|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |