Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #359958 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-08 06:55 +1000 |
| Last post | 2015-08-12 08:37 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-08 06:55 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:40 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-08 08:27 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:36 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:48 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 08:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 08:13 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 17:20 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 12:25 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 19:58 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:11 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-10 10:06 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:08 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-10 15:28 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-11 06:30 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-11 23:43 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-12 08:26 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-12 10:23 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 01:51 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 16:03 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 11:39 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 19:24 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-14 14:52 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 11:37 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-13 18:41 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 19:28 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-17 17:08 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-18 03:27 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-17 21:42 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-18 08:23 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-18 21:33 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-19 06:11 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:20 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 05:53 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-19 14:09 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 19:14 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 03:42 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-20 12:33 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-21 09:17 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-21 09:17 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 19:39 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-19 14:22 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 05:55 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-20 09:52 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 19:17 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-20 12:25 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-17 21:20 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-18 08:22 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-18 03:15 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-18 19:39 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-18 14:22 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-18 21:38 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 09:27 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-11 06:22 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 18:52 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 15:34 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 03:01 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-08 19:35 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 15:45 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:46 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-09 08:57 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:44 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 20:00 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 23:36 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 15:18 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-09 07:09 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 08:19 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-09 18:31 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 09:40 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-09 21:30 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 13:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 18:16 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-10 07:50 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:37 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:39 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:43 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-11 08:59 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Felipe Delgado <fd@spreadspectrum.org> - 2015-08-11 16:27 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-11 22:49 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-11 17:58 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-12 07:49 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-12 08:01 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 19:27 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-14 05:29 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 03:32 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 07:50 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-12 22:53 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:57 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-13 11:16 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 06:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-13 21:21 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 06:22 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 07:06 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 19:55 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 16:25 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-21 06:09 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 12:18 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 12:22 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:23 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 07:59 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 08:15 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 18:55 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-09 22:10 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 20:27 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:15 +1000
Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Deeper "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-13 12:38 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 19:19 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 19:25 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-08 13:02 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:37 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-09 14:32 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:33 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:10 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 07:56 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:19 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 06:39 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-11 06:35 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:28 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-12 08:30 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 08:07 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-13 07:25 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 17:14 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 02:01 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 11:57 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 19:36 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 06:08 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-15 06:00 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:04 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-15 06:43 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 15:07 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-09 11:23 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 08:25 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-10 14:37 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-11 08:24 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-12 11:14 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-13 07:29 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-13 13:07 -0700
Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 20:02 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-12 08:37 +1000
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6008d294-e1e1-4477-9403-dccffbdf4bb3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360009 |
There would be no way to know if the disk had been spun fast enough to be sure a lower harmonic of a higher value is not being measured by mistake. Only the harmonics would have been verified.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49b20d29-e02d-4bfd-a82c-148a78361bd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359977 |
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:01:45 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > It is actually possible to measure the one way speed of light directly. Assuming that "one way speed of light" (owls) means that nowhere the procedure involves an out AND back path for light, then: > You need a long axis with two disks at both ends. If you need to use the value of the length of this shaft, then you used used a TWLS procedure! > Now a laser is sent along the axis and mirrored down to the rim, Mirrored? If the light comes back, then its a TWOL again, and thus your gedanken is not a OWLS. <snip> Many places in your setup uses TWLS, hence your setup is not a procedure that measures the OWLS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 20:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2muddF2p52U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360015 |
Am 08.08.2015 16:44, schrieb rotchm: > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:01:45 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> It is actually possible to measure the one way speed of light directly. > > Assuming that "one way speed of light" (owls) means that nowhere the procedure involves an out AND back path for light, then: Assumed that it is possible to measure the length of some metal object. > >> You need a long axis with two disks at both ends. > > If you need to use the value of the length of this shaft, then you used used a TWLS procedure! It is certainly possible to measure the length of such a rotor with sufficient accuracy. If you take the measured length of such a rotor into doubt, than you are certainly in trouble with a large part of physics. > >> Now a laser is sent along the axis and mirrored down to the rim, > > Mirrored? If the light comes back, then its a TWOL again, and thus your gedanken is not a OWLS. Yes. Tiny prisms or similar, like in the laser-head of a DVD recorder. So a little fraction of its length is the laser-beam actually going up and down. I don't see, how this is an issue. > <snip> > > Many places in your setup uses TWLS, hence your setup is not a procedure that measures the OWLS. > It measures the speed of light, that moves from one end of the rotor to the other. Since this length is only used once, the one-way speed of light is measured. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3fabcfd6-c787-4a3a-a7f8-622fae9c4f9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360026 |
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 2:00:17 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > It measures the speed of light, that moves from one end of the rotor to > the other. Since this length is only used once, the one-way speed of > light is measured. You used it [rotor? shaft?] twice: once as to measure its length, then secondly, to send light along it. Note that to measure its length you used a TWLS procedure. And there are the two different understandings of "owls": Do you include the coordination procedures (time synchs or lengths measurements) as part of the concept of "OWLS" ? If yes, then your setup does not measure OWLS; If no, then it does measure OWLS. Note that your setup is no different from the following: E-sych two clocks located at A and B and measure the distance (these are the coordination procedures). Then just send a light from A to B and measure the Time Of Flight: You thus get the SoL...No chafts, nor gears, wheels rotors etc...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 23:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2nb2dF5te2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360050 |
