Testing the oneway lightspeed constancy

Hi
My first post in this group!
I am interested if the testing, which can be done easyly
by astronomers, has ever been done the way I will describe
it below, or not.

Experiment description:

------- Earth movement at
spring : register Df

Star * light---
---------Earth movement at
fall : register Df


Notations : D= delta ; f=frequency ; Df=Doppler shift

The time period fall- spring is just for illustration purposes.
What is being done is : The Doppler-shifted light
emitted by
a star is registered on Earth at an approx. 6 month interval.
The star should be seen in the planetary movement plane of Earth,
that is, it should be seen at East - West direction.
Now, if Df proves to be the very same value for a given line of the
stars-light spectrum, then c is independent of the observer's
movement,
as it should be according to the special relativity theory.
Regards, LL

"xray4abc" wrote in message
...
| Hi
| My first post in this group!
| I am interested if the testing, which can be done easyly
| by astronomers, has ever been done the way I will describe
| it below, or not.
|
| Experiment description:
|
| ------- Earth movement at
| spring : register Df
|
| Star * light---
| ---------Earth movement at
| fall : register Df
|
|
| Notations : D= delta ; f=frequency ; Df=Doppler shift
|
| The time period fall- spring is just for illustration purposes.
| What is being done is : The Doppler-shifted light
| emitted by
| a star is registered on Earth at an approx. 6 month interval.
| The star should be seen in the planetary movement plane of Earth,
| that is, it should be seen at East - West direction.
| Now, if Df proves to be the very same value for a given line of the
| stars-light spectrum, then c is independent of the observer's
| movement,
| as it should be according to the special relativity theory.
| Regards, LL

Hahaha!
Yes, of course it has been done, and "Df" is different between
spring and fall. But then, it would be even according to SR.

"It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a source of
light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite
intensity." -- Albert Idiot Einstein.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ - Section 7.

Dear xray4abc:

On Mar 19, 9:47*am, xray4abc wrote:
Hi
My first post in this group!
* * *I am interested if the testing, which can be done easyly
by astronomers, has ever been done the way I will describe
it below, or not.

snip, looking for change in detected frequency based on Earth's
motion

This will not establish a value for c. You would have to assume that
Maxwell was correct, and the "ballistic photon" folks do not assume
that.

You could use the Moon as a shutter, and if the CMBR or other high-z
source that should be occulted by the Moon is not occulted at a
similar time as local visible light objects, then you will have
detected an anisotropy. The 1.3 second one-way transit time can be
multiplied by a (1+z) of almost 5 for some objects, and more than 1000
for the CMBR.

Might even get to publish a fancy paper or two on the subject.

David A. Smith

On Mar 19, 3:38*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"xray4abc" wrote in message

...
| Hi
| My first post in this group!
| * * I am interested if the testing, which can be done easyly
| by astronomers, has ever been done the way I will describe
| it below, or not.
|
| Experiment description:
|
| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *------- Earth movement at
| spring : register Df
|
| Star * * light---
| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *---------Earth movement at
| fall *: * *register Df
|
|
| Notations : *D= delta ; *f=frequency ; * * *Df=Doppler shift
|
| The time period fall- spring is just for illustration purposes.
| * * * * * * * * * *What is being done is : The Doppler-shifted light
| emitted by
| a star is registered on Earth at an approx. 6 month interval.
| The star should be seen in the planetary movement plane of Earth,
| that is, it should be seen at *East - West direction.
| *Now, if Df proves to be the very same value for a given line of the
| stars-light spectrum, then c is independent of the observer's
| movement,
| as it should be according to the special relativity theory.
| *Regards, LL

Hahaha!
Yes, of course it has been done, and "Df" is different between
spring and fall. But then, it would be even according to SR.

"It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a source of
light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite
intensity." -- Albert Idiot Einstein.

*http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/- Section 7.

Hi
I need directions pointing to specific information.
Regards, LL

"xray4abc" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 3:38 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"xray4abc" wrote in message

...
| Hi
| My first post in this group!
| I am interested if the testing, which can be done easyly
| by astronomers, has ever been done the way I will describe
| it below, or not.
|
| Experiment description:
|
| ------- Earth movement at
| spring : register Df
|
| Star * light---
| ---------Earth movement at
| fall : register Df
|
|
| Notations : D= delta ; f=frequency ; Df=Doppler shift
|
| The time period fall- spring is just for illustration purposes.
| What is being done is : The Doppler-shifted light
| emitted by
| a star is registered on Earth at an approx. 6 month interval.
| The star should be seen in the planetary movement plane of Earth,
| that is, it should be seen at East - West direction.
| Now, if Df proves to be the very same value for a given line of the
| stars-light spectrum, then c is independent of the observer's
| movement,
| as it should be according to the special relativity theory.
| Regards, LL

Hahaha!
Yes, of course it has been done, and "Df" is different between
spring and fall. But then, it would be even according to SR.

"It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a source of
light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite
intensity." -- Albert Idiot Einstein.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/- Section 7.

Hi
I need directions pointing to specific information.
Regards, LL


The relevant stars are in the familiar constellations you hear about
in daily newspapers, http://astrology.yahoo.com/astrology/,
but that's about as much as astronomy has in common with astrology's
silly mumbo jumbo or Einstein's silly mumbo jumbo.

You can use Google Earth (which now has a star map) to find the
ecliptic, pick the star you are interested in, point your telescope at it
and hook up your spectrometer. Repeat six months later.
Since you are going around a circle it doesn't much matter about spring
and fall.
This might help.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/howto...s/3305876.html

For your first spectrum, hold a CD or DVD horizontal, just touching
your cheek below your eye and look at the reflection of a sodium
or mercury vapour street light. Then build this:
http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/...ctroscope.html

On Mar 19, 4:12*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear xray4abc:

On Mar 19, 9:47*am, xray4abc wrote:

Hi
My first post in this group!
* * *I am interested if the testing, which can be done easyly
by astronomers, has ever been done the way I will describe
it below, or not.

snip, looking for change in detected frequency based on Earth's
motion

This will not establish a value for c. *You would have to assume that
Maxwell was correct, and the "ballistic photon" folks do not assume
that.
At this point I am interested only to find out
if the lightspeed was really
found experimentally constant, using cosmic sources of radiation,
and of course to learn where this information
was published and accessible for the public.

You could use the Moon as a shutter, and if the CMBR or other high-z
source that should be occulted by the Moon is not occulted at a
similar time as local visible light objects, then you will have
detected an anisotropy. *The 1.3 second one-way transit time can be
multiplied by a (1+z) of almost 5 for some objects, and more than 1000
for the CMBR.

Might even get to publish a fancy paper or two on the subject.

David A. Smith
Thanks for the tip!
I am not really interested in publishing now.
I just got this challenge for myself, to understand how things are
with special relativity theory and the basics of EM theory.
I do not reject anything from the start and I not accept anything
as real physics without experimental facts.
Even the experimental facts are subject to interpretation.
For example, I can imagine easily an alternative interpretation
to time-dilation found for the case of muons.:-)
Best regards,LL

Dear xray4abc:

On Mar 20, 1:25*pm, xray4abc wrote:
On Mar 19, wrote:
...
snip, looking for change in detected frequency
based on Earth's motion

This will not establish a value for c. *You would have
to assume that Maxwell was correct, and the
"ballistic photon" folks do not assume that.

* * * * * * * At this point I am interested only to find out
*if the lightspeed was really found experimentally
constant, using cosmic sources of radiation,
and of course to learn where this information
was published and *accessible for the public.

Yes. Used in MMX experiments, and yielded a constant.

... you can start he
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.a...periments.html

You could use the Moon as a shutter, and if the
CMBR or other high-z source that should be
occulted by the Moon is not occulted at a similar
time as local visible light objects, then you will
have detected an anisotropy. *The 1.3 second
one-way transit time can be multiplied by a (1+z)
of almost 5 for some objects, and more than 1000
for the CMBR.

Might even get to publish a fancy paper or two
on the subject.

* * *Thanks for the tip!
I am not really interested in publishing now.
I just got this challenge for myself, to understand
how things are with special relativity theory and
the basics of EM theory. I do not reject anything
from the start and I not accept anything as real
physics without experimental facts. Even the
experimental facts are subject to interpretation.
For example, I can imagine easily an alternative
interpretation to time-dilation found for the case
of muons.:-)

Good. Now review all the data of muons measured at different
altitudes, and with systems that use multiple detectors at different
levels, and all yield velocity less than c.

The problem with "special case solutions" is that they fail when you
get away form the special case... and relativity goes a lot further
before it fails.

David A. Smith

"dlzc" wrote in message
...


| Good. Now review all the data of muons measured at different
| altitudes, and with systems that use multiple detectors at different
| levels, and all yield velocity less than c.




All muons have a life span of 2.2 usec.
All systems that use multiple detectors at different
levels have a level 100 km.

Reviewing all data, speed of muon 100 km/2.2 usec.

so c = 4,545,454,545 m/sec
Is that what you wanted us to review, ignorant lying clown?

On Mar 20, 11:45*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear xray4abc:

On Mar 20, 1:25*pm, xray4abc wrote:

On Mar 19, wrote:
...
snip, looking for change in detected frequency
based on Earth's motion

This will not establish a value for c. *You would have
to assume that Maxwell was correct, and the
"ballistic photon" folks do not assume that.

* * * * * * * At this point I am interested only to find out
*if the lightspeed was really found experimentally
constant, using cosmic sources of radiation,
and of course to learn where this information
was published and *accessible for the public.

Yes. *Used in MMX experiments, and yielded a constant.

... you can start hehttp://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.a...vity/SR/experi...

OK. Now by your knowledge, which of those experiments does not
use 2-way propagation or reflections of light ?
(Reflections falsify the speed of light measurements!)
The DeSitter experiment I have analyzed a while ago and it
seems to me not convincing can not see why would be the
2 half-periods of revolution different, as both have one half
involving
movement in forward direction and another half involving movement
in backward direction.
The MMX experiments use 2-way propagation for the same signals
so do not really matter in my opinion.
That is why I was referring to an experiment using ONLY one-way
propagation of signals/light.





You could use the Moon as a shutter, and if the
CMBR or other high-z source that should be
occulted by the Moon is not occulted at a similar
time as local visible light objects, then you will
have detected an anisotropy. *The 1.3 second
one-way transit time can be multiplied by a (1+z)
of almost 5 for some objects, and more than 1000
for the CMBR.

Might even get to publish a fancy paper or two
on the subject.

* * *Thanks for the tip!
I am not really interested in publishing now.
I just got this challenge for myself, to understand
how things are with special relativity theory and
the basics of EM theory. *I do not reject anything
from the start and I not accept anything as real
physics without experimental facts. *Even the
experimental facts are subject to interpretation.
For example, I can imagine easily an alternative
interpretation to time-dilation found for the case
of muons.:-)

Good. *Now review all the data of muons measured at different
altitudes, and with systems that use multiple detectors at different
levels, and all yield velocity less than c.

The problem with "special case solutions" is that they fail when you
get away form the special case... and relativity goes a lot further
before it fails.
I am not thinking of a special case solution.
I think that the behaviour of muons could be explained
by considering the increase in the number of internal states
of the muon as a system of components rather than time
dilation. This increase of the mean lifetime is supposed to
follow the increase in
energy, so that the ratio of "disintegration" states to the number
of "relatively stable states" is dropping .

David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Regards, LL

"xray4abc" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 11:45 pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear xray4abc:

On Mar 20, 1:25 pm, xray4abc wrote:

On Mar 19, 4:12 wrote:
...
snip, looking for change in detected frequency
based on Earth's motion

This will not establish a value for c. You would have
to assume that Maxwell was correct, and the
"ballistic photon" folks do not assume that.

At this point I am interested only to find out
if the lightspeed was really found experimentally
constant, using cosmic sources of radiation,
and of course to learn where this information
was published and accessible for the public.

Yes. Used in MMX experiments, and yielded a constant.

... you can start
hehttp://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.a...vity/SR/experi...

| OK. Now by your knowledge, which of those experiments does not
| use 2-way propagation or reflections of light ?
| (Reflections falsify the speed of light measurements!)
| The DeSitter experiment I have analyzed a while ago and it
| seems to me not convincing can not see why would be the
| 2 half-periods of revolution different, as both have one half
| involving
| movement in forward direction and another half involving movement
| in backward direction.


Oh dear...

Let's put it this way...
A car goes up a hill at 30 mph and down again at 60 mph.
Total distance, 2 miles.
Time to go up one mile, 2 minutes. Time to come down one mile, 1 minute.
That's why the two half periods are different.
This is a velocity curve:
http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/courses...st/cepheid.jpg
See how the two halves are just like the car travelling the hill?
(Actually the slope is acceleration, but it should give you the idea.)

| The MMX experiments use 2-way propagation for the same signals
| so do not really matter in my opinion.

MMX is VERY important.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mx4dummies.htm

| That is why I was referring to an experiment using ONLY one-way
| propagation of signals/light.

You can do that too, but the "experiment" that really combines MMX
and a moving source of light is Sagnac. It's no longer an experiment,
though, the ring laser gyroscope is in common use.

For a one-way analysis, see
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm

For a two-way analysis, see
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

For the coriolis effect, see
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov

You will not learn anything from Smiffy, he's a confused bigot with
blind faith in his tin god, Einstein. He can't handle the mathematics
or describe what actually happens.