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: Henri Wilson on 5 Apr 2005 01:52 On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 03:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:09:41 GMT ><gh4251dpkork18r2kknvn2gu6lt979b8m3(a)4ax.com>: >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >> >>>> 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? > >Yes. > >The velocity of light is c relative to any observer. > >> >> Is not the speed of light always 'c' wrt its source? > >And the observer. So when light leaves a remote star somewhere out in space, that light is automatically moving at c wrt every other body in the universe, is it Ghost? You really make the most outrageous claims, Ghost. > >> >> Can you put two and two together Ghost? > >I already did. > >Depending on the units of "two", one gets rather odd results, >but they can be expressed as > >2 * two / (1 + (two)^2/c^2) You are obsessed.! > >:-) > >[.sigsnip] 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: The Ghost In The Machine on 5 Apr 2005 03:00 In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:41:38 GMT <2n74519tmld8ti3em4sijpbluhbbiuktcv(a)4ax.com>: > On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 03:00:10 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote >>on Mon, 04 Apr 2005 22:14:46 GMT >><4pe3515eoun2ldfbplkjrutemt7aca6bld(a)4ax.com>: >>> 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. >> >>Either way, you're screwed. > > Never! > >> >>> >>>> >>>>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? >> >>And what foundation precisely are you seeking? >> >>All *I* have is theory. I lack precision to even properly >>measure lightspeed. (I suppose I could observe Jupiter's moons, >>and try to work out its orbital parameters relative to ours >>or something. That's arguably the best I can do and would >>probably take several months -- and would lack sufficient >>precision to show c constant for all observers.) >> >>> >>>> >>>>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. >> >>Define "too small to be measured". I'll admit I don't see >>major problems, though I'm not sure how badly vibration >>will affect the spinning disc, or how to properly >>heterodyne two lightbeams. >> >>The deltas, however, are very clear. > > work it out. I did. See above. > > Let's use a spinning wheel of radius 2/pi metres, rotating > at 250 rps. Its circumference is 4m. It should not fly apart. I wouldn't know offhand. It presumably depends on the strength of the materials. > > Using a powerful laser beam, it might just be possible > to detect each individual pulse of light reflected from > the mirror at 30000 metres distance if the experiment is > carried out on the tops of high mountains. If the detector > has a width of say 10 cms, the pulse intensity as it flashes > past will be only about 1/(2000000) that of the laser . > > So the maximum mirror speed is 1000 m/s, or 3.3x10^-6c. The > reflected light will return to the source at c plus double > this speed. (c(1+(6.7x10^-6)) Depends on which way the wheel is rotating. > > Light takes 10^-4 secs to travel 30kms. > > So the return travel time difference between pulses moving at c and c+v is > about 6.7 x 10^-10 secs. 670 picoseconds. I don't see an intrinsic difficulty in detecting such -- though one won't detect much of such as SR predicts exactly 0. A heterodyning solution involves a smaller, slower wheel, as you may already have noticed. It's more sensitive. > > Best of luck Ghost. > > (Please check my figures). They look OK, given your theory. I don't expect it to work, though. [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Sue... on 5 Apr 2005 03:20 Henri: << So when light leaves a remote star somewhere out in space, that light is automatically moving at c wrt every other body in the universe, is it Ghost? >> When potential emitters perform light production ceremonies, it is not clear at all that anything will actually be radiated. (sort of like hiring an amateur rain-maker) ;-) For example, if the coupling structure has a effective E plane aperture of zero ( a Faraday shielded loop ) then the only component produced will be magnetic. Without the help of some neighboring matter to increase the E plane aperture, the field will diminish by the cube of the distance. This is hardly the robust performance we expect from what we generally term as "light". The point is: you can't say how fast *light* is moving wrt the emitting structure, if you can't even discern that it is light. When you consider, the *position* of adjacent structures which might magnify the E plane aperture, you have added an uncertainty to the position. If you want to say the emitting structure is a single atom, then you must apply HUP to your speed determinations. The bottom line Henri, is that light can't go very far, or perhaps even exist without considerable interaction with nearby matter. Do you think the manufacturers of dielectric antenna would be in business if light behaved the according to your model ? Sue...
