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 31 Mar 2005 10:00 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:lmT2e.692$Fh4.357(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: I said: >> >>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. ...... >> 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. > I don't define one way light speed by clocks. The speed of light is how long it takes light to travel between two point. ds/dt (where s is position and t is time) I measure it by measureing how long it takes light to travel between two points. delta s/delta t. WHY can't I measure the speed, using only one clock????? I can measure the speed of a car, using only one clock. I can measure the speed of a bullet, using only one clock. I think I can measure the speed of a photon, using only one clock. WHAT is wrong with my experiment. Give me a valid flaw, not just "it won't work because I said so." -- 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 10:32 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns962A5BA4830EBWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > news:lmT2e.692$Fh4.357(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > I said: > >> >>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. > ..... > >> 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. > > > > > I don't define one way light speed by clocks. > The speed of light is how long it takes light to travel between two point. > ds/dt (where s is position and t is time) > > I measure it by measureing how long it takes light to travel between two > points. delta s/delta t. So how do you do that without a clock at each of the two points? BTW, delta s/delta t is velocity. Not how long it takes light to travel between two points. Ken Seto > > WHY can't I measure the speed, using only one clock????? > I can measure the speed of a car, using only one clock. > I can measure the speed of a bullet, using only one clock. > I think I can measure the speed of a photon, using only one clock. > > WHAT is wrong with my experiment. > Give me a valid flaw, not just "it won't work because I said so." > > > > > -- > 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 31 Mar 2005 11:10 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:0KU2e.208$gz3.89(a)fe1.columbus.rr.com: >> >> >> I don't define one way light speed by clocks. >> The speed of light is how long it takes light to travel between two >> point. ds/dt (where s is position and t is time) >> >> I measure it by measureing how long it takes light to travel between >> two points. delta s/delta t. > > So how do you do that without a clock at each of the two points? > BTW, delta s/delta t is velocity. Not how long it takes light to travel > between two points. > Light passes point 1 and some of it hits a photon detector. A signal is sent to my oscilliscope through the cable from the detector. It starts a clock in my scope and starts the trace on the scope. When the light passes point 2, it hits a photon detector. A signal is sent to my oscilliscopy through the cable from THAT detector. This puts a signal on the screen of my scope. The time between start of trace and signal is the delta t I know delta s because I measured it. One clock. Why in the world would I need two clocks since my detectors are in the same room? When I want to see if the velocity of the light source makes a difference in the speed of light I spin the fan that the light source is mounted on. Much simpler than your experiment. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: kenseto on 31 Mar 2005 16:35 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns962A6770FFFA2WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > news:0KU2e.208$gz3.89(a)fe1.columbus.rr.com: > > >> > >> > >> I don't define one way light speed by clocks. > >> The speed of light is how long it takes light to travel between two > >> point. ds/dt (where s is position and t is time) > >> > >> I measure it by measureing how long it takes light to travel between > >> two points. delta s/delta t. > > > > So how do you do that without a clock at each of the two points? > > BTW, delta s/delta t is velocity. Not how long it takes light to travel > > between two points. > > > > Light passes point 1 and some of it hits a photon detector. > A signal is sent to my oscilliscope through the cable from the detector. > It starts a clock in my scope and starts the trace on the scope. > > When the light passes point 2, it hits a photon detector. > A signal is sent to my oscilliscopy through the cable from THAT detector. > This puts a signal on the screen of my scope. > The time between start of trace and signal is the delta t > I know delta s because I measured it. ROTFLOL...don't you know how stupid this sound?? The cable that carries the signal that started the clock is an outgoing leg and the cable that return the signal is the return leg. So what you have is a TWLS measurement for delta t. You don't even understand that the cable that carries the signal is not instantaneous. Ken Seto > > One clock. Why in the world would I need two clocks since my detectors are > in the same room? > > When I want to see if the velocity of the light source makes a difference > in the speed of light I spin the fan that the light source is mounted on. > > Much simpler than your 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: George Dishman on 31 Mar 2005 17:51
"Jonathan Silverlight" <jsilverlight(a)spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:SdkkUGvsdwSCFwAK(a)merseia.fsnet.co.uk... > In message <d274op$7ph$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net>, George Dishman > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> writes > > snip > >>Stan's calculation is valid but it is just repeating >>Roemer's calculation of the speed of light. It proves >>Ralph Sansbury wrong but not SR. > > I'm surprised he hasn't posted to this thread already! He seems to have disappeared. I doubt he was convinced by the evidence though. > Am I the only one who is reminded of Philip Latham's short story "The Xi > Effect", where two astronomers get a very unexpected result when they > repeat Roemer's experiment? > His story is horribly plausible now we know about "branes" and the extra > dimensions of string theory. I haven't read that one (I think). Another to add to the ever-growing list. Thanks. George |