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 16 Apr 2005 01:39 On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:48:23 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >"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: >> >> >> 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. Photon fields extend to infinity. Photons have 'size, cross-section and volume'. >> >> >> >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?? The speed of the mirror would be too small to make much difference. Michelson's estimated error is greater. >> >> > >> >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 > 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: George Dishman on 16 Apr 2005 04:52 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:tn8161hfhml9om3ec4sdat9a4bsgt22aqt(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:26:34 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: .... >>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's right. That's why it they have only become feasible with modern optical components special fibre materials and digital integration. Counters don't drift ;-) > That couldn't posibly produce the accuracies obtained by these > gadgets. Most people take the technology for granted, it's only when you look inside that you get an idea of the problems had to be overcome. >>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. Yes, I said so two sentences below ... >> 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. Hard, but not impossible. That is the source of one of the key specifcations. If you look on the KVH site, the "TG-6000 IMU" is spec'd at 10 degrees per hour drift while the others are 1 degree per hour at constant (room) temperature. >>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.. Yes, I meant you will be addressing the zero coefficient. Angles and speeds would be aspects you could consider in solving that. George
From: George Dishman on 16 Apr 2005 05:14 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:748161p3j4p7o776a6q3uq1ddlf7adi1l8(a)4ax.com... > 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: >>... >>> >>> 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. That's what I was describing. The conservation of energy tells you the speeds are equal in the mirror frame and Huygens then tells you the reflected direction. > Which ballistic model should be used for light? We were discussing the same one, sorry if that wasn't clear. If in doubt, there is nothing to stop you trying both :-) .... >>> 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. Really you need a situation where the light is reflected through 90 degrees from the rotating mirror but I just wanted to suggest that maybe you could find an experiment that had already been done. It was a useful technique but I don't know if any specific experiments meets your needs. Anyway, to get back to the question in hand, you are free to choose any consistent model for the reflection if you can find one that explains Sagnac. If you can, then we can consider whether any difference from SR might be detected but my belief at the moment is that it is not possible to find a reflection model where the combination of speed change and the resulting direction given by Huygens will produce the correct equation overall in the Sagnac experiment. Back at the start of this conversation you said of SR supporters: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henri Wilson" <H@..> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:24 PM Subject: Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant? > You will find that whenever they cannot answer a difficult question, they > will > either resort to abuse and ridicule (...you don't understand relativity!) > or > they will disappear from the thread. I hope you consider this a "difficult question" for supporters of ballistic light models. However, if you "disappear from the thread" to work on the VB program or solving the problem I won't hold it against you ;-) George
From: kenseto on 16 Apr 2005 08:54 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:v391615qapgjrv2r9hb62t5k96thlnh005(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:48:23 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > >"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: > >> > > >> >> 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. > > Photon fields extend to infinity. > Photons have 'size, cross-section and volume'. So according to BaT what is the "size, cross-section and volume" of a photon? Also why is that enables the photons to interfere with each other? Ken Seto
From: Henri Wilson on 16 Apr 2005 17:21
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:14:11 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:748161p3j4p7o776a6q3uq1ddlf7adi1l8(a)4ax.com... >> 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: >>>... >>>> >>>> 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. > >That's what I was describing. The conservation >of energy tells you the speeds are equal in the >mirror frame and Huygens then tells you the >reflected direction. > >> Which ballistic model should be used for light? > >We were discussing the same one, sorry if >that wasn't clear. If in doubt, there is >nothing to stop you trying both :-) Well, in the case of a bouncing and perfectly elastic ball, its angle of incidence would definitely equal the angle of reflection when bouncing off a 'frictionless' wall, no matter how fast the wall moved (in the wall plane). Would you agree? But in the case of a 100% interconnection at the instant of touch, the equation is very different. Also, one might quite confidentally expect a grading of 'in between' results depending on the degree of 'friction'. Where does that place light reflecting from a plane mirror? The reflection takes place over a very short distance but can we assume it occurs in zero time? I don't think so. I hope I am making myself clear here. > >... >>>> 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. > >Really you need a situation where the light >is reflected through 90 degrees from the >rotating mirror but I just wanted to suggest >that maybe you could find an experiment that >had already been done. It was a useful >technique but I don't know if any specific >experiments meets your needs. A major problem with this type of experiment is the structural stability of the mirror and wheel. > >Anyway, to get back to the question in hand, >you are free to choose any consistent model >for the reflection if you can find one that >explains Sagnac. If you can, then we can >consider whether any difference from SR >might be detected but my belief at the >moment is that it is not possible to find a >reflection model where the combination of >speed change and the resulting direction >given by Huygens will produce the correct >equation overall in the Sagnac experiment. > >Back at the start of this conversation you >said of SR supporters: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Henri Wilson" <H@..> >Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro >Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:24 PM >Subject: Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant? > > >> You will find that whenever they cannot answer a difficult question, they >> will >> either resort to abuse and ridicule (...you don't understand relativity!) >> or >> they will disappear from the thread. > >I hope you consider this a "difficult question" >for supporters of ballistic light models. >However, if you "disappear from the thread" to >work on the VB program or solving the problem >I won't hold it against you ;-) Well George, you are a welcome exception. Maybe some of the 'abusers' have finally left this group and we can now have a few sensible discussions like this one. After all, that is what these newsgroups are for. > >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. |