| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jan Panteltje" |
| Date: |
05 Aug 2005 03:07:28 PM |
| Object: |
My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
distant star moving towards us
|
Telescope
|
shutter
|
beam splitter
| |
detector 1 |
|
| 10 meter distance
|
|
detector 2
We open the shutter.
Measure time difference between signal at detector 2 and detector 1
Then we point at a star that moves away from us.
And measure again.
That should be the same to EinSteinIAns.
Has this been done?
(Yes it can technically be done, electronically, I just do not have the
telescope).
Reasoning:
If light from the approaching star was to move faster relative to this setup
then the time between signals from teh detectors should be shorter
(it should travel the distance between detector 1 and 2 in a shorter time).
If it has been done and was the same, will accept C is constant.
Not ever before that.
You can quote me on that.
.
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
07 Aug 2005 04:57:14 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123272470.f66a2938df95ee44d6592db31556e3f2@teranews...
distant star moving towards us
|
Telescope
|
shutter
|
beam splitter
| |
detector 1 |
|
| 10 meter distance
|
|
detector 2
We open the shutter.
Measure time difference between signal at detector 2 and detector 1
Then we point at a star that moves away from us.
And measure again.
That should be the same to EinSteinIAns.
Has this been done?
(Yes it can technically be done, electronically, I just do not have the
telescope).
Reasoning:
If light from the approaching star was to move faster relative to this setup
then the time between signals from teh detectors should be shorter
(it should travel the distance between detector 1 and 2 in a shorter time).
If it has been done and was the same, will accept C is constant.
Not ever before that.
You can quote me on that.
It is not so easy to do what you describe since the entire
experiment must be done in a vacuum.
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
Find out about the experiments by DeSitter and Brecher
and why one is better than the other.
Martin Hogbin
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
07 Aug 2005 08:30:23 AM |
|
|
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123272470.f66a2938df95ee44d6592db31556e3f2@teranews...
distant star moving towards us
|
Telescope
|
shutter
|
beam splitter
| |
detector 1 |
|
| 10 meter distance
|
|
detector 2
We open the shutter.
Measure time difference between signal at detector 2 and detector 1
Then we point at a star that moves away from us.
And measure again.
That should be the same to EinSteinIAns.
Has this been done?
(Yes it can technically be done, electronically, I just do not have the
telescope).
Reasoning:
If light from the approaching star was to move faster relative to this setup
then the time between signals from teh detectors should be shorter
(it should travel the distance between detector 1 and 2 in a shorter time).
If it has been done and was the same, will accept C is constant.
Not ever before that.
You can quote me on that.
It is not so easy to do what you describe since the entire
experiment must be done in a vacuum.
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
Doesn't this also apply to lenses and mirrors?
Find out about the experiments by DeSitter and Brecher
and why one is better than the other.
Martin Hogbin
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
07 Aug 2005 04:25:02 PM |
|
|
<tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1123421423.000869.40520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
Doesn't this also apply to lenses and mirrors?
It applies any time light passes through a medium,
such as a lens.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
07 Aug 2005 05:46:58 PM |
|
|
Martin Hogbin wrote:
<tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1123421423.000869.40520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
Doesn't this also apply to lenses and mirrors?
It applies any time light passes through a medium,
such as a lens.
1) Then, his experiment wouldn't work even in a vacuum.
2) What about mirrors? Is the reflection from a surface subject to the
same rule?
-tg
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
07 Aug 2005 05:50:12 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (7 Aug 2005 15:46:58 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1123454818.743260.244950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
< > wrote in message news:1123421423.000869.40520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
Doesn't this also apply to lenses and mirrors?
It applies any time light passes through a medium,
such as a lens.
1) Then, his experiment wouldn't work even in a vacuum.
2) What about mirrors? Is the reflection from a surface subject to the
same rule?
It can be done without lenses and mirrors.
See my other post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
07 Aug 2005 07:18:13 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (7 Aug 2005 15:46:58 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1123454818.743260.244950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
< > wrote in message news:1123421423.000869.40520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
Doesn't this also apply to lenses and mirrors?
It applies any time light passes through a medium,
such as a lens.
1) Then, his experiment wouldn't work even in a vacuum.
2) What about mirrors? Is the reflection from a surface subject to the
same rule?
It can be done without lenses and mirrors.
See my other post.
I don't see such a post. But you seem to think that the *cause* of the
speed has something to do with subsequent effects. Say you have a block
of glass made of two side-by-side glasses with different speeds for
light. Illuminate one end. When the light emerges at the other end, do
you think the speed in air or vacuum will be different because of the
different previous speeds in the glasses---that is, the light has been
'permanently' slowed down?
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 03:11:20 AM |
|
|
<> wrote in message news:1123460293.098034.303560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (7 Aug 2005 15:46:58 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1123454818.743260.244950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
< > wrote in message news:1123421423.000869.40520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
Doesn't this also apply to lenses and mirrors?
It applies any time light passes through a medium,
such as a lens.
1) Then, his experiment wouldn't work even in a vacuum.
That is correct, if the light passed through a lens any medium.
2) What about mirrors? Is the reflection from a surface subject to the
same rule?
Similar objections could be raised about the use of mirrors.
Have a look at:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimenters have thought of all of these objections and found ways
round them.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 06:01:17 AM |
|
|
Martin Hogbin wrote:
< > wrote in message news:1123460293.098034.303560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (7 Aug 2005 15:46:58 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1123454818.743260.244950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
< > wrote in message news:1123421423.000869.40520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
Doesn't this also apply to lenses and mirrors?
It applies any time light passes through a medium,
such as a lens.
1) Then, his experiment wouldn't work even in a vacuum.
That is correct, if the light passed through a lens any medium.
2) What about mirrors? Is the reflection from a surface subject to the
same rule?
Similar objections could be raised about the use of mirrors.
Have a look at:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimenters have thought of all of these objections and found ways
round them.
I was objecting to Jan's particular design which involved processing
the light before it began the comparison paths.
-tg
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 01:38:04 PM |
|
|
<tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1123498877.312525.170670@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
Have a look at:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimenters have thought of all of these objections and found ways
round them.
I was objecting to Jan's particular design which involved processing
the light before it began the comparison paths.
Fine, but have a look at what has already been done.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 05:28:03 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (7 Aug 2005 17:18:13 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1123460293.098034.303560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (7 Aug 2005 15:46:58 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1123454818.743260.244950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
< > wrote in message news:1123421423.000869.40520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
Doesn't this also apply to lenses and mirrors?
It applies any time light passes through a medium,
such as a lens.
1) Then, his experiment wouldn't work even in a vacuum.
2) What about mirrors? Is the reflection from a surface subject to the
same rule?
It can be done without lenses and mirrors.
See my other post.
I don't see such a post. But you seem to think that the *cause* of the
speed has something to do with subsequent effects. Say you have a block
of glass made of two side-by-side glasses with different speeds for
light. Illuminate one end. When the light emerges at the other end, do
you think the speed in air or vacuum will be different because of the
different previous speeds in the glasses---that is, the light has been
'permanently' slowed down?
OK, I will repeat what I wrote in the other post, and why, with some detail.
What could be done is this (to avoid the glasswork):
Spacecraft 1 (somebody wanted vacuum too) has a stroboscope, and spacecraft
2 is the ISS (big) and has 2 telescopes with photo detector, aligned in such
a way that the second one is 10 m behind the first one, as seen from the
stroboscope spacecraft.
We XOR the detector output (logic levels).
When both spacecrafts are stationary, when the stroboscope flashes, the
light (wave photons - pick you choice) will arrive first at detector 1 and
33nS later at detector 2.
This gives us a nice 33nS pulse at the output of the XOR.
We can measure this pulse length with a very high accuracy electronically in
several ways.
If now the spacecraft with the stroboscope starts moving away from the ISS,
then we should see the SAME length pulse according to EInsTeiNiAns.
As to your second remark, I have learned that when a light wave enters
glass from a vacuum, it is sort of 're-emitted' for atom to atom, so it is not
the same light, it is now originating from something at rest in the detector
reference frame.
This is the issue perhaps why they always measured C.
(But this is one of the things my experiment would test).
As for the case of the 2 spacecrafts described above, there is no medium
in between, the detectors can be telescopes with photo multipliers, pointed
at the other spacecraft, the little delays inside the telescopes are a
constant.
At least we measure then the original light speed (spacecraft relative speed).
By moving either the ISS or the stroboscope spacecraft we can find if there is
an aether or some absolute reference frame.
We can then finally move away from EinSTEinIanS sun orbits earth idiotic
nonsensical math to a real understanding.
If not (C, the 33nS was the same) at least NASA would have had more fun then
fixing foam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 09:31:50 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (7 Aug 2005 17:18:13 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1123460293.098034.303560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (7 Aug 2005 15:46:58 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1123454818.743260.244950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
< > wrote in message news:1123421423.000869.40520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
Doesn't this also apply to lenses and mirrors?
