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: Henri Wilson on 12 Apr 2005 19:47 On 12 Apr 2005 05:37:59 -0700, "Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:33:31 +0100, "George Dishman" ><george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> I cannot see any connection with SR. >> > >> >I think it is obvious. The the speed of the light >> >is c in the lab frame, a simple deduction from >> >the postulates of SR. To emphasise the point, >> >consider two such experimental setups in the same >> >lab. One is fixed to the floor while the other >> >moves through the lab on rails at constant speed. >> >My analysis holds good for both because the speed >> >is c in an inertial (non-rotating) frame >> >referenced to the centre point of _either_ table. >> >> But you don't know if the number of fringes moved is the same in both >cases for >> the same rotation! >> >> To show that you will have to move one setup at a very high speed. > >Hold on Henri, let's finish the point before >looking at another. We were discussing the >basis of the explanation I gave, not >experimental results. That can come later. > >You said that you couldn't see the connection >between the standard explanation as shown in >my animation and SR. The link is that it uses >the fact that the speed of light is the same >in all inertial frames to determine the >behaviour of the light. Do you now follow that >part? Well, is a rotating frame an inertial one? > >You also said: > >> >> It is based on an aether concept that >> >> there is an absolute frame. > >That is not true because the spee would be c >in the aether frame in that case. Do you see >that? Here are the details: > >> >Whether some other aether-based theory might look >> >similar is irrelevant, the explanation is valid >> >for an SR analysis. >> > >> >That said, you should also note that what I posted >> >is _not_ a valid analysis for most absolute frame >> >theories where the speed of light is c in that >> >frame and you have to consider the speed of the >> >lab with respect to the preferred-frame to find >> >the speed of the light at any point. >> > >> >The simplest example might be a Galilean aether >> >with the lab moving through the aether in a >> >directon that lies in the plane of the turntable. >> >The speed of the light when moving round the table >> >in the same direction as the lab is moving wrt. >> >the aether is c-V while on the other side of the >> >table is it c+V. Of course this mostly cancels out >> >as both beams traverse almost one full turn but >> >the beam going the same way as the table rotation >> >covers the section between the emission point and >> >where it hits the detector twice while the other >> >beam never travels that part. The result is that >> >the speed in that section varies depending on the >> >alignment of that part with the direction of >> >aether flow and as it varies slightly round the >> >table, there would be a slight modulation of the >> >signal with orientation. That would be tiny and >> >unmeasurable in reality but it is there >> >theoretically. Clearly that is a quite different >> >approach and a slightly different result. >> > >> >With a Lorentz-invariant aether, we know it gives >> >the same results as SR so it could borrow the >> >analysis I gave. Still, from first principles, you >> >should start as I did for the Galilean aether to >> >find the speed at any point round the path but >> >taking account of length contraction which turns >> >the table into an ellipse instead of a circle. >> >Then note that the frequency of the light emitted >> >will be altered by the Lorentzian equivalent of >> >"time dilation" depending on the speed of the >> >source through the aether at the time of emission. >> >Then find the phase difference between the delayed >> >version of this that reaches the detector by the >> >two paths. >> > >> >I'll say good luck if you want to try that >> >approach, I don't like the look of it at all, but >> >it must end up giving the same result as SR. >> > >> >Anyway, the point is that any preferred-frame >> >analysis must take account of the motion of the >> >table centre in the preferred-frame and that >> >factor does not appear in what we have done so >> >far so you cannot mistake the analysis for an >> >absolute-frame theory, and as I said at the top, >> >even if some aether theory did by chance coincide, >> >it doesn't prevent this being a valid SR analysis. >> >> It might be an analysis but is it correct? > >The SR one certainly is. It has been around >for over 90 years, ever since Sagnac did the >experiment, and has been examined by hundreds >of students and experimeners. It has been peer >reviewed more times than you and I have had >hot dinners! The christian bible has been 'peer reviewed' for 2000 years and still hasn't an ounce of truth in it. > >The aether analyses above are just outlines to >make the point that they would have to take the >speed of the lab wrt the aether into account >hence my analysis is obviously not aether-based. aether is dragged with the apparatus. > >f you now understand those points and can see >that my animation is SR-based, we can move on. I think it is based on something completely separate from SR.. but there is a purely coincidental connection. > >> >>>> I accept that rotation CAN be detected absolutely but I don't >> >>>> agree with that explanation because it ignores the fact that >> >>>> light is actually being internallyreflected an infinite number >> >>>> of times by and infinitesimal amount. >> >>> >> >>>That is dealt with by the more thorough analysis >> >>>that shows the effect is proportional to the area >> >>>eclosed by the light path. See for example this >> >>>page where it is calculated for an arbitrary >> >>>polynomial after the circular version: >> >>> >> >>>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm >> >>> >> >>>> I only want to analyse the four mirror system. Your demo >> >>>> would have to consider a few other factors then. >> >>> >> >>>Ok, but you will need to tell me what other >> >>>factors you want to consider. AFAIK, we have >> >>>covered all the areas of uncertainty you >> >>>brought up last time and eliminated any effect >> >>>from them. >> >> >> >> Incidentally, in a ring gyro, is a hollow fibre used or a solid >one? >> > >> >Solid, follow the link to the e-core material on >> >the KVH site. Those I have seen so far have used >> >internal reflection rather than graded index but >> >much of the technical spec. for the materials is >> >over my head. >> > >> >BTW, I haven't mentioned refractive index as I >> >assumed you would realise it cancels out in both >> >theories. >> >> Does it? I'll have to think about that. > >The easy way is again in the rotating frame. >Both beams move at c/n instead of c in the >Ritzian analysis so acts like a scaling >factor on the output. The SR version would be >more complex but it can be treated as a drag >(ref. Fresnel's experiments with water in >u-tubes) so would again produce just a scale >factor. an important one. > >> It certainly complicates the animation. > >If you are doing the version with mirrors, >just assume the apparatus is in vacuum. It will be in remote space vacuum too. > >> Mine is well uinderr way...but is going to take some time. >> My apparatus will have arms that are 1 light second long to make the >effect >> more apparent. > >OK. I'm looking forward to seeing it. I'm pretty busy at present but will keep working at it. > >> >It is actually one of the nice feaures of using >> >these devices as a test of Ritz because any >> >thoughts of the speed changing due to interaction >> >with the air in the lab in the normal experiment >> >is removed since the fibre rotates with the >> >table. I know you dislike thinking in the table >> >frame but when you realise there are no moving >> >parts at all when viewed that way yet the speed >> >of the light appears to change, I think it >> >brings home the problem for Ritz. Centrifugal >> >force on the photons is the only thing that could >> >have an effect and that applies equally to both >> >paths. >> >> I think there is a lot more to this. The standard explanation >> is 'inadequate'. > >The standard SR explanation covers all it needs >to. If you think something is missed, say what >it is because nobody else has spotted it in 90 >years, you could be famous ;-) > >For your Ritzian model, as I say, I have been >waiting several years for someone to resolve >the problem and I haven't seen any credible >suggestions of what might be missed. Still, >perhaps you will be the one to solve the >problem. I have already explained what happens but you cannot see it. > >> ><snip> >> >>>What did you have in mind, something like the >> >>>circular one but with the wavefronts moving >> >>>along the straight paths of the previous >> >>>static beam diagram? That would take some time >> >>>and I'm not sure it would prove much. The key >> >>>I suspect is what extra you want to take into >> >>>account. >> >> >> >> In the four mirror system, the light is reflected at an >> >> angle that is not 90 (during rotation) >> > >> >The angles are illustrated in the simple path- >> >drawing applet but it doesn't affect the time >> >taken along the path so there is nothing to >> >put into the animation. >> >> It DOES affect the time. Why do you claim it doesn't? > >Because the time is determined fully by the >length of the path. Unless you are suggesting >some sort of delay due to absorption and >subsequent re-emission during the reflection >process, I don't see how it can add anything >to the path-length time. You will have to wait for my animation. > >> >> There is also a quite complex velocity change to consider >> >> at each reflection. >> > >> >No, we covered that last year. In SR of course the >> >speed is c on each leg of the path regardless of >> >the speed of the mirror. In Ritz, it could be more >> >complex as there is a difference between a model >> >involving absorbtion and re-emission versus a >> >billiard-ball model, both of which could be >> >compatible with the basic concept of ballistic >> >primary emission. However, for paths that are a >> >regular polygon, the symmetry means that the light >> >approaches each mirror at c relative to the mirror >> >so the question becomes moot, both models say the >> >reflected light will move away from the mirror at >> >c. Remember this? >> > >> >http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif >> >> I don't understand that diagram. >> >> Why are the green lines sloping? > >The purple and green lines are the vectors, >not the path of the light. The actual path is >the red line and the sloping green line shows >the direction the light must be emitted such >that it adds to the motion of the mirror >(shown by the purple vector arrow) to produce >the resultant motion necessary for it to hit >the second mirror. It is doing standard vector >addition graphically, nothing fancy. Why do you think the actual path is the red line. That is the source of your misunderstanding. > >> I will use the non-rotating frame in my animation.. > >OK, as long as you use the rule of reflection >there shouldn't be any problem. We can use >huygens to resolve any disputes. > >> >So again there is nothing to add to the animation. >> > >> >Can you think of any other possibilities? I have >> >asked about half a dozen Ritz supporters including >> >yourself over about six years and so far nobody >> >has found anything I have missed. > >I guess you haven't spotted anything else yet. I have already explained. You are too stubborn to accept the truth. > >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.
From: Henri Wilson on 12 Apr 2005 20:14 On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:17:20 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:583m51h8hhu0g8ajo90b41hkplnu33b21m(a)4ax.com: > >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:33:40 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:crgk51phu180c3v483f93pfgaeccvl9dlt(a)4ax.com: >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>> >>>worlds fastest oscilloscope [circa 2002] had 6GHz bandwidth, 20GHz >>>sampling rate. http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/tek/tek129.html >>>6 GHz is 1e-10 seconds. >>> >>>a 10000m/s doppler shift, if it changed the speed of the photons, would >>>result in a 3.33e-5 shift in speed. >> >> What the hell are you trying to say. Doppler shift doesn't 'cause' a >> light speed change. You have it back to front. > >I don't think that the velocity of the source changes the velocity of >the photons. I don't think that doppler shift changes the speed of light. > >I want to test the theory that the speed of the source does NOT effect the >speed of the photons. I want to falsify the theory that doppler shift is >caused by a change in the speed of the photons. > >Here is my original proposal > >at the left is a spinning disk that carries a light SOURCE such as an LED >or a laser diode. Perhaps to balance things, it should carry two. > > >spinning disk second detector > >>-----------------------|-----------------------------| > << first detector > >above is a diagram of the test set up. On the left is a spinning disk with >an LED mounted on the edge. In the center is a half silvered mirror that >deflects half the passing photons to a detector, on the right is a second >detector that detects the rest of the photons. > >Between the LED and the first detector there are a couple of pin holes >to make sure that we only see photon that are emitted when the LED is >travelling straight toward the detectors. > >We are measuring time it takes the light to pass from the first detector >to the second detector. > >We will measure the time of flight with the source traveling at different >speeds. We will see if the time of flight changes with source velocity. > >>>10000 m/s could be achieved with a 100 >>>cm radius disk spinning at 95493 rpm. [this would have to be in a vacuum >>>as it would be supersonic in air]. We would need about 1 mile between >>>detectors in order to be able to see the time difference with the above >>>scope. >>> >>>There are ways to get much better time resolution. Those would decrease >>>the path length needed. >>> >>>We could use much higher speeds. That would reduce path length needed. >>> >>>We could use longer path lengths. >>> >>>We could use a sampling scope. >>>[quote] >>>Because sampling oscilloscopes can measure signals up to an order of >>>magnitude faster than real-time oscilloscopes, they are ideal tools for >>>capturing and characterizing computer, datacom and telecom signals. >>>Sampling oscilloscopes are indispensable for characterizing the high- >>>frequency components of signals from 50 Mb/s to 40 Gb/s. >>>[unquote] >>> >>>With 40 Gb/s capture rates, we could compress our 1 mile path length to >>>224 meters. 2 and 1/2 foot ball fields. >>> >>>Here is another device that could be used for our time-of-flight >>>measurement: >>>http://www.boselec.com/products/documents/MultiscalersetcCOLOR.pdf >>> >>>Or we could use the detectors and electronics from a pulsed time of >>>flight laser range finder. >>>http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514269667/html/c305.html >>> >>>Do you STILL think the experiment can not be done? >> >> Do the maths. >> >> ....OK I'll do it for you. > > >> The peripheral speed of a 3m circumference wheel, spinning at 500 rps >> (30000 rpm) is 0.000005c. > >My experiment has a peripheral speed that is 6.66 times your peripheral >speed. Your reflection doubles your effect, so I have only 3.33 times your >velocity. >.... >> Now the problems....... >> >> The distance between the source and the spinning mirror must be accurate >> to considerably less than 1.5 cms. >> The rise time of the pulses must be of the order of 10^-11 secs. > >You are running a much different experiment than I am. > >I am measuring time of flight between two stationary points. You have designed a typical TWO-WAY light speed experiment. Both the positioning of the clocks and their synchronization involves light going the opposite way to the beam you are trying to measure. > >I don't CARE if the distance to the source varies. I want to know if the >VELOCITY of the source has any effect on the speed of the photons. Have a look at the brightness curves of the following variable stars: R Aquilae R Andromedae R Arietis R Aur X Aur R Boo S Boo U Boo* V Boo* V CVn** R Cam V Cam" X Cam Z Cam R Cas* S Cas** t Cas** W Cas S Cep* T Cep* Omicron Ceti R Com R Crb*** S Crb V Crb W Crb R Cyg S Cyg V Cyg W Cyg AF Cyg*** Chi Cyg R Dra R Gem S Her* RU Her** SS Her AH her R Hya SU Lac X Oph U ori R Scuti** R Ser V Tau R Uma S Uma T Uma CH Uma*** S Umi R Vul V Vul* They all match the ballistic predictions. > >I don't have the alignment problems you have. I don't have problems with >the strength of the source. I don't have many of the problems you have. >.... >> >> So, bz....do you still think it is possible? > >Even more so, now. You haven't a clue. 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 12 Apr 2005 20:20 On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >> >> Speed is always define as relative to something. > >That's fine. Lightspeed is c relative to everything. In your dreams Ghost. > >Got it now? :-) I got it a long time ago Ghost. OWLS has any value. > >> >> You cannot get away from the 'absolute aether >> principle', can you. > >And you cannot seem to accept the timetwist required by SR/GR. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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. > >And why is that? Is a better vacuum going to change your result? > >If one is going to go to all that trouble it's probably simpler >to use your original two-rocket experiment. > >> >> >>>>> >>>>>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. > >The energy required to liberate >a sodium electron from the 3s shell >is about 495.8 kJ/mol, or 5.139 eV, >or a frequency of 1.242 * 10^15 Hz. > >This is somewhere in the soft UV. > >The energy required for the Fe-57 effect is >on the order of 14.4 keV -- almost 3000x more. > >Does this answer your question? I already knew the answer. > >[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: bz on 12 Apr 2005 21:53 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:pkno51hjhep1ole2cib56l4m9i9bl70gsd(a)4ax.com: >>I am measuring time of flight between two stationary points. > > You have designed a typical TWO-WAY light speed experiment. > Both the positioning of the clocks and their synchronization involves > light going the opposite way to the beam you are trying to measure. > I don't care if it is one way, or two way. It doesn't matter. It could be ten way. I am NOT trying to measure the aether drift. There is nothing in the 'time of flight'[TOF] portion of the experiment that is being changed during the experiment [except the speed and or energy and or wavelenght of the photons traveling between the detectors]. The only thing being changed is the speed of the source [and the speed of the photons {if the photons actually change speed as per BaT}]. If Bat is true, the photons will be traveling at different speeds when the leave the moving source. The time of flight will be different. We actually have 3 experiments 1) source moving toward TOF apparatus. 2) source stationary. 3) source moving away from TOF apparatus. if BaT works, TOF will vary. TOF will be shortest in 1, intermediate in 2, and longest in 3. If we vary the speed continuously between 1 and 2, TOF should vary continuously. The same between 2 and 3. If there is no change AND if our sensitivity is sufficient to detect BaT [and it should be], then BaT is invalidated. -- 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: Sam Wormley on 12 Apr 2005 23:57
Henri Wilson wrote: > > Have a look at the brightness curves of the following variable stars: > > R Aquilae > R Andromedae > R Arietis > R Aur > X Aur > R Boo > S Boo > U Boo* > V Boo* > V CVn** > R Cam > V Cam" > X Cam > Z Cam > R Cas* > S Cas** > t Cas** > W Cas > S Cep* > T Cep* > Omicron Ceti > R Com > R Crb*** > S Crb > V Crb > W Crb > R Cyg > S Cyg > V Cyg > W Cyg > AF Cyg*** > Chi Cyg > R Dra > R Gem > S Her* > RU Her** > SS Her > AH her > R Hya > SU Lac > X Oph > U ori > R Scuti** > R Ser > V Tau > R Uma > S Uma > T Uma > CH Uma*** > S Umi > R Vul > V Vul* > > They all match the ballistic predictions. > Here's the light curve for Omicron Ceti http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/1298.shtml What is it you want me to notice? |