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 3 Apr 2005 10:06 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns962B878445D4CWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:HFg3e.1282$Fh4.780 > @fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > > > > If I am an idiot, I am not the only one. > Here is an experiment similar in some ways to part of mine experiment. > > http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/physics/lrobin/lightspeed%20exp.pdf > > Please note: I am NOT calling you names. Please do not call me names. Not > that they hurt my feelings, but calling people names makes YOU look bad. OK I am sorry to call you an idiot. > > The difference is the time interval needed for the PHOTONS to move from one > detector to the other. > > There is nothing else moving from one detector to the other. The signals are moving in oppsite directions and you assumed that the signals will take the same time moving in these opposite directions. This is the same as Eintein's TWLS thought experiment in which he assumed that (tB-tA1)=(tA2-tB). > > The photon travel time is the "signal" that I am measuring. The proper one-way measurement is to have a clock at each detector's location. Using a cable will only complicate things. The clocks can be synchronized by slow clock transport of two touching and synchronized clocks in the opposite directions. > > Have you ever used an oscilliscope? Yes I have. So what is your point? Ken Seto
From: Bilge on 3 Apr 2005 10:47 Jim Greenfield: >dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote: >> Mr. greenfield is an idiot. To be in the right frame of mind when >> responding bear in mind that he is as impervious to logic as >> tungsten anvil is to a wooden mallet. He apparently grew up in the >> dark ages and can't quite wrap his brain around the concept of science. > >The aptly signed "Bilge" is blissfully unaware that a sufficiently >hard blow from a wooden mallet will vapourise his tungsten anvil! I rest my case. That is one of the most idiotic statements ever posted on this newsgroup, and probably most any newsgroup. Are you really so stupid as to believe what you just said? Please conduct an experiment. Go to the hardware store and buy a wooden mallet. As a preliminary experiment take the mallet, find an ordinary steel vice and assuming you are not physically handicapped, give it your best shot otherwise find someone else to take a whack at it, preferably someone who wears ``Dianabol, Breakfast of Champions,'' designer tank-tops. Let me know whether or not the steel vice was dented before the mallet was destroyed. That will save you from spending your money on a tungsten anvil due to a lack of common sense. >What is such an ignorant fool doing, in posting on a "scientific" >NG??? Making fun of those such as yourself who are so unbelievably oblivious to your own incompetence as not realize most sixth graders have a more sophisticated understanding of simple physics than you do.
From: bz on 3 Apr 2005 11:39 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:vLS3e.8442$Fh4.4410(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns962B878445D4CWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:HFg3e.1282$Fh4.780 >> @fe2.columbus.rr.com: >> >> > >> ..... >> Here is an experiment similar in some ways to part of mine experiment. >>http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/physics/lrobin/lightspeed%20exp.pdf >> ..... >> The difference is the time interval needed for the PHOTONS to move from >> one detector to the other. >> >> There is nothing else moving from one detector to the other. > > The signals are moving in oppsite directions and you assumed that the > signals will take the same time moving in these opposite directions. > This is the same as Eintein's TWLS thought experiment in which he > assumed that (tB-tA1)=(tA2-tB). >> >> The photon travel time is the "signal" that I am measuring. > > The proper one-way measurement is to have a clock at each detector's > location. Using a cable will only complicate things. The clocks can be > synchronized by slow clock transport of two touching and synchronized > clocks in the opposite directions. >> >> Have you ever used an oscilliscope? > > Yes I have. So what is your point? That it is easy to measure time differences with an oscilliscope. All I need to establish is that the travel time of the photon does not change as the speed of the source is changed. I just want to establish that the doppler effect is NOT due to a change in the velocity of the photon. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: kenseto on 3 Apr 2005 14:24 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns962D6C5EFCC74WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > news:vLS3e.8442$Fh4.4410(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > > > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > > news:Xns962B878445D4CWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > >> "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:HFg3e.1282$Fh4.780 > >> @fe2.columbus.rr.com: > >> > >> > > >> > .... > >> Here is an experiment similar in some ways to part of mine experiment. > >>http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/physics/lrobin/lightspeed%20exp.pdf > >> > .... > >> The difference is the time interval needed for the PHOTONS to move from > >> one detector to the other. > >> > >> There is nothing else moving from one detector to the other. > > > > The signals are moving in oppsite directions and you assumed that the > > signals will take the same time moving in these opposite directions. > > This is the same as Eintein's TWLS thought experiment in which he > > assumed that (tB-tA1)=(tA2-tB). > >> > >> The photon travel time is the "signal" that I am measuring. > > > > The proper one-way measurement is to have a clock at each detector's > > location. Using a cable will only complicate things. The clocks can be > > synchronized by slow clock transport of two touching and synchronized > > clocks in the opposite directions. > >> > >> Have you ever used an oscilliscope? > > > > Yes I have. So what is your point? > > That it is easy to measure time differences with an oscilliscope. But you are measuring the two way time difference. > > All I need to establish is that the travel time of the photon does not > change as the speed of the source is changed. The speed of the photon is constant in a stationary ether (source independency). The doppler shift is due to the source and the detector having different state of absolute motion. The doppler shift can be interpreted as the speed of light varies if the wave length of light remains constant. > > I just want to establish that the doppler effect is NOT due to a change in > the velocity of the photon. You did not establish that with your proposed experiment. Ken Seto
From: bz on 3 Apr 2005 15:18
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:DxW3e.4691$tI6.525(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns962D6C5EFCC74WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in >> news:vLS3e.8442$Fh4.4410(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: >> >> > >> > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message >> > news:Xns962B878445D4CWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> >> "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:HFg3e.1282$Fh4.780 >> >> @fe2.columbus.rr.com: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> .... >> >> Here is an experiment similar in some ways to part of mine >> >> experiment. >> >>>http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/physics/lrobin/lightspeed%20exp.pd >>>f >> >> >> .... >> >> The difference is the time interval needed for the PHOTONS to move >> >> from one detector to the other. >> >> >> >> There is nothing else moving from one detector to the other. >> > >> > The signals are moving in oppsite directions and you assumed that the >> > signals will take the same time moving in these opposite directions. >> > This is the same as Eintein's TWLS thought experiment in which he >> > assumed that (tB-tA1)=(tA2-tB). >> >> >> >> The photon travel time is the "signal" that I am measuring. >> > >> > The proper one-way measurement is to have a clock at each detector's >> > location. Using a cable will only complicate things. The clocks can >> > be synchronized by slow clock transport of two touching and >> > synchronized clocks in the opposite directions. .... > > But you are measuring the two way time difference. I disagree. But even if I were, since the distance traveled by the photons is constant, and both detectors and the cables are at relative rest with respect to each other, the motion of my source is the only variable. If your doppler shift changes the photons speed, it will show up. Since my doppler shift has no effect on the speed of the photons, I predict no change in the speed of the photons, no matter how fast I spin the disk that carries the source. -- 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 |