A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Light Speed Test versus Special Relativity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 19th 05, 05:30 PM
Stan Byers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Light Speed Test versus Special Relativity


Gentlemen of physical science.

This notice is posted with a request for reviews. All comments, corrections
and alternate views are welcome. Reviews may be posted on this group or
emailed. Reviews will not be posted on the web site or news groups without
the reviewing author's prior permission. The links for the graphs are
listed below and the graphs are currently available on the website.

Io's period change graphs via Excel spreadsheet.

Earth retreating from Jupiter
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif

Earth approaching Jupiter
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoEcipChange4.gif

This entire article is available on the website. Newsgroup readers may
review the
complete article at the link

http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm

Shortly after the reviews have been received this content will be
incorporated with the other pages on the site.
Citations or links to arguments correcting or refuting this
interpretation of Roemer's data will be appreciated.
A link or quote of rational arguments will be added to the web page.

With the view that there is nothing new under the Sun,...it is requested
that notice be provided of prior articles or works that have
given this same or similar argument on light speed tests versus SR.

Thanks in advance, Cheers

Stan Byers

Fremont, California

email


Abstract

This paper reviews the available speed of light (C) measurements that
demonstrate speed variations of inter-planetary light as measured relative
to the motion:...of planets, satellites, the solar system, and the Milky Way
galaxy.
The idea that light from a remote source maintains a constant speed (C)
relative to all observers regardless of their differing speeds and
directions, as proposed by the theory of Special Relativity, is shown to be
incompatible with the characteristics of light's speed demonstrated by the
data, analysis and charts of Io's eclipse timing. This paper is an
extension of the work available at the web page "Radiant Pressure Model of
Remote Force" . A review of the section titled "The Variable Speed of Light"
may aid in perusing this article.

Table of Contents Light Speed

Light Speed vs Special Relativity
Abstract
Light's Variable Speed
Special Relativity Advocates
Io's Eclipse Delays
Roemer's 1003 Second Delay
Delay versus Transverse Motion
Charts of Io's Delays
Light's Moving Medium via Prime Force Radiation
Summary of Light's Characteristics

Light's Variable Speed Relative to Observers in Motion




The article is available at:...

**** URL
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm

**** Google
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...16c3cc489985bf

**** Google search Groups [ sbyers11 ] sort by date
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=sbyers11

**** sci.astro.research as GravityShieldingUpdates1.1 Mar 14 2005

**** Web site Gravity Inertia and Radiation
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11








  #2  
Old March 19th 05, 06:03 PM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dear Stan Byers:

"Stan Byers" wrote in message
news

Gentlemen of physical science.


I'd just like to point out that the "constant speed of light"
thing does not belong so much to special relativity (it's
postulate #2) as to Maxwell (SR's postulate #1).

David A. Smith


  #3  
Old March 19th 05, 10:33 PM
Stan Byers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello David,

Thanks for the response. I am familiar with Maxwell's equations and the
derivation of the light speed for EM radiation, but I have no knowledge of a
citation where Maxwell states that EM radiation has the same speed for all
observers, regardless of their relative speed. If you can provide such a
citation it will be interesting,... but it will have not have any bearing on
the original argument.

It does not matter who the authors are of such a concept, if the postulate
does not agree with the 1003 sec delay of Roemer's light speed data, then
the concept is wrong. Light cannot have a finite speed and not display a
differential speed when traveling in a parallel direction with a moving
observer. Light "only" displays a constant speed C relative to it's source.
If an observer is stationary in relation to the source,...the observed speed
will be C. If the observer has longitudinal motion relative to the
source,... the observed light speed will not be C,...there will be a Doppler
effect for frequency and period.

Cheers, Stan Byers

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:nXY_d.6616$uk7.5408@fed1read01...
Dear Stan Byers:

"Stan Byers" wrote in message
news

Gentlemen of physical science.


I'd just like to point out that the "constant speed of light" thing does
not belong so much to special relativity (it's postulate #2) as to Maxwell
(SR's postulate #1).

David A. Smith



  #4  
Old March 19th 05, 11:19 PM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dear Stan Byers:

"Stan Byers" wrote in message
...
Hello David,

Thanks for the response. I am familiar with Maxwell's
equations and the derivation of the light speed for EM
radiation, but I have no knowledge of a citation where
Maxwell states that EM radiation has the same
speed for all observers, regardless of their relative
speed. If you can provide such a citation it will be
interesting,... but it will have not have any bearing on the
original argument.


Not trying to affect your argument. Maxwell correctly describes
how light is refracted, propagates, is reflected, and more.
Maxwell requires/results in c for all these behaviors. It is a
"law of physics" that is unaffected by relative velocity (SR
postulate #1).

