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: George Dishman on 19 Apr 2005 13:46 "Jim Greenfield" <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:e7b5cc5d.0504190205.cc84a39(a)posting.google.com... > "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:<d3tfer$icb$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net>... .... >> > That >> > would be an unacceptable assumption to make George- to use postulates >> > of SR to show SR correct ;-( >> >> You still don't seem to follow the method Jim, >> we use the postulates of SR to make the SR >> prediction, we use the postulates of ballistic >> light theory to make its prediction. Then we >> see which one matches reality. Each theory >> can only use its own postulates to make its >> prediction. > > Here's the rub! SR uses TWO postulates; It doesn't matter if it uses a thousand, you can't test ANY theory unless you make use of it. > that distance AND time > BOTH alter inversely due to the same velocity (particle). Wrong. I suggest you look them up on the web this time, I have told you what they are too often. > c'=c+v has only the one. > as the formula for light velocity is 3 part algebraic, since 2 > postulates of SR are operating (magically) to compensate, SR can NEVER > fail! > (by definitiion) >> >> The question we are discussing is what >> prediction you get using ballistic theory. The >> launch speed is well defined but that together >> with conventional model of reflection gives a >> prediction of dt = 0 falsifying the theory. >> Henri and I are looking at the only poorly >> defined aspect, the reflection process, to see >> if an alternative model could resolve the >> problem. I don't think it can but that is the >> challenge. > > "launch speed well defined"? No way! We say c is rel to source, That is well defined is it not? > while SR says it is what an observer sees (whether he misunderstands > doppler or not) Wrong again. SR says the speed is actually c in any inertial reference frame regardless of what "an observer sees". >> > So sleep tight, Henri, and leave G some free time to work on his >> > animation which will show how time dilation occurs! >> >> It might have to do one to illustrate how >> Huygens wavefront construction determines the >> angle of reflection in the case where the >> speed of the light is affected by bouncing off >> the mirror. > > Henri has your sagnac animation ? It is on the web for everyone to see :-) http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/iFOG.html Unfortunately, due to a legal problem between Microsoft and Sun, Internet Explorer no longer supports the current Java language. I guess you will see just a grey box. If so, email and I'll give you instructions on updating your software. > Apply a stop-watch to the actual angular motion, and refer to both a > spot > on the screen, and the angle increase rate. Have you not 'assumed' > that there would be none G, and built the animation accordingly? :-) Same as before, there are two diagrams, one showing the ballistic model and the other showing SR. > (my lab so poorly equipped, I can't even find my old stopper :-( You shouldn't need it, there is a slider so you can slow it down. After a run, press "reset" _before_ changing the slider, then press "play". You can freeze the display with "pause" and restart with "play" again. For a bit of fun, pick one diagram and try to stop the dots as they pass each other. George
From: George Dishman on 19 Apr 2005 14:21 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:9qc861plm9df9pqkorafbpo6rskrrn7ffv(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:53:08 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >>It is pretty good. What you have said is that you >>will not rule out changes to both the normal and >>parallel components. I won't object to that but I >>would suggest some extra constraints: >> >>1) There are no "tick fairies". That means >> that wavefronts are conserved, neither >> created nor destroyed by reflection. > > The number of 'wavecrests' must be conserved...but that doesn't imply that > the > reflection angle will be the same as the incident angle. No, of course not, but along with points 3 and 4 it allows you to work out what the law governing the angles in the mirror frame will be. We know bouncing a laser round a set of mirrors to interfere with part of the original produces static fringes so the crests must be conserved. >>2) The process cannot have a preferred >> direction of the mirror therefore your >> formula should be symmetrical about the >> normal. In other words, the angles >> should be reversed if I swap the source >> like this: >> >>> ____________M->v >>> /\ >>> / \ >>> s > > I'm not sure if I agree entirely on that either. > Remember I am discussing the ballistic model based on an elastic ball > bouncing > off a moving 45 degree wall. > The surface of that wall could be designed with all kinds of cavities and > protrusions that might affect the reflected angle. But they aren't, we are talking about lab mirrors which are produced with the intention of being perfectly flat, not an echalon or something. Also that would mean you would get a different result if you rotate the equipment in the opposite direction. The same is true for total internal reflection in a fibre. Sagnac sensors do not require asymetrically surfaced mirrors and a KVH device will work with equal precession whichever direction the plane it is in turns so your laws have to be symmetrical too. > We can assume that the surface of a mirror AT REST is symmetrical at all > angles > but not necessarily when it is moving at high speeds. However I suppose at > the > speeds associated with the sagnac, what you say is correct. I think you have missed something. You are talking of a Ritzian-style theory which presumably would be Galilean invariant so that speeds add as simple vectors. The angles will be related to the speeds and symetrical in a non-rotating frame co-moving with the point of reflection on the mirror, so you need to translate to and from that rest frame to apply your laws. >>3) The direction of propagation is normal >> to the wavefronts. > > See, George, you keep insisting on wave theory, not particle. > If individual photons exist, you cannot make such statements about their > behavior. The Sagnac effect is based on interference and if the propagation isn't normal to the wavefront, different parts of the same wavefront will arrive at different times so the same interference effect means you get no signal. >>4) The angle of the wavefront can be >> determined by Huygens method (this >> follows from point 1). > > Assuming 3 is also correct, that is probably right. What I said is ok on its own but the speed is needed to work out the actual orientation and point 3 is then needed to infer the beam direction. >>5) Your formula should be able to be applied >> to all reflection phenomena. For example >> it must apply to long range fibres so must >> not predict the destruction of a signal at >> extreme grazing angles. > > There we have a different and difficult situation. You can't have different laws for different uses of a mirror, the light doesn't know why it is being used. All this really means is that you cannot have a fomula that requires a minimum angle of incidence because trans-Atlantic fibres would not work. This is important because I will test your model to see if it still gets the right answer as the number of mirrors tends to infinity. >>> I will try to incorporate all these possibilities into my simulation. >> >>I think if you work out your formula based on the >>limitations above, it may reduce the number of >>variables you have to consider and make the work >>easier. The more that can be done analytically >>before animating, the better. > > I will use the symmetrical approach initially. Fine. The idea of suggesting these constraints was to make your work easier, there are too many variables otherwise, and they shouldn't be contentious in any way. >>Rather than cover this ground again some months >>down the line, I would like to just note that >>the standard law of reflection together with >>either of the two simple ballistic models I >>mentioned both predict no phase shift in the >>Sagnac setup. We discussed this earlier but >>never really reached agreement. I think now we >>have covered many all the areas where you had >>doubts so do you realise that what I said is >>correct and that a more complex model for >>reflection is necessary if ballistic theory is >>to give a non-null prediction? > > No George, I still think you are missing the point. No, I think you missed my qualifier "either of the two simple ballistic models I mentioned". You are trying to define a third model which will be different from mine. > At each reflection, the > beams strike the mirrors at approximately 45 deg and get a velocity > 'kick'...but in opposite directions. Not in the two I outlined, the speed is c relative to the mirror in both cases. That may not be the case in yours of course. > There is also a progressive change in > angle, also in opposite directions, due to the fact that the mirrors > move ever so slightly during the light travel time between them. Again, since the legs are of equal length, the change of angle is also equal each time in the two I described, and again yours may differ. > You say neither effect results on a phase change. Not in the two I outlined, check for yourself. > I say they do and the result > is virtually independent of source speed. If you change the model of reflection, that may become true. I will have to wait and see but that is what you have to show if you want a workable theory. > I will work on the program today now that I have a better idea about > what isinvolved. Take your time, it is too easy to spend a lot of time illustrating something you later realise is incorrect. I would suggest you check the equations _before_ writing the code. At least that's my experience :-( George
From: Henri Wilson on 19 Apr 2005 17:28 On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:46:00 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:16:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>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. >>> >>>Of course that's what happens, and of course that's >>>what SR say should happen. >>> >>>The term "fringe shift" refers to the shift of the fringes >>>when the interferometer is rotating compared to when it is not. >>> >>>What did YOU think "fringe shift" meant? >>>That the fringes are moving? >>>They are not in a Sagnac interferometer rotating >>>at a constant rate. >>> >>>Ring lasers are quite different, though. >>>That's why ring lasers rather than Sagnac rings >>>are used in inertial navigational systems. >>> >>>Sagnac rings and ring lasers both falsifies the ballistic theory. >>>Obviously. >>> >>>Paul >> >> >> You are not being at all helpful for the purpose of this discussion. > >You are claiming that the fringes in a Sagnac interferometer >are moving when the interferometer is rotating at a constant rate. >That is wrong. > >So you don't know what is happening in the Sagnac experiment. > >I think it would be very helpful for the purpose of this >discussion to know what is actually happening in the real world. > >But maybe you prefer your fantasy world were what >actually happens surely isn't what happens? Paul, please read the whole thread. I pointed out that according to both SR and the BaT, fringes would not move during constant rotation. I merely queried whether that was the case or or not. It apparently is and so a continuous integration must be carried out (wrt time) in order to establish total rotation angle moved. I pointed out that there are inherent inaccuracies in such a method...but the use of a long fibre obviously helps. > >Paul 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 19 Apr 2005 17:43 On 19 Apr 2005 00:55:37 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >Dear Henri > >I especially like your demo "Vertical.exe", and agree 100% The 'movingframe.exe' is an extension of that. > >"This is an upgrade of 'vertical.exe. It shows conclusively why the >second postulate cannot be correct " > >Do you realize that at least one textbook is in error in presenting >this as a reason for space contraction etc? Of course. The 'diagonal' light beam clearly moves at a different speed from the laser beam. The whole of SR is based on a fallacious aether principle....and there is NO aether. > >Do you also realize that you are saying Einstein was wrong... >Ah yes > >"The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong " > >But specifically can you see an error the train thought experiment >which he used to derive SRT? Of course. For one thing, if the centre of the train was established using light instead oof rods, the problem would never exist. For another, if a correction is made for light travel time, simultaneity becomes absolute. > >What do you mean that the one way speed of light has never been >measured? It hasn't.....except maybe by Roemer. However, according to the BaT, OWLS = TWLS when all parts of the experiment are mutually at rest. The fact that TWLS appears dead constant in all experiments is further support for the BaT. > >I will answer the crossing the street problem later. First shown on TV >in >Jame Burke "The day the world changed :or was it Carl Sagan's >"Cosmos"? > >BTW the colors came out fine good. I'm still having trouble. > >G 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 19 Apr 2005 18:21
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:09:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> Paul, here is a simple question, Please answer. >> >> S________r________c----------------------------------------------A >> >> S is a light source connected to a clock by a long rod r, which point towards >> Andromeda. >> >> S emits a light pulse towards A. >> >> Clock c intercepts the pulse and indicates ONE single travel time from S. It >> also observes that the length of the pulse is the same as when emitted by S. > >All what can be read off clock c when the pulse is >intercepted is the reading of the clock at that instant. >To find the travel time, you must read off the clock c >when the pulse is emitted. >Please specify exactly how that's done. >No hand-waving. Paul, I anticipated such a 'last resort' response from you. THE TRAVEL TIME IS QUITE UNIMPORTANT. What matters is that there is ONLY ONE TIME. So I will ask again: how can the pulse be traveling at precisely c relative to every object in Andromeda, when the experiment conclusively shows it has only one speed? >Specify a method which actually is possible to use. > >I think we can agree that c would measure the length (duration) >of the pulse to be the same as measured by a clock at S. > >> How can you claim that the pulse is traveling at 'c' wrt all the moving objects >> in Andromeda? It clearly has only one speed, not an infinite number. > >So let's introduce a "moving object" - a second clock d. >Let's suppose that this clock is adjacent to c when the pulse >is intercepted by both clocks at the same instant. (Coinciding events.) > > d -> v >S________r________c > >All what can be read off clock d when the pulse is >intercepted is the reading of the clock at that instant. >To find the travel time, you must read off the clock d >when the pulse is emitted. >Please specify exactly how that's done. >No hand-waving. >Specify a method which actually is possible to use. Paul, my experiment doesn't require any second clocks that are moving. It proves the point as it is. > >I think we can agree that d would measure the length (duration) >of the pulse to be different from what is measured by a clock at S. It would still get only one reading and prove that the pulse could NOT be traveling at c wrt every object in Andromeda. The value of that reading is unimportant. > >> >> Note: the ballistic theory, as applied to brightness curves, is in no way >> dependent on how the speed of light might be measured by any observers. >> As we know, the aether (and pseudo-aether) concept is that all observers will >> measure OWLS as being 'c' because their clocks and rods will miraculously >> change in order to make it so. Even if that were true, (haha) it would not >> affect the BaT's predictions concerning variable stars. > >You sure are right about the latter. :-) >Every time we - you and I - have checked what >the BaT predicts for concrete binaries, the predictions >have proven to be wrong. Here are a few you might look at: 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*** CH Cyg----- Cyg---- Chi Cyg R Dra R Gem S Her* RU Her** SS Her AH her R Hya SU Lac X Oph U ori RU Peg--- GK Per--- R Scuti** R Ser V Tau R Uma S Uma T Uma CH Uma*** S Umi R Vul V Vul* > >Paul 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. |