Speed of Light: A universal Constant? [Relativity]

Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds

From: kenseto on 26 Mar 2005 09:05

From: kenseto on 26 Mar 2005 09:20

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111727577.185626.269590(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1111678937.697292.158740(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > OK, just wanted to clarify.
> > >
> > > So the earth's state of absolute motion is straight up
> > > from my toes to my head.
> >
> > ??????? Where did you get this from??
>
> That's one of the two choices of "vertical". Fine. If you
> don't like that, then it's straight down from my head to my
> toes.
>
> Or do you have another meaning for "vertical"?
>
> > Get this through your head: wrt the defined horizontal light rays the
> > apparatus is moving vertically.
> > >
> > > At the same time, the earth's state of absolute motion
> > > is from left to right, since that's the direction
> > > assigned by another observer.
> >
> > Sigh...this got nothing to do with another observer. The null result
> is
> > because the apparatus moving vertically wrt the defined horizontal
> light
> > rays.
>
> You mean it's impossible for somebody else on earth to do
> a MMX at the same time as me?

So what is your point? Each observer will conclude that the null result is
due to that the apparatus is moving vertically wrt its defined horizontal
light rays.

>
> If they do, what will they measure? Aren't you saying they'll
> find the state of absolute motion is "vertical", relative
> to them? Even if they're at a different place on earth
> than me?

<sigh>....At each location the apparatus is moving vertically wrt its
defined horizontal light rays. You can define the light rays are moving left
to right or right to left. In that case the apparatus is moving up or down
wrt to these right to left or left to right light rays.
>
> > Each object is in a state of absolute motion (motion wrt the light
> rays). If
> > you define that the light rays are moving horizontally then the
> apparatus
> > must be moving vertically to get the null results.
>
> Are we measuring the state of absolute motion of the earth
> or not?

No we are measuring how the apparatus move wrt the light rays to give the
null result for all the orientations of the arms. If you want to determine
the direction of absolute motion using the MMX you must orient the apparatus
in the vertical direction. In that case there will be fringe shift as the
apparatus is rotated.
>
> Is it in a direction which I call vertical when I am standing
> at 0 degrees longitude, 0 latitude?

Yes. The direction of absolute motion is vertical in all locations. This is
confirmed by the observed red shift in the vertical direction in all
locations.
>
> Is it also in a direction which I call vertical when I move
> my apparatus to 90 degrees longitude, 0 latitude?

Yes.

Ken Seto

From: kenseto on 26 Mar 2005 09:35

"PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111679730.124029.134510(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> kenseto wrote:
> > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1111603845.657565.9240(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
> wrote
> > > in
> > > > message news:q887h2-gbu.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> > > > > In sci.physics, kenseto
> > > > > <kenseto(a)erinet.com>
> > > > > wrote
> > > > > on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:31:56 GMT
> > > > > <w%V%d.6496$rL3.4855(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "robert j. kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:3aamtkF6bbkreU2(a)individual.net...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> kenseto wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > That's becasue you failed to recognize that Doppler shift
> > > > > >> > is due to varying speed of light.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The speed of light in vacuo relative to any inertial frame
> is a
> > > well
> > > > > >> measured constant. It has been shown experimentally again
> and
> > > again and
> > > > > >> has yet to be falsified. The speed of light in vacuo is
> > > independent of
> > > > > >> th motion of the source or the observer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The speed of light is measured to be constant because we
> > > arbitrarily
> > > > assumed
> > > > > > that the Doppler shift is due to wave length change. If wave
> > > length is
> > > > > > assumed to be contant then the speed of light is different
> from
> > > > different
> > > > > > sources.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ken Seto
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Assume two orbiting stars, far away, with barycenter
> > > > > motionless with respect to Earth.
> > > >
> > > > This assumption is already wrong. There is no object in the
> universe
> > > that is
> > > > motionless wrt the Earth. The Earth itself is in a constant state
> of
> > > > absolute motion.
> > >
> > > The Earth itself is in a constant state of motion. You cannot state
> one
> > > way or the other whether that motion is absolute.
> >
> > All objects in the universe (including the earth) are in a state of
> absolute
> > motion.
>
> And you know this how? Given any 19,475 objects in the universe,
> demonstrate that it cannot be the case that 19,474 of them are
> absolutely moving and 1 of them is not.