Am 08.08.2015 23:00, schrieb rotchm: > On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 2:00:17 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> It measures the speed of light, that moves from one end of the rotor to >> the other. Since this length is only used once, the one-way speed of >> light is measured. Once the meter was defined with a stick of platinum, that was kept in Paris. So I can refer to this device and use - say - four times this length and have a distance of four meters. These four meters should be the length of the path a laser beam would take from wheel A to Wheel B (including some deviations for prisms and optics). This length (of four meters) could be measured by mechanical means with sufficient precision and would leave us with an error of say a 1/1000th of a millimetre. This precision is certainly good enough. > You used it [rotor? shaft?] twice: once as to measure its length, then secondly, to send light along it. Note that to measure its length you used a TWLS procedure. No, I leave the production of the machine and the measurement of its length to the manufacturer. Modern factories have most likely very precise means to measure the length of such a rotor. > And there are the two different understandings of "owls": Do you include the coordination procedures (time synchs or lengths measurements) as part of the concept of "OWLS" ? If yes, then your setup does not measure OWLS; If no, then it does measure OWLS. Note that your setup is no different from the following: E-sych two clocks located at A and B and measure the distance (these are the coordination procedures). Then just send a light from A to B and measure the Time Of Flight: You thus get the SoL...No chafts, nor gears, wheels rotors etc... There is no 'time synch' necessary, since the rotor is assumed to be a rigid body and is left spinning without a motor acting. The rotor needs only one measurement of the rotation frequency and this requires only one clock. The frequency could be measured with that grid or with additional markings. Than you only need a certain interval, while you count the rotations within the interval. This is only needed one time. The experiment is actually simple: you spin the rotor faster than needed and let it slow down by friction. The laser is projected (with a few lenses) to a tiny spot on the rim of the first wheel. The reflection from that spot is bundled by some optic to a beam and this is sent to the end of the rotor, where a similar wheel spins. Then it is projected on that wheel and the reflection from there are measure by a detector. Now the modulation of both grids add to the same amount of light, hence we get a dependency (of beam intensity) from angular velocity. The minimum is the wanted point. This minimum (of beam intensity) occurs at a certain speed and this speed is what we need to measure. This curve could be stored in the electronics and automatically processed to the value of c. (not a very difficult program). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2c7e749-590e-4c12-8678-83872f0ca6b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360055 |
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 5:36:17 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > Once the meter was defined with a stick of platinum, that was kept in > Paris. Well if you want to use that as a definition, then you are no longer speaking the same language as physicist. So, lets just say it was pre-1984... so we used the platinum rod as definition. > So I can refer to this device and use - say - four times this length and > have a distance of four meters. No. use just *one* meter to keep things simple, or "L" meters. We are discussing the proof of concept, the gedanken. > This length (of four meters) could be measured by mechanical means with > sufficient precision and would leave us with an error of say a 1/1000th > of a millimetre. Irrelevant to the discussion since we are only interested in the gedanken; no technical/engineering details allowed. > This precision is certainly good enough. Irrelevant. We are solely discussing the gedanken. > There is no 'time synch' necessary, since the rotor is assumed to be a > rigid body Not sure what you are getting at... I'm reading on... > The rotor needs only one measurement of the rotation frequency > and this requires only one clock. So a shaft is turning... that is what I understood of your setup at this point. Of course we can measure its frequency. > The experiment is actually simple: > you spin the rotor faster than needed and let it slow down by friction. Why? Purpose? You seem to be greatly overcomplicating things... > The laser is projected (with a few lenses) to a tiny spot on the rim of > the first wheel. The reflection from that spot <SNIP> I will stop here since your gedanken is way to convoluted (difficult to follow). Describe it using much less mumbojumbo, much less devices. Eliminate all that is not needed in the gedanken. Perhaps pics would help too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 07:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2o5kpFbka2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360056 |
Am 09.08.2015 00:18, schrieb rotchm: >> Once the meter was defined with a stick of platinum, that was kept in >> Paris. > > Well if you want to use that as a definition, then you are no longer speaking the same language as physicist. So, lets just say it was pre-1984... so we used the platinum rod as definition. > >> So I can refer to this device and use - say - four times this length and >> have a distance of four meters. > > No. use just *one* meter to keep things simple, or "L" meters. We are discussing the proof of concept, the gedanken. > >> This length (of four meters) could be measured by mechanical means with >> sufficient precision and would leave us with an error of say a 1/1000th >> of a millimetre. > > Irrelevant to the discussion since we are only interested in the gedanken; no technical/engineering details allowed. > >> This precision is certainly good enough. > > Irrelevant. We are solely discussing the gedanken. > >> There is no 'time synch' necessary, since the rotor is assumed to be a >> rigid body > > Not sure what you are getting at... I'm reading on... There are not two clocks you would possibly want to synch, but only one clock. >> The rotor needs only one measurement of the rotation frequency >> and this requires only one clock. > > So a shaft is turning... that is what I understood of your setup at this point. > Of course we can measure its frequency. Its an axis with two wheels at the ends. It is very similar build to a turbine and most likely expensive. But just imagine a rigid shaft with wheels, rotating in some kind of bearings and an evacuated case. > >> The experiment is actually simple: >> you spin the rotor faster than needed and let it slow down by friction. > > Why? Purpose? You seem to be greatly overcomplicating things... To have the rotor free of forces (no torque). > >> The laser is projected (with a few lenses) to a tiny spot on the rim of >> the first wheel. The reflection from that spot<SNIP> > > I will stop here since your gedanken is way to convoluted (difficult to follow). Describe it using much less mumbojumbo, much less devices. Eliminate all that is not needed in the gedanken. Perhaps pics would help too. > > 'Gedanken' is a German word and means 'thoughts'. Now you apparently demand from me, that I should express my thoughts a little clearer and leave out irrelevant details. Well, maybe I should do that. I had the idea of a mechanical 'add function' in the form of a laser, that is subsequently projected on the rim of two coupled spinning wheels. This is technically an add function of the modulation, since the modulation on wheel A adds to the modulation caused by wheel B. These wheels have a reflecting surface with a very fine grin etched into it. They are at both ends of a long axis. This entire thing is called 'rotor' and is made with great precision. It can be spun by a motor with any desired velocity and the frequency of rotation could be measured. Now the beam is influenced by rotation, if that is fast enough, since light needs time to move from one wheel to the other. This influence is measured and compared to the frequency of rotation. If the optics is carefully adjusted to maximum reflection at standstill, the minimal reflection would occur, when light reflected from 'land' is mirrored to a 'pit' on the other wheel. Since the number of pits is known and the frequency is measured, it is possible to figure out the one way speed of light. The machine could operate more or less automatic, since all these parts are usual devices in industrial automation. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 08:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66be9db3-7d68-4508-af7c-7217af447e58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360064 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 1:09:48 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > Its an axis with two wheels at the ends... But just imagine a rigid > shaft with wheels, rotating in some kind of bearings and an evacuated case. "rigid" ? Note that if you want to verify SR, you cannot imagine such rigidity. SR implies no rigidity, so you are forcing a contradictory axiom into SR. If you are not contemplating SR then ok, we can imagine a rigid shaft. But why imagine that if we know that we cant build such a shaft for the sought result of the exp? The rigidity will never be enough to precisely measure the speed of light. > 'Gedanken' is a German word and means 'thoughts'. > > Now you apparently demand from me, that I should express my thoughts a > little clearer and leave out irrelevant details. Yes, thats what *I* want. I want the concept, not the engendering details. My point will be that, conceptually, your setup is a TWLS setup ( as per my definition of TWLS that I specified at the beginning of our discussion). > I had the idea of a mechanical 'add function' in the form of a laser, > that is subsequently projected on the rim of two coupled spinning > wheels. This is technically an add function of the modulation, since the > modulation on wheel A adds to the modulation caused by wheel B. If you have light bouncing back and forth, then the setup is not a OWLS. > These wheels have a reflecting surface with a very fine grin etched into > it. They are at both ends of a long axis. If you have light bouncing back and forth, then the setup is not a OWLS. > This entire thing is called 'rotor' and is made with great precision. Not precision enough, but as I said, I'm not interested in that, just to argue that the concept is a TWLS and not a OWLS. > Now the beam is influenced by rotation, if that is fast enough, since > light needs time to move from one wheel to the other. This influence is > measured and compared to the frequency of rotation. > > If the optics is carefully adjusted to maximum reflection at standstill, > the minimal reflection would occur, when light reflected from 'land' is > mirrored to a 'pit' on the other wheel. > > Since the number of pits is known and the frequency is measured, it is > possible to figure out the one way speed of light. > > The machine could operate more or less automatic, since all these parts > are usual devices in industrial automation. Havent fully followed you, seems interesting, but irrelevant because: my sole aim here is to show conceptually that the setup is not an OWLS. I believe I have shown this: You have light bouncing to and fro, do you need to measure the length of the shaft [that a twls], etc...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 18:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2pdioFleo1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360113 |
Am 09.08.2015 17:19, schrieb rotchm: >> Now you apparently demand from me, that I should express my thoughts a >> little clearer and leave out irrelevant details. > > Yes, thats what *I* want. I want the concept, not the engendering details. > My point will be that, conceptually, your setup is a TWLS setup ( as per my definition of TWLS that I specified at the beginning of our discussion). now I have a problem with your statement. Where exactly do you see the second path of that laser beam? I would say, the laser is sent out at on side of the apparatus and measured at the other side. This is only one way - in my personal counting. >> I had the idea of a mechanical 'add function' in the form of a laser, >> that is subsequently projected on the rim of two coupled spinning >> wheels. This is technically an add function of the modulation, since the >> modulation on wheel A adds to the modulation caused by wheel B. > > If you have light bouncing back and forth, then the setup is not a OWLS. Yes, maybe, but that is not the case. In fact a part of the path is inside some kind of optics, with a prism and a few lenses. But this optic could be quite small. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <975f1141-665a-415b-8a6a-f81647628395@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360119 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 12:31:24 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > > If you have light bouncing back and forth, then the setup is not a OWLS. > > > Yes, maybe, but that is not the case. Whats your use of the mirrors and reflections then? > In fact a part of the path is inside some kind of optics, with a prism > and a few lenses. But this optic could be quite small. ?? And conceptually irrelevant. Again, furnish a clear and simplified concept of the setup. Include a pic or two if need be...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2po38FoafpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360122 |
Am 09.08.2015 18:40, schrieb rotchm:
> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 12:31:24 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> If you have light bouncing back and forth, then the setup is not a OWLS.
>>
>>
>> Yes, maybe, but that is not the case.
>
> Whats your use of the mirrors and reflections then?
>
>> In fact a part of the path is inside some kind of optics, with a prism
>> and a few lenses. But this optic could be quite small.
>
> ?? And conceptually irrelevant.
>
> Again, furnish a clear and simplified concept of the setup. Include a pic or two if need be...
You know that the UseNet is restricted to 'ASCII-Art' ?
It's rather annoying, but I'll try:
beam> ---\ /---------------------\ /----> detector
\/ \/
grid along the rim grid along the rim
___ ____
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
____________________________________________
spinning axis
____________________________________________
| | | |
Wheel A Wheel B
Now the detector measures the intensity of the beam and some electronics
measure angular velocity or frequency in turns per second.
This would generate a graph of this kind (intensity over frequency)
| *
| *
| *
| * *
| *
|
_____________________ 1/s
The minimum is the wanted measurement and allows to calculate the time
light takes from wheel A to wheel B.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59a06f00-64cf-4dd5-ad3e-db2c57fb27d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360141 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 2:30:52 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 09.08.2015 18:40, schrieb rotchm: > > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 12:31:24 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >>> If you have light bouncing back and forth, then the setup is not a OWLS. > >> > >> > >> Yes, maybe, but that is not the case. > > > > Whats your use of the mirrors and reflections then? > > > >> In fact a part of the path is inside some kind of optics, with a prism > >> and a few lenses. But this optic could be quite small. > > > > ?? And conceptually irrelevant. > > > > Again, furnish a clear and simplified concept of the setup. Include a pic or two if need be... > > You know that the UseNet is restricted to 'ASCII-Art' ? > > It's rather annoying, but I'll try: > > beam> ---\ /---------------------\ /----> detector > \/ \/ > grid along the rim grid along the rim > ___ ____ > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > ____________________________________________ > spinning axis > ____________________________________________ > > | | | | > > Wheel A Wheel B > > > Now the detector measures the intensity of the beam and some electronics > measure angular velocity or frequency in turns per second. > > This would generate a graph of this kind (intensity over frequency) > > > | * > | * > | * > | * * > | * > | > _____________________ 1/s > > The minimum is the wanted measurement and allows to calculate the time > light takes from wheel A to wheel B. > > > > TH It is annoying isn't it? Especially when a picture can mean a thousand words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 18:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <19595336-735e-4946-83a3-b1f5a47c46a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360141 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:30:52 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > You know that the UseNet is restricted to 'ASCII-Art' ? Yes, which is why I expected you to make a jpg/gif of it and post it on one of the many pics sites. > Now the detector measures the intensity of the beam and some electronics > measure angular velocity or frequency in turns per second. Still not sure of your setup. two discs at the ends of a shaft? And a slit on each disk? Plus the discs are reflective? So the beam will bounce once, or twice, or 50x or even none, depending on the rotation? If so, why do you say that there is a min intensity at detector for the beam that does make it out? More importantly, why will there be higher intensities detected?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 07:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2qse9F1ullU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360170 |
Am 10.08.2015 03:16, schrieb rotchm:
> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:30:52 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> You know that the UseNet is restricted to 'ASCII-Art' ?
>
> Yes, which is why I expected you to make a jpg/gif of it and post it on one of the many pics sites.
>
>
>> Now the detector measures the intensity of the beam and some electronics
>> measure angular velocity or frequency in turns per second.
>
> Still not sure of your setup. two discs at the ends of a shaft? And a slit on each disk? Plus the discs are reflective? So the beam will bounce once, or twice, or 50x or even none, depending on the rotation?
?
Actually I have already written a very easy description.
It is a machine, build similar to a turbine, but only with two disks
(wheels), instead of propellers.
Those disks are a few meters apart, but belong to the same rotor, hence
are mechanically coupled.
They have a reflective rim, in what a fine grid is etched (similar to a
DVD).
This grid consists of thin stripes ('pits'), that are less reflective
than the 'land' (unetched rim).
Since the beam is subsequently projected on these rims of both wheels,
the modulation is caused by both grids (on wheel 'A' and wheel 'B').
If the axis (the rotor) is spun fast enough, then we would expect an
effect from the delay, since reflection would add to no reflection.
This would result in lower brightness of the beam, when measured by the
detector.
> If so, why do you say that there is a min intensity at detector for the beam that does make it out? More importantly, why will there be higher intensities detected?
Well, that's the point. If light takes a certain time from wheel 'A' to
Wheel 'B', than this would be measurable in the intensity of the beam.
Since its a grid, we have high intensity and low intensity. Now we
discard the low values and analyse only the high values, caused by
reflection. Then with increasing velocity of the rotor, the reflected
beam will be projected onto pits on the other wheel.
This would certainly cause a decreasing intensity at the detector.
This intensity is drawn in a plot with frequency along the x-axis.
The minimum of that curve is the desired measurement.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 16:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <befbd1df-f02e-4e1e-89bf-08cde2f2b54f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360182 |
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 12:51:10 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.08.2015 03:16, schrieb rotchm:
> > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:30:52 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> >> You know that the UseNet is restricted to 'ASCII-Art' ?
> >
> > Yes, which is why I expected you to make a jpg/gif of it and post it on one of the many pics sites.
> >
> >
> >> Now the detector measures the intensity of the beam and some electronics
> >> measure angular velocity or frequency in turns per second.
> >
> > Still not sure of your setup. two discs at the ends of a shaft? And a slit on each disk? Plus the discs are reflective? So the beam will bounce once, or twice, or 50x or even none, depending on the rotation?
>
> ?
>
> Actually I have already written a very easy description.
>
> It is a machine, build similar to a turbine, but only with two disks
> (wheels), instead of propellers.
>
> Those disks are a few meters apart, but belong to the same rotor, hence
> are mechanically coupled.
>
> They have a reflective rim, in what a fine grid is etched (similar to a
> DVD).
>
> This grid consists of thin stripes ('pits'), that are less reflective
> than the 'land' (unetched rim).
>
> Since the beam is subsequently projected on these rims of both wheels,
> the modulation is caused by both grids (on wheel 'A' and wheel 'B').
>
>
> If the axis (the rotor) is spun fast enough, then we would expect an
> effect from the delay, since reflection would add to no reflection.
>
> This would result in lower brightness of the beam, when measured by the
> detector.
>
> > If so, why do you say that there is a min intensity at detector for the beam that does make it out? More importantly, why will there be higher intensities detected?
>
> Well, that's the point. If light takes a certain time from wheel 'A' to
> Wheel 'B', than this would be measurable in the intensity of the beam.
>
> Since its a grid, we have high intensity and low intensity. Now we
> discard the low values and analyse only the high values, caused by
> reflection. Then with increasing velocity of the rotor, the reflected
> beam will be projected onto pits on the other wheel.
>
> This would certainly cause a decreasing intensity at the detector.
>
> This intensity is drawn in a plot with frequency along the x-axis.
>
> The minimum of that curve is the desired measurement.
>
>
> TH
Mechanically coupled- very good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 16:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ea7c61e-4687-4999-9c5d-3cd2c0cfb9f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360182 |
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 12:51:10 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.08.2015 03:16, schrieb rotchm:
> > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:30:52 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> >> You know that the UseNet is restricted to 'ASCII-Art' ?
> >
> > Yes, which is why I expected you to make a jpg/gif of it and post it on one of the many pics sites.
> >
> >
> >> Now the detector measures the intensity of the beam and some electronics
> >> measure angular velocity or frequency in turns per second.
> >
> > Still not sure of your setup. two discs at the ends of a shaft? And a slit on each disk? Plus the discs are reflective? So the beam will bounce once, or twice, or 50x or even none, depending on the rotation?
>
> ?
>
> Actually I have already written a very easy description.
>
> It is a machine, build similar to a turbine, but only with two disks
> (wheels), instead of propellers.
>
> Those disks are a few meters apart, but belong to the same rotor, hence
> are mechanically coupled.
>
> They have a reflective rim, in what a fine grid is etched (similar to a
> DVD).
>
> This grid consists of thin stripes ('pits'), that are less reflective
> than the 'land' (unetched rim).
>
> Since the beam is subsequently projected on these rims of both wheels,
> the modulation is caused by both grids (on wheel 'A' and wheel 'B').
>
>
> If the axis (the rotor) is spun fast enough, then we would expect an
> effect from the delay, since reflection would add to no reflection.
>
> This would result in lower brightness of the beam, when measured by the
> detector.
>
> > If so, why do you say that there is a min intensity at detector for the beam that does make it out? More importantly, why will there be higher intensities detected?
>
> Well, that's the point. If light takes a certain time from wheel 'A' to
> Wheel 'B', than this would be measurable in the intensity of the beam.
>
> Since its a grid, we have high intensity and low intensity. Now we
> discard the low values and analyse only the high values, caused by
> reflection. Then with increasing velocity of the rotor, the reflected
> beam will be projected onto pits on the other wheel.
>
> This would certainly cause a decreasing intensity at the detector.
>
> This intensity is drawn in a plot with frequency along the x-axis.
>
> The minimum of that curve is the desired measurement.
>
>
> TH
This is a very good post!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 16:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5044955-364b-4cf4-9731-d9707b8af946@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360182 |
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 12:51:10 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.08.2015 03:16, schrieb rotchm:
> > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:30:52 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> >> You know that the UseNet is restricted to 'ASCII-Art' ?
> >
> > Yes, which is why I expected you to make a jpg/gif of it and post it on one of the many pics sites.
> >
> >
> >> Now the detector measures the intensity of the beam and some electronics
> >> measure angular velocity or frequency in turns per second.
> >
> > Still not sure of your setup. two discs at the ends of a shaft? And a slit on each disk? Plus the discs are reflective? So the beam will bounce once, or twice, or 50x or even none, depending on the rotation?
>
> ?
>
> Actually I have already written a very easy description.
>
> It is a machine, build similar to a turbine, but only with two disks
> (wheels), instead of propellers.
>
> Those disks are a few meters apart, but belong to the same rotor, hence
> are mechanically coupled.
>
> They have a reflective rim, in what a fine grid is etched (similar to a
> DVD).
>
> This grid consists of thin stripes ('pits'), that are less reflective
> than the 'land' (unetched rim).
>
> Since the beam is subsequently projected on these rims of both wheels,
> the modulation is caused by both grids (on wheel 'A' and wheel 'B').
>
>
> If the axis (the rotor) is spun fast enough, then we would expect an
> effect from the delay, since reflection would add to no reflection.
>
> This would result in lower brightness of the beam, when measured by the
> detector.
>
> > If so, why do you say that there is a min intensity at detector for the beam that does make it out? More importantly, why will there be higher intensities detected?
>
> Well, that's the point. If light takes a certain time from wheel 'A' to
> Wheel 'B', than this would be measurable in the intensity of the beam.
>
> Since its a grid, we have high intensity and low intensity. Now we
> discard the low values and analyse only the high values, caused by
> reflection. Then with increasing velocity of the rotor, the reflected
> beam will be projected onto pits on the other wheel.
>
> This would certainly cause a decreasing intensity at the detector.
