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 3 Apr 2005 18:37 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1112563983.453138.124860 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > http://www.illinoisleader.com/content/img/f5680/SZ200_shellgame.jpg That should satisfy his requirements for one way light speed measurement. :) -- 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 3 Apr 2005 19:30 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in news:5q56i2-gj.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: >> I am not contemplating rotating the entire apparatus. Just >> the disk that has the LED mounted on it. > > Hmmm....obviously I missed that bit. :-) I suggest this > mostly to get rid of the cable twist, and because a > ray pointing *up* (relative to the Earth) will lose energy > (and increase frequency) a ray pointing down will gain energy > (and decreate frequency). Your experiment admittedly may > not require such issues to be resolved. > > right. I am contemplating a 'bench top' experiment with at most a few dozen meters distance separating the detectors. Perhaps even a meter. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu
From: bz on 3 Apr 2005 20:06 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in news:ht76i2-lt.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > I'll assume that we have a set of mirrors mounted on the > edge of a rapidly rotating disc, and that the stationary > light source is firing *away* from the destination into the > disc, and that the destination will pick up the reflected > signal. Very good idea. My first attack on the 'doppler shift is due to change in speed of the photons' argument was to ask what would happen if we actually measured the SPEED of the photon/echos from a police lidar. That got shot down because it was a 'two way' experiment. Apparently the effect would cancel out, or something, and besides we needed two syncronized clocks, for some reason. I made the experiment easier to do by getting rid of the car and using the blades of a fan as the target of the lidar. Apparently reflections couldn't be used at all. So next I suggested we hang an LED on the end of a fan blade (balance it, of course). Since then, I have been told, over and over, that because of the cables, the signals from the detectors don't "REALLY" let me measure the one way speed of light. -- 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: Robert Kolker on 3 Apr 2005 20:53 kenseto wrote: > > The doppler shift is the result of the source and the detectors are in > different states of absolute motion. This means that doppler shift is > detecting a different speed of light. Absolute motion with respect to what? Aether? Think again. No one can detect it even if it existed. Bob Kolker
From: Henri Wilson on 4 Apr 2005 06:08
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 11:41:45 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:kibv411vh5nvp2rce21ts3l95ollnp5o0d@ >4ax.com: > >> It is very bad to have been born in 1945. > >It seems like a good year to me, not that I had any choice. > >> >> Was your father a draft dodger? > >What a strange question. Why would such a question pop into anyones mind? >He was a 1st Lt. in the Army. OK. Probably home on leave. Sorry. > >As for the light speed measurement, since my experiment is aimed at testing >to see if the speed of the source (doppler shift) changes the speed of the >photons; even if, as you say, I am not measuring the true OWLS, I am still >measuring the speed of light and as there is no change in any of the >distances involved as I change the speed of the source, my experiment >should suffice to demonstrate that the speed of the source changes ONLY the >wavelength of the photons. No it doesn't. > >Thanks for the discussion and have the best of all possible days. Well at least the pope died. That's the good news. 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. |