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 30 Mar 2005 20:51 jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in news:e7b5cc5d.0503301623.679f97c0(a)posting.google.com: > The well > trained DHR, his eyes shut, suddenly notices the frequency change to > 20/sec. An intelligent observer would say there are TWO possibilities > why this occurred: the profile of the fence altered to 20 flutes per > meter length, or the fence velocity past the stick INCREASED! (or a > bit of both). Not so the DHR!! His mind awash with magical belief, he > REJECTS ENTIRELY that the speed altered, and is adamant that the > fluting changed! Pushed, he will point to the cut finger where the > raised edge of the new iron caught him. Nothing like a little blood to > "prove" something. > > The thoughtful scientist looks for ways to test things and figure out if the profile of the fence altered or not. See, in your example, the guy has been roller blading along this same fence for years. He knows that the spacing is constant (speed of light). So he is reasonably sure that if the frequency has changed then SOMETHING has changed his speed (frequency of light). He checks for a tail wind or something else that might have changed his speed. If he eliminates all reasonable explanations, THEN he looks closely to see if someone has removed the old fence and replaced it with one that looks the same but has 20 flutes per meter, and painted it to look just like the old fence and even put scratch marks on to match the ones he makes each time he goes by. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show me the evidence. Not just 'well this theory explains the red shift of distant galaxies almost as well as current explanations and it matches my outlook on the world(to heck with the fact that there is plenty of data collected at short range that say my theory 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 31 Mar 2005 08:58 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns9629B3EF076ACWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:fn7m41lu2td5gr96berr2hqdtdn8c397v5(a)4ax.com: > > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:03:29 +0000 (UTC), bz > > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >>news:rquj41lbmant4unh16f4c7aje45363aiqq(a)4ax.com: > >> > >>>>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 > >>> > >>> How long does it take the signal from the second LED to stop the > >>> timer? > >> > >>1) this should be > >> how long does it take the signal from the FIRST LED to stop the timer? > >> > >>> Answer: D/(light speed). > >> > >>right. > >> > >>> You cannot be sure light speed is the same in both directions. That is > >>> what you are trying to determine. > >> > >>There is NOT two directions. There is only one direction. > >> moving source of photons second detector > >> >>-----------------------|-----------------------------| > >> << first detector > >> > >>above is a diagram of the test set up. On the left is a spinning fan > >>with an LED at the end of one fan blade. In the center is a half > >>silvered mirror that deflects half the passing photons to a detector, on > >>the right is a second detector that detects the rest of the photons. > >> > >>in between the LED and the first detector there are a couple of pin > >>holes to make sure that we only see photon that are emitted when the LED > >>is travelling straight toward the detectors. > >> > >>We are measuring time it takes the light to pass from the first detector > >>to the second detector. > >>We are using one clock to do this. > >>The light travels only one direction. > >>This is the one way speed of light. > >> > >>> > >>> You have described a typical TWLS experiment. > >> > >>there is NO two way light. The light only travels one direction. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>I have just measured the time. > >>>> > >>>>What is so hard about that????? > >>>>Where is there a flaw in the experiment? > >>> > >>> You don't understand anything. > >> > >>I can count to two. > >>In this case there is only one way. > >> > >>Where is the flaw in the experiment? > > > > You are oblivious to the fact that your signals don't travel > > instantaneously. > > To the contrary. I know about propagation delays. > > I can easily measure the time delay in the cables. > > It is easy to make sure that the cable lengths are identical. > > But a TDR (Time domain reflectometer) can be used to check the cable and > make sure the velocity factor is uniform along the length. (just in case > you were going to raise that as an issue) > > > > > If you use two separated clocks, you have to be able to synch them to > > within the accuracy required by your experiment. > > There is only one clock. > There is only one source. > There are two detectors. > Yes, detectors have time delays too, but those can be accounted for. You cannot measure OWLS with just one clock. The definition of OWLS is measured with two synchronized clocks. > > Measure the transit time from detector 1 to detector 2. To do that would require two clocks. Ken Seto > Then swap the detectors and the cables around. > If the delays are unequal, it will show up. > The light is STILL only going one way. > We still have the same distance between the detectors. > The source is still moving the same speed. > > > > > The way you have designed it, you will be looking for time differences > > around 10^-20 seconds. > > ..best of luck. > > That depends on the distance between the detectors and the speed of > rotation of the source, right? > > Where is the flaw in the experiment? > > > > > > -- > 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: jahn on 31 Mar 2005 09:02 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:lmT2e.692$Fh4.357(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com... > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns9629B3EF076ACWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > > news:fn7m41lu2td5gr96berr2hqdtdn8c397v5(a)4ax.com: > > > > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:03:29 +0000 (UTC), bz > > > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > > > > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > > >>news:rquj41lbmant4unh16f4c7aje45363aiqq(a)4ax.com: > > >> > > >>>>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 > > >>> > > >>> How long does it take the signal from the second LED to stop the > > >>> timer? > > >> > > >>1) this should be > > >> how long does it take the signal from the FIRST LED to stop the timer? > > >> > > >>> Answer: D/(light speed). > > >> > > >>right. > > >> > > >>> You cannot be sure light speed is the same in both directions. That is > > >>> what you are trying to determine. > > >> > > >>There is NOT two directions. There is only one direction. > > >> moving source of photons second detector > > >> >>-----------------------|-----------------------------| > > >> << first detector > > >> > > >>above is a diagram of the test set up. On the left is a spinning fan > > >>with an LED at the end of one fan blade. In the center is a half > > >>silvered mirror that deflects half the passing photons to a detector, on > > >>the right is a second detector that detects the rest of the photons. > > >> > > >>in between the LED and the first detector there are a couple of pin > > >>holes to make sure that we only see photon that are emitted when the LED > > >>is travelling straight toward the detectors. > > >> > > >>We are measuring time it takes the light to pass from the first detector > > >>to the second detector. > > >>We are using one clock to do this. > > >>The light travels only one direction. > > >>This is the one way speed of light. > > >> > > >>> > > >>> You have described a typical TWLS experiment. > > >> > > >>there is NO two way light. The light only travels one direction. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>>I have just measured the time. > > >>>> > > >>>>What is so hard about that????? > > >>>>Where is there a flaw in the experiment? > > >>> > > >>> You don't understand anything. > > >> > > >>I can count to two. > > >>In this case there is only one way. > > >> > > >>Where is the flaw in the experiment? > > > > > > You are oblivious to the fact that your signals don't travel > > > instantaneously. > > > > To the contrary. I know about propagation delays. > > > > I can easily measure the time delay in the cables. > > > > It is easy to make sure that the cable lengths are identical. > > > > But a TDR (Time domain reflectometer) can be used to check the cable and > > make sure the velocity factor is uniform along the length. (just in case > > you were going to raise that as an issue) > > > > > > > > If you use two separated clocks, you have to be able to synch them to > > > within the accuracy required by your experiment. > > > > There is only one clock. > > There is only one source. > > There are two detectors. > > Yes, detectors have time delays too, but those can be accounted for. > > You cannot measure OWLS with just one clock. The definition of OWLS is > measured with two synchronized clocks. Indeed! It is very difficult to hide the pea when you have only one shell to put it under. ;-) Sue... > > > > Measure the transit time from detector 1 to detector 2. > > To do that would require two clocks. > > Ken Seto > > > Then swap the detectors and the cables around. > > If the delays are unequal, it will show up. > > The light is STILL only going one way. > > We still have the same distance between the detectors. > > The source is still moving the same speed. > > > > > > > > The way you have designed it, you will be looking for time differences > > > around 10^-20 seconds. > > > ..best of luck. > > > > That depends on the distance between the detectors and the speed of > > rotation of the source, right? > > > > Where is the flaw in the experiment? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 31 Mar 2005 09:26 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts(a)lucent.com> wrote in message news:d2ed1i$3f(a)netnews.proxy.lucent.com... > kenseto wrote: > > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts(a)lucent.com> wrote in message > > news:tOn2e.12443$ZB6.10706(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... > >>There is no such motion not shared by the other clock. And whatever such > >>motion you care to ascribe to the clocks will also apply to the light > >> beam. > > > > The light beam moves in the horizontal direction where it is aimed. > > Go back and read Galileo. Since his time we have known that in a moving > ship the aiming of a light source at a detector accounts for whatever > motion the ship may have, because it is common to source, detector, and > light beam. Ditto for throwing balls or firing machine gun bullets. What you described is based on the bogus assumption that the leading edge of the light beam will hit where it is aimed. This bogus assumption is based on the assumption that there is no absolute motion of the target. Throwing a base ball is different. The base ball will possess the absolute motion of the thrower before he threw it. A pulse of light will not possess the absolute motion of the source before it is emitted. > > > > The > > reason why the light beam can hit the vertically moving target is because > > the speed of light is much higher than the target. > > But the relationships do not change -- if the source was mis-aimed so > the start of the beam missed the detector, then the entire beam would do > so. No...the source didn't mis-aimed. The first portion of the beam misses the target due to the absolute motion of the target in the vertical direction. >Smart experimentalists would notice this and would adjust the aim of > the source so it does indeed hit the detector. In fact, here on earth > you can do this aiming completely geometrically, and hit the detector > the very first time you turn the source on. The leading edge of the light ray would still miss the detector due to the absolute motion of the detector in the vertical direction. > > > > There is a difference between an OWLS and a TWLS measurement. > > For a TWLS measurement: > > The source clock will record the departure time (tA1) of the leading edge of > > the light ray or the departure time of the first light pulse. It will record > > the time (tA2) when a later light pulse (not the first light pulse) > > But no pulses are lost, so your entire discussion is flawed. > > You have very fundamental misconceptions about how the world actually works. No you do. You ionsisted that the leading edge of the light ray will hit the detector. > > > >>Experimentally, the light from a laser can be formed into pulses with > >>durations on the order of a femtosecond, and these pulses can be > >>detected. > > > > Sure it can be detected but there is no way to ensure that the pulse you > > detected is the first pulse generated by the source. > > You did not understand my point. You claim that gravitational redshift > is "caused" by the first portion of a light signal not being detected > (because it "misses the detector" in some mysterious way); let's call > the amount of delay in the detection of the light pulse t0. But a > similar light pulse that is much shorter than t0 _IS_ detected. SO??? The first batch of pulses will miss the detector and the first pulse that hits the detector was not generated until a later time. BTW this is what causes the so call time dilation. >So it > cannot be true that the first case was delayed by t0 due to that initial > portion of the light pulse "missing the detector" because in the second > case that would imply that the entire pulse missed the detector, > contrary to observation. The first portion of the train of pulses will miss the detector but due to the speed of light is much greater than the absolute motion of the detector therefore the pulses that generated at a later time will have a chance to catch up and hit the detector. > > Your entire discussion is flawed: real light sources _CAN_ be aimed at > detectors, and no light pulses are lost. This bogus assumption violates the Uncertainty Principle. In any case the only valid way to see who is right is by doing the experiment described in the following link (page 3): http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf Ken Seto
From: Randy Poe on 31 Mar 2005 09:41
kenseto wrote: > What you described is based on the bogus assumption that the leading edge of > the light beam will hit where it is aimed. This bogus assumption is based on > the assumption that there is no absolute motion of the target. Throwing a > base ball is different. The base ball will possess the absolute motion of > the thrower before he threw it. A pulse of light will not possess the > absolute motion of the source before it is emitted. Why, in your universe, is light exempt from conservation of momentum? - Randy |