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 5 Apr 2005 04:00 In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:52:39 GMT <9o9451lcsp6cckqqqtve3iolli1j05kele(a)4ax.com>: > On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 03:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote >>on Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:09:41 GMT >><gh4251dpkork18r2kknvn2gu6lt979b8m3(a)4ax.com>: >>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >>> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >>> > >>>>> 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? >> >>Yes. >> >>The velocity of light is c relative to any observer. >> >>> >>> Is not the speed of light always 'c' wrt its source? >> >>And the observer. > > So when light leaves a remote star somewhere out > in space, that light is automatically moving at c > wrt every other body in the universe, is it Ghost? > > You really make the most outrageous claims, Ghost. If you think that's outrageous, try this one. A light quanta can be everywhere within the subarea of the 4-dimensional Universe defined by the equation (x - x_0)^2 + (y - y_0)^2 + (z - z_0)^2 - c^2 * (t - t_0)^2 = 0 which can be construed as an expanding sphere, if one conventionally takes t as time. If one observes this wavefront from another vantage point (e.g., a moving spacecraft) it will *still be an expanding sphere*. It won't be squished, distorted, or otherwise mangled. It might move its center, but that's about it. In any event, SR is quite clear: all observers will see that pulse of light traveling at the same velocity. It won't be the same frequency, however. > >> >>> >>> Can you put two and two together Ghost? >> >>I already did. >> >>Depending on the units of "two", one gets rather odd results, >>but they can be expressed as >> >>2 * two / (1 + (two)^2/c^2) > > You are obsessed.! No, just being slightly silly. Don't you recognize the SR velocity addition formula? :-) [rest snipped] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Jim Greenfield on 5 Apr 2005 05:06
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<l9a9i2-f6i.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net>... > In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) > <H@> > wrote > on Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:31:29 GMT > <u6c351du1rm845dlvhj309smegtid0gnm9(a)4ax.com>: > > 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! > > No proof available. At best, there are several experiments > that show evidence for this statement, a number of indirect > experiments that show evidence for related concepts, and > a number of observations of astrophysical phenomena that > show evidence for other related concepts given certain > assumptions. Primary assumption that has mired physics / astronomy for decades being that Doppler is falsely attributed to a magical wavelength alteration, thus skewing many measurements as to distance, velocity and composition (spectra) > > There is reasonably good evidence that c' != c+v, if > you like. That's arguably the best we can do. > > Uncle Al is working on evidence that general relativity > doesn't quite work in the corner cases. I'll have to let > him explain parity/affine gravity to you; I don't have > the knowledge. (I'm not sure he has the patience. :-) ) Wrong way round! > > This doesn't mean that we can replace it with c' = c+v. > > > > >>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. That Doppler mistake again! > > > > Proof please. > > See above. > > > > >> > >>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 I have posted before: A photon acting similar to a bar magnet spinning as it travels a trajectory, would cause a push / pull effect at a POINT which would be a frequency. The frequency is determined by the rate of spin of the photon AND its linear velocity, which gives a WAVELENGTH. > What causes a diffraction pattern for single electrons? > > >> >>As far as I know, over 100 years of observations confirm this. > >>Do you have any data that invalidates this? Mistaken ASSUMPTION as to what caused the Doppler. > > > > Doppler shift is caused by varying relative light speed I agree! (but it may also be the result of a change in rotation of a photon) > > > > Do you know of anyone who has observed a doppler shift > > in a gamma particle? Nope. But when this array in Argentina gets its act together, I predict a flourescent path through the atmosphere will be produced will be produced by something going FASTER than 300,000k/s (like measuring the speed of a jet by observing its vapour trail from two positions simultaneously) Jim G c'=c+v |