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: mingstb on 15 Apr 2005 09:30 N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: > Dear RP: > > "RP" <no_mail_no_spam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:fYWdnTyUnNo0M8ffRVn-gQ(a)centurytel.net... > > > > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: > ... > >>>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. > >> > >> > >> But you still can't do the photoelectric effect. > > > > But I have accounted for it. > > > >> Don't worry > >> about it. > > > > I'm not worried about it :) > > > >> A lot of really smart people have tried to > >> extend the wave model without success. > > > > Thus it can't be done? > > If "accounting for it" is the best that can be done, no. Too bad then, that all QED can do is "account for it." > >> They'd have as much success as someone trying to extend GR to > >> cover > >> quantum mechanics. Different abstractions > >> for different needs. > > > > This isn't like the other, it is exactly the > > same as the other. > > A wave model is a statistical method, that applies to a > population. A particle model is inherently quantum. A particle model is inherently quantum only if the particles are quantized ... that is, they come only in one size each. > GR is a statistical method... GR has no statistics at all. It eschews any link to physicality. > > The difficulty is attempting to keep track of the > > complexities, which cannot be done precisely, > > OTOH the probabilities of QM are of > > something, they are not themselves the > > fundamental reality. Attempting to relate > > changes in the buying habits of consumers to > > the transfer of particles between themselves > > and the distributors is about like photons and > > QED. Light is an effect, not a thing. > > Light is also a thing. Photon-photon interactions > (nothwithstanding Mr. Mingst's objections) have been observed to > produce particles. No such experiments exist. The E-144 experiments seem to be the only experiment for which the proponents make this claim (known to the posters in this newsgroup). And the E-144 experiments simply slammed electrons into photons. Then the theorists took over and assumed that (since QED assumes that all electrons must emit 'virtual photons' in order to interact), this is the "same" as a photon-photon experiment. greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas
From: George Dishman on 15 Apr 2005 10:32 Second part: "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: .... >>> 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. That's easy. Relative to the mirror the speed of the reflected beam equals the speed of the incident beam and Huygens then says the angles are equal either side of the normal to the mirror at the point of reflection. >>> 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. No, they would be calibrated with 0 = no rotation but in reality they can sense 1 degree per hour and the earth turns through 15 degrees per hour so I expect they theoretically need to be set for that. They aren't good enough to be set for 0 = north during manufacture and hold that for the rest of their lives ;-) .... >>> 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? The mirror. Just Huygens and if you can't see it let me know. >>> 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. It does if you use Huygens method but move the mirror as well as the wavefront. It will show both the direction of the reflected ray and also the resulting Doppler shift if you do two consecutive wavefronts. > 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? 1862, Foucault 1879 and 1926, Michelson http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html George
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 16 Apr 2005 00:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:35:23 GMT <5qrt51tp45duivsqe851nsc53im9cs61th(a)4ax.com>: > 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. Such as...? The thing about Cepheid variables (I'm assuming Omicron Ceti is one such, and Google confirms it) is that there seem to be a lot of them. http://www.answers.com/topic/variable-star describes them as yellow supergiants. A sudden increase of 7 magnitudes followed by a gradual falloff over the course of 11 doesn't seem to be consistent with the notion of a dark companion eclipsing a central star, which would necessitate a symmetrical darkening-brightening curve. http://www.popastro.com/sections/vs/vss1998/omicet.gif is a plot of the lightcurve. It's a little odd-looking as much data is missing between March 97 and September 97, but it sure doesn't look like the curve of an eclipsing binary to me. A far better lightcurve is Delta Cephei's: http://www.popastro.com/sections/vs/vss1998/dcep97.gif which clearly shows an asymmetric nature. http://www.popastro.com/sections/vs/vss1998.htm contains a fair number of descriptions for these strange, lifeless stars (one has to assume that any planet orbiting nearby is going to get a *lot* of variation in heat, enough to sterilize it and/or freeze it to death). http://www.popastro.com/sections/vs/vss1998/tcep97.gif T Cephei shows a rather interesting light curve which looks very much like a sine wave. While the curve is symmetrical, I for one would think that any eclipsing binary would be flat for at least half the cycle unless the companion was very very large (larger than the central star!) and had a high albedo. I'll admit I'm not sure how chummy the particle physicists and the astronomers are, though I suspect they correspond on a very regular basis. BaT has some implications for stellar reactions that I frankly can't verify (I don't do that sort of math :-) ), but it's clear that they will be different from the SR/GR postulates. > > > 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. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Henri Wilson on 16 Apr 2005 01:29 On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:32:14 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Second part: > >"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: >... >>>> 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. > >That's easy. Relative to the mirror the speed >of the reflected beam equals the speed of the >incident beam and Huygens then says the angles >are equal either side of the normal to the >mirror at the point of reflection. ....but consider a ball bouncing off a 'frictionless' wall that is moving laterally as against one that imparts a velocity component to the ball. Which ballistic model should be used for light? > > >>>> 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. > >No, they would be calibrated with 0 = no rotation >but in reality they can sense 1 degree per hour >and the earth turns through 15 degrees per hour >so I expect they theoretically need to be set >for that. They aren't good enough to be set for >0 = north during manufacture and hold that for >the rest of their lives ;-) true. They are certainly very sensitive. > >... >>>> 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? > >The mirror. Just Huygens and if you can't see >it let me know. > >>>> 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. > >It does if you use Huygens method but move the >mirror as well as the wavefront. It will show >both the direction of the reflected ray and >also the resulting Doppler shift if you do two >consecutive wavefronts. I'll have to think about that. > >> 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? > >1862, Foucault >1879 and 1926, Michelson > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html That kind of experiement would not show any sideways deflection of the beam though. Laser beams are subject to considerable dispersion and the experiment would have to include a line of very sensite detectors in order to reveal anything positive. > >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 16 Apr 2005 01:36
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:26:34 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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. well how can the thing be used to measure total rotation angle? Don't tell me the fringe movement is sensitive enough to involve an integration over time? That couldn't posibly produce the accuracies obtained by these gadgets. > >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. Well I reckon that is also the case using the ballistic principle. > The fringes >would move at a constant rate for constant >angular acceleration. Yes. That is correct,,,which makes it pretty hard to calculate the total rotation over a long time period. > >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. No, I say there is still a path length difference due to the different angles at each reflection.. > >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. |