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: Robert Kolker on 4 Apr 2005 10:47 kenseto wrote: >>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 Show me the beef, not the bun. Has this experiment been done? Yes or No. Has it been reproduced? Yes or No. Has it been vetted for both instrumentation and designn? Yes or No. No one to this date has deteted Aether (the Michelson-Morley brand, visco elastic fluid). No one. Bob Kolker
From: bz on 4 Apr 2005 10:35 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:M1c4e.9724$Fh4.1070(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns962E585D38819WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in >> news:Pbb4e.9715$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. Let us assume you are right for the moment. That will add an extra delay into the generation of the signal from detector 1. Can I assume the same delay in the generation of the signal from detector 2? If so, then the delays cancel and I still measure the transit time for the pulse correctly. In any case, I don't really care about the absolute speed, just seeing if it varies as I change the speed of the source. Are you suggesting that the delays would be different and be exactly the amount needed to make it seem like the pulse was traveling at c? >> >> 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. But if they are in different states of absolute motion, the speed we measure should support your contention if your contention is correct. How would you explain a null result? >> >> >> > 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. But mine is not a thought experiment. Any decently equipped physics lab can run my 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 4 Apr 2005 10:58 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns962E6197F1DB5WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > news:M1c4e.9724$Fh4.1070(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > > > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > > news:Xns962E585D38819WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > >> "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > >> news:Pbb4e.9715$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. > > Let us assume you are right for the moment. > > That will add an extra delay into the generation of the signal from > detector 1. Can I assume the same delay in the generation of the signal > from detector 2? You missed the point. If the first portion of the wave crests missed the detector then you are not measuring the true speed of light. > > If so, then the delays cancel and I still measure the transit time for the > pulse correctly. > > In any case, I don't really care about the absolute speed, just seeing if > it varies as I change the speed of the source. > > Are you suggesting that the delays would be different and be exactly the > amount needed to make it seem like the pulse was traveling at c? > > > >> > >> 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. > > But if they are in different states of absolute motion, the speed we > measure should support your contention if your contention is correct. How > would you explain a null result? It is supported by the observed doppler shift. Doppler shift means different number of wave crests passing through the detector per unit time. This means different speed of light approaching the detector. > > >> > >> > >> > 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 > >> > >> 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. > > But mine is not a thought experiment. Any decently equipped physics lab > can run my experiment. My proposed experiments are not thought experiments. Ken Seto
From: bz on 4 Apr 2005 11:25 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:lCc4e.9731$Fh4.4940(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns962E6197F1DB5WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in >> news:M1c4e.9724$Fh4.1070(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: >> >> > >> > "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. >> >> Let us assume you are right for the moment. >> >> That will add an extra delay into the generation of the signal from >> detector 1. Can I assume the same delay in the generation of the signal >> from detector 2? > > You missed the point. If the first portion of the wave crests missed the > detector then you are not measuring the true speed of light. You are missing the point. I don't need to measure the TRUE SPEED OF LIGHT. I just need to show that it does not change with the speed of the source. ..... >> >> 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. >> >> But if they are in different states of absolute motion, the speed we >> measure should support your contention if your contention is correct. >> How would you explain a null result? > > It is supported by the observed doppler shift. Doppler shift means > different number of wave crests passing through the detector per unit > time. This means different speed of light approaching the detector. Doppler shift gives the space between the crests, it does not tell the speed of the crests. You must measure transit time between points in order to determine that. I am not concerned with the absolute speed, I just want to see if the speed of the light pulse changes with the speed of the source. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> But mine is not a thought experiment. Any decently equipped physics lab >> can run my experiment. > > My proposed experiments are not thought experiments. I thought you must think so because you said 'I am not interested in your "thought experiments" either.' I never called yours a thought experiment. You said mine was, and by the use of 'either', you implied your was too. -- 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 14:22
"bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns962E6A026A591WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > news:lCc4e.9731$Fh4.4940(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > > > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > > news:Xns962E6197F1DB5WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > >> "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > >> news:M1c4e.9724$Fh4.1070(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > >> > >> > > >> > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > >> > news:Xns962E585D38819WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > >> >> "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > >> >> news:Pbb4e.9715$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. > >> > >> Let us assume you are right for the moment. > >> > >> That will add an extra delay into the generation of the signal from > >> detector 1. Can I assume the same delay in the generation of the signal > >> from detector 2? > > > > You missed the point. If the first portion of the wave crests missed the > > detector then you are not measuring the true speed of light. > > You are missing the point. I don't need to measure the TRUE SPEED OF LIGHT. > I just need to show that it does not change with the speed of the source. No you are the one who is missing the point. Doppler shift means the change of the speed of light. Ken Seto > > > .... > >> >> 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. > >> > >> But if they are in different states of absolute motion, the speed we > >> measure should support your contention if your contention is correct. > >> How would you explain a null result? > > > > It is supported by the observed doppler shift. Doppler shift means > > different number of wave crests passing through the detector per unit > > time. This means different speed of light approaching the detector. > > Doppler shift gives the space between the crests, it does not tell the > speed of the crests. You must measure transit time between points in order > to determine that. > > I am not concerned with the absolute speed, I just want to see if the speed > of the light pulse changes with the speed of the source. > > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 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. > >> > >> But mine is not a thought experiment. Any decently equipped physics lab > >> can run my experiment. > > > > My proposed experiments are not thought experiments. > > I thought you must think so because you said 'I am not interested in your > "thought experiments" either.' > > I never called yours a thought experiment. You said mine was, and by the > use of 'either', you implied your was too. > > > > > > > -- > 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 |