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 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 22:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2v5ehF665dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360340 |
Am 11.08.2015 17:59, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
..
>>> 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.
>
I have just used this sophisticated math tool ('MS-Excel') and figured
it out:
if the rotor could be accelerated to -say - 10000 rpm and the disks had
a radius of 0.5 m and had a grid of 250,000 stripes, than the rotor must
be 3.6 m long.
Every stripe would be 6.28 micrometers and is followed by same width of
reflective area. This would generate a frequency of 417Mhz. But we can
use both flanks and calculate with the double.
So, the machine is within the range of possibilities, but certainly
difficult to build.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 17:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f2c35c2-7f4a-4663-a926-312050d8dfa7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360388 |
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:49:25 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.08.2015 17:59, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> ..
> >>> 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.
> >
> I have just used this sophisticated math tool ('MS-Excel') and figured
> it out:
>
> if the rotor could be accelerated to -say - 10000 rpm and the disks had
> a radius of 0.5 m and had a grid of 250,000 stripes, than the rotor must
> be 3.6 m long.
>
> Every stripe would be 6.28 micrometers and is followed by same width of
> reflective area. This would generate a frequency of 417Mhz. But we can
> use both flanks and calculate with the double.
>
> So, the machine is within the range of possibilities, but certainly
> difficult to build.
>
> TH
You have a good starting model. Obviously, the two wheels which are connected to a single rotor is the main difficulty- with slippage and all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 07:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d30539Fe3tiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360410 |
Am 12.08.2015 02:58, schrieb John Gogo:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> I have just used this sophisticated math tool ('MS-Excel') and figured
>> it out:
>>
>> if the rotor could be accelerated to -say - 10000 rpm and the disks had
>> a radius of 0.5 m and had a grid of 250,000 stripes, than the rotor must
>> be 3.6 m long.
>>
>> Every stripe would be 6.28 micrometers and is followed by same width of
>> reflective area. This would generate a frequency of 417Mhz. But we can
>> use both flanks and calculate with the double.
>>
>> So, the machine is within the range of possibilities, but certainly
>> difficult to build.
>>
>> TH
>
> You have a good starting model. Obviously, the two wheels which are connected to a single rotor is the main difficulty- with slippage and all.
That's why I suggested 'drop mode' as mode of operation:
to get the rotor free of forces, I wanted it build from a single solid
piece of metal and an acceleration well above of the desired velocity.
Then the motor is shut off and the velocity drops through the region of
interest.
Since the rotor runs in an evacuated chamber, the forces come solely
from friction in the bearings. That is a very small and quite evenly
distributed force. This would take any torque out of the rotor, even if
the force is very small in comparison to the strength of its material.
So the rotor starts a bit too fast and is then left slowing down by
friction. The measuring electronic detects the influence of angular
velocity on beam intensity and could figure out c from these
measurements in an automated process.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 08:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d305qmFe90cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360388 |
Am 11.08.2015 22:49, schrieb Thomas Heger:
>> 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
I wanted the wheels reflective at the outside surface and a fine grid
burned/etched into it (not holes).
This grid would be similar to a DVD or Blue-ray disk and had to be made
with great precision.
The pickup systems is a laser, similar to a DVD reader, hence would
contain a prism and a few tiny lenses, to project the laser beam to a
spot small enough.
>> But I don't think you can spin the disks fast enough or make the
>> apertures
>> small enough to get below the microsecond range.
>>
> I have just used this sophisticated math tool ('MS-Excel') and figured
> it out:
>
> if the rotor could be accelerated to -say - 10000 rpm and the disks had
> a radius of 0.5 m and had a grid of 250,000 stripes, than the rotor must
> be 3.6 m long.
>
> Every stripe would be 6.28 micrometers and is followed by same width of
> reflective area. This would generate a frequency of 417Mhz. But we can
> use both flanks and calculate with the double.
this is not true, but 41.7 MHz (was one zero too much)
Since 'pit plus land' causes kind of middle reflection and that is the
same as land plus pit, we could use both flanks of the pattern.
This would make 83.4 Mhz as frequency and that requires a length of 3.6 m.
>
> So, the machine is within the range of possibilities, but certainly
> difficult to build.
>
> TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 19:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18a9a73d-f818-411e-b500-5f16d3704584@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360428 |
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 1:02:02 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.08.2015 22:49, schrieb Thomas Heger:
>
> >> 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
>
>
> I wanted the wheels reflective at the outside surface and a fine grid
> burned/etched into it (not holes).
>
> This grid would be similar to a DVD or Blue-ray disk and had to be made
> with great precision.
>
> The pickup systems is a laser, similar to a DVD reader, hence would
> contain a prism and a few tiny lenses, to project the laser beam to a
> spot small enough.
>
> >> But I don't think you can spin the disks fast enough or make the
> >> apertures
> >> small enough to get below the microsecond range.
> >>
> > I have just used this sophisticated math tool ('MS-Excel') and figured
> > it out:
> >
> > if the rotor could be accelerated to -say - 10000 rpm and the disks had
> > a radius of 0.5 m and had a grid of 250,000 stripes, than the rotor must
> > be 3.6 m long.
> >
> > Every stripe would be 6.28 micrometers and is followed by same width of
> > reflective area. This would generate a frequency of 417Mhz. But we can
> > use both flanks and calculate with the double.
>
> this is not true, but 41.7 MHz (was one zero too much)
>
> Since 'pit plus land' causes kind of middle reflection and that is the
> same as land plus pit, we could use both flanks of the pattern.
>
> This would make 83.4 Mhz as frequency and that requires a length of 3.6 m.
>
> >
> > So, the machine is within the range of possibilities, but certainly
> > difficult to build.
> >
> > TH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau%E2%80%93Foucault_apparatus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 05:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d355keFm5vnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360670 |
Am 14.08.2015 04:27, schrieb John Gogo: >>>> 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 >> >> >> I wanted the wheels reflective at the outside surface and a fine grid >> burned/etched into it (not holes). >> >> This grid would be similar to a DVD or Blue-ray disk and had to be made >> with great precision. >> >> The pickup systems is a laser, similar to a DVD reader, hence would >> contain a prism and a few tiny lenses, to project the laser beam to a >> spot small enough. >> .. >>> if the rotor could be accelerated to -say - 10000 rpm and the disks had >>> a radius of 0.5 m and had a grid of 250,000 stripes, than the rotor must >>> be 3.6 m long. >>> >>> Every stripe would be 6.28 micrometers and is followed by same width of >>> reflective area. >> Since 'pit plus land' causes kind of middle reflection and that is the >> same as land plus pit, we could use both flanks of the pattern. >> >> This would make 83.4 Mhz as frequency and that requires a length of 3.6 m. >> >>> >>> So, the machine is within the range of possibilities, but certainly >>> difficult to build. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau%E2%80%93Foucault_apparatus The aim of the machine I have described is not primarily to measure the speed of light, but to find out, if one way speed of light is different to two way speed of light. Second question is 'anisotropy' or the question, whether or not certain influences have an effect on OWSL. These machines from Fizeau/Foucault have similar ideas, but are much larger and use two-way measurement. This could be an issue, since OWSL may possibly be different to TWSL. Actually this is not known, since there exist no device to measure OWSL directly. The measurement is certainly a little less accurate compared to longer devices, but accuracy is not the prime goal. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 03:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7637629-3541-48e9-b5c6-cff418970ac1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360388 |
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:49:25 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > if the rotor could be accelerated to -say - 10000 rpm and the disks had > a radius of 0.5 m and had a grid of 250,000 stripes, than the rotor must > be 3.6 m long. > > Every stripe would be 6.28 micrometers and is followed by same width of > reflective area. This would generate a frequency of 417Mhz. But we can > use both flanks and calculate with the double. You will have issues with diffraction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | underante <underante@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 07:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e40695dc-9551-4c31-b13b-49757eedd6ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360443 |
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 11:32:16 AM UTC+1, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote: > On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:49:25 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > if the rotor could be accelerated to -say - 10000 rpm and the disks had > > a radius of 0.5 m and had a grid of 250,000 stripes, than the rotor must > > be 3.6 m long. > > > > Every stripe would be 6.28 micrometers and is followed by same width of > > reflective area. This would generate a frequency of 417Mhz. But we can > > use both flanks and calculate with the double. > > You will have issues with diffraction. well, ok, diffraction is tricky, but since, speaking largely, turbo-molecular pump rotor spin a deal faster than 10,000 rpm, by a factor of x2 at least and the posh ones pushing around x10 at ~100,000 rpm, -- though i dare say you won't find one of those on ebay -- conversely the rotor blade sizes will be around x2 smaller than 0.5m, and, the biggest snag, perhaps, that distance between first and last rotors of 3.6m is about x10 bigger than your typical ebay specimen. but then again, since the distance between the dots on a blu ray disc is about x10 smaller than 6.28 microns, heyy!, maybe it _could_ actually work!! (. . .or then again, maybe not. hmm)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 22:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d31q1hFrc6rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360463 |
