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: kenseto on 21 Mar 2005 09:54 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts(a)lucent.com> wrote in message news:0co%d.8524$ZB6.4230(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... > (sigh -- asked and answered many times....) > > kenseto wrote: > > SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant. > > Yes, and this is in excellent agreement with real observations of the > world we inhabit. > > > > Questions: > > Why a clock second used to define the speed of light is not an interval of > > universal time?? > > That is not observed in the world we inhabit. Identical clocks moving > over different paths and then reuniting are observed to display > different elapsed times. So there is nothing "universal" about the > "duration of a clock second". SR predicts the same about the lengths of > rulers, but there are no definitive observations of that. > > There are two simple and obvious ways for a speed to be universal: > a) clocks and rulers are also universal > b) clocks and rulers are not universal, but changes in their > measurements offset each other so the ratio known as speed remains > universal for light rays. > > The world we inhabit has selected b. Live with it. Move on. Ah....OK now we have an agreement. The speed of light is NOT a universal constant. But rather it is a constant math ratio in all inertial frames as follows: Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time (universal time) content for a clcok second co-moving with the ruler. However, this new definition for the speed 0of light makes SR into a special aether theory .:-) Ken Seto
From: Sam Wormley on 21 Mar 2005 10:09 kenseto wrote: > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts(a)lucent.com> wrote in message > news:0co%d.8524$ZB6.4230(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... > >>(sigh -- asked and answered many times....) >> >>kenseto wrote: >> >>>SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant. >> >>Yes, and this is in excellent agreement with real observations of the >>world we inhabit. >> >> >> >>>Questions: >>>Why a clock second used to define the speed of light is not an interval > > of > >>>universal time?? >> >>That is not observed in the world we inhabit. Identical clocks moving >>over different paths and then reuniting are observed to display >>different elapsed times. So there is nothing "universal" about the >>"duration of a clock second". SR predicts the same about the lengths of >>rulers, but there are no definitive observations of that. >> >>There are two simple and obvious ways for a speed to be universal: >> a) clocks and rulers are also universal >> b) clocks and rulers are not universal, but changes in their >> measurements offset each other so the ratio known as speed remains >> universal for light rays. >> >>The world we inhabit has selected b. Live with it. Move on. > > > Ah....OK now we have an agreement. The speed of light is NOT a universal > constant. But rather it is a constant math ratio in all inertial frames as > follows: > Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time (universal time) > content for a clcok second co-moving with the ruler. > However, this new definition for the speed 0of light makes SR into a special > aether theory .:-) > > Ken Seto > > > Back to reality Seto--The speed of light is a *defined* constant. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html It represent the upper speed limit for propagation of o light o gravity waves o information o velocity o etc.
From: Mark Fergerson on 21 Mar 2005 14:23 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?? Nobody else even uses the term "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?? Because clocks cannot move at the speed of light. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Mar 2005 17:30 On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:43:41 -0800, "Stan Byers" <sbyers11(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Also posted on sci.astro: > >I believe all of the data and citations that are required to prove or >disprove Roemer's 1003 second delay are available at the web site. >If light remained constant regardless of observers speed there would not be >a delay. >Even if I was familiar with the physics of the Optical gyro, I would not try >to argue this issue with that knowledge,.. when the solar system >demonstration by the moon Io is available. Most everyone understands the >solar system, and I don't know anyone that understands the Optical >gyro,..except you George. ;-) If anyone can disprove the 1003 second delay >with Io data, I promise to try to educate myself about the workings of the >Optical gyro. > >George wrote: >>Since the fact that these devices work at all means >> your hypothesis cannot be true, you really should >> find out a bit more about them. > >I don't understand why readers call the results obtained from empirical data >a "hypothesis". I am just the messenger, it wont help to shoot the >messenger. The solar system will still provide the same demonstration. If >you can't change the empirical demonstration, you are forced to change the >postulate. The exact eclipse data used to generate the graphs that show the >period changes resulting from Earth's relative motion is available to >everyone. If any readers can produce with specificity, graphs or logic >that will dispute or correct the 1003 second delay and conclusion, I will be >more than happy to review them in specific detail. > >The only fact that has to be recognized to prove that light speed is not >constant to all observers is the "1003 second delay" as observed by Roemer. >That fact establishes that light from Jupiter travels on a radial from >Jupiter at " C " in relation to Jupiter. Since Earth has a changing orbital >velocity on a radial from Jupiter, there is a relative velocity between >Earth and the light train which is not C. If there exists a delay or advance >in the eclipse event timing,... it is "not possible" for the light speed in >space to be constant in relation to Earth. > a.. The 1003 second delay is a change in observed period. > b.. A change in observed period is a Doppler effect. > c.. A Doppler effect results from a change in observed speed. > d.. A change in observed speed indicates that light speed in not constant >for all observers. > >The fact that Doppler effects are utilized between Earth and spacecraft is a >sure indication that EM radiation maintains C in relation to the source and >not the observer. When the carrier frequency of a spacecraft is known and a >Doppler shift or a change in a Doppler shift is observed how is it possible >to assume that the "free space speed" did not change in relation to the >observer. > >In the following quote concerning Nasa's Titan data test it is seen that the >carrier frequency and the digital data frequency displayed a Doppler effect. >If that same transmitter was parked on Jupiter's north pole you would see a >repeat of Roemer's data during Earth's orbital trip. In one case you have a >light train modulated by eclipse events, and in the radio case you have a >radio carrier modulated by digital data. You cannot separate the speed and >timing of the modulation from the speed of the carrier. > >QUOTE: Because of Doppler shift, the frequency at which bits would be >arriving from Huygens would be significantly different from the nominal data >rate of 8192 bits per second. As the radio wave from the lander was >compressed by Doppler shift, the data rate would increase as the length of >each bit was reduced UNQUOTE > >The frequency and period of Io's eclipse events displays the Doppler effect >in direct proportion to the relative motion between the Earth and Jupiter, >therefore the light train speed as observed on Earth changes at the same >rate. > >Cheers, Stan Byers > >http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm > > You are right. Light speed is source and observer dependent. Contrary to DeSitter's claims, many variable star brightness curves match those predicted by the ballistic theory. All we know for certain is that light initially moves at c relative to its source. I have compiled a very comprehensive Vbasic program that calculates how c+v light moves away from a source. (v is the speed of the source relative to the observer) . You can see how 'slow light' eventually catches up to the faster light All relevant parameters can be varied.,eg, Eccentricity, Yaw, distance and max radial velocity, etc. Predicted brightness curves are calculated and presented graphically on a 5D array. The program is pretty complicated and may take some time to master. It shows that many observed brightness curves are obvious consequences of the variable speed of light. Foir instance, 'eclipsing binaries' may not be eclipsing binaries at all. The curve of a single star in orbit around a dark companion with eccentricity around 0.5 and perihelion closest to observer will produce a brightness variation curve similar to that of Algol. The fact that the period of brightness variations is usually dead constant is another clear indication that it synchronized with orbital period. see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe (It is definitely not a virus). 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: Sam Wormley on 21 Mar 2005 20:22
Henri Wilson wrote: > You are right. Light speed is source and observer dependent. > Speed of light is empirically independent of the relative velocity between source and observer. |