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 11 Apr 2005 00:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 02:09:11 GMT <grmj5197htduprdao0csmupe4ct1f9c118(a)4ax.com>: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield >><jgreen(a)seol.net.au> >> wrote >>on 10 Apr 2005 16:31:02 -0700 >><e7b5cc5d.0504101531.1813c302(a)posting.google.com>: >>> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<du1ki2-nma.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net>... >>>> In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield >>>> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> >>>> wrote >>>> on 8 Apr 2005 15:58:50 -0700 >>>> <e7b5cc5d.0504081458.ba543f(a)posting.google.com>: >>>> > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<evahi2-hq5.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net>... >>>> >> >>>> Absolutely I agree that speed=frequency x wavelength; what I >>>> >> >>>> absolutely disagree, is that the "speed" is always the same. >>>> >> >>>> >> 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. >>>> > >>>> > Not im my BaT! The particles (photons) will have the same separation, >>>> > but will arrive slightly sooner than simultaneously emitted photons >>>> > from the regressing star, and will appear to be bluer (higher >>>> > frequency). >>>> >>>> If they have the same seperation their color [*] will not >>>> change, although their energy will (they're moving faster). >>>> I agree that under BaT they'll arrive sooner. >>> >>> I suspect the eye works by analysing how often the photons strike >>> (frequency), >>> than by defacto measuring the distance between them. >> >>The eye analyzes nothing. In a manner of speaking any photon >>hitting the eye is a de facto Compton experiment. Briefly, >>the photon, having a certain energy, will wiggle molecules about. >> >>Of course it does respond (within certain limits) to the intensity >>of the light, but a rather simple experiment shows that this >>response is not always linear. Stare at, say, a bookcover for >>a few moments, then turn your gaze to a wall. If you've stared >>at it long enough you should see its complementary image; the >>standard explanation (which AFAIK is the correct one) is >>chemical fatigue -- the cones have used up their non-transitioned >>chemical and must "recharge". I'd have to look up the details. >> >>In any event, the color (wavelength) will not change, if >>my understanding of the BaT is correct, just the intensity >>(as they come faster). >> >>SR of course predicts otherwise. >> >>So here's an obvious question. Certain experiments with gamma rays >>and Fe-57 may be of interest here; since iron nuclei respond to >>the energy of each photon and since the BaT predicts no change >>in energy per quantum -- how come the Fe-57 response changes >>if the observer block is moving with respect to the gamma source? > > Where did you get that idea Ghost? > Of course light energy is speed dependent. Speed of the light, or speed of the observer? :-) > >> >>If you answer "because the energy changes as its speed is >>faster", congratulations. However, that is at best an >>incomplete explanation, as the MMX would also show a difference >>if fed from a moving source. (I know of no such experiments though >>I don't see why one could not be attempted with the apparatus >>pointing at, say, Venus.) > > It would have to be done on the moon. Tricky optical tracking system!!! And why would the MMX have to be done on the moon? > >> >>>> >>>> > As both stars emit a wide range of frequencies, and >>>> > differring "amounts" at each wavelength, the whole of the spectrums >>>> > would need to be analysed to see which star's light was more energetic >>>> > due to the motion of the source (KE of all the light). I am not >>>> > convinced that some of the redshifting might cause some photons to >>>> > become undetectable, so the results might still be questionable >>>> > (dammit) >>>> >>>> Stars consist of gas. This gas notches out certain frequencies, >>>> allowing for analysis of a star's composition. For example, >>>> http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/econ.html >>>> shows the spectrum for iron. >>>> http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Na/key.html >>>> shows the pattern for sodium, which is rather simpler. >>> >>> I can find no ref to temperature here! Surely the emitted frequency / >>> wavelength of iron etc depends on the temperature? It certainly >>> changes colour as it heats, and would be indestinguishable from say >>> neon light coming on, when at "red" hot. >> >>The spectrum is not caused by temperature, but by electronic >>transitions within the material. > > Are they caused by transitons between nuclear or intermolecular bonds? The Fe-57 experiments had to do with the nucleus, but most observed spectra have to do with electronic transitions, or, in some cases, bonding within molecules. Presumably, for instance, one can detect clouds of carbon monoxide, water, etc. [rest snipped] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: RP on 11 Apr 2005 02:06 N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: > Dear RP: > > "RP" <no_mail_no_spam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:so2dneqgYefX6MXfRVn-rg(a)centurytel.net... > ... > >>>How does it know to emit 29.96 MHz photons, at that moment, >>>rather than >>>29.959 MHz? >> >>Right. There are no photons. > > > Photoelectric effect. Resonance doesn't work. Wave models don't > work for PE. The fields are just forces, potential energy is just the energy that can be gained by the particles being forced. I agree that it's a mistake to model an em wave as having energy. Wave models do work for em interactions. > They are useful abstractions, just as particle-only > models are useful abstractions. Em waves are indeed abstractions... > So there are no waves. ;>) .... because em waves don't exist. It is neither particle nor wave that transmits energy between electrons, there is no transmission; the particles interact directly through spacetime. "What binds us to space-time is our rest mass, which prevents us from flying at the speed of light, when time stops and space loses meaning. In a world of light there are neither points nor moments of time; beings woven from light would live "nowhere" and "nowhen"; only poetry and mathematics are capable of speaking meaningfully about such things." - Yuri Manin Imagine yourself as a Coulomb test charge, your field extends infinitely outward through every other charge in the universe, it's strength dropping off as the inverse square of distance. Now suppose that Minkowski's metric is saying that a space-like displacement along any radius of the field is not just *equal* to a time-like displacement such that r = ct, but that ct is just another expression for the 3vector, i.e. that a displacement in space is equivalent to a displacement in time. If an infinite amount of kinetic energy were imparted to this test charge, then it would reach r instantaneously. However if in its motion through space it is progressing forward in time by an amount r/c, then we would find that even though this object has infinite kinetic energy it will have a velocity wrt us of r/(r/c) = c, which is in keeping with the special relativistic speed limit of c and the so-called but not so much correct, relativistic mass increase. Thus now we have actually salvaged Newton in the face of Minkowski spacetime, showing that Newton is still valid in the 4D manifold though no longer in the 3D plus time (Galilean) manifold that he had envisioned, and which his Earthly experience fooled him into believing. Because Einstein cast special relativity in the Galilean manifold he assumed that Newton was simply incorrect, because c played the part of infinity in his theory. This is not however the case in Minkowski's theory, since infinity is still infinity, and c results from a mapping of the 4D continuum onto the Galilean continuum. In Minkowski's spacetime there are no em waves, the particles interact instantaneously with each other, but are perceived to be delayed by a speed c in the very incorrect Galilean perspective. The Coulomb field of the test charge extends outward in 3D and forward and backward in time, but isn't observed from the perspective of the charge itself because wrt it the field is rigid in space and time independent. It is just this variance between static and dynamic forces in which the entire problem of relativity lies, how to forge the mechanism of the dynamics from the static field because they seem disparate, the latter requiring somewhat extra. This is not however the case, the field never changes, it only moves, and in its motions time seems skewered because it doesn't seem to move as a rigid whole, it seems to flex and deform. But this is only because we are assuming flat time, i.e. a Galilean *now*. In the Minkowski *now* the field is quite rigid. I've certainly read the Photons Schmotons articles, several times, and for all of their dilly dallying they never actually laid hands on the real solution, though I believe that it was quite evident to Minkowski that his was indeed a different theory than Einstein's. I believe that Minkowski's theory will one day be recognized for being the real theory of special relativity that it is, while Einstein's version will settle somewhere in the dust, and it will take its phucking photons with it :) Richard Perry BTW, mine is consistent with Plank's second theory, which is outlined in the Baez articles and listed as one of the 4 remaining probable valid candidates.
