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 4 Apr 2005 15:14 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:dBf4e.122$356.119(a)fe1.columbus.rr.com: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns962E6A026A591WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in >> news:lCc4e.9731$Fh4.4940(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: ..... >> >> 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. Strange, I can't find many [any?] that agree with your view point. Studies of GPS satellites would certainly show speed variations in the radio signals from the satellites. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node9.html Notice they use "c is the defined speed of light" in their calculations. They do NOT assume the frequency is constant and calculate the speed of light. They are correcting for relativistic effects, for the shape of the earth, for a LOT of things, but they have found no need to correct for either the absolute velocity of any of the satellites or the earth. They have not found a need to take into account variations in c. They did observe several effects, but not the one you seem to claim is part of the DEFINITION of doppler shift. -- 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: Henri Wilson on 4 Apr 2005 17:31 On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 12:09:32 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:gh4251dpkork18r2kknvn2gu6lt979b8m3@ >4ax.com: > >> Ghost, is not velocity always specified relative to something? >> >> Is not the speed of light always 'c' wrt its source? >> >> > >The velocity of light is always c with respect to the observer. Proof please! >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 That is what the ballistic theory predicts, yes. > >If the observer is in some other frame of reference, they will ALSO measure >the velocity as c, regardless of the relative motion of the observers. Proof please. > >The wavelength, on the other hand, will not be a constant if the observer >is in motion with respect to the source. what causes the phenomenon we call 'wavelength' in single photons? > >As far as I know, over 100 years of observations confirm this. >Do you have any data that invalidates this? Doppler shift is caused by varying relative light speed Do you know of anyone who has observed a doppler shift in a gamma particle? 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.
From: Henri Wilson on 4 Apr 2005 17:41 On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:25:23 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >"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. Proof please. You are quoting LET. You are assuming the observer's rods and clocks vary by gamma, where v is the observer's absolute speed through the absolute aether. There is no evidence that such an aether exists. However it is remotely conceiveable that local 'absolute EM frames' do prevail around large masses. Even so, a third observer would not see light always leaving every source at c or approaching every observer at c. > >Ken Seto > > 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.
From: Henri Wilson on 4 Apr 2005 18:14 On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, bz ><bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote >> >> 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. >> > >Hmmm...well, here's a thought. > >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. What would be the predicted frequency of the >received lightsignal, assuming a certain edge velocity v >towards the destination and a laser source of 500 nm >(pea-green), or 600 THz or 1.67 fs? > >Emissive: From the mirror's perspective, the light hits at >c + v and reflects at c + v. Since the mirror is moving >towards the light the incident and reflected frequency will >be 600 THz * (c+v) / c. Since the receiver is also moving >towards the mirror the receiver will see a frequency of >600 THz * (c+v)^2 / c^2. Delta frequency would be >600 THz * (2*v/c+v^2/c^2). Bull. > >Emissive Alternate 1: The receiver will instead see a >frequency of 600 THz * (c+2*v)/c. Delta is therefore >600 THz * 2*v/c. Correct. > >SR: From the mirror's perspective the second light wave >(we assume the first is at (0,0)) will transform as follows, >assuming t = 1.67 fs: > >(0, t) => (-g*v*t, g*t) there is no foundation for these transforms. they don't happen...so why bother Ghost? > >or an observed delta time of g*t-g*v*t/c = g*t*(1 - v/c), >where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). > >The mirror faithfully reflects this pulse and since the >receiver is also moving in the exact same fashion to the >mirror as the mirror was to the source, the receiver >will see a time interval of g^2*(1-v/c)^2, and >therefore a frequency shift of (1 - v^2/c^2) / (1-v/c)^2. >Delta frequency is therefore >(1 - v^2/c^2 - 1 + 2*v/c - v^2/c^2) / (1-v/c)^2 >= (2*v/c - 2*v^2/c^2) / (1-v/c)^2 = (2*v/c)/(1-v/c). > >If one assumes a carefully knurled disc where the "knurls" >are reflective, and it is of size 5" = 12.7 cm in diameter >with a rate of 10,000 RPM (perfectly possible in light of >modern disk drives), one gets an edge velocity of 10000 >revs/minute * 1/60 min/sec * Pi*0.127 m/rev = 66.5 m/s. >66.5 m/s = 2.2 * 10^-7 c. > >Emissive Delta: 265988207.48 >SR Delta: 265988236.96 >Delta of Deltas: -29.48 > >Alt 1 Delta: 265988178.00 >Delta of Deltas: -58.96 > >This looks doable but the faster the mirrors, the better, >and one would have to establish the precise velocity >thereof. Of course one other possibility is to do the >experiment both ways, with the knurls splitting the beam. >One subbeam would go towards the detector and the other to >either another detector or to a mirror arrangement which >would eventually interfere with the first beam. There's >the issue of vibration, as well. I have investigated the spinning wheel/mirror idea before. Even at around 50000 rpm and 30kms separation, the difference between c and c+v is almost certainly too small to be measured. 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.
From: kenseto on 4 Apr 2005 19:36
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:cmc351diaesrar169vhhv37of1cq9felbo(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:25:23 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > >"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. > > Proof please. > > You are quoting LET. You are assuming the observer's rods and clocks vary by > gamma, where v is the observer's absolute speed through the absolute aether. No I am not quoting LET. I am quoting myself. My theory says that all observer measure the speed of light to be c because c is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows: Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a clcok second co-moving with the ruler. This new definition happen to agree with the SR postulate. Ken Seto |