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: bz on 28 Mar 2005 20:16 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:bu5h4153amrok96f30g78n1i6t938kegt6(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:59:57 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:4hgf4152vbnmi93d0aqd2adk72u1qevbab(a)4ax.com: >> >>> 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? >> >>The data. >> >>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one- >>wa y%20tests [quote] >>as of this writing there are no reproducible and generally-accepted >>experiments that are inconsistent with SR, within its domain of >>applicability. [unquote] >>The author has reviewed many experiments. >> >>> >>>> >>>>>>>>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 am not the one that said: >>>>>>> Silly boy. Nobody has measured the OW speed of light under any >>>>>>> circumstance. >> >>How do YOU define 'one way speed of light'? It must be different from >>the way others do because MANY experiments have measured something >>called 'one way speed of light' but it must be different from your >>definition. I wanted yours. > > The OW speed of ligght has been inferred from TW light speed > experiments, which produce the answer 'c'. ok. > > In actual fact, it this correct when all parts of the measuring > apparatus are at rest. > In such cases, according top the ballistic theory, TWLS=OWLS. > ok. >> >>> >>>> >>>>>>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. >>> >> >>Frequency is not velocity. I can measure the frequency AND the velocity. >>When I do, I find the frequency has shifted, but not the velocity. > > Sorry, you cannot measure the velocity of an EM wave relative to > yourself. There is no known way. I know the wave is launched from a moving source, an LED at the end of a moving fan blade. I start a timer when the photons from the LED pass the first detector. I stop timer and report time when the photons from the LED reach the second detector. I know distance between detectors. I know time speed = distance/time I have just measured the time. What is so hard about that????? Where is there a flaw in the experiment? >>> ..but please recall that I have raised the question about how a >>> diffraction grating can measure doppler shifted light. >> >>Do you understand how a diffraction grating works on non doppler shifted >>light? It works the same on doppler shifted light. > > That's what I said. > It is a function of wavelength only. > > So what might 'wavelength' refer to in the case of an individual photon? lamda = h nu dual slits work on single photons, I expect gratings to work on single photons too. How would photons moving at different speeds solve a mystery here? >>>>> 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. >>show me. > Why don't you ask your relativity expert, Tom Roberts. YOU said I have two separate clocks. Show me. >>>>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. >>Does that critical density occur anywhere? If not, then strange things >>are never observed. > It occurs in deep space. > One 'strange thing' that IS observed is that light speed is source > dependent. Thus we see many variable star brightness curves that agree > with the BaT. It is NOT observed that light speed is source dependent. It is observed that light frequency is source dependent. You insist that frequency shift comes from speed shift. Show me evidence. Show me an experiment that I can do that will support your contention. I have suggested experiments that will falsify your contention. >>>>> 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. >>Lets get back to light again, is 5 feet 'distant' with respect to 500 nm >>EM radiation? [visible light, in case you are wondering]. > So what? So, you claimed that 1) doppler effect is due to a change in speed of light. 2) the effect only takes place 'at a distance' I am trying to establish just how far the moving source must be from my test equipment before you will accept that your 'at a distance' criteria has been met. You keep bobbing and weaving like a fighter ducking punches. So, once again, what do I have to do to prove to you that the movement of the source does NOT change the speed of the light that is emitted, it only changes the frequency/wavelength???? What experimental data would you accept? >>>>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. >> >>If 5 feet is 'distant' where 500 nm light is concerned (and I think it >>should be because it is millions of wavelenghts) then we can test your >>statements in the lab with a 5 ft optical bench and some other >>equipment. > > You will need two separated clocks that can only be synched with light. Why do I need two separated clocks? If I had observers on separate platforms, as in Einsteins experiment, THEN I would need clocks that were synced with light. I don't need two clocks because my source is not in uniform linear motion. My source keeps coming toward me, again and again. It only approximates linear motion that for the time during which the rotating wheel with an LED or laser has the source moving in the direction of my detectors. None the less, it should be sufficient to allow us to observe doppler shift. We should be able to observe that the shift varies with the speed of the fan that has the Sources mounted on the blade tips. We should be able to time the speed of photons emitted by the source as the photons pass between detector 1 and detector 2. If you insist, We can even have the fan mounted in a vacuum chamber and pull a hard vacuum on it. If the photons leaving the moving source are moving at c+v, then we should see that they take less time to transit between the detectors. If the fan is stopped, the slower photons should take longer to go between the detectors. If it doesn't take more time, then your contention is wrong. -- 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: kenseto on 29 Mar 2005 08:37 <nbmaia(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1112029274.187136.235920(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > 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). Precisely. But that would mean that the speed of light based on a clock second is not a universal constant because different observers will use different "duration" seconds to measure the speed of light. What this mean is that the constancy of the light speed as measured by different observers is a constant math ratio as follows: Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the rod. This new definition will make SR compastible with the ether theory. In fact it makes SR into an ether theory. :-) Ken Seto > > 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: kenseto on 29 Mar 2005 09:00 "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1112032615.040480.171680(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > 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... > > > > 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. But you can't use the table as reference for absolute motion (motion in space). The table is in a state of absolute motion in space. Therefore your coffee cup is also in a state of absolute motion in space. >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. You keep on using other objects as reference for absolute motion. This is bogus. Absolute motion is not wrt any visible object. >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? Both you and the wrapper are in the same state of absolute motion before you throw it. After you throw it (apply a force to it) the wrapper will have a different state of absolute motion than you. > > 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. Sigh....same example as above. You use the table as reference for absolute motion. This is a bogus assumption. The table is also in a state of absolute motion. > > 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. It is an emperical fact that everything is in a state of absolute motion. Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of their vector components along the line joining A and B. > > [Punchline: I'm not arguing with you that everything is in a state of > motion. Yes you are. >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. Precisely....every objerct in the universe is in a state of absolute motion. >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. Sigh...if there is no absolute rest that means that all objects are in a state of absolute motion. 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. Sigh...you are using relative velocity as absolute motion!!! Relative velocity is the vector difference of their absolute motions along the line joining the two trains. Ken Seto
From: Sam Wormley on 29 Mar 2005 09:29 kenseto wrote: > > If the experimental result is not as predicted by my theory then my theory > is wrong. it's that simple. That is correct, Seto, your theory is contradicted by experimental results!
From: kenseto on 29 Mar 2005 09:25
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message news:WCd2e.113287$r55.12811(a)attbi_s52... > kenseto wrote: > > > > > If the experimental result is not as predicted by my theory then my theory > > is wrong. it's that simple. > > That is correct, Seto, your theory is contradicted by experimental results! > Hey idiot runt....the experiment as outlined in my link has not been performed. So where is the experimental results that contradicted my theory?? Ken Seto |