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 29 Mar 2005 15:01 kenseto wrote: > You are hopeless. You keep on using observed relative motion as reference > for absolute motion. > There is no absolute motion, Seto. Seto implies an absolute reference. No evidence for such. Seto is a well known crank on USENET. I, for one, thank him for registering at crank dot net. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
From: PD on 29 Mar 2005 15:16 kenseto wrote: > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1112117006.535615.94190(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:1112032615.040480.171680(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > "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... > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Oh, come on. My coffee cup is not moving with respect to the table. > > > > > > But you can't use the table as reference for absolute motion (motion > > in > > > space). The table is in a state of absolute motion in space. > > Therefore your > > > coffee cup is also in a state of absolute motion in space. > > > > And you know this *how*? I am pointing out to you that it is easy to > > establish whether two objects are in relative motion, but I have no > > idea how you establish whether any single object is in absolute motion. > > What is your test for establishing that, other than saying "it just > > is"? > > You need to do the experiment described in the following link to establish > the existence of absolute motion (page 3). > http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf You don't seem to have to. You just DECLARE that all objects will exhibit a nonzero result to this experiment, before doing it. > > > > > > > > > >And > > > > just because the *center* of the next galaxy happens to be moving > > with > > > > respect to the *center* of this galaxy does not mean that every > > star in > > > > that galaxy is moving with respect to our sun. > > > > > > You keep on using other objects as reference for absolute motion. > > This is > > > bogus. Absolute motion is not wrt any visible object. > > > > Then what IS absolute motion with respect to? If you say the E-matrix, > > then how do you KNOW that every visible object is in motion with > > respect to it? > > Motion of an object in the E-Matrix is absolute motion. I know that every > object is in a state of absolute motion because no object is in a state of > absolute rest. And you know that no object is in a state of absolute rest HOW? Because every object is in a state of absolute motion? Care to go around the circle one more time? > Absolute motion will affect the rate of a clock and the > light path length of a rod. That's the reason for the observed time dilation > and rod contraction. > > > > > > > > >I'll give you a simple > > > > example. I'm driving along a road at 20 mph and I throw my > > Mickey-D's > > > > French Fry wrapper backwards out the window at 20 mph. Is the > > wrapper > > > > moving or not, and with respect to what? > > > > > > Both you and the wrapper are in the same state of absolute motion > > before you > > > throw it. After you throw it (apply a force to it) the wrapper will > > have a > > > different state of absolute motion than you. > > > > Those are relative statements, note -- same state of motion, different > > state of motion. You keep using other objects as reference for absolute > > motion. This is bogus. (Quoting you, note.) What is the absolute motion > > of the wrapper? > > Sigh....you have to do experiment in the rest frame of the wrapper to > determine its absolute motion. > Any object in your rest frame will have the same state of absolute motion as > you. I really don't know what is your problem with that statement. I don't have a problem with "same motion" or "different motion". What I have a problem with is your asserting for a fact that the wrapper will have a nonzero absolute motion, something you don't know. > > > > > > > > > > I'll give you another example. Suppose I look at the relative > > motion of > > > > all the dots painted onto a balloon that is inflating. But the > > balloon > > > > is also resting on the table, and one of the painted dots is > > precisely > > > > at the point of contact between the table and the inflating > > balloon. > > > > Note that, as the balloon inflates, ALL of the dots are in a state > > of > > > > relative motion, including the one at the point of contact. But if > > the > > > > table defined zero velocity, there is one dot that is not moving, > > even > > > > though it has the same relative motion status as all the other dots > > on > > > > the balloon. > > > > > > Sigh....same example as above. You use the table as reference for > > absolute > > > motion. This is a bogus assumption. The table is also in a state of > > absolute > > > motion. > > > > Yeah, but suppose that there is one object in the universe that has > > zero absolute motion. > > So?? So... then the relative motion of all other objects can be measured with respect to the one whose absolute motion is known, and then you would be able to determine the absolute motion of all other objects by doing a vector addition, one pair at a time. Agree or no? > > > > > > > > > > It is simply NOT an empirical fact that everything is moving > > relative > > > > to everything else, and it is also thus an improper conclusion from > > > > that that everything is in a state of *absolute* motion. > > > > > > It is an emperical fact that everything is in a state of absolute > > motion. > > > > Reference please. The only empirical fact we have is that all objects > > are in a state of relative motion. > > And relative motion between two objects is the vector difference of the > vector components their absolute motions along the line joining them. And how does that provide evidence that *everything* is in a state of absolute motion? I'll give you an example. Take a 1-dimensional system to make life simple, with five objects, A, B, C, D, E. The relative motion between A and B is 2 m/s. The relative motion between B and C is 3 m/s. The relative motion between C and D is -4 m/s. The relative motion between D and E is -2 m/s. The relative motion between E and A is 1 m/s. All of the objects in this universe are in different states of absolute motion. Prove that none of them can have absolute motion 0. (Exercise: Show that (A,B,C,D,E) = (0 m/s, 2 m/s, 5 m/s, 1 m/s, -1 m/s) is a solution of absolute motions that satisfies the above relationships.) (Exercise: Show that (A,B,C,D,E) = (-2 m/s, 0 m/s, 3 m/s, -1 m/s, -3 m/s) is also a solution of absolute motions that satisfies the above relationships.) > > > > > Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference > > of > > > their vector components along the line joining A and B. > > > > > > > > [Punchline: I'm not arguing with you that everything is in a state > > of > > > > motion. > > > > > > Yes you are. > > > > > > >For every object, one can choose an inertial frame where that > > > > object is in motion, and since all inertial frames are physically > > > > equivalent, there is no object that can be said to be absolutely at > > > > rest. > > > > > > Precisely....every objerct in the universe is in a state of absolute > > motion. > > > > > > >However, is it your improper logical jump that everything is > > > > therefore absolutely in motion. Rather, the proper statement is > > that > > > > there is *no such thing* as absolute motion or absolute rest. > > > > > > Sigh...if there is no absolute rest that means that all objects are > > in a > > > state of absolute motion. > > > > Nope, it's not one or the other. Absolute rest is an ill-defined > > concept. > > It is only an ill-defined concept for a naive SR religious nut like you. No, it is an ill-defined concept for *reality*. Nature abhors an absolute velocity, as experimentally shown. QED demonstrates this. > > > > > > > > It is > > > > OK, and here is where your computational weakness is showing > > through. > > > > First of all, your definition of observed relative motion is > > incorrect. > > > > If I have a passenger on Train A and a passenger on Train B, and > > the > > > > two trains are going in opposite directions at 45 mph each on > > adjacent > > > > tracks. At the moment where the two passengers are directly across > > from > > > > each other (at their point of closest approach), their relative > > > > velocity with respect to each other is 90 mph. However, the > > component > > > > of their relative velocity along the line joining them is zero. > > > > There are other problems as well, but let's take it one error at a > > > > time. > > > > > > Sigh...you are using relative velocity as absolute motion!!! Relative > > > velocity is the vector difference of their absolute motions along the > > line > > > joining the two trains. > > > > Nope, I'm not! because that 45 mph statistic is with respect to the > > tracks, > > Yes you are. You assumed that the track is in a state of absolute rest and > thus the 45 mph is absolute motion. I did no such thing. I made no claim the 45 mph was an absolute speed, nor did I claim that those speeds were measured with respect to the tracks. To *some* observer they are going 45 mph and they are going in opposite directions. You were the one that jumped to those conclusions. > The track is itself in a different state > of absolute motion than the trains and the treains are also in different > state of absolute motions. > > >which themselves are in motion with respect to the sun-earth > > line, for example. Note that that 45 mph could have been with respect > > to an observer rolling along at 15 mph, so that the trains would be > > going 60 mph and 30 mph with respect to the track rails (I did not > > specify in the original statement -- you assumed it). Nothing in the > > above statement would change. > > You are hopeless. You keep on using observed relative motion as reference > for absolute motion. I said no such thing. I only mentioned speeds, not claiming that they were anything more than relative speeds. You are the one that assumed I claimed they are absolute speeds. This is precisely my point. Any velocity -- ANY velocity -- in a physical system is with respect to a particular reference frame. Its value is relative to that reference frame. It is a relative velocity. It is not possible to cite an absolute velocity. I'm not confused about it at all. I make no claims that this velocity is relative or absolute. You are the one claiming there is a clear distinction, and I say, SHOW ME HOW YOU KNOW. PD
From: kenseto on 29 Mar 2005 16:49 "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1112127404.544069.212110(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > kenseto wrote: > > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1112117006.535615.94190(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1112032615.040480.171680(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > "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... > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Oh, come on. My coffee cup is not moving with respect to the > table. > > > > > > > > But you can't use the table as reference for absolute motion > (motion > > > in > > > > space). The table is in a state of absolute motion in space. > > > Therefore your > > > > coffee cup is also in a state of absolute motion in space. > > > > > > And you know this *how*? I am pointing out to you that it is easy > to > > > establish whether two objects are in relative motion, but I have no > > > idea how you establish whether any single object is in absolute > motion. > > > What is your test for establishing that, other than saying "it just > > > is"? > > > > You need to do the experiment described in the following link to > establish > > the existence of absolute motion (page 3). > > http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf > > You don't seem to have to. You just DECLARE that all objects will > exhibit a nonzero result to this experiment, before doing it. That's the predictions of my theory. If the results of the experiment are not as predicted then my theory is wrong and SR is right. So here's a chance for you to prove that I am wrong.:-) > > > > > > > > > > bogus. Absolute motion is not wrt any visible object. > > > > > > Then what IS absolute motion with respect to? If you say the > E-matrix, > > > then how do you KNOW that every visible object is in motion with > > > respect to it? > > > > Motion of an object in the E-Matrix is absolute motion. I know that > every > > object is in a state of absolute motion because no object is in a > state of > > absolute rest. > > And you know that no object is in a state of absolute rest HOW? Because > every object is in a state of absolute motion? Care to go around the > circle one more time? It is pointless to argue with you. I have a proposed experiment that can refute or confirm the existence of absolute motion. That's the only valid way to determine who is right. > > > > Absolute motion will affect the rate of a clock and the > > light path length of a rod. That's the reason for the observed time > dilation > > and rod contraction. > > > > > > > > > > > >I'll give you a simple > > > > > example. I'm driving along a road at 20 mph and I throw my > > > Mickey-D's > > > > > French Fry wrapper backwards out the window at 20 mph. Is the > > > wrapper > > > > > moving or not, and with respect to what? > > > > > > > > Both you and the wrapper are in the same state of absolute motion > > > before you > > > > throw it. After you throw it (apply a force to it) the wrapper > will > > > have a > > > > different state of absolute motion than you. > > > > > > Those are relative statements, note -- same state of motion, > different > > > state of motion. You keep using other objects as reference for > absolute > > > motion. This is bogus. (Quoting you, note.) What is the absolute > motion > > > of the wrapper? > > > > Sigh....you have to do experiment in the rest frame of the wrapper to > > determine its absolute motion. > > Any object in your rest frame will have the same state of absolute > motion as > > you. I really don't know what is your problem with that statement. > > I don't have a problem with "same motion" or "different motion". What I > have a problem with is your asserting for a fact that the wrapper will > have a nonzero absolute motion, something you don't know. Sigh...the wrapper has a state of absolute motion before it was thrown out of the car then a force was applied to the wrapper and this has the affect of increasing its state absolute motion. So how can it have a zero state of absolute motion after the application of the force? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll give you another example. Suppose I look at the relative > > > motion of > > > > > all the dots painted onto a balloon that is inflating. But the > > > balloon > > > > > is also resting on the table, and one of the painted dots is > > > precisely > > > > > at the point of contact between the table and the inflating > > > balloon. > > > > > Note that, as the balloon inflates, ALL of the dots are in a > state > > > of > > > > > relative motion, including the one at the point of contact. But > if > > > the > > > > > table defined zero velocity, there is one dot that is not > moving, > > > even > > > > > though it has the same relative motion status as all the other > dots > > > on > > > > > the balloon. > > > > > > > > Sigh....same example as above. You use the table as reference for > > > absolute > > > > motion. This is a bogus assumption. The table is also in a state > of > > > absolute > > > > motion. > > > > > > Yeah, but suppose that there is one object in the universe that has > > > zero absolute motion. > > > > So?? > > So... then the relative motion of all other objects can be measured > with respect to the one whose absolute motion is known, and then you > would be able to determine the absolute motion of all other objects by > doing a vector addition, one pair at a time. Agree or no? No not agree. You can only calculate the vector component of the other object's absolute motion. > Ken Seto
From: Tom Roberts on 29 Mar 2005 21:04 kenseto wrote: > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts(a)lucent.com> wrote in message > news:d2bqi2$fns(a)netnews.proxy.lucent.com... >>I rigidly nailed both clocks to the surface of the earth, so there is no >>vertical motion of either clock, "absolute" or otherwise (and I wait >>until there is no earthquake (:-)). > > Sigh....absolute motion is that motion of the distant clock in the vertical > direction wrt the defined horizontal light ray. There is no such motion not shared by the other clock. And whatever such motion you care to ascribe to the clocks will also apply to the light beam. >>All of the light rays hit the detector. I aimed them so this is true. > > Your assertion would mean that the leading edge of the light ray (the first > photon in a train of photons) will hit the detector. This assertion will > violate the Uncertainty Principle. You clearly don't understand photons, and your claim is without basis -- all you seem to have done is parrot a phrase without understanding it. Experimentally, the light from a laser can be formed into pulses with durations on the order of a femtosecond, and these pulses can be detected. That is MUCH shorter duration than differences measured in gravitational redshift experiments, so your notion of "the first part of the beam misses the detector" as an explanation for gravitational redshift is refuted by experiments. Tom Roberts tjroberts(a)lucent.com
From: Henri Wilson on 29 Mar 2005 23:03
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:16:34 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:bu5h4153amrok96f30g78n1i6t938kegt6(a)4ax.com: > >> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:59:57 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>> >>>I am not the one that said: >>>>>>>> Silly boy. Nobody has measured the OW speed of light under any >>>>>>>> circumstance. >>> >>>How do YOU define 'one way speed of light'? It must be different from >>>the way others do because MANY experiments have measured something >>>called 'one way speed of light' but it must be different from your >>>definition. I wanted yours. >> >> The OW speed of ligght has been inferred from TW light speed >> experiments, which produce the answer 'c'. > >ok. > >> >> In actual fact, it this correct when all parts of the measuring >> apparatus are at rest. >> In such cases, according top the ballistic theory, TWLS=OWLS. >> > >ok. > >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>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'??? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ask any of your SRian colleagues. >>>>> >>>>>I ask you because you made the claim that the doppler effect was due >>>>>to changes in speed of light rather than changes in wavelength. >>>> >>>> It can be. 'Frequency' of an EM signal is the number of wavecrests >>>> passing per second. Naturally, that is dependent on observer speed >>>> relative to the source. >>>> >>> >>>Frequency is not velocity. I can measure the frequency AND the velocity. >>>When I do, I find the frequency has shifted, but not the velocity. >> >> Sorry, you cannot measure the velocity of an EM wave relative to >> yourself. There is no known way. > >I know the wave is launched from a moving source, an LED at the end of a >moving fan blade. > >I start a timer when the photons from the LED pass the first detector. >I stop timer and report time when the photons from the LED reach the second >detector. > >I know distance between detectors. >I know time >speed = distance/time How long does it take the signal from the second LED to stop the timer? Answer: D/(light speed). You cannot be sure light speed is the same in both directions. That is what you are trying to determine. You have described a typical TWLS experiment. > >I have just measured the time. > >What is so hard about that????? >Where is there a flaw in the experiment? You don't understand anything. >>>> ..but please recall that I have raised the question about how a >>>> diffraction grating can measure doppler shifted light. >>> >>>Do you understand how a diffraction grating works on non doppler shifted >>>light? It works the same on doppler shifted light. >> >> That's what I said. >> It is a function of wavelength only. >> >> So what might 'wavelength' refer to in the case of an individual photon? > >lamda = h nu >dual slits work on single photons, I expect gratings to work on single >photons too. >How would photons moving at different speeds solve a mystery here? What is nu in relation to a single photon? > >>>>>> Clue: How do you synchronize the separated clocks? >>>>>In my experiment there is no need for separated clocks. >>>> You have two separated clocks but haven't realized it. >>>show me. >> Why don't you ask your relativity expert, Tom Roberts. > >YOU said I have two separate clocks. Show me. You have two separated detectors. Same thing. > >>>>>The claim that the effect will only work in a pure vacuum is similar. >>>>>It means the effect will never be observed. >>>> I say there is a critical density of matter, below which all kinds of >>>> strange things happen. >>>Does that critical density occur anywhere? If not, then strange things >>>are never observed. >> It occurs in deep space. >> One 'strange thing' that IS observed is that light speed is source >> dependent. Thus we see many variable star brightness curves that agree >> with the BaT. > >It is NOT observed that light speed is source dependent. >It is observed that light frequency is source dependent. Quite wrong. It IS observed that light speed is source dependent. It is NOT observed that light actually HAS a frequency. However, it IS observed that the rate at which 'wavecrests' arrive at an observer is dependent on the observer's speed wrt the source. How could this rate be different from the emission rate if light speed arriving at the observer was c. > >You insist that frequency shift comes from speed shift. Show me evidence. >Show me an experiment that I can do that will support your contention. > >I have suggested experiments that will falsify your contention. > >>>>>> Well, ain't that longer that 5 feet? >>>>>Yes, but what did it have to do with my question as to what you >>>>>considered to be 'distant'. >>>> 5 feet is NOT distant compared with say, the wavelength of 100 hz EM. >>>Lets get back to light again, is 5 feet 'distant' with respect to 500 nm >>>EM radiation? [visible light, in case you are wondering]. >> So what? > >So, you claimed that >1) doppler effect is due to a change in speed of light. >2) the effect only takes place 'at a distance' Yes. At the observer. > >I am trying to establish just how far the moving source must be from my test >equipment before you will accept that your 'at a distance' criteria has been >met. > >You keep bobbing and weaving like a fighter ducking punches. No. You are just confused....like all SRians. You are half way between an aetherist and a relativist. > >So, once again, what do I have to do to prove to you that the movement of the >source does NOT change the speed of the light that is emitted, it only >changes the frequency/wavelength???? Light moves at c relative to its source. Generated EM waves, such as RF, also travel at c wrt their sources. The frequency of an RF signal remains constant wrt its source UNLESS the speed of the signal wrt source changes due to some obscure reason. The frequency of the RF signal refers to the number of wavecrests arriving per second. It can only vary from the frequency of emission IF the relative speed of the signal varies from c wrt the observer. That is, the RF signal arrives at a moving observer at a speed that is NOT c. Hence wavecrests arrive at the doppler shifted frequency. > >What experimental data would you accept? anything believeable....and repeatable. > >>>>>If you say NO, I will ask why not. If you say YES, then we can go into >>>>>the lab and test your theory. >>>>> >>>>>So how far is 'distant'? >>>> >>>> Sorry, I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. >>> >>>If 5 feet is 'distant' where 500 nm light is concerned (and I think it >>>should be because it is millions of wavelenghts) then we can test your >>>statements in the lab with a 5 ft optical bench and some other >>>equipment. >> >> You will need two separated clocks that can only be synched with light. > >Why do I need two separated clocks? If I had observers on separate platforms, >as in Einsteins experiment, THEN I would need clocks that were synced with >light. Therein lies your problem. > >I don't need two clocks because my source is not in uniform linear motion. >My source keeps coming toward me, again and again. > >It only approximates linear motion that for the time during which the >rotating wheel with an LED or laser has the source moving in the direction of >my detectors. Even if you can synch the clocks, the time difference betwen c and c+v will be too small to measure. If you had been following some of the previous discussion here, you would understand why. > >None the less, it should be sufficient to allow us to observe doppler shift. >We should be able to observe that the shift varies with the speed of the fan >that has the Sources mounted on the blade tips. >We should be able to time the speed of photons emitted by the source as the >photons pass between detector 1 and detector 2. Not so. How do you measure the time the signals take to reach you. You don't understand this, obviously. > >If you insist, We can even have the fan mounted in a vacuum chamber and pull >a hard vacuum on it. > >If the photons leaving the moving source are moving at c+v, then we should >see that they take less time to transit between the detectors. If the fan is >stopped, the slower photons should take longer to go between the detectors. > >If it doesn't take more time, then your contention is wrong. Any difference would be far too small to measure. Do the sums. 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. |