From: bz on 11 Apr 2005 01:57 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:v3nj511icu9kn77pctu396jpgsg9ep39ud(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:14:31 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>jgreen(a)seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in >>news:e7b5cc5d.0504101508.4cbaa626(a)posting.google.com: >> >>> if an experiment was EVER done >>> (such as with toothed wheels in cacuum), the <c would be immediately >>> apparent. >>> >> >>But thousands of experiments have verified that doppler shift is due to >>an actual shift in the wavelength/frequency/energy of the photons, NOT >>the speed. Many have been run in vaccum. > > Rubbish. OWLS has never even been measured so how the hell do you think > your statement could make any sense. > The equation for the BaT doppler and SR doppler are virtually the same > at low speeds. > >> >>None have ever seen photons change speed. It would be a nobel prize >>winning experiment. > > Until recently, OWLS differences from moving sources has been impossible > to detect. Even now it can only just be done. It is NOT necessary to measure the OWLS accurately. It is only necessary to show that OWLS does not CHANGE when the source changes speed (and frequency due to doppler shift). Some tests that you say are invalid because they measure the TWLS rather than OWLS are perfectly valid for confirming that the OWLS does not change when the source changes speed. For example, my spinning disk experiment carrying source with two fixed detectors at different distances from the source. Once the photon has been detected and converted to electric impulses traveling down the scope leads, we need not fear that some mysterious effect will nullify any effect due changes in the speed of light. You are not going to tell me that the electronical impulse travel at different speeds down the wire and THAT speed is dependent on the speed of the photons that generated the impulse, are you?? UNLESS you can do that, create a reason for the electric impulse speed to vary exactly in step with the speed of the photons, then the fact [that according to you] we are not measuring the 'true one way light speed' is unimportant as long as we have sufficient sensitivity to measure a difference in travel time between our two stationary detectors that the BaT would demand. -- 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: Henri Wilson on 11 Apr 2005 05:28 On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 04:00:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 02:09:11 GMT ><grmj5197htduprdao0csmupe4ct1f9c118(a)4ax.com>: >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >> >>>SR of course predicts otherwise. >>> >>>So here's an obvious question. Certain experiments with gamma rays >>>and Fe-57 may be of interest here; since iron nuclei respond to >>>the energy of each photon and since the BaT predicts no change >>>in energy per quantum -- how come the Fe-57 response changes >>>if the observer block is moving with respect to the gamma source? >> >> Where did you get that idea Ghost? >> Of course light energy is speed dependent. > >Speed of the light, or speed of the observer? :-) Ghost, you seem to know very little about this subject even after evrything I have taught you. Speed is always define as relative to something. You cannot get away from the 'absolute aether principle', can you. > >> >>> >>>If you answer "because the energy changes as its speed is >>>faster", congratulations. However, that is at best an >>>incomplete explanation, as the MMX would also show a difference >>>if fed from a moving source. (I know of no such experiments though >>>I don't see why one could not be attempted with the apparatus >>>pointing at, say, Venus.) >> >> It would have to be done on the moon. Tricky optical tracking system!!! > >And why would the MMX have to be done on the moon? It requires a better vacuum that can be achieved on Earth. >>> >>>The spectrum is not caused by temperature, but by electronic >>>transitions within the material. >> >> Are they caused by transitons between nuclear or intermolecular bonds? > >The Fe-57 experiments had to do with the nucleus, but most >observed spectra have to do with electronic transitions, >or, in some cases, bonding within molecules. Presumably, >for instance, one can detect clouds of carbon monoxide, >water, etc. In other words Ghost, you haven't a clue. > >[rest snipped] 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.
From: Henri Wilson on 11 Apr 2005 05:31
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:57:42 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:v3nj511icu9kn77pctu396jpgsg9ep39ud(a)4ax.com: > >>> >>>None have ever seen photons change speed. It would be a nobel prize >>>winning experiment. >> >> Until recently, OWLS differences from moving sources has been impossible >> to detect. Even now it can only just be done. > >It is NOT necessary to measure the OWLS accurately. >It is only necessary to show that OWLS does not CHANGE when the source >changes speed (and frequency due to doppler shift). > >Some tests that you say are invalid because they measure the TWLS rather >than OWLS are perfectly valid for confirming that the OWLS does not change >when the source changes speed. > >For example, my spinning disk experiment carrying source with two fixed >detectors at different distances from the source. > >Once the photon has been detected and converted to electric impulses >traveling down the scope leads, we need not fear that some mysterious >effect will nullify any effect due changes in the speed of light. You are >not going to tell me that the electronical impulse travel at different >speeds down the wire and THAT speed is dependent on the speed of the >photons that generated the impulse, are you?? Listen idiot, you know nothing about physics. Do a few calculations and you will see that your 'experiment'; is totally useless. > >UNLESS you can do that, create a reason for the electric impulse speed to >vary exactly in step with the speed of the photons, then the fact [that >according to you] we are not measuring the 'true one way light speed' is >unimportant as long as we have sufficient sensitivity to measure a >difference in travel time between our two stationary detectors that the BaT >would demand. 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. |