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: Jim Greenfield on 6 Apr 2005 02:10 "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1112731023.977565.318940(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>... > Jim Greenfield wrote: > > 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) > > And this shows you know nothing about how light's wavelength is > measured. One approach that's been around for years is the diffraction > grating. With a diffraction grating, light of a particular wavelength > is scattered and shows constructive interference at an angle that is a > function of the ratio of the light's wavelength and the spacing of the > etching in the grating. Nothing else -- no c's, no frequencies, no > other buried physics -- just the ratio of the light's wavelength to the > spacing of the etching the grating, a ratio of two distances. > > If what you say were true, that the wavelength stayed the same but the > speed and frequency changed, then a blue line shifted to green by the > Doppler effect would emerge from the grating at exactly the same angle > as the unshifted blue line. Why? Because, if what you say were true, > the wavelength would be the same and the spacing of the etching would > be the same, so the ratio of those two distances would be the same. > > This is demonstrably NOT the case. In spectrometers, we have > verification that the angle for a blue line shifted to green (and seen > to be green by taking a color film plate) falls exactly where an > unshifted *green* line should fall, not where the unshifted blue line > should fall. Thus, we have measurement of both frequency and > wavelength, showing that both are shifted. The product of the > wavelength and frequency, even for the shifted lines, is (miraculously) > c. > > There are no holes, no hidden assumptions, Jim. What you propose is > flat-out ruled out experimentally. It does not hold water. What does the change of angle indicate? That VELOCITY has altered! The beam on the altered direction intereferes at a different DISTANCE. Once again, you have the inbuilt assumption that c=c+v. How did the shift from blue to green occur? You ASSUME that it was ONLY the wavelength which altered, when it was more probably the velocity of the sine peaks. I say "probably" advisedly, as my bar magnet format for emr particles allows for photons of differring velocities to appear identical if their spins are correspondingly altered, and conversely. The camera DID NOT measure the photon velocity; all it did was to record per a chemical composition alteration that sine waves were impinging at a certain rate on the film. Jim G c'=c+v
From: bz on 6 Apr 2005 02:13 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:evs651539amj4j22e859p0euniifcdttrq(a)4ax.com: > Do you claim that light emitted from a remote star is initially > traveling at c relative to every object in the universe? yes. > Does that require an infinite number of discreet speeds? A large number of indiscrete speeds. :) (don't tell any one that they have been indiscrete). There are a finite number of objects in the universe. Emission is discrete. The wavelengths SEEN by observers are NOT discrete, they depend on the RELATIVE motion of source and observer. Emission lines, even from the gas in the neon sign in the bar's window, will show the doppler effect, as the atoms/molecules (the same thing in neon's case) are in motion. Absorption by another molecule of neon can only occur when the receiver is going the right velocity so that the wavelengths match. -- 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 6 Apr 2005 03:17 jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in news:e7b5cc5d.0504052210.4bdd638(a)posting.google.com: > What does the change of angle indicate? That VELOCITY has altered! NO. It shows that the interference pattern has altered. Here is an experiment that can be run in a wave tank: Start by using water, a variable frequency oscillator, a sound transducer to launch the waves into the tank. Arrange a series of vertical rods in the tank (your defraction grating) set the oscillator so that the standing waves on the tanks surface are clearly defracted by the grating at a specific angle. NOW, change the velocity of the waves by changing the DENSITY of the medium in the tank. Add vodka to the water. Keep adding vodka. As the velocity of the waves change, what happens to the wavelength. Do you need to change the frequency of the source to keep the angle of defraction constant? When you finish the experiment, you can drink the media. -- 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 6 Apr 2005 09:45 "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1112731023.977565.318940(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > Jim Greenfield wrote: > > 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) > > And this shows you know nothing about how light's wavelength is > measured. One approach that's been around for years is the diffraction > grating. With a diffraction grating, light of a particular wavelength > is scattered and shows constructive interference at an angle that is a > function of the ratio of the light's wavelength and the spacing of the > etching in the grating. Nothing else -- no c's, no frequencies, no > other buried physics -- just the ratio of the light's wavelength to the > spacing of the etching the grating, a ratio of two distances. You are wrong. the observed fringe pattern is not due to constructive interference. It is due to the absolute motion of the grating wrt the light rays. See the explanation for the double-slit experiment in my website.....click on to the section entitled "Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion" http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html Ken Seto >what you say were true, that the wavelength stayed the same but the > speed and frequency changed, then a blue line shifted to green by the > Doppler effect would emerge from the grating at exactly the same angle > as the unshifted blue line. Why? Because, if what you say were true, > the wavelength would be the same and the spacing of the etching would > be the same, so the ratio of those two distances would be the same. > > This is demonstrably NOT the case. In spectrometers, we have > verification that the angle for a blue line shifted to green (and seen > to be green by taking a color film plate) falls exactly where an > unshifted *green* line should fall, not where the unshifted blue line > should fall. Thus, we have measurement of both frequency and > wavelength, showing that both are shifted. The product of the > wavelength and frequency, even for the shifted lines, is (miraculously) > c. > > There are no holes, no hidden assumptions, Jim. What you propose is > flat-out ruled out experimentally. It does not hold water. > > PD > > [snip] >
From: kenseto on 6 Apr 2005 09:40
"bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns962FC6775BE14WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:1112731023.977565.318940 > @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > > > If what you say were true, that the wavelength stayed the same but the > > speed and frequency changed, then a blue line shifted to green by the > > Doppler effect would emerge from the grating at exactly the same angle > > as the unshifted blue line. Why? Because, if what you say were true, > > the wavelength would be the same and the spacing of the etching would > > be the same, so the ratio of those two distances would be the same. > > > > > > GOOD argument! > > Now, tell it to kenseto, he ALSO thinks the doppler shift is due to speed > changes and the wavelenght stays the same. He is wrong. the observed fringe pattern is not due to constructive interference. It is due to the absolute motion of the grating wrt the light rays. See the explanation for the double-slit experiment in my website.....click on to the section entitled "Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion" http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html Ken Seto |