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: Koobee Wublee on 21 Mar 2005 00:34 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message news:Xgj%d.5675$fn3.3729(a)attbi_s01... > > Empirical data says that the speed of light is the same for all > observers [...] No, empirical data says the speed of light in vacuum of any frame is observed to be exactly the same as observer's own. If not, we will have very serious problems. So, an observer can observe a different value of the speed of light than another observer.
From: Nick on 21 Mar 2005 01:08 No. The speed of light is constant for all inertial frames - those frames without acceleration. It is as if matter's motion through space doesn't count. Its as if constant motion is no motion through space at all with regards to light. As if matter is still. Introduce acceleration and the speed of light can vary. Mitch
From: Bilge on 21 Mar 2005 06:10 macromitch(a)internetCDS.com: >What if time moves at the speed of light >and you can catch up to it by accelerating in >space? What if you weren't brain dead?
From: glbrad01 on 21 Mar 2005 06:54 "Nick" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111385300.998692.208710(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > No. The speed of light is constant for all inertial frames - > those frames without acceleration. > > It is as if matter's motion through space doesn't count. > Its as if constant motion is no motion through space > at all with regards to light. As if matter is still. > > Introduce acceleration and the speed of light can vary. > Mitch > Under constant boost at 1-g and traveling more or less in a straight line in outer space a traveler will measure the speed of light to be the same as he would measure it under the same local conditions on the surface of the Earth. If he isn't locally trying to get relative to some other body in space there is no chance, no possibility, he could know what his velocity is. He could travel out of the galaxy under constant acceleration of 1-g and still he would measure the speed of light to be "c" under the given conditions for measuring it "c." HE HASN'T ANY REFERENCE FRAME FOR TELLING (FOR MEASURING) ANYWHERE NEAR PRECISELY HIS OWN VELOCITY! None whatsoever. The speed of light will be one horizon that stays constant to him. As his entire external coordinate system will be a matter of histories ( an apparent matter of time travel (apparent to him as the traveler)) and not space, the speed of light will not change regarding the remote outside of the local either. Regarding the same though, he would probably notice--he will more than likely notice--alterations occurring in the shifts of light in the remote distances even as he notices no change occurring regarding the velocity of light locally. The velocity of light is independent of all other velocities. It is a constant distant horizon that stays that constant distance (given the local conditions always listed for that constancy such as "in a vacuum"). The shift is another matter entirely. A dependent matter. A traveler in the Universe traveling through "histories" to some there and now, wherever "there and now" might be, manipulates that dependency...getting himself 'inversely proportional' in the picture, so to speak, to some unitary celestial body (a planet, a solar system, a galaxy, or even--potentially--a universe). The traveler will always deal in space-times and relativity to some [magnitude] or another of the same (celestial body: planet, solar system, galaxy, universe, universe of universes, and so on). He will never deal in the speed of light because he will never get closer to it than measuring it the constant it is. Even in various mediums that force the speed of light to appear to change, to slow, whatever, it is the quality of the medium one is dealing in really, not the intrinsic velocity of light which if one could measure it proceeding through any length of vacuum--no matter how subatomically short or small that length--within whatever that medium, one would measure light's velocity "c". No matter the acceleration per second per second, at all 'velocities' within all accelerations in velocity the velocity of light affirms its independent constancy regarding any and all of those velocities. Accelerating changing (an object accelerating up through gravities of acceleration that is) in wavelength and frequency though should tend to cause shattering.... In the end you can't isolate the constant. You can't discuss the invariable constant in isolation from the variables of wavelength and frequency. Altogether the indivisibility of the three factors deal in the physics of proportionality and relativity, specifically "inverse proportionality" as it applies to more than just one item of physicality. In the fantasy world of elegant mathematical games, you can isolate the speed of light. In the real world Universe the three factors come as an inseparable package deal, all at once or none at all (all or none). Then you have to picture what that means regarding physicality and all observation of it. Gen "You made a mistake, she didn't want to see me." "I make many mistakes." (The Big Sleep)
From: Stan Byers on 21 Mar 2005 09:43
Also posted on sci.astro: I believe all of the data and citations that are required to prove or disprove Roemer's 1003 second delay are available at the web site. If light remained constant regardless of observers speed there would not be a delay. Even if I was familiar with the physics of the Optical gyro, I would not try to argue this issue with that knowledge,.. when the solar system demonstration by the moon Io is available. Most everyone understands the solar system, and I don't know anyone that understands the Optical gyro,..except you George. ;-) If anyone can disprove the 1003 second delay with Io data, I promise to try to educate myself about the workings of the Optical gyro. George wrote: >Since the fact that these devices work at all means > your hypothesis cannot be true, you really should > find out a bit more about them. I don't understand why readers call the results obtained from empirical data a "hypothesis". I am just the messenger, it wont help to shoot the messenger. The solar system will still provide the same demonstration. If you can't change the empirical demonstration, you are forced to change the postulate. The exact eclipse data used to generate the graphs that show the period changes resulting from Earth's relative motion is available to everyone. If any readers can produce with specificity, graphs or logic that will dispute or correct the 1003 second delay and conclusion, I will be more than happy to review them in specific detail. The only fact that has to be recognized to prove that light speed is not constant to all observers is the "1003 second delay" as observed by Roemer. That fact establishes that light from Jupiter travels on a radial from Jupiter at " C " in relation to Jupiter. Since Earth has a changing orbital velocity on a radial from Jupiter, there is a relative velocity between Earth and the light train which is not C. If there exists a delay or advance in the eclipse event timing,... it is "not possible" for the light speed in space to be constant in relation to Earth. a.. The 1003 second delay is a change in observed period. b.. A change in observed period is a Doppler effect. c.. A Doppler effect results from a change in observed speed. d.. A change in observed speed indicates that light speed in not constant for all observers. The fact that Doppler effects are utilized between Earth and spacecraft is a sure indication that EM radiation maintains C in relation to the source and not the observer. When the carrier frequency of a spacecraft is known and a Doppler shift or a change in a Doppler shift is observed how is it possible to assume that the "free space speed" did not change in relation to the observer. In the following quote concerning Nasa's Titan data test it is seen that the carrier frequency and the digital data frequency displayed a Doppler effect. If that same transmitter was parked on Jupiter's north pole you would see a repeat of Roemer's data during Earth's orbital trip. In one case you have a light train modulated by eclipse events, and in the radio case you have a radio carrier modulated by digital data. You cannot separate the speed and timing of the modulation from the speed of the carrier. QUOTE: Because of Doppler shift, the frequency at which bits would be arriving from Huygens would be significantly different from the nominal data rate of 8192 bits per second. As the radio wave from the lander was compressed by Doppler shift, the data rate would increase as the length of each bit was reduced UNQUOTE The frequency and period of Io's eclipse events displays the Doppler effect in direct proportion to the relative motion between the Earth and Jupiter, therefore the light train speed as observed on Earth changes at the same rate. Cheers, Stan Byers http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm |