the distance of separation between the two clocks. Ken Seto |