It applies any time light passes through a medium,
such as a lens.
1) Then, his experiment wouldn't work even in a vacuum.
2) What about mirrors? Is the reflection from a surface subject to the
same rule?
It can be done without lenses and mirrors.
See my other post.
I don't see such a post. But you seem to think that the *cause* of the
speed has something to do with subsequent effects. Say you have a block
of glass made of two side-by-side glasses with different speeds for
light. Illuminate one end. When the light emerges at the other end, do
you think the speed in air or vacuum will be different because of the
different previous speeds in the glasses---that is, the light has been
'permanently' slowed down?
OK, I will repeat what I wrote in the other post, and why, with some detail.
What could be done is this (to avoid the glasswork):
Spacecraft 1 (somebody wanted vacuum too) has a stroboscope, and spacecraft
2 is the ISS (big) and has 2 telescopes with photo detector, aligned in such
a way that the second one is 10 m behind the first one, as seen from the
stroboscope spacecraft.
We XOR the detector output (logic levels).
When both spacecrafts are stationary, when the stroboscope flashes, the
light (wave photons - pick you choice) will arrive first at detector 1 and
33nS later at detector 2.
This gives us a nice 33nS pulse at the output of the XOR.
We can measure this pulse length with a very high accuracy electronically in
several ways.
If now the spacecraft with the stroboscope starts moving away from the ISS,
then we should see the SAME length pulse according to EInsTeiNiAns.
As to your second remark, I have learned that when a light wave enters
glass from a vacuum, it is sort of 're-emitted' for atom to atom, so it is not
the same light, it is now originating from something at rest in the detector
reference frame.
This is the issue perhaps why they always measured C.
(But this is one of the things my experiment would test).
As for the case of the 2 spacecrafts described above, there is no medium
in between, the detectors can be telescopes with photo multipliers, pointed
at the other spacecraft, the little delays inside the telescopes are a
constant.
At least we measure then the original light speed (spacecraft relative speed).
By moving either the ISS or the stroboscope spacecraft we can find if there is
an aether or some absolute reference frame.
We can then finally move away from EinSTEinIanS sun orbits earth idiotic
nonsensical math to a real understanding.
If not (C, the 33nS was the same) at least NASA would have had more fun then
fixing foam.
Ok, this is beginning to be a good project.
How about this: Let's just shoot a mirror at high velocity away from
our space station. Then we can aim a laser at it and deal with the
reflection. The mirror will act as a moving 'source'. I leave it to you
to determine the necessary speed.
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 03:55:49 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (8 Aug 2005 07:31:50 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1123511510.527966.31280@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (7 Aug 2005 17:18:13 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1123460293.098034.303560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (7 Aug 2005 15:46:58 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1123454818.743260.244950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
< > wrote in message news:1123421423.000869.40520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
Doesn't this also apply to lenses and mirrors?
It applies any time light passes through a medium,
such as a lens.
1) Then, his experiment wouldn't work even in a vacuum.
2) What about mirrors? Is the reflection from a surface subject to the
same rule?
It can be done without lenses and mirrors.
See my other post.
I don't see such a post. But you seem to think that the *cause* of the
speed has something to do with subsequent effects. Say you have a block
of glass made of two side-by-side glasses with different speeds for
light. Illuminate one end. When the light emerges at the other end, do
you think the speed in air or vacuum will be different because of the
different previous speeds in the glasses---that is, the light has been
'permanently' slowed down?
OK, I will repeat what I wrote in the other post, and why, with some detail.
What could be done is this (to avoid the glasswork):
Spacecraft 1 (somebody wanted vacuum too) has a stroboscope, and spacecraft
2 is the ISS (big) and has 2 telescopes with photo detector, aligned in such
a way that the second one is 10 m behind the first one, as seen from the
stroboscope spacecraft.
We XOR the detector output (logic levels).
When both spacecrafts are stationary, when the stroboscope flashes, the
light (wave photons - pick you choice) will arrive first at detector 1 and
33nS later at detector 2.
This gives us a nice 33nS pulse at the output of the XOR.
We can measure this pulse length with a very high accuracy electronically in
several ways.
If now the spacecraft with the stroboscope starts moving away from the ISS,
then we should see the SAME length pulse according to EInsTeiNiAns.
As to your second remark, I have learned that when a light wave enters
glass from a vacuum, it is sort of 're-emitted' for atom to atom, so it is not
the same light, it is now originating from something at rest in the detector
reference frame.
This is the issue perhaps why they always measured C.
(But this is one of the things my experiment would test).
As for the case of the 2 spacecrafts described above, there is no medium
in between, the detectors can be telescopes with photo multipliers, pointed
at the other spacecraft, the little delays inside the telescopes are a
constant.
At least we measure then the original light speed (spacecraft relative speed).
By moving either the ISS or the stroboscope spacecraft we can find if there is
an aether or some absolute reference frame.
We can then finally move away from EinSTEinIanS sun orbits earth idiotic
nonsensical math to a real understanding.
If not (C, the 33nS was the same) at least NASA would have had more fun then
fixing foam.
Ok, this is beginning to be a good project.
How about this: Let's just shoot a mirror at high velocity away from
our space station. Then we can aim a laser at it and deal with the
reflection. The mirror will act as a moving 'source'. I leave it to you
to determine the necessary speed.
It is a clever idea, but it sort of puts the 'one way' light speed test
in a questionable position.
Also I think it is more difficult to do.
As for the speed, I have in some other post on this subject indicated a way
to get really high resolution, even in the simplest setup I calculated one
should be able to measure 25 km/h speed changes easily, in the more
complicated setup in the mm / second range.
Honestly after lot of googling this afternoon I could not find a better
method then the one listening to the beat with a harmonic of the 33nS....
(Or measuring the duration of period of that beat).
Should have patented it.
Maybe I will, patent office will accept any prior art it seems, given
micorsoft patented emoticons (and with that things like fonts) few month ago.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 02:34:31 PM |
|
|
Martin Hogbin wrote:
<tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1123421423.000869.40520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
Doesn't this also apply to lenses and mirrors?
It applies any time light passes through a medium,
such as a lens.
Indeed, this is how a lens works. If it were not so, then a lens would
not focus light.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
11 Aug 2005 12:24:33 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123529671.550050.69430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
You are a coward, Draper, and you do not mean the words you say.
That makes you a disingenuous coward.
Nobody can trust you.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
07 Aug 2005 06:34:08 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:57:14 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd4ltq$502$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123272470.f66a2938df95ee44d6592db31556e3f2@teranews...
distant star moving towards us
|
Telescope
|
shutter
|
beam splitter
| |
detector 1 |
|
| 10 meter distance
|
|
detector 2
We open the shutter.
Measure time difference between signal at detector 2 and detector 1
Then we point at a star that moves away from us.
And measure again.
That should be the same to EinSteinIAns.
Has this been done?
(Yes it can technically be done, electronically, I just do not have the
telescope).
Reasoning:
If light from the approaching star was to move faster relative to this setup
then the time between signals from teh detectors should be shorter
(it should travel the distance between detector 1 and 2 in a shorter time).
If it has been done and was the same, will accept C is constant.
Not ever before that.
You can quote me on that.
It is not so easy to do what you describe since the entire
experiment must be done in a vacuum.
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
This makes no sense.
Light is not a 'wave in air'.
Neither is it (well opinions differ) a 'wave in a local medium'.
that given the experiment should work.
There is actually some common sense facts to support what I just wrote:
If you were right, a red light from further aways (10 meters here) should
have a different color.
The whole issue of THIS experiment I propose is to actullay measure the TIME
it takes for the light form a source to go from A to B, using a clock.
So the one way speed.
Let's look at it in more detail:
The light enters the telscope, it reflect from the main mirror, perhaps
some ore mirrors, passes some lenses, the beam splitter, the glass in front
of the photo detector.
In all these case, light changes speed....several times.
So then we would need to measure outside the earth atmosphere, without lenses
or mirrors, with 2 detectors that are 10 meter behind each other from the
light source (star).
No problem, do it from the ISS, when it moves away from the sun, and
again when it moves towards the sun.
It is easy to get 1 m/s accuracy with cheap equipment (hello Schoenfeld, I
though about 10^-8 a bit):
If we have a repeated (now we need a mechanical) shutter opening and closing,
then we have say 1000 33 nS pulses per second (after XOR).
A 33nS pulse can be seen (use Fourier if you have math sex a lot) as half a
period of a 66nS signal, or about a 16MHz spectral line (we say frequency).
So, the old radio amatuer takes his communication receiver, tunes it to 16Mhz,
switches on teh SSB BFO (beat frequency oscillator), seaches there a bit for
the 16 MHz carrier, tunes to a nice 400 Hz audio.
Takes his old 5 digit frequency / period counter (the one with the nixi tubes
hehe), and sets i tto frequency: 400.00 it reads.
the accuracy we measure the audio with is 1Hz, this results in an accuracy
of 1 / (16,000,000 * 400) = 1 / 6 400 000 000
But that is not all, we switch the nice old frequency counter to TIME.
We now measure 1/400 = 2.5mS period time......
And that reads out as 2.5000
(The counter opens a gate and counts its own xtal clock pulses during 2,5 ms).
The resolution is 100nS (10MHz clock).
So the accuray now is:
16 000 000 * 25000 = 1 / 4^11
So we can detect millimeter movement backwards and forwards of the light source.
Of cause a fast shutter is a problem, we could use an other spacecraft with
a stroboscope.......
It is fun :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
07 Aug 2005 07:04:36 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:34:08 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123414577.0a06662b80fbc7342819ac9a529cdbda@teranews>:
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:57:14 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd4ltq$502$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123272470.f66a2938df95ee44d6592db31556e3f2@teranews...
distant star moving towards us
|
Telescope
|
shutter
|
beam splitter
| |
detector 1 |
|
| 10 meter distance
|
|
detector 2
We open the shutter.
Measure time difference between signal at detector 2 and detector 1
Then we point at a star that moves away from us.
And measure again.
That should be the same to EinSteinIAns.
Has this been done?
(Yes it can technically be done, electronically, I just do not have the
telescope).
Reasoning:
If light from the approaching star was to move faster relative to this setup
then the time between signals from teh detectors should be shorter
(it should travel the distance between detector 1 and 2 in a shorter time).
If it has been done and was the same, will accept C is constant.
Not ever before that.
You can quote me on that.
It is not so easy to do what you describe since the entire
experiment must be done in a vacuum.
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
This makes no sense.
Light is not a 'wave in air'.
Neither is it (well opinions differ) a 'wave in a local medium'.
that given the experiment should work.
There is actually some common sense facts to support what I just wrote:
If you were right, a red light from further aways (10 meters here) should
have a different color.
The whole issue of THIS experiment I propose is to actullay measure the TIME
it takes for the light form a source to go from A to B, using a clock.
So the one way speed.
Let's look at it in more detail:
The light enters the telscope, it reflect from the main mirror, perhaps
some ore mirrors, passes some lenses, the beam splitter, the glass in front
of the photo detector.
In all these case, light changes speed....several times.
So then we would need to measure outside the earth atmosphere, without lenses
or mirrors, with 2 detectors that are 10 meter behind each other from the
light source (star).
No problem, do it from the ISS, when it moves away from the sun, and
again when it moves towards the sun.
It is easy to get 1 m/s accuracy with cheap equipment (hello Schoenfeld, I
though about 10^-8 a bit):
If we have a repeated (now we need a mechanical) shutter opening and closing,
then we have say 1000 33 nS pulses per second (after XOR).
A 33nS pulse can be seen (use Fourier if you have math sex a lot) as half a
period of a 66nS signal, or about a 16MHz spectral line (we say frequency).
So, the old radio amatuer takes his communication receiver, tunes it to 16Mhz,
switches on teh SSB BFO (beat frequency oscillator), seaches there a bit for
the 16 MHz carrier, tunes to a nice 400 Hz audio.
Takes his old 5 digit frequency / period counter (the one with the nixi tubes
hehe), and sets i tto frequency: 400.00 it reads.
the accuracy we measure the audio with is 1Hz, this results in an accuracy
of 1 / (16,000,000 * 400) = 1 / 6 400 000 000
Oops. apart from the spelling errors, I also made an error here:
Let's do it the way I would really do it (see the diagram for the experiment
at http://panteltje.com/panteltje/lorentz/experiment.html ).
I tune the BFO to 10Hz tone (add a bigger capacitor in audio stage coupling
perhaps).
This is 100mS audio period time.
Now we use the a digital time meter with 100nS resolution on this.
(we count pulses from a 10MHz xtal for 100ms, so 1000000 pulses per audio
signal period.
This multiplies the accuracy by 10^6
So now we have 1 / (16x10^6 * 10^6) = 1 / 10^12
A little better for less money.... (5$ few CMOS chips).
Of cause a fast shutter is a problem, we could use an other spacecraft with
a stroboscope.......
It is fun :-)
And given that the shuttle really needs something so they can say: 'See how
it made a difference' I'd say Goldwin step on it.
Because watching NASA TV astronuts tightening bolts and tightening
connectors was boring enough to change channels.
And, why not try this experiment on earth, walking towards it should
be detectable.
Am I lazy?
Shall we leave pHySIcS a victim of EInSTEniAns?
More perhaps next time one sci.PHySiCS ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
07 Aug 2005 04:30:56 PM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123416283.7d66dafdcefe22ae191a4a035ca2bb9d@teranews...
On a sunny day (Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:34:08 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123414577.0a06662b80fbc7342819ac9a529cdbda@teranews>:
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:57:14 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd4ltq$502$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
This makes no sense.
Yes it does.
Light is not a 'wave in air'.
Neither is it (well opinions differ) a 'wave in a local medium'.
that given the experiment should work.
Light slows down when it passes through a medium.
There is actually some common sense facts...
No such thing. Facts are facts; common sense is common sense.
to support what I just wrote:
If you were right, a red light from further aways (10 meters here) should
have a different color.
The whole issue of THIS experiment I propose is to actullay measure the TIME
it takes for the light form a source to go from A to B, using a clock.
So the one way speed.
Yes but that is pointless if you do the experiment in air.
Let's look at it in more detail:
No point, it proves nothing.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
07 Aug 2005 05:03:58 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2005 21:30:56 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd5uig$q7i$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123416283.7d66dafdcefe22ae191a4a035ca2bb9d@teranews...
On a sunny day (Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:34:08 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123414577.0a06662b80fbc7342819ac9a529cdbda@teranews>:
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:57:14 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd4ltq$502$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
This makes no sense.
Yes it does.
No it does not, the experiment is to find out IF there is a null result!!!
Light is not a 'wave in air'.
Neither is it (well opinions differ) a 'wave in a local medium'.
that given the experiment should work.
Light slows down when it passes through a medium.
Do you believe in aether?
Light CHANGES SPEED when it passes from one medium into a different medium
it does not slow down, if it did the 'tired light' theories would be right.
It can actually speed up, if from glass to air.
But is it the same light?
here yo uare right and I described i nthe other post how to do it in a vacuum.
There is actually some common sense facts...
No such thing. Facts are facts; common sense is common sense.
And experiments are experiments, not doing these because you believe
in some dead hairy political pushed math incompenent without his teacher
around is BAD.
to support what I just wrote:
If you were right, a red light from further aways (10 meters here) should
have a different color.
The whole issue of THIS experiment I propose is to actullay measure the TIME
it takes for the light form a source to go from A to B, using a clock.
So the one way speed.
Yes but that is pointless if you do the experiment in air.
Air has hardly an effect on the light speed.
Let's look at it in more detail:
No point, it proves nothing.
This is not about proving, it is about testing something.
If you do not look in detail you will always stay superficial.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
07 Aug 2005 05:22:54 PM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123452251.7b3e3afe46bde27c523cbd663a6d4a8d@teranews...
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2005 21:30:56 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd5uig$q7i$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123416283.7d66dafdcefe22ae191a4a035ca2bb9d@teranews...
On a sunny day (Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:34:08 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123414577.0a06662b80fbc7342819ac9a529cdbda@teranews>:
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:57:14 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd4ltq$502$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
In a medium, such as air, light travels at a fixed velocity relative
to the medium. Your experiment would therefore have a null
result but this would prove nothing.
This makes no sense.
Yes it does.
No it does not, the experiment is to find out IF there is a null result!!!
The experiment is to find out if the speed of light depends on the
speed of the source (I assume from the title).
Even if this were the case your experiment would have
a null result if performed in air.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
07 Aug 2005 05:46:20 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:22:54 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd61ju$5uf$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
The experiment is to find out if the speed of light depends on the
speed of the source (I assume from the title).
Even if this were the case your experiment would have
a null result if performed in air.
No, think about it;
you seem to think that IF the speed depends on the source,
the moment the light enters 'air' it takes on an other speed?
We know that the speed of light is not really a lot slower then
in a vacuum.
So what determines it in the 'vacuum'?
No medium, no aether.... makes no sense.
Photon send on its way, hits nothing, keeps going (same speed)?
the yare all exactly send out tha ttha tSAME speed?
Violates any angle related BB idea I can imagine.
So a wave, then we need a medium.
Something is waving.
But a medium imposes a reference..... Then the analogy of sound
waves applies again.
This experiment should signal that big time.
In air or not!
Air not dense enough to have significant effect on light speed.
There are so many unknowns, the ideas of the man who was stuck in math
for 35 years keep people from discovering.
This experiment should be done!
<joke>
If the 1000$ setup is too cheap, why not make a vacuum tunnel
from US to Europe, and do it there.
It will create jobs, and later can carry the hypersonic trains.
</joke>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 03:14:39 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123454798.533907080b57aefff614901b280c904c@teranews...
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:22:54 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd61ju$5uf$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
The experiment is to find out if the speed of light depends on the
speed of the source (I assume from the title).
Even if this were the case your experiment would have
a null result if performed in air.
No, think about it;
you seem to think that IF the speed depends on the source,
the moment the light enters 'air' it takes on an other speed?
Yes, after it has travelled a certain distance. This fact is
well known.
<Snip musings>
This experiment should be done!
Plenty of experiments have been done. Read and learn.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 05:28:43 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Mon, 8 Aug 2005 08:14:39 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd749f$fpb$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123454798.533907080b57aefff614901b280c904c@teranews...
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:22:54 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd61ju$5uf$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
The experiment is to find out if the speed of light depends on the
speed of the source (I assume from the title).
Even if this were the case your experiment would have
a null result if performed in air.
No, think about it;
you seem to think that IF the speed depends on the source,
the moment the light enters 'air' it takes on an other speed?
Yes, after it has travelled a certain distance. This fact is
well known.
Reference?
What is 'a certain' distance?
Ever heard of MOLECULES of gasses in air?
Do not stay totally superficial, like a kindergarten teacher.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 01:35:16 PM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123496926.5338cc31e2b5cf3cd4656c5e9ee4060e@teranews...
On a sunny day (Mon, 8 Aug 2005 08:14:39 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd749f$fpb$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123454798.533907080b57aefff614901b280c904c@teranews...
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:22:54 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd61ju$5uf$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
No, think about it;
you seem to think that IF the speed depends on the source,
the moment the light enters 'air' it takes on an other speed?
Yes, after it has travelled a certain distance. This fact is
well known.
Reference?
Any good text book on the subject.
What is 'a certain' distance?
Do some study and see if you can find out the name for
this distance.
Ever heard of MOLECULES of gasses in air?
Yes. Your point being?
Do not stay totally superficial, like a kindergarten teacher.
That is a very apt description of the situation.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 08:16:27 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 8 Aug 2005 08:14:39 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd749f$fpb$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123454798.533907080b57aefff614901b280c904c@teranews...
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:22:54 +0000 (UTC)) it happened "Martin
Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in
<dd61ju$5uf$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
The experiment is to find out if the speed of light depends on the
speed of the source (I assume from the title).
Even if this were the case your experiment would have
a null result if performed in air.
No, think about it;
you seem to think that IF the speed depends on the source,
the moment the light enters 'air' it takes on an other speed?
Yes, after it has travelled a certain distance. This fact is
well known.
Reference?
What is 'a certain' distance?
Ever heard of MOLECULES of gasses in air?
Do not stay totally superficial, like a kindergarten teacher.
The probability that your device detects a raw photon from the star
varies inversely with atmospheric pressure at detector location.
Obviously, in open space you would have almost 100% chance. Your
experiment would be useful only in orbit.
Alternatively, if you had a large vacuum chamber then you could use
accelerating light sources within that chamber. But I would imagine
this to be very expensive and complex.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aydin" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 06:41:48 AM |
|
|
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae509.cfm
The second paragraph is good. The time that it takes for the atom to
release the photon is dependant on its wavelength and the type of
material as far as I know.
Don't know about the "certain distance" though.
Aydin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
08 Aug 2005 01:46:56 PM |
|
|
"Aydin" <gereka@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1123501308.326232.300160@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae509.cfm
The second paragraph is good. The time that it takes for the atom to
release the photon is dependant on its wavelength and the type of
material as far as I know.
Don't know about the "certain distance" though.
When light enters a medium the original ray of light
is gradually replaced by a ray travelling at a slower speed.
After a characteristic distance 1/e of the original ray is left.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
09 Aug 2005 07:00:34 PM |
|
|
In article <1123272470.f66a2938df95ee44d6592db31556e3f2@teranews>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
distant star moving towards us
|
Telescope
|
shutter
|
beam splitter
| |
detector 1 |
|
| 10 meter distance
|
|
detector 2
We open the shutter.
Measure time difference between signal at detector 2 and detector 1
Then we point at a star that moves away from us.
And measure again.
That should be the same to EinSteinIAns.
Has this been done?
(Yes it can technically be done, electronically, I just do not have the
telescope).
Reasoning:
If light from the approaching star was to move faster
***{Good writers using the conditional subjunctive, such as the "if"
clause you employ above, tend to use "was" when they think the supposed
condition likely, and "were" when they think it unlikely. Thus since you
used "was," I infer that you think it likely that light from the
approaching star will be found to move faster. But how can that be,
given that if it were so, eclipsing binaries would never appear to be on
opposite sides of their common center of mass at the same time? In that
circumstance, the light from the pair member that was coming toward us
would reach us first, while the light from the one going away from us
would reach us later, creating a false image depicting a mechanically
impossible situation in which both stars would seem to be on the same
side of their common center of mass. But that is not what astronomers
actually see, so there is no need to do your experiment. We already know
for a fact that light from an object rushing toward us moves at the same
speed as light from an object rushing away form us. --MJ}***
relative to this setup
then the time between signals from the detectors should be shorter
(it should travel the distance between detector 1 and 2 in a shorter time).
If it has been done and was the same, will accept C is constant.
***{If it were done and showed no difference, that would not imply that
the speed of light is constant. Nor does the fact that images of
eclipsing binaries remain coherent imply that the speed of light is
constant. All those data imply, and all a proper rendition of your
experiment would imply, is that the speed of light is unaffected by the
velocity of its source. They would in no way indicate that it is not
affected by other things--such as, for example, the density of the
aether through which it is passing. --MJ}***
Not ever before that.
You can quote me on that.
***{Stubbornness in such matters is commendable, but your stated
willingness to be persuaded by your experiment indicates that you are
not yet stubborn enough. :-) --MJ}***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
10 Aug 2005 05:13:42 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (09 Aug 2005 20:00:34 EDT) it happened Mitchell Jones
<mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote in
<mjones-06976F.19042309082005@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net>:
clause you employ above, tend to use "was" when they think the supposed
condition likely, and "were" when they think it unlikely.
for a fact that light from an object rushing toward us moves at the same
speed as light from an object rushing away form us. --MJ}***
Good writes use 'from' not 'form' in a case like this.
Good scientists look for other explanations in the case of old EInSEInianS
with impaired vision not seeing things they think they should see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
10 Aug 2005 08:02:09 PM |
|
|
In article <1123668858.b94dc866539659af9f7859732f3781f5@teranews>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (09 Aug 2005 20:00:34 EDT) it happened Mitchell Jones
<mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote in
<mjones-06976F.19042309082005@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net>:
clause you employ above, tend to use "was" when they think the supposed
condition likely, and "were" when they think it unlikely.
for a fact that light from an object rushing toward us moves at the same
speed as light from an object rushing away form us. --MJ}***
Good writes use 'from' not 'form' in a case like this.
***{It's called a typo, like your use of "writes" rather than "writers,"
for example. The question is: why did you mention it? Could it be that
you want to put me down because I disputed your conclusion?
If so, here is my advice: don't let yourself get corrupted by this
group. When you started, you were focused on what was right, rather than
on who was right. Why not stubbornly remain that way, simply because it
is correct?
--Mitchell Jones}***
Good scientists look for other explanations in the case of old EInSEInianS
with impaired vision not seeing things they think they should see.
***{Of course they do. And they stubbornly resist buying into
interpretations that fly in the face of common sense, opting instead to
say "I don't have an explanation for that," until, in fact, they do have
an explanation.
Nevertheless, it is a fact, demonstrated beyond dispute, that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of its source. Hence your proposed
experiment, however interesting it may be, is not needed. I say that not
to put you down, but simply because it is the truth.
How can the speed of light be independent of the speed of its source?
Well, if light is a wave, there must be a medium, an aether, through
which it is passing ("waves in nothing" is gibberish, because nothing
cannot wave), and its speed will be a function of the properties of the
medium, not of the speed of its source.
If, on the other hand, light is corpuscular, and if those corpuscles
("photons") are receiving a constant push from behind and are passing
through a medium, then they will be at terminal velocity with respect to
that medium. That means their speed will increase until the backward
force exerted by the resistance of the medium equals the forward
propelling force. That equilibrium velocity is what is known as a
"terminal velocity," and would be c in regions where the aether density
is close to what it is in the vicinity of Earth.
Which possibility is correct? The latter one, in my opinion.
Note, by the way, that a speed independent of the speed of the source is
not exclusively "wave behavior," since a particle moving at terminal
velocity behaves the same way. Thus this particular aspect of the so
called "wave-particle duality" is not a duality at all.
--Mitchell Jones}***
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: My proposal for an experiment to see if it is C+v |
05 Aug 2005 04:02:43 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
distant star moving towards us
|
Telescope
|
shutter
|
beam splitter
| |
detector 1 |
|
| 10 meter distance
|
|
detector 2
[snip]
Idiot.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
Google
Kennedy-Thorndike 538 hits
Ives-Stilwell 114 hits
Hughes-Drever 1120 hits
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
