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 4 Apr 2005 09:10 "Robert Kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:zoGdnRe8RdmGDc3fRVn-iA(a)comcast.com... > 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. You can detect it by doing the experiments in this link: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005experimentstodetectabsolutemotions.doc Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 4 Apr 2005 09:21 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns962DB30A697EFWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > news:rRZ3e.8545$Fh4.3309(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > > > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > > news:Xns962D919A05F12WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > >> "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > >> news:DxW3e.4691$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: > >> >> > >> >> > > .... > >> > 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. > > > > 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. > > Does that mean you predict that "whatever it is" I am going to measure is > going to change as the speed of the source changes? Yes the doppler shift will change as you change the speed of the source. Change in doppler shift means change in the number of wave crests passing through the detector per unit time. The number of wave crests passing through the detector per unit time represents a change in the speed of light. The experiments described in the following link will determine the state of absolute motion of the earth: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005experimentstodetectabsolutemotions.doc Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 4 Apr 2005 09:25 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:gh4251dpkork18r2kknvn2gu6lt979b8m3(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > > >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) > ><H@> > > wrote > >on Sun, 03 Apr 2005 08:45:18 GMT > ><16bv4112a99gjs54gmro5c0hrsb9rtfak2(a)4ax.com>: > >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:00:07 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > >> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >> > >>>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) > >>><H@> > >>> wrote > >>>on Sat, 02 Apr 2005 23:21:50 GMT > >>><f5au41p1m4h5pjacaresa5e6082hcuro8q(a)4ax.com>: > > > >[crunch] > > > >>>Optical fibre would suffer the same signal-speed anisotropy > >>>as electrical cabling. That is not a solution. > >>> > >>>Of course, it turns out signal-speed anisotropy is not > >>>really a problem, either. :-) OLWS lightspeed is isotropic > >>>to a few parts per billion, if my memory is correct > >>>regarding certain experiments thereon. (My memory also > >>>tells me that the experiments did not measure OLWS directly.) > >> > >> Well Ghost, I was trying to keep that a secret > >> > >> It is true because light speed is source dependent. > > > >And what experiments show this source dependency? > > > >Color me curious. > > Ghost, is not velocity always specified relative to something? > > Is not the speed of light always 'c' wrt its source? Also wrt the observer. Ken Seto
From: bz on 4 Apr 2005 09:28 "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42513901$0$43984$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: >> The velocity of light is always c with respect to the observer. >> If the observer is in the source's frame of reference (and there could >> always be an observer in that frame) then they will measure the >> velocity as c. > > This is a metaphysical statement. It is absurb to say observing events > has some effect on them. > > Better to say the speed of light is c wrt all the entrappings and > paraphanalia that supports the observers life functions. Then you have > something consistant with those 100 years of observations from this gas > cloaked rock. > > I sit corrected. My '(and there could always be an observer in that frame)' was a bit too bold. Life as we know it could NOT exist near the source of most of the photons in the universe. I was being hypothetical. And I did not mean to imply that the observe effects the speed of light. In this case, my observers are hypothetical creatures and NEVER influence what they observe. :) -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: bz on 4 Apr 2005 09:41
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:Pbb4e.9715$Fh4.8634(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: >> Does that mean you predict that "whatever it is" I am going to measure >> is going to change as the speed of the source changes? > > Yes the doppler shift will change as you change the speed of the source. agreed. > Change in doppler shift means change in the number of wave crests > passing through the detector per unit time. agreed. > The number of wave crests passing > through the detector per unit time represents a change in the speed of > light. disagree. Let us mark ONE wave crest. We can do this by making it the 'leading edge' of a pulse of light that is making its way down the path through my apparatus. As this pulse passes detector 1, a signal is sent to my scope. The trace starts on the screen. As the pulse passes detector 2, a signal is sent to my scope, down a cable with exactly the same length as the signal in the previous step. A pulse shows up on the screen of my scope. The scope is calibrated and shows me the time it took the light to travel between detector 1 and detector 2. I spin the disk that carries my source. I check the transit time for many pulses, as they go from detector 1 to detector 2. I expect to find that no matter WHAT the speed of my source (and no matter what the doppler shift) the start of the pulses of light will travel at c NOT c+v. If your theory were correct, we would predict that as I spin the disk faster, the transit time between detector 1 and detector 2 would decrease. Is this correct? If not, why not. > The experiments described in the following link will determine the state > of absolute motion of the earth: > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005experimentstodetectabsolutemotions.d > oc I am NOT interested in the 'absolute motion of the earth'. If you want your nobel prize, go run your experiment. If it works, many others will duplicate it to confirm it for you. -- 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 |