Am 12.08.2015 16:50, schrieb underante: >>> if the rotor could be accelerated to -say - 10000 rpm and the disks had >>> a radius of 0.5 m and had a grid of 250,000 stripes, than the rotor must >>> be 3.6 m long. >>> >>> Every stripe would be 6.28 micrometers and is followed by same width of >>> reflective area. This would generate a frequency of 417Mhz. But we can >>> use both flanks and calculate with the double. >> >> You will have issues with diffraction. > > well, ok, diffraction is tricky, but since, speaking largely, turbo-molecular pump rotor spin a deal faster than 10,000 rpm, by a factor of x2 at least and the posh ones pushing around x10 at ~100,000 rpm, -- though i dare say you won't find one of those on ebay -- conversely the rotor blade sizes will be around x2 smaller than 0.5m, and, the biggest snag, perhaps, that distance between first and last rotors of 3.6m is about x10 bigger than your typical ebay specimen. but then again, since the distance between the dots on a blu ray disc is about x10 smaller than 6.28 microns, heyy!, maybe it _could_ actually work!! > (. . .or then again, maybe not. hmm) > What I have written is just a concept. It is more an idea, rather than a design. So there are other ways and other numbers possible, but with similar principles. Such decisions are subject of the design Certainly there are problems possible, with e.g. vibrations or thermal effects. Or other unexpected things may happen. This is usually the case, if some new kind of machine is developed. So, at first step, it is necessary to find a few people, who like the idea, thinks it's possible to build and it will eventually work. Then you need somebody with interest in the subject and sufficient funds. They would make an in depth study of the concept and develop a proper design. If it's designed well and built with great care, it may nevertheless fail to work as wanted. That is also a possibility. But if it's not built, you will never know, whether it will work or not. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13f25d34-dc1a-4f68-9caf-5aff36ea084c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360514 |
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 3:53:09 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > What I have written is just a concept. It is more an idea, rather than > a design. > > So there are other ways and other numbers possible, but with similar > principles. Such decisions are subject of the design > > Certainly there are problems possible, with e.g. vibrations or thermal > effects. Or other unexpected things may happen. This is usually the > case, if some new kind of machine is developed. > > So, at first step, it is necessary to find a few people, who like the > idea, thinks it's possible to build and it will eventually work. > > Then you need somebody with interest in the subject and sufficient > funds. They would make an in depth study of the concept and develop a > proper design. > > If it's designed well and built with great care, it may nevertheless > fail to work as wanted. That is also a possibility. But if it's not > built, you will never know, whether it will work or not. One-way speed of light (OWLS) is a very difficult measurement and requires syncing the two clocks at either end of the track. The outcome of the measurement depends on the assumptions made in the synchronization. On the other hand, measurement of *anisotropies* in the one way speed of light represents a far easier measure, and there have been various experiments purporting to have placed limits on OWLS-anisotropy. Whether or not one considers such measurements as valid measurements distinct from measurements of anisotropy in the TWO-way speed of light depends on whether or not one rejects the "conventionality thesis". Scientists rarely concern themselves with such arcane matters as the conventionality thesis. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/ Philosophers of science, however, are a different bunch altogether. Most experts in the subject appear to adhere to the conventionality thesis, and would deny that OWLS-anisotropy has ever been measured as distinct from anisotropy in the two-way speed of light. For example, Zhang wrote: "Therefore, a test of the Manmuri--Sexl transformation is just a test of anisotropy af the two--way speed ot light (and a test or the parameter d), but not a test of anisotropy af the one-way speed of light. (The new type measurements reported in [Will 1992]) are tests involving unidirectional propagation along several baselines together with clock transport connecting the ends of each baseline. These kinds of experiments are related to the problem of slow transport of clocks." Zhang, Yuan Zhong (1995). "Test theories of special relativity". General Relativity and Gravitation 27 (5): 475-493 A strong minority of experts in the subject, however, reject the conventionality thesis, and maintain that OWLS-anisotropy is a viable measurement. Clifford Will and Hans Ohanian belong to this group. Ohanian wrote: "The fundamental error of Reichenbach and his conventionalist followers was their neglect of dynamics. They failed to appreciate that the time variable must be chosen in such a way that the laws of dynamics keep their standard form. As Wheeler said in a related context, 'Time is defined so that motion looks simple.'" Ohanian, H., 2004. "The Role of Dynamics in the Synchronization Problem," American Journal of Physics, 72: 141-148. I basically stay away from this whole debate. My instincts are very strong in one direction, but one must avoid relying on one's instincts in such matters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 11:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d335jsF6lp7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360531 |
Am 13.08.2015 00:57, schrieb Ignorant Raving Crackpot: > One-way speed of light (OWLS) is a very difficult measurement and > requires syncing the two clocks at either end of the track. The > outcome of the measurement depends on the assumptions made in the synchronization. No. The very idea of 'syncing clocks' by means of light rays, is -in my eyes- nonsense. I simply assume a (hypothetical) signal of infinite velocity, that would connect without delay. This does not exist, but that would hinder its use to define simultaneity: Two events are simultaneous, is such a signal would transport the information from one event to the other. Light is slower than that, so this would exclude light from the definition of simultaneity. Therefore I try to remove the 'other clock' from the picture and define time by the initial