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: Sam Wormley on 6 Apr 2005 09:59 kenseto wrote: > 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 > Seto is wrong here... There is no absolute motion. There are tens thousands of experiments already done demonstrating that *all* motion is relative, Seto! Seto is a well known crank on USENET. I, for one, thank him for registering at crank dot net. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Apr 2005 09:56 kenseto wrote: > the observed fringe pattern is not due to constructive > interference. It is due to the absolute motion of the grating wrt the light > rays. Seto is wrong here... There is no absolute motion. There are tens thousands of experiments already done demonstrating that *all* motion is relative, Seto! Seto is a well known crank on USENET. I, for one, thank him for registering at crank dot net. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
From: PD on 6 Apr 2005 10:12 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 5 Apr 2005 12:57:04 -0700, "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >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@> > > >> > >> 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. > > This is a question that I have raised recently. > I reckon the diffraction angle is somehow dependent on the rate at which fronts > of equal phase pass the lines. So light speed DOES come into it. You reckon incorrectly, I reckon. Unless you'd like to derive the diffraction angle for us in a way that demonstrates that the diffraction angle is indeed dependent on the rate at which fronts of equal phase pass the lines. Every derivation I've seen uses a "snapshot" (single instant of time) geometric analysis of the wavefronts and does not involve any velocity of them at all. > > > > >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. > > No it isn't. The theory is wrong. Then you need to show where. > Everyone knows light cannot be treated like a pure wave in a medium. It is also > corpuscular. > If you throw away all your Einsteiniana, you might start thinking > constructively. First of all, there is no medium implied in a diffraction grating (the grating can be made of physical openings rather than something painted on a substrate). Secondly, diffraction is a wave phenomenon, not a "corpuscular" phenomenon. If you think that a photon interpretation changes how we should look at diffraction, then I think you should explain exactly how -- in particular, how the corpuscular nature of the photon changes the angle of diffracted light. Third, the wave behavior of light has nothing to do with Einstein; Einstein in fact was the one that proposed the "corpuscular" photon, which you said we should not dismiss -- throw away Einstein, you throw away "corpuscular" light. PD
From: PD on 6 Apr 2005 10:35 Jim Greenfield wrote: > "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! No, you did not understand what I wrote. Please reread it. The change of angle indicates that the *wavelength* has changed. Only the wavelength and the distance between the etched markings contribute to the diffraction angle -- NOTHING ELSE. The relationship is [ sin(theta) = m (lambda)/d ], which is obtained from a geometrical sketch (ninth grade geometry, note). Here, theta is the diffraction angle, m is the order index of the diffracted line (there is more than one diffracted line), lambda is the wavelength, and d is the distance between the etched lines in the grating. There is no velocity assumed or required in this derivation at all, let alone a change in one. Thus a change in angle indicates *unambiguously* that the *wavelength* has changed. Furthermore, the frequency of that light can be determined independently to assure oneself that it is indeed green and not blue; this is done by using a detector that is *frequency*-sensitive, unlike the grating which is wavelength-sensitive. Thus, both frequency and wavelength are independently measured. Since speed = wavelength x frequency, it is then straightforward to check whether the velocity is altered or not. In other words, we do not have the liberty to interpret a change of angle as a change in velocity, because we have an independent way of verifying the velocity experimentally. Unfortunately for you, the product of the independently measured wavelength and frequency of the diffracted light is c, not c+v. > 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? There are two ways in principle this could occur. One is, as you say, the speed of the wave changes, which (if the wavelength stays the same) requires a change in frequency. The other ways is if the speed remains the same, but the frequency and wavelength change. The way to determine which of these two possibilities has occured is experimentally, as I outlined using the diffraction grating, which is a wavelength-sensitive instrument. > You ASSUME that it was ONLY the wavelength which altered, when it was > more probably the velocity of the sine peaks. I assume nothing. I measure both the wavelength (with the grating) and the frequency (with the film) independently, and I use that to calculate the speed. The only assumption I make is that speed = wavelength x frequency. Now, do you want to challenge that last assumption? > 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. You are right in the last paragraph. The camera does not measure photon velocity. It measures the frequency (because the color film layers respond chemically to different frequency bands). The diffraction grating measures the wavelength. I have independent measurements of wavelength and frequency, with which I can determine three things: - the wavelength is indeed shifted (measured); - the frequency is indeed shifted (measured); - the product of the wavelength and the frequency, which I expect to be the speed of the traveling wave, is not shifted. I'm really sorry to dispel the notion that you had the freedom to interpret Doppler shift as a change in velocity, not wavelength, and that you could base a new model assuming a different choice under that freedom. The fact is, that freedom does not exist. Period. PD
From: PD on 6 Apr 2005 10:41
kenseto wrote: > "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 Uh-huh. And the observed fringe pattern that occurs with sound waves or water waves in a ripple tank, also using a diffraction grating, is also not due to constructive interference, but is due to the absolution motion of the grating with respect to the sound or water waves? So light's wave behavior and observed wavelike phenomona, stem from completely different origins than what is seen in other wave phenomena? Is that really what you want to maintain? PD |