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 7 Apr 2005 08:23 jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in news:e7b5cc5d.0504062211.6957dcb5(a)posting.google.com: > Well I'll take my crystal, which we KNOW, and by definition, emmits a > signal of known fixed frequency / wavelength in the lab, and YOU > explain how it does NOT exhibit that colour on the film, when I bring > the film and crystal beam together. > No magic; film which we trust, and a crystal also > > What is your magic crystal? The crystal of a laser diode or LED? That is a crystal and it emits a specific frequency/wavelength/color. What makes you think it will not exhibit the color that would be represented by the doppler shifted emission? Said doppler shift being due to relative velocity of source and film. -- 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: PD on 7 Apr 2005 09:28 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 6 Apr 2005 07:41:52 -0700, "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >kenseto wrote: > >> "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> news:1112731023.977565.318940(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > >> > > >> > Jim Greenfield wrote: > > >> 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? > > Why shouldn't he? > > The classical wave theory of light breaks down in other respects. > It is obviously inadequate. > Light cannot be treated like water waves or sound. > > > A few comments: 1. Sound is also quantized (look up "phonon"), just like light, but that has no bearing on the understanding of sound interference through a sonic diffraction grating. 2. The Correspondence Principle demands that quantum behavior reduces to classical behavior in the limit where dimensions are large compared to Planck's constant. The fact that light has quantum behavior in no way negates its macroscopic wave behavior in experiments that probe wave behavior. See particle-wave duality and see Comment 1. 3. I find it amusing that you would have us believe a ballistic theory for light because it is classically more appealing than relativity, and yet you are willing to abandon all other classical treatments of light (e.g. wave behavior) because it is "different". So light can be different, but it can't be different in THAT way. PD
From: kenseto on 7 Apr 2005 10:21 "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1112798512.354764.174830(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > 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? ROTFLOL....you and SR reject the notion of a light carrying medium and now you want to use the properties of a light medium to explain the diffraction phenomenon? Ken Seto
From: PD on 7 Apr 2005 11:17 kenseto wrote: > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1112798512.354764.174830(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > 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? > > ROTFLOL....you and SR reject the notion of a light carrying medium and now > you want to use the properties of a light medium to explain the diffraction > phenomenon? > > Ken Seto Medium, schmedium. There is nothing in the explanation of diffraction and interference that is based on the presence of the medium, nor on the velocity of the wave transmission. You are apparently unaware of that explanation or the derivation of relationship between the wavelength, diffraction grating spacing, and the angle of the diffracted light, since you continue to insist that it depends on things that do not pertain. PD
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 7 Apr 2005 13:00
In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:21:08 GMT <au1a51d33qekoq26oj8fh9anq5brcqh6lf(a)4ax.com>: > On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 06:00:10 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote > >>> >>> That's just aether theory in which the one absolute frame >>> is replaced by an arbitrary one. >>> >>> It is completely unproven. >> >>And c' = c+v has been disproven, experimentally. > > Don't be silly Ghost. You know that is not true. Ah, Ok. In that case I'm sure you'll have no trouble substantiating it with such things as PSR B1916+16. > > >>> >>>> >>>>[rest snipped] >>> >>> Ghost, why did you snip my question? Was it too hard to answer. >>> Here it is again: >>> >>> Do you claim that light emitted from a remote star is initially >>> traveling at c relative to every object in the universe? >> >>Initially, terminally, and at every point in between. >> >>> Does that require an infinite number of discreet speeds? >> >>No. The Lorentz spacetime twist takes care of that. >> >>Herewith the math. Very hairy grody grumpy weedy math. >>Bring your own machete. :-) [hairy math snipped for brevity] >>The dual lightcone is invariant (except for a in retrospect >>very obvious translation) under the Lorentz. Therefore >>lightspeed is c everywhere under the Lorentz. > > Ghost, you don't have to go through all that maths every time. > It is obvous what you are saying....the rods and clocks of all > the observers aree supposed to contract so that they will all > MEASURE OWLS as 'c'. Not supposed -- appear to. For all we know a giant djinn is standing up there laughing (soundlessly of course, since he's in deep space) at us as he moves a prism around, making it appear as though SR is working. Of course the above math is slightly simpler, from a theoretical physicist's standpoint. :-) But there's no way to disprove that giant djinn. > This is just another way of expressing the postulate. > It doesn't prove it. It is an extension of the old aether idea. In a way, it is. There's even a postulate that the Earth is twisting it. (Gravity Probe B is checking this hypothesis.) Of course it has different properties than the aether the MMX disproved (the old aether didn't postulate spacetime distortions). > > That is not the same as saying light leaves the star > with an infinite number of speeds. Light leaves with one speed: c. Light enters the user's eyeball with one speed: c. Light can be intercepted but is always measured with one speed: c. The catch is that the user's eyeball might be moving, and the interceptor moving as well. But one still measures lightspeed c. > >> >>I'm not sure this is proof of much, of course, beyond >>the fact that the math is internally self-consistent. >>However, it does show that it is possible to define a >>Universe with a metric (namely, the Minkowski) which >>gives OWLS=c everywhere under the Lorentz transformation. > > It is a maths technique to make the postulate true. > It is not a proven physical reality. There is no way to prove physical reality anyway. All we can do is take measurements. [rest snipped] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |