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: Sam Wormley on 25 Mar 2005 18:31 Henri Wilson wrote: > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. More: http://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
From: George Dishman on 25 Mar 2005 19:10 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:4a0941dk9ej6nmrc4tholjlov13cmvh9e4(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:33:47 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >>> If Stan is promoting the ballistic theory of light then >>> he is much more likely to be correct than you are. >> >>See Jim Greenfield's reply, he has explained >>Stan's error succinctly. > > I don't care. You cared enough to join the conversation. Stan is wrong whether you care or not. >>As we have discussed before, ballistic theory is >>disproved by the Sagnac Experiment. > > Bull. The reason for the fringe shift has nothing to do with light speed. > It is due to the fact that the mirrors rotate slightly during the time > light > travels between them. The two opposite beams are deflected in opposite > directions. We went over that last time. You got the geometry wrong, the beams are deflected such that they maintain the angle between them at the interferometer. You also talked of the curvature of the paths in the rotating frame but the effect of that on the path length is second order and the same for both directions so it cancels out. We have been over all of this before and you never came up with a workable explanation. > Note: A fibre ring is like an infinite number of mirrors with an > infiniteimal > angular change at each one. Same effect overall. Except that the effect on the path length of the deflection is second order so the limit of an infinite number of infinitesimal deviations is zero. Sorry Henri, Ritzian theory unquestionably predicts no output in the Sagnac Experiment and yet it exists. Go ahead and show your calculations if you think you can explain how the first order output arises. George
From: bz on 25 Mar 2005 20:36 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:n61941pfr1ceea1mq77i8o1l3d3s01hghh(a)4ax.com: >> >>how do you get different photons to move at different speeds with >>respect to a single frame of reference? > > Why shouldn't they? (in pure vacuum) because photons always travel at the speed of light, which is constant. > >> >>Why, when we measure the speed of those photons, do the photons seem to >>move at the same speed? > > Silly boy. Nobody has measured the OW speed of light under any > circumstance. Define 'one way speed of light'. I fire a laser pulse at two detectors, 1 at 1 meter and 1 at 10 meters from the laser. I have a timer located mid way between the two detectors. When the pulse hits the first detector, it starts the timer When the pulse hits the second detector, it stops the timer. Taking into account all the propagation delays, I calculate the time that it took the light pulse to travel between detector 1 and detector 2. Why is this not the 'one way speed of light'??? > >> >> >>In a recent post you say: >> >> >>> What I said is that any observed Doppler >>> shift from a distant source moving wrt the observer is due to >>> different speed of light and not due to the changing of the wave >>> length. >>> >> >>How distant must the source be? Why must it be distant? I can't see any >>reason that photons from a distance source should be different from >>those from a nearby source. > > The effect will only work in a pure vacuum....far purer than anything we > can produce here. Oh, that makes it nice. I can claim a special effect that can only be measured when the moon is full and in the constellation 'southern cross'. You can't disprove my claim because the moon is never in the constellation when it is full. [it is, in fact, never in the southern cross.] > >> >>In my mind, 5 feet is distant compared to the wavelength of light. Will >>you allow me to call 5 feet 'distant'? > > ULF wavelengths are longer. > They are EM. ULF? Do you mean UHF? ULF would be ultra low frequency, and we would be talking about wavelengths in the thousands of km. What does that have to do with light? We were talking about light, weren't we? Why did you suddenly jump to talking about 196.7 MHz (lamda=5 ft). Lets get back to light. 5 feet is about 3 million wavelengths for 500 nm light. That seems 'distant' to me. -- 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: kenseto on 26 Mar 2005 08:50 "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111770058.196421.21200(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > kenseto wrote: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > > news:Xns96217F0FC3412WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > > > "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > > > news:24Z%d.14316$cC6.10056(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > > > > > > What you said is hogwash. If we define that the wave length of a > > > > specific light source remains constant in all frames then the > observed > > > > Doppler shift is due to the varying speed of light from these > different > > > > sources. > > > > > > > > > > Are you going to say that doppler shift of sound is ALSO due to > varying > > > the speed of sound? A car drops a fire cracker on the ground and > sets off > > > a fire cracker on the hood of the car at the same time. The 'bang' > from > > > the fire cracker on the ground and the one on the hood of the car > reach me > > > at the same time. The bang from the one on the hood of the car is > dopplar > > > shifted, the one on the ground is not. They both travel through the > same > > > air. Why should one travel at a different speed than the other? > > > > I assume that you mean that the fire cracker is at rest wrt the > ground when > > it goes off. In that case there is no Doppler shift. The fire cracker > on the > > car would be Doppler shifted. The sound generated by that fire > cracker would > > be closer to the detector with the passage of incremental time and > this is > > the cause of the doppler shift. There is no valid way to measure the > speed > > of sound from a moving fire cracker because there is no valid way to > measure > > the distance between the fire cracker and the detector at rest when > the fire > > cracker generate the first sound wave. > > Oh, good Lord. I can't believe you said such a thing. Never mind light. > First pick up a book and learn what causes the Doppler effect in sound. > Jiminy. Whoowhee. > > [snip] >
From: kenseto on 26 Mar 2005 09:06
"PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111770058.196421.21200(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > kenseto wrote: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > > news:Xns96217F0FC3412WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > > > "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in > > > news:24Z%d.14316$cC6.10056(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com: > > > > > > > What you said is hogwash. If we define that the wave length of a > > > > specific light source remains constant in all frames then the > observed > > > > Doppler shift is due to the varying speed of light from these > different > > > > sources. > > > > > > > > > > Are you going to say that doppler shift of sound is ALSO due to > varying > > > the speed of sound? A car drops a fire cracker on the ground and > sets off > > > a fire cracker on the hood of the car at the same time. The 'bang' > from > > > the fire cracker on the ground and the one on the hood of the car > reach me > > > at the same time. The bang from the one on the hood of the car is > dopplar > > > shifted, the one on the ground is not. They both travel through the > same > > > air. Why should one travel at a different speed than the other? > > > > I assume that you mean that the fire cracker is at rest wrt the > ground when > > it goes off. In that case there is no Doppler shift. The fire cracker > on the > > car would be Doppler shifted. The sound generated by that fire > cracker would > > be closer to the detector with the passage of incremental time and > this is > > the cause of the doppler shift. There is no valid way to measure the > speed > > of sound from a moving fire cracker because there is no valid way to > measure > > the distance between the fire cracker and the detector at rest when > the fire > > cracker generate the first sound wave. > > Oh, good Lord. I can't believe you said such a thing. Never mind light. > First pick up a book and learn what causes the Doppler effect in sound. > Jiminy. Whoowhee. Hey idiot....what do you think that causes Doppler shift?? Hint: Changing distance with time between the source and the detector. Therefore the observed Doppler shift can be interpreted as that the speed of sound (or light) arriving from a moving source is different than that if the source and the detector are at rest wrt each other. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the wave length remain constant whether the sound (or light) wave is generated by a stationary source or a moving source wrt the detector. Ken Seto |