It does not matter who the authors are of such a
concept, if the postulate does not agree with the
1003 sec delay of Roemer's light speed data, then the concept
is wrong. Light cannot have a finite
speed and not display a differential speed when
traveling in a parallel direction with a moving observer. Light
"only" displays a constant speed
C relative to it's source. If an observer is
stationary in relation to the source,...the observed
speed will be C. If the observer has longitudinal
motion relative to the source,... the observed
light speed will not be C,...there will be a Doppler effect for
frequency and period.


It is a shame you have based your "exposition" on 350 year old
data. Especially when more accurate data can be had.

It is good that you posted this here. You should get some
quality feedback from the astro folks.

David A. Smith


  #5  
Old March 20th 05, 02:55 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stan Byers" wrote in message
...
Hello David,

Thanks for the response. I am familiar with Maxwell's equations and the
derivation of the light speed for EM radiation, but I have no knowledge of
a citation where Maxwell states that EM radiation has the same speed for
all observers, regardless of their relative speed. If you can provide such
a citation it will be interesting,... but it will have not have any
bearing on the original argument.


As I'm sure you know, the speed of a wave propagating
according to Maxwell's Equations is give by:

c = 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0)

where e_0 and u_0 are the permittivity permeability of
free space. The speed of the source does not appear in
that equation, e_0 and u_0 are values measured made by
the observer.

Light "only" displays a constant speed C relative to it's source.


If that were true, these devices would not work:

http://www.kvh.com/FiberOpt/

George


  #6  
Old March 20th 05, 05:18 PM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dear George Dishman (and the Group):

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Stan Byers" wrote in message
...
Hello David,

Thanks for the response. I am familiar with Maxwell's
equations and the


The thrust of Stan's argument is based on various timing data
gleaned 350 years ago (before the sweep second hand, I believe).
Is there a more current source of transit data for Jupiter's
moons that you are aware of, or does this require actual work?

Additionally, are there high-z sources where the unlit Moon's
leading-edge or trailing-edge could eclipse them? His argument
would be shown to more easily fail if the "shutter" of the Moon
didn't turned off such sources at a different time than it did
"slower" sources.

I don't think he'll be convinced by Maxwell, as I suspect he'll
head for "dragged aether" or atmosphere, establishing a local
"unsurprising" value of c. Dragged aether has been discounted,
but Stan is pretty sure he is right.

I suggested he post here, since his main argument is
astronomically related. I am glad he did so, as there are some
smart cookies here.

David A. Smith


  #7  
Old March 20th 05, 06:50 PM
Joseph Lazio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"NDT" == N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) N writes:

NDT "George Dishman" wrote in message
NDT ...

NDT Additionally, are there high-z sources where the unlit Moon's
NDT leading-edge or trailing-edge could eclipse them? His argument
NDT would be shown to more easily fail if the "shutter" of the Moon
NDT didn't turned off such sources at a different time than it did
NDT "slower" sources.

Sure, lunar occultations have a long history in astronomy. Off the
top of my head, I know that there have been lunar occultation
observations of the Crab Nebula and at least some quasars (3C 273?).
I don't know if the observations were conducted in a manner that would
allow Stan to test his hypothesis, but it is a place to start.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. |
http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html
  #8  
Old March 20th 05, 07:30 PM
Stan Byers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello George.

Thanks for the response. You have brought up a good point. The permittivity and permeability are evidently unchanged whether the source is stationary or moving. I do not think that the permittivity and permeability can be viewed as a sidereal inertial reference frame for light and EM radiation in free space. The fact that Doppler effects are utilized between Earth and spacecraft is a sure indication that EM radiation maintains C in relation to the source and not the observer.

The following link from IEEE provides a quote regarding a problem and repair required due to improper recognition of the effects of relative EM speed.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY...1004titan.htmL

QUOTE: ESA IMMEDIATELY CONVENED AN INQUIRY BOARD, with two NASA observers. One of them was Richard Horttor, who was then JPL's telecommunications system engineer for the Cassini project. He recalls, "We worked our way out by being totally candid from top to bottom once we detected the problem. There was no hesitancy or lack of resources. Nor was there any 'nation-to-nation finger-pointing.' "
The board discovered that Alenia Spazio SpA, the Rome-based company that built the radio link, had properly anticipated the need to make the receiver sensitive over a wide enough range of frequencies to detect Huygens's carrier signal even when Doppler shifted. But it had overlooked another subtle consequence: Doppler shift would affect not just the frequency of the carrier wave that the probe's vital observations would be transmitted on but also the digitally encoded signal itself. In effect, the shift would push the signal out of synch with the timing scheme used to recover data from the phase-modulated carrier.
Because of Doppler shift, the frequency at which bits would be arriving from Huygens would be significantly different from the nominal data rate of 8192 bits per second. As the radio wave from the lander was compressed by Doppler shift, the data rate would increase as the length of each bit was reduced UNQUOTE

Another source for reviewing the Roemer 1003 second delay and the Doppler shift is provided at this link,

http://www.rundetaarn.dk/engelsk/obs...rium/light.htm

I have neglected to try to educate myself on the physics of Optical Gyros,...so there is nothing I can contribute on that issue. I am sure there are many other readers that can clarify that issue.

