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: Sue... on 4 Apr 2005 09:50 I wasn't pickin' on you. I was pickin' on the good professor who early in his career wanted to study space but later admitted you could learn more from studying the charges that fill it. ""You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron"" .. - Albert Einstein ------- Sue...
From: Tom Roberts on 4 Apr 2005 10:16 kenseto wrote: > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts(a)lucent.com> wrote in message > news:Z413e.16705$DW.8633(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.com... >>What changes so that the leading edge misses but later portions of the >>light pulse hit the detector? > > Absolute motion of the detector in the vertical direction during the flight > time of light (in the horizontal direction) from the source to the detector. > The speed of light is much faster than the absolute motion of the detector > and that's why the later portion of the light pulse is able to hit the > detector. You did not answer the question. Consider the first portion of the light pulse that you claim "misses the detector", and also the immediately following portion (of the same duration) that does hit the detector: what changed during that ~femtosecond so the first portion misses but the second portion hits? Surely the "absolute motion in the vertical direction" is linear to high accuracy, and is manifestly common to both source and detector -- for such linear motion there is no mechanism to cause the first portion to miss and the second to hit; either both miss or both hit[#]. If both miss, of course, the entire pulse will miss and the experiemnter will notice this and re-aim the source so both hit. [#] This applies also to uniform circular motion, and to uniform curcular motion combined with linear motion. Tom Roberts tjroberts(a)lucent.com
From: kenseto on 4 Apr 2005 10:19 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns962E585D38819WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > news:Pbb4e.9715$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. In a train of wave crests the leading crests will miss the detector if the detector is in a state of absolute motion in the vertical direction. The first wave crest that is detected was not generated by the source until a later time. > > 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. It is not correct. You ignored that the moving source is in a different state of absolute motion than the detectors and that the doppler shift is due to the different absolute motions of the source and the detectors. > > > > 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. In that case I am not interested in your thought experiments either. Bye. Ken Seto
From: bz on 4 Apr 2005 10:05 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1112622603.906767.158890 @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > I wasn't pickin' on you. I was pickin' on the good professor > who early in his career wanted to study space but later > admitted you could learn more from studying the charges > that fill it. > > ""You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron"" > . - Albert Einstein > > ------- > > Sue... Thats ok Sue, I don't feel picked on. BTW, do YOU, Sue, wear blue jahns, when you are traveling toward the observer? :) -- 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 4 Apr 2005 10:38
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts(a)lucent.com> wrote in message news:d2ri8r$2fc(a)netnews.proxy.lucent.com... > kenseto wrote: > > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts(a)lucent.com> wrote in message > > news:Z413e.16705$DW.8633(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.com... > >>What changes so that the leading edge misses but later portions of the > >>light pulse hit the detector? > > > > Absolute motion of the detector in the vertical direction during the flight > > time of light (in the horizontal direction) from the source to the detector. > > The speed of light is much faster than the absolute motion of the detector > > and that's why the later portion of the light pulse is able to hit the > > detector. > > You did not answer the question. > > Consider the first portion of the light pulse that you claim "misses the > detector", and also the immediately following portion (of the same > duration) that does hit the detector: what changed during that > ~femtosecond so the first portion misses but the second portion hits? In the case where you have a train of pulses in a femtosecond range then the first batch of these pulses will miss the detector. You cannot detect one single femtosecond pulse. Why? Because it would violate the Uncertainty Principle. > Surely the "absolute motion in the vertical direction" is linear to high > accuracy, and is manifestly common to both source and detector -- for > such linear motion there is no mechanism to cause the first portion to > miss and the second to hit; either both miss or both hit[#]. If both > miss, of course, the entire pulse will miss and the experiemnter will > notice this and re-aim the source so both hit. One single pulse of a femtosecond duration is not detectable by a distant detector. In any case the experiments described in the following link will be able to determine the existence of absolute motion in the vertical direction: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005experimentstodetectabsolutemotions.doc Ken Seto |