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: kenseto on 9 Apr 2005 09:00 "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1113049668.267119.88490(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Henri Wilson wrote: > > On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > > > > >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) > > ><H@> > > > wrote > > > > >>>> 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. > > >> > > >> You are very confused now Ghost. Getting desperate I would say. > > > > > >Am I? > > > > > >Here's a hint for you. Assume two stars traveling around a common > > >center at 30 km/s = 10^-4 c, although we can't tell the speed > directly. > > >What would be the wavelengths observed as these stars orbit each > other, > > >assuming a spectral line initially at 500 nm [*] and an approximate > > >distance of 10 lightyears? > > > > > >BaT: > > > > > >The star is spewing out particles at lightspeed, relative to itself. > > >These particles are of course 500 nm apart. However, since the > > >star is moving toward us, the particles in realspace will be a > > >tad longer apart -- namely, 500.05 nm apart. The other star > > >moving away from us will generate light of wavelength 499.95 nm, > > >as measured by us. The delta is 120.0000012 GHz between the two > signals. > > > > Question, Ghost: > > What is this 'realspace'? > > Is it another name for the aether? > > > > You are definitely very confused Ghost. > > The wavelength is the same no matter how you look at it. > > > > Proof: let the star fire a identical rods between each > particle....... > > > > S_._._._._._._._._._._._. > > > > You can see that the distance between particles is constant. > > > > [snip] > > This is precisely the problem. You imagine that a wavelength is emitted > from the source, fully formed, its length predestined. This is not the > case. This is your bogus assumption. >Look at it this way: the source emits "blips" every so often. The > blips represent wavefronts (or whatever) that travel at a fixed speed > *relative to the observer* away from the source. But if the source is > moving away from the direction of transmission, the distance between > the blips/fronts (or whatever) will be larger than if the source were > stationary relative to the observer. Likewise, if the source is moving > along the direction of transmission, the distance between the > blips/fronts (or whatever) will be smaller. Your problem is that you assumed that only the source is moving. The observer's absolute motion will contribute to the doppler shift. Also a change in shift can be observered after acceleration (after changing of absolute motion) by the observer. Ken Seto
From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox on 9 Apr 2005 10:56 Dear bz: "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns9633F966BDC9WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net(a)nospam.com> > wrote in > news:O4I5e.6012$EX4.3061(a)fed1read01: > >> Dear bz: >> >> "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message >> news:Xns963252076623CWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >>> RP <no_mail_no_spam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >>> news:s-udnaukW7_fksvfRVn- >>> ug(a)centurytel.net: >> ... >>> since the photons 'look like a point when seen >>> "end on"', but like waves when seen from the side. >> >> This is not correct. Imagine a signal passing left >> to right in front of you, in your God-like vision. >> You will note that the maximum E value passes >> you at c, and that it repeats itself each 1/f >> seconds. > > No. A photon is c/f long so the E max passes > me only once in each polarity per photon. Hardly. The size of a photon is inclusive of zero, and much less than "wavelength". Wavelength of a photon is simply shorthand (based on a measurement method) for its momentum. > And that is for plane polarized. For circular > polarized, you would see one twist. You see a *signal* twist. You see *nothing* for a single photon. > A coherent STREAM of photons would look > as you describe 'signal'. Including exhibiting a variable E and/or B, and providing the characteristic self-interference pattern. >> You will note that the photons pass you also at c. > > yes. > >> So the photon has no length (from left to right). > > length of each photon is c/f Experimentally determined to be zero length. There is no experiment than can get wavelength information from a single photon... only its energy. >> Only the >> number of photons varies along the path >> (think intensity), not some geometry of a >> single photon. > > not sure exactly what you mean by this. I > understand intensity. If the source is > incoherent, size (wavelenght), orientation, > and position will vary as well as direction > of travel. Imagine that the peak E of a coherent laser beam is populted with a lot of "photons per transverse slice", and a quarter wavelength away, very few photons are located. A photon with a fixed E and B value (unchanging in time) can make its contribution at a single point in the photon stream. >> You can run a long wavelength signal through >> a spinning drum with two slits, and the signal >> doesn't get "spun around" as if the photons >> were caught in the slits... and diverted from >> their course. > > Can you? Yes. Several methods of determining c used such. Some included rotating mirrors, which provides even more difficulties for your imagined photon structure, since each photon would now be tortured into a much longer wavelength and mixed momentum. If photons were such long creatures as you imagine, these constructs would not work. But they did, and did it without affecting the wavelength. > Have you tried it? I don't know of anyone that > has spun a slit anywhere near the frequency > of the EM radiation. 60Hz can be EM radiation. 1m corresponds to a wavelength. Don't be silly. > When you run a polarized beam through a > layer of mylar film that is under stress, the > plane of polarization gets rotated. When > the source is white light and the polarizers > are crossed, you see bright, colorful areas > showing the stress in the plastic. Which says something about: - the signal passed through the mylar, and - the variable speed of light in mylar *nothing* about a single photon is revealed. Because you can do the same test with gamma or even x-rays and polarization is unaffected. David A. Smith
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2005 11:32 bz << But only one 'detector' can jiggle for each jiggle of the emitter.>> Experiment 1 Drop a 1 gram rubber duck in a bath tub. Watch the pretty ripples spread out. See how the waves of the 1 gram duck gently lap and jiggle the gross revolting soap scum on the tub walls. Note carefull the displacement of the soap scum. ("This is you brain on drugs...sizzzzillle....") Experiment 2 Drop (Qty) 13,600,000,000,000,000 (ask your ministry of defense for a borrower's card) Nimitz class aircraft carriers each with a displacement of 73,000 metric tons into the same bathtub. Strain your eyes to see if you can see a filled bathtub about 3 continents removed from your bathtub. Note if the gross revolting soap scum on your neighbor's tub walls moves about the same distance as in experiment 1. If it does, then you can use the distance between the continents and total displacement of all the ships to calculate the ratio of gravitational force to Coulomb force. Coulomb force is what makes charges jiggle together. giggle (This is an experiment on steroids...sizzzzillle... ) << ...the gravitational attraction between two protons is roughly a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than the electrostatic repulsion. >> http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/hr/skept/E_M/node2.html If you still believe "only one 'detector' can jiggle for each jiggle of the emitter" then I hope you have a nice time cleaning up that mess in the bathroom. ;-) Sue...
From: bz on 9 Apr 2005 13:48 "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net(a)nospam.com> wrote in news:p2S5e.6044$EX4.5168(a)fed1read01: > Dear bz: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns9633F966BDC9WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net(a)nospam.com> >> wrote in >> news:O4I5e.6012$EX4.3061(a)fed1read01: >> >>> Dear bz: >>> >>> "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message >>> news:Xns963252076623CWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >>>> RP <no_mail_no_spam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> news:s-udnaukW7_fksvfRVn- >>>> ug(a)centurytel.net: >>> ... >>>> since the photons 'look like a point when seen >>>> "end on"', but like waves when seen from the side. >>> >>> This is not correct. Imagine a signal passing left >>> to right in front of you, in your God-like vision. >>> You will note that the maximum E value passes >>> you at c, and that it repeats itself each 1/f >>> seconds. >> >> No. A photon is c/f long so the E max passes >> me only once in each polarity per photon. > > Hardly. The size of a photon is inclusive of zero, and much less > than "wavelength". Wavelength of a photon is simply shorthand > (based on a measurement method) for its momentum. > >> And that is for plane polarized. For circular >> polarized, you would see one twist. > > You see a *signal* twist. You see *nothing* for a single photon. The OAM Orbital Angular Momentum people seem to think that photons have finite length and they think all photons have OAM. I am not sure about all of their ideas, yet. > >> A coherent STREAM of photons would look >> as you describe 'signal'. > > Including exhibiting a variable E and/or B, and providing the > characteristic self-interference pattern. Single photons exhibit interference in dual slit experiments. > >>> You will note that the photons pass you also at c. >> >> yes. >> >>> So the photon has no length (from left to right). >> >> length of each photon is c/f > > Experimentally determined to be zero length. There is no > experiment than can get wavelength information from a single > photon... only its energy. what about scattering of single photons from a diffraction grating? > >>> Only the >>> number of photons varies along the path >>> (think intensity), not some geometry of a >>> single photon. >> >> not sure exactly what you mean by this. I >> understand intensity. If the source is >> incoherent, size (wavelenght), orientation, >> and position will vary as well as direction >> of travel. > > Imagine that the peak E of a coherent laser beam is populted with > a lot of "photons per transverse slice", and a quarter wavelength > away, very few photons are located. So, you have a pulsed laser beam? > A photon with a fixed E and > B value (unchanging in time) can make its contribution at a > single point in the photon stream. > >>> You can run a long wavelength signal through >>> a spinning drum with two slits, and the signal >>> doesn't get "spun around" as if the photons >>> were caught in the slits... and diverted from >>> their course. >> >> Can you? > > Yes. Several methods of determining c used such. Some included > rotating mirrors, which provides even more difficulties for your > imagined photon structure, since each photon would now be > tortured into a much longer wavelength and mixed momentum. If > photons were such long creatures as you imagine, these constructs > would not work. But they did, and did it without affecting the > wavelength. an 850 nm signal has a period of 2.8e-3 pico seconds. > >> Have you tried it? I don't know of anyone that >> has spun a slit anywhere near the frequency >> of the EM radiation. > > 60Hz can be EM radiation. No one has ever detected a single photon at 60 Hz. The wavelength is 6,000 km. The energy is 4e-32 Joules. Much too weak to be detected as a single photon except very close to absolute zero because of thermal noise. > 1m corresponds to a wavelength. 1 meter has a frequency of 300 MHz and an energy 2e-25 Joules. I doubt that one meter single photons have been detected. > Don't > be silly. I try not to be. > >> When you run a polarized beam through a >> layer of mylar film that is under stress, the >> plane of polarization gets rotated. When >> the source is white light and the polarizers >> are crossed, you see bright, colorful areas >> showing the stress in the plastic. > > Which says something about: > - the signal passed through the mylar, and > - the variable speed of light in mylar > *nothing* about a single photon is revealed. Because you can do > the same test with gamma or even x-rays and polarization is > unaffected. I fail to follow your logic. Why would we expect Gamma or x-rays to be effected by polarizers that work for visible light? Why would we expect mylar film to effect either? I suspect that single photons from a white light source, run through the polarizer mylar polarizer would show that certain energy photons were selectively absorbed and others passed just as with the bulk stream of white light. When I go in my ham shack and turn my transmitter on 29.96 MHz, I generate a LOT of 10 meter photons. By your theory, some of these 2e-26 Joule photons start popping out of my 5 meter long, half wave antenna, at the very beginning of the 33 ns period of the wave? Somehow I don't think so. -- 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 9 Apr 2005 14:13
kenseto wrote: > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1113049668.267119.88490(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > Henri Wilson wrote: > > > On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > > > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > > > > > > >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) > > > ><H@> > > > > wrote > > > > > > >>>> 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. > > > >> > > > >> You are very confused now Ghost. Getting desperate I would say. > > > > > > > >Am I? > > > > > > > >Here's a hint for you. Assume two stars traveling around a common > > > >center at 30 km/s = 10^-4 c, although we can't tell the speed > > directly. > > > >What would be the wavelengths observed as these stars orbit each > > other, > > > >assuming a spectral line initially at 500 nm [*] and an approximate > > > >distance of 10 lightyears? > > > > > > > >BaT: > > > > > > > >The star is spewing out particles at lightspeed, relative to itself. > > > >These particles are of course 500 nm apart. However, since the > > > >star is moving toward us, the particles in realspace will be a > > > >tad longer apart -- namely, 500.05 nm apart. The other star > > > >moving away from us will generate light of wavelength 499.95 nm, > > > >as measured by us. The delta is 120.0000012 GHz between the two > > signals. > > > > > > Question, Ghost: > > > What is this 'realspace'? > > > Is it another name for the aether? > > > > > > You are definitely very confused Ghost. > > > The wavelength is the same no matter how you look at it. > > > > > > Proof: let the star fire a identical rods between each > > particle....... > > > > > > S_._._._._._._._._._._._. > > > > > > You can see that the distance between particles is constant. > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > This is precisely the problem. You imagine that a wavelength is emitted > > from the source, fully formed, its length predestined. This is not the > > case. > > This is your bogus assumption. Then perhaps you need to propose a dynamical model that explains how a wavelength emerges from a source, fully formed, its length predestined. > > >Look at it this way: the source emits "blips" every so often. The > > blips represent wavefronts (or whatever) that travel at a fixed speed > > *relative to the observer* away from the source. But if the source is > > moving away from the direction of transmission, the distance between > > the blips/fronts (or whatever) will be larger than if the source were > > stationary relative to the observer. Likewise, if the source is moving > > along the direction of transmission, the distance between the > > blips/fronts (or whatever) will be smaller. > > Your problem is that you assumed that only the source is moving. The > observer's absolute motion will contribute to the doppler shift. Also a > change in shift can be observered after acceleration (after changing of > absolute motion) by the observer. I made no such assumption. You'll note that I said "that travel at a fixed speed *relative to the observer* away from the source." PD |