When our equations, mathematics and theories do not agree with empirical data (1003 sec. delay), it is not possible correct the data. The data measurements have been giving the same answers since 1667 AD.

Cheers, Stan Byers

///////////////////////

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...

As I'm sure you know, the speed of a wave propagating
according to Maxwell's Equations is give by:

c = 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0)

where e_0 and u_0 are the permittivity permeability of
free space. The speed of the source does not appear in
that equation, e_0 and u_0 are values measured made by
the observer.

Light "only" displays a constant speed C relative to it's source.


If that were true, these devices would not work:

http://www.kvh.com/FiberOpt/

George


  #9  
Old March 20th 05, 10:07 PM
Stan Byers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello David A. Smith and Group,

David, you may not have found the original article "Light Speed versus
Special Relativity" but the links and citations show that the data for the
charts is derived from Io's eclipse observations taken during the 1990's AD.

David A. Smith wrote:
The thrust of Stan's argument is based on various timing data gleaned 350
years ago (before the sweep second hand, I believe). Is there a more
current source of transit data for Jupiter's moons that you are aware of,
or does this require actual work?


I do not have Roemer's data, but the non-infinite speed of light has been
recognized due to his work. The full original article for "Light Speed
versus Special Relativity" is available, with citations for the two data
sources, at the URL

http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm

Cheers, Stan Byers


"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:Mmh%d.7300$uk7.7224@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman (and the Group):

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Stan Byers" wrote in message
...
Hello David,

Thanks for the response. I am familiar with Maxwell's equations and the


The thrust of Stan's argument is based on various timing data gleaned 350
years ago (before the sweep second hand, I believe). Is there a more
current source of transit data for Jupiter's moons that you are aware of,
or does this require actual work?

Additionally, are there high-z sources where the unlit Moon's leading-edge
or trailing-edge could eclipse them? His argument would be shown to more
easily fail if the "shutter" of the Moon didn't turned off such sources at
a different time than it did "slower" sources.

I don't think he'll be convinced by Maxwell, as I suspect he'll head for
"dragged aether" or atmosphere, establishing a local "unsurprising" value
of c. Dragged aether has been discounted, but Stan is pretty sure he is
right.

I suggested he post here, since his main argument is astronomically
related. I am glad he did so, as there are some smart cookies here.

David A. Smith



  #10  
Old March 21st 05, 01:36 AM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stan Byers" wrote in message
...
Hello George.


Hi Stan,

Thanks for the response. You have brought up a
good point. The permittivity and permeability
are evidently unchanged whether the source is
stationary or moving.


That was the simple point of my reply, you said
".. I have no knowledge of a citation where
Maxwell states that EM radiation has the same
speed for all observers .." but you don't need
a citation, the answer is in the equations.

I do not think that the permittivity and
permeability can be viewed as a sidereal inertial
reference frame for light and EM radiation in free
space.


Nor do I, I wasn't suggesting that.

The fact that Doppler effects are utilized between
Earth and spacecraft is a sure indication that EM
radiation maintains C in relation to the source and
not the observer.


On its own it doesn't, it only tells you the
frequency. Unless you can measure the wavelength
independently you cannot determine speed.

snip quote on Doppler

Stan, I haven't seen you posting here and I guess
you haven't seen much from me either. I'm a design
engineer with over 30 years experience in the
communications business so I'm well aware of the
Doppler effect.

I have neglected to try to educate myself on the
physics of Optical Gyros, ...


Basically, they operate on the Sagnac effect with
the added feature that the light path is entirely
within a fibre mounted on the rotating assembly.
The device has no moving parts other than the light.
If the speed of the light were modified by the speed
of the source as you suggest, it would take the same
time to traverse the length of the fibre regardless
of the speed of rotation and the device would not
work. The device only works because the light moves
at c irrespective of the speed of the source. The
nice thing about fibre gyros is that having the light
inside the fibre means that the effect of any possible
ambiguity regarding "aether drag" is eliminated.

...so there is nothing I can
contribute on that issue. I am sure there are many
other readers that can clarify that issue.


Since the fact that these devices work at all means
your hypothesis cannot be true, you really should
find out a bit more about them.

George


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA HISTORY COMPUTER STOLDEN --- UNIVERSAL DATABASE ON A CHIP .... zetasum History 1 February 19th 05 07:08 PM
Can't get out of the universe "My crew will blow it up"!!!!!!!!!!! zetasum History 0 February 5th 05 12:06 AM
Pioneer Acceleration Implies Light Speed Delay < 1 Second r9ns Astronomy Misc 8 November 19th 04 08:43 PM
Mind-2, Time waves and Theory of Everything Yoda Misc 0 April 20th 04 06:11 AM
New SR test possibilities on light speed and ether drift. Leo Amateur Astronomy 3 November 13th 03 07:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.