>
> This intensity is drawn in a plot with frequency along the x-axis.
>
> The minimum of that curve is the desired measurement.
>
>
> TH
What is the desired measurement?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 08:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6d0efec-a79b-404c-bf4e-a6d445d48196@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360182 |
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 1:51:10 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
I reread... still not clear at all to me :(
> It is a machine, build similar to a turbine, but only with two disks
> (wheels), instead of propellers.
A shaft with a disk at each of its ends, right?
> Those disks are a few meters apart, but belong to the same rotor, hence
> are mechanically coupled.
Ok. Note that if you turn one the other will *eventually* start turning due to the finite transmission of the pressure wave (rigidity). There is no "perfectly rigid bodies" in SR so you cant impose perfect rigidity. Thus your two discks will not be "e-synched". But perhaps they need not be synched in your gedanken...
> They have a reflective rim, in what a fine grid is etched (similar to a
> DVD).
Rim? Like a 1 cm thick strip from the circumference? And the rest of the disc is opaque?
> This grid consists of thin stripes ('pits'), that are less reflective
> than the 'land' (unetched rim).
So, radial stripes 1 cm long from the circumference ?
> Since the beam is subsequently projected on these rims of both wheels,
> the modulation is caused by both grids (on wheel 'A' and wheel 'B').
Where is the beam sent from? Where does it go? Where is the detector...
Again, a pic (jpeg) on a site will help. because as is, I fail to get the big picture of your setup. So I stop here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 08:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7eaa8d60-f977-4e18-9703-a657bc95f6e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360326 |
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote:
>
> On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 1:51:10 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > It is a machine, build similar to a turbine, but only with two disks
> > (wheels), instead of propellers.
>
> A shaft with a disk at each of its ends, right?
>
> > Those disks are a few meters apart, but belong to the same rotor, hence
> > are mechanically coupled.
>
> Ok. Note that if you turn one the other will *eventually* start turning
> due to the finite transmission of the pressure wave (rigidity). There is
> no "perfectly rigid bodies" in SR so you cant impose perfect rigidity.
> Thus your two discks will not be "e-synched". But perhaps they need not
> be synched in your gedanken...
>
> > They have a reflective rim, in what a fine grid is etched (similar to a
> > DVD).
>
> Rim? Like a 1 cm thick strip from the circumference? And the rest of the
> disc is opaque?
>
> > This grid consists of thin stripes ('pits'), that are less reflective
> > than the 'land' (unetched rim).
>
> So, radial stripes 1 cm long from the circumference ?
>
> > Since the beam is subsequently projected on these rims of both wheels,
> > the modulation is caused by both grids (on wheel 'A' and wheel 'B').
>
> Where is the beam sent from? Where does it go? Where is the detector...
>
> Again, a pic (jpeg) on a site will help. because as is, I fail to get
> the big picture of your setup. So I stop here.
Hi rotchm,
I think I'm getting the picture. If the disks are 3 meters apart, light
would take 10 nanoseconds to traverse that distance. If the disks had
small enough apertures and could be spun up to, say, 30000 rpm, the light
would pass through the first disk but be stopped by the solid part
between the apertures of the second disk.
But I don't think you can spin the disks fast enough or make the apertures
small enough to get below the microsecond range.
Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felipe Delgado <fd@spreadspectrum.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 16:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mqd7pu$76r$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #360340 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Hi rotchm, > > I think I'm getting the picture. If the disks are 3 meters apart, light > would take 10 nanoseconds to traverse that distance. If the disks had > small enough apertures and could be spun up to, say, 30000 rpm, the > light would pass through the first disk but be stopped by the solid part > between the apertures of the second disk. > > But I don't think you can spin the disks fast enough or make the > apertures small enough to get below the microsecond range. which reveals conclusively that you don't understand Relativity. You need to reask yourself, do you understand Relativity, or you just feel a sensation that you understand it, which now is conclusively proven to be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web