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: The Ghost In The Machine on 7 Apr 2005 13:00 In sci.physics, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:41:29 GMT <ZT95e.11438$g65.373(a)attbi_s52>: > Jim Greenfield wrote: > >> >> Absolutely I agree that speed=frequency x wavelength; what I >> absolutely disagree, is that the "speed" is always the same. >> > > Empirical fact of life, Jim. > Confirmable, as well. The SR and the BaT predict different results for such things as spectroscopic binaries, even if one can't measure the speed directly. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: kenseto on 7 Apr 2005 16:28 "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1112887032.405849.87520(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > 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 wer the one who uses water wave to explain the interference of light. So are you backing off that assertion? >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. All these are assertions. the correct interpretation is in my website: http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html Ken seto > > PD >
From: Sam Wormley on 7 Apr 2005 16:37 kenseto wrote: > 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? Seto--I want you to read this http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Diffraction.html and the associated links and references and tell us how diffraction requires a medium! Here's your chance to learn something, Seto!
From: PD on 7 Apr 2005 16:59 kenseto wrote: > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1112887032.405849.87520(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > 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 wer the one who uses water wave to explain the interference of light. So > are you backing off that assertion? Not at all. But the presence of the medium is not essential to the interference in that case, either. The fact that there IS a medium with a water wave is irrelevant. Your argument is akin to saying that gravity acting on an apple falling from a tree cannot be linked to gravity acting on the moon, because the apple is surrounded by air and the moon is not. The air is irrelevant to the force of gravity acting on the apple. Here's a visual "derivation" of interference: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/flashlets/youngexpt4.htm Click Play, and then after a bit click Pause. Then click Show Path Difference. The only thing that determines whether there is constructive or destructive interference is the ratio of the path difference to the wavelength. Note that there is NO mention of medium in this derivation, nor is there any need of any velocity appearing in that ratio -- only path difference and wavelength. PD > > >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. > > All these are assertions. the correct interpretation is in my website: > http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html > > Ken seto > > > > > PD > >
From: Henri Wilson on 7 Apr 2005 18:18
On 7 Apr 2005 05:43:16 -0700, "Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:36:36 +0100, "George Dishman" ><george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> >news:65g851dn7asmetb67jjv5cnue56cbsjlai(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> >>>It should demonstrate that a change of angle >> >>>as illustrated in the case of the elliptical >> >>>motion has no effect on the brightness as long >> >>>as the path length of both beams remains the >> >>>same while path length does have an effect even >> >>>if the angle remains constant. >> >> >> >> In the elliptical case, the intensity of the beam will remain >constant >> >> only in >> >> a plane perpendicular to the beam direction. >> > >> >Note I am describing the intensity only at a >> >single point. In other situations that may >> >extend to other points by symmetry but not >> >in this case. >> >> Yes, the intensity on a 'line' will be constant... > >I am only discussing intensity at a point, not >along a line. How the intensity varies spatially >also depends on other factors (like the shape of >th source). That is just for clarification, it >doesn't impact your next point: OK > >> ...but the fact that one beam is >> coming in at a different angle as you move the mirror around the >ellipse will >> surely affect the way the two beams interfere. > >No. The general formula for a wave propagating >along the x axis is > > f(x, t) = A * sin(w*(t - x/c) + p) > > A is the amplitude > w is the angular frequency > c is the speed > p is the phase > t is time > x is the distance from the source > >At any given point x is a constant so we >can define p' = w*x/c+p as a local phase >which is again fixed and simplify as: > > f(t) = A * sin(w*t + p') > >When you take two such waveforms and combine >them, the sum of two sine waves is also a >sine wave but with an amplitude that depends >only on the product of the values of A and >difference between the values of p', the >phase difference. Any detector averages the >power over many cycles so the relative >intensity depends solely on the phase >difference as the amplitude is a common >factor. But if two beams cross at right angles, there will be no fringes because of the cosine law. > >> It isn't just a matter of >> intensity. > >It is just a matter of relative phase. yes OK, but the contrast will diminish as angle increases. > >> >> In your example, a cosine >> >> correction needs to be applied to compare intensities AT ANY POINT >on the >> >> target. >> >> I'm not sure if tat is relevant. It might only affect the contrast >of the >> >> fringes. >> > >> >What is significant is that it shows that >> >the angle at which the light arrives at >> >point D is unimportant, hence any possible >> >angle change in the Sagnac case is also >> >unimportant, except insofar as it might >> >lead to a path length change. >> >> I wouldn't agree. The angle between the two beams is moreimportant >than the >> intensity. > >Both experimental and theoretically, at >any given point the angle of incidence has >absolutely no effect, only the relative >phase matters. As I have acknowledged >several times, when you consider the >spatial behaviour, then you need to know >how x varies over the screen since it >affects p' hence the angle would matter. Yes OK. I was really considering the connection between angular difference and path length. > >> >>>You said "In my sagnac model, there is both >> >>>sideways displacement AND angular change." but, >> >>>if you agree, you should now understand that a >> >>>change of angle cannot cause any effect at the >> >>>detector. >> >>> >> >> But there is also a path length difference. >> > >> >RThat's the key and here I agree with you, but >> >my point is that the effect must come from >> >the length change only, not the angle change, >> >hence that makes it a lot easier to calculate. >> >> Well, until we have a better idea of what a photon really is, I >cannot say I >> would agree on that either. > >If you want to talk about probabilities of >individual photons then we would need to >use QED, but for our discussion a purely >classical approach is adequate. > >> >> Put it another way, when the >> >> apparatus is rotating, the sections of the two beams that arrive >> >> simultaneously >> >> at any point did not leave the source at the same instant. >> > >> >I agree, that is what my other simulation >> >will try to illustrate. >> >> I still cannot see why fringe pattern should change at all while the >apparatus >> is rotating at constant speed. > >I'll work on the sim tomorrow, I'm out doing >more interesting things tonight. I should have >it by the weekend. By then I hope you will have >your Java VM working. > >> I have version 1.1.4 > >That is still the old Microsoft version which >only implemented an early subset of Java. I >think the main deficiency is that it doesn't >have the "Swing" components that produce the >GUI. If you click the download button, it >should upgrade you to version 1.5.0_02 of the >Sun VM. Here's the link again > >http://www.java.com/en/download/ OK. It now works. Thanks for that. Maybe some of my own Java programs will run now. I will study your model in more detail. > >> >>>I just followed the defaults and it >> >>>worked fine. >> >>> >> >>>>>If it works, switch on one beam at a time >> >>>>>using the check boxes and move the location >> >>>>>of the detector using the slider. Wiggle it >> >>>>>about and see if you agree with the beam >> >>>>>paths. Then switch both on and look at the >> >>>>>angle between the beams at the detector. Let >> >>>>>me know what you think. > >> >True, I found the display elements tedious >> >but Swing helps and the EJS program does all >> >that for you. Anyway, let's get the simulation >> >running so we can address the Sagnac case, the >> >software is only a means to that end. >> >> I'll run one up on Vbasic too. > >Cool, then we can compare ideas :-) I will use the nonrotating frame. I will also try to incorporate the c+v factor at the source and each mirror. It will be based on the 45 deg component for the four mirror system. This program may take some time. > >George 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. |