Sigh....All objects are observed to be moving wrt us and the universe is
observed to be in a state of accelerated expansion. Therefore all objects in
the universe are in a state of moving.
>
> > Observed relative motion for two objects A and B is the vector
> > components difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion
> and the
> > vector component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and
> B.
> >
> > >If it were, you would
> > > be able to rank objects in the universe according to their absolute
> > > motion, and you would be able to calculate or measure the absolute
> > > velocity of the Earth.
> >
> > No ....you would not be able to do that.
>
> Why not? Suppose I determine the absolute velocity of the Earth using
> your experiment below, and I measure the relative velocity of any
> object with respect to the Earth using YOUR algorithm (and I quote):
> "Observed relative motion for two objects A and B is the vector
> components difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion
> and the vector component of B's absolute motion along the line joining
> A and B."
> Now I algebraically solve for the absolute motion of that object. Now I
> repeat for other objects, and in the process, rank them by their
> absolute motion. Why can I not do this?

You can determine the vector component of B's absolute motion this way. But
you would not know the true magnitude of B's absolute motion.

Ken Seto

From: bz on 26 Mar 2005 10:57

"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in
news:w%d1e.30016$cC6.9534(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com:

> what do you think that causes Doppler shift?? Hint: Changing
> distance with time between the source and the detector.

right, so far.

> 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.

There is one minor problem with the assumption that the wave length remains
constant and the speed of light(or sound) varies with the speed of the
source.

It is wrong, as easily shown by measurments.

if a laser beam is reflected from a stationary target, the wavelength and
speed are not changed. This can be verified.

If a laser beam is reflected from a moving target, the wavelength/frequency
of the reflection is easily observed to have changed by the velocity of the
target. The speed has not changed, as can be verified by experiment:

If there is a stationary target at the same distance from the laser as the
moving target (the movement can be rotation of an object with known
location), the stationary target will continue to reflect photons that keep
the same frequency and speed as those that the laser sends out.
On the other hand, photons reflected from the moving source are certainly
shifted in frequency, could they be traveling at a different speed than
photons reflected from the stationary target, just beside them. Yes they
could.

If they WERE traveling at a different speed, they will take different
amounts of time to reach the first detector. As they pass the first
detector, they will still be traveling at different speeds, they will take
different amounts of time to reach the second detector.

The distance between first detector and second detector is constant.

When they reach the second detector, we will know their speeds and see that
they are different.

I don't know if the above experiment has ever been done in exactly that
way. I do know that no such phenomina has ever been observed, despite many
different experiments that would provide information similar to the above
experiment.

If you can show different, you have a nobel prize waiting for you.

If you have a police lidar, a couple of PM tubes, a fan, and a high speed
scope, you can run the experiment youself.

[followups set to sci.physics]

--
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: sean on 27 Mar 2005 08:48

"George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<d2294f$r5n$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net>...
> "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

Hi George
About an earlier point you made..

(George quote)
The radius of Jupiter is about 71,500 km while the radius of
Io's orbit is 421,600km. That means that its motion is almost
transverse at the time of a transit, the component of the
speed directed towards Earth is reduced to only 2.98 km/s so
the time difference is only 0.05s
(George unquote)

What you calculate above isnt the difference between Jupiters
max speed away from earth and its minimum but rather the
difference between Ios speed and Jupiters speed relative to
earth, depending on whether or not Io is orbiting towards earth
or away from earth around jupiter. Of course that would be much
smaller than the difference between Jupiters max speed away
from earth and its minimum speed away from earth. So your
above point is irrelevent isnt it? Shouldnt one be calculating
the difference between the max speed that Jupiter is moving
away from earth and the minimum speed it is moving away from
earth and then calculate how many more seconds this difference
in speed would be for a non sr wave to travel to earth would be?

I can only rough calculate but it seems that if lets say if Jupiter
were moving away from earth at 1,000k/s faster at its fastest speed
away from earth than its fastest speed towards earth then this
would give a 1000 second difference as Stan says. In other words
if the difference between Jupiters speed relative to Earth was
1000k/s then that would be the difference Stan needs?
Sean

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds