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 14 Apr 2005 18:35 On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:04:02 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:02:13 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> >>>Omicron Ceti - is a variable pulsating star, HD 14386 -- >>> Variable Star of Mira Cet type >>> http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/sim-id.pl?Ident=Mira >>> http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/Vars/mira.html >> >> >> It aint. >> It is a normal star orbiting a dark companion. >> >> >> HW. >> >> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > >Ref: http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/Vars/mira.html > > "Mira is the brightest and most famous long-period pulsating variable > in the sky, and gave the name to this whole class of stars. It > changes its brightness normally between maxima of about 3rd magnitude > and minima of about mag 10, but occasionally brighter maxima up to > mag 2.0 are observed (e.g. by William Herschel), or fainter when Mira > stays at about magnitude 5. At a distance of about 400 light years, > this corresponds to absolute magnitudes of about -2.5 near the maxima > and +4.7 near its minima, so giant cool Mira is only about as, or > even less luminous than our sun near its minima, but brightens up to > about 700 and occasionally even over 1500 solar luminosities near the > maximum of its cycle". > > "Mira is also the dominant component of a double star, which is > separated by only 0.6 arc seconds. As the companion orbits Mira in > about 400 years, it has now just once orbited the star since > Fabricius discovered its variability. The linear distance was given > as about 70 Astronomical Units, i.e. 70 times the distance between > Earth and Sun. The companion is probably a white dwarf in interaction > with Mira, which is surrounded by an accretion disc of material which > it has captured away from the red giant Mira, and which may well be > brighter than the companion star itself. This companion has a > brightness which also varies, between 9.5 and 12 visual magnitudes > (its variable star designation is VZ Ceti). Its variation is rather > complicated: A slow variation of about 13 years period is > superimposeds by rapid fluctuations over minutes, and occasionally a > rare flare of some minutes duration. CZ is currently coming even > closer to Mira, to about 0.1 arc seconds at its periastron in 2001; > their separation has been about 1.7 arc seconds around 1800. Would > the companion be closer, this system would be classified as a > symbiotic star (like R Aquarii)". Sam, if astronomers want to stick with the concept that all light travels to Earth at c, they are bound to come up with stupid and completely incorrect conclusions like this one. In fact, a great deal more can be learnt about these stars when the BaT is accepted. 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 14 Apr 2005 19:03 On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:30:42 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:s03r51d3gmd6qick1ffuuiebr31gljr9lk(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:24:15 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>The bottom line here Henri is that since I >>>wrote the page, I know what I used to work >>>out the values, and it wasn't an aether- >>>based model of any kind, I used SR. >>> >> >> George, I am now losing quite a lot of sleep thinking about this Sagnac >> thing. > > :-) > >I'm pleased you realise that this is more >difficult than I think you had at first >assumed. It is a powerful test. > >> ,,thanks to you. I want to know more about the optical system used in ring >> gyros. > >There is a lot more to the detail in real >products, in particular additional modulation >is used to improve the performance. This will >explain a bit more. I can try to find some >other references I saw some weeks ago if it >will help. > >http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html > > >> What I have realised is that the standard SR explanation doesn't work!! >> >> FOR A CONSTANT RATE OF ROTATION, THERE WOULD BE NO FRINGE MOVEMENT. >> >> The pattern would remain fixed. And that is not what happens, surely. >> Your version of Sagnac would be sensitive to angular acceleration only. > >Why? The animation shows that there is a >clear time difference produced in the SR >version. What you say is inconflict with >what it shows yet you just make that bald >statement without giving any reason. Think about it George. For constant rotation (incuding zero), there is a constant relationship between the two path lengths. The fringes should remain static. That is not what happens. > >>>>>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 is only a scaling factor. Zero remains zero. >> >> Yes. OK. According to your model, there should be a theoretical >> displacement of >> fringes for a certain angular change. Refractive index comes into that >> directly. > >For a certain angular displacement in the >time it takes the light to traverse the path, >or in other words for a constant angular speed. > >>><snip the model> >>> >>>I assumed you would be using VB rather than >>>trying to do it in Java. If you let me know >>>how it differs from mine, I might try doing >>>a Java version. I can't promise, I've got a >>>lot on too, but it would be interesting to >>>compare them. >> >> Like I said, the problem largely boils down to what happens when light >> reflects >> from a moving 45 mirror. I don't know if Huygens can answer that one >> convincingly. There doesn't appear to be any experimental evidence either. > >Huygens will define the angles but not >the speed, for that you need physics. >I can imagine two possibilities: if >Ritzian particles bounce like balls >then the speed of the reflected ray >relative to the mirror is the same as >the incident ray while if they are >absorbed and re-emitted it would be c >relative to the mirror regardless. >Both those give the same result though. I'll try using a ball bouncing off a moving 45 wall. > >Can't you work it out from the Doppler >shift on reflection? I'll see. > >>>> You will have to wait for my animation. >>> >>>I rest my case ;-) >> >> George, my latest thoughts are that we are looking in entirely the wrong >> direction for an explanation of Sagnac. Yours (and SR's) plainly doesn't >> work. > >Plainly it does, the animation makes it >quite clear that there is a difference >in the arrival times on the right hand >diagram. Try setting the slider to maximum >and watching the dots as a pair. Yes, but for constant rotation, the phase relationship remains constant as will the fringe pattern. How has that gone unnoticed? It proves SR wrong. > >> I now don't think it is fundamentally related to light speed or path >> differences. I think light speed is unimportant in this. >> >> Rather, I believe there is some kind of 'gyroscopic effect', maybe >> associated >> with the planes of the fields. "Emitted light has a built-in rotational >> reference" as it were. This approach might also reveal a fundamental >> association between light and the Earth's gravitational field, since that >> is >> one reference for 'vertical'. > >The gyros work at any angle. Remember they >are used in flight control for fly-by-wire >jet fighters ! They are presumeably calibrated with an arbitrary zero corresponding to the 'vertical' somewhere. > >The gyroscope effect isn't far wrong though >and ring laser gyros are often explained that >way, but that simply means the rotational >speed is fixed in the non-rotating frame >regardless of the rotation of the source, >fibre, laser material etc. which is exactly >the basis of SR. But we now know the SR explanation is wrong, don't we. The fringes wouldn't move under constant rotation.. That's why I am speculating on a connection between light fields and gravity. > >>>Start with points A and B as the points of >>>reflection. The vertical red lines down from >>>them are the reflected beams and although >>>shown as exactly vertical, that is only a >>>laziness, the angle would be more or less >>>than 90 degrees from the A-B line depending >>>on which beam is being considered. >> >> >> ok, that's why I was confused. The departure from 90 is all important. > >Not to the speed. I'll revise the diagram >over the weekend, I'm too busy before then. I'm flat out at present. The days are too short. >> I'll have another look. >> My problem now is to work out the reflection angle from a moving 45 >> mirror. > >No, that part is easy. It is whatever is >necessary to get the light to the detector. >Remember there is dispersion of the beam >so the photons that happen to be going in >the right direction are the only ones that >count, we can disregard any others. I'm not so sure. I think dispersion forms the basis of fringe formation in interferometers. It probably produces the same result as the Huygen's treatment though. > >A hint might be that if the table turns >fast enough, the mirror will be out of the >beam by the time the light gets there. That's why I will use very long arms in my model. > >> Is the reflected angle identical to the incident one? > >Yes, if the speed is the same (regardless >of its value). That lets you solve for the >unique path that meets the above criterion. When you say 'speed is the same' what is the reference for that speed? Is it the moving mirror or the apparatus? > >> What is the new speed of the beam in the nonrotating frame? > >My understanding is that both variants of the >Ritzian model I outlined above give the same >result, c relative to the mirror and hence >reflected angle equal to the incident, but >you might come up with an alternative. I think we need to know more about the reflection process of light, in general. I know there is a pretty thorough classical explanation of specular reflection but this does not really cover the case of a mirror that is moving sideways. Now there is the basis of an interesting experiment. Bounce a light beam from a plane mirror that is moving sideways and see if the return beam also moves sideways. It could be done using a fine laser beam reflecting from a mirror rigidly fastened to a rapidly spinning wheel say 300 metres away. Has that ever been done, I wonder? > >>>So far you have identified two aspects and your >>>explanations are: >>> >>>> You will have to wait for my animation. >>> >>>and >>> >>>> Why do you think the actual path is the red line. That is the >>>> source of your misunderstanding. >>> >>>I don't consider those to be explanations >>>in any sense. I'm quite willing to wait >>>to see your animation but until then you >>>haven't explained anything. >> >> It's on the way. >> >> Like I said George, this thing is keeping me awake at night. >> it is very complex. I don't really know what to think at present. > >I know it is a challenge, but then that is >why is is a valuable test. > >At the end of the day, the standard formula >dt = 4Aw/c^2 has been used for decades and >thoroughly tested so we can treat it as >empirically correct. The SR analysis gives >the same formula as you can see here: > >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm > >so the aim of your thoughts should be to >show how you can derive that formula using >a ballistic light model. Every attempt I >ahve made says there will be no delay or >phase change or fringe shift, however you >measure it, other than some second-order >effects that will be about a billion times >too small. Well I am now convinced that the effect will occur at any light speed. > >> ..but as far as I can see, your standard explanation doesn't work. > >It works just fine. Remember in the animation >the SR model is on the right. The mathpages >link above gives the same analysis but just >a static drawing. but why would the fringes move during constant rotation? think about it again, George. > >best regards >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: Sam Wormley on 14 Apr 2005 19:20 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:04:02 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >>Ref: http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/Vars/mira.html >> >> "Mira is the brightest and most famous long-period pulsating variable >> in the sky, and gave the name to this whole class of stars. It >> changes its brightness normally between maxima of about 3rd magnitude >> and minima of about mag 10, but occasionally brighter maxima up to >> mag 2.0 are observed (e.g. by William Herschel), or fainter when Mira >> stays at about magnitude 5. At a distance of about 400 light years, >> this corresponds to absolute magnitudes of about -2.5 near the maxima >> and +4.7 near its minima, so giant cool Mira is only about as, or >> even less luminous than our sun near its minima, but brightens up to >> about 700 and occasionally even over 1500 solar luminosities near the >> maximum of its cycle". >> >> "Mira is also the dominant component of a double star, which is >> separated by only 0.6 arc seconds. As the companion orbits Mira in >> about 400 years, it has now just once orbited the star since >> Fabricius discovered its variability. The linear distance was given >> as about 70 Astronomical Units, i.e. 70 times the distance between >> Earth and Sun. The companion is probably a white dwarf in interaction >> with Mira, which is surrounded by an accretion disc of material which >> it has captured away from the red giant Mira, and which may well be >> brighter than the companion star itself. This companion has a >> brightness which also varies, between 9.5 and 12 visual magnitudes >> (its variable star designation is VZ Ceti). Its variation is rather >> complicated: A slow variation of about 13 years period is >> superimposeds by rapid fluctuations over minutes, and occasionally a >> rare flare of some minutes duration. CZ is currently coming even >> closer to Mira, to about 0.1 arc seconds at its periastron in 2001; >> their separation has been about 1.7 arc seconds around 1800. Would >> the companion be closer, this system would be classified as a >> symbiotic star (like R Aquarii)". > > > Sam, if astronomers want to stick with the concept that all light travels to > Earth at c, they are bound to come up with stupid and completely incorrect > conclusions like this one. > > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. I wonder why?
From: kenseto on 14 Apr 2005 19:48 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ofrt511i5lu7nui7rg15g88jle0lch8m1c(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:51:07 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >news:6s4r51pestqfoagi83moeh47maqqs7lpa0(a)4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:53:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> To prove the BaT correct, the original pulse and the relayed pulse will > >have to > >> arrive at different instants at the Earth receiver. (The known delay must > >be > >> subtracted). > > > >BaT is disproved by the double-slit experiment > > Rubbish. What does that have to do with light speed. Sigh....bullets of light will not interfere with each other. You tell me how BaT explains the double-slit experiment. > > > >as well as the following > >references: > >1. Michelson, A.A. 1913. "Effect of Reflectionfrom a Moving Mirroron the > >Velocity of Light" Astrophys. J.,37, 190-193. > > Rubbish. All theoretical stuff..never proven. Did he ever move a mirror and > measure OWLS from it? Why don't you read the reference before calling it rubbish?? > > > > >2. Beckmann, P. and Mandics, P. 1965. "Test of the Constancy of > >Electromagnetic Radiation i High Vacuum" Radio Science, 69-D, 623-638 > > All TWLS stuff. > OWLS is 100% isotropic and equal to c in any particular frame. Again you did not read the reference before reaching your conclusion. Ken Seto
From: George Dishman on 15 Apr 2005 09:26
I'll just answer one point here, more to follow. "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:f5st519lab6a4ocvbi382jrkm5m9u17dtu(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:30:42 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:s03r51d3gmd6qick1ffuuiebr31gljr9lk(a)4ax.com... >>> What I have realised is that the standard SR explanation doesn't work!! >>> >>> FOR A CONSTANT RATE OF ROTATION, THERE WOULD BE NO FRINGE MOVEMENT. >>> >>> The pattern would remain fixed. And that is not what happens, surely. >>> Your version of Sagnac would be sensitive to angular acceleration only. .... > Think about it George. > For constant rotation (incuding zero), there is a constant relationship > between > the two path lengths. The fringes should remain static. At constant angular speed, they do. > That is not what happens. .... > Yes, but for constant rotation, the phase relationship remains constant as > will > the fringe pattern. > > How has that gone unnoticed? > It proves SR wrong. .... > but why would the fringes move during constant rotation? > think about it again, George. Commercial equipment doesn't use fringes but I'll describe it as if they did just for ease of understanding. The fringes don't move during rotation. For any given speed, there is a fixed phase difference introduced by the mechanism I illustrated. That gives some pattern of fringes. If you then rotate at a different (but still constant) speed, that will give a different (but still constant) phase shift, and hence it will also give a static pattern of fringes but they will have moved compared to the first pattern. The relationship predicted by SR is that the phase difference is proportional to the angular speed, hence the displacement of the fringes is also proportional to the speed. The fringes would move at a constant rate for constant angular acceleration. The same arguments would apply to a Ritzian version qualitatively, the only difference being that the constant of proportionality should be zero because the speed imparted due to the motion of the source cancels the change of path length. That is what I think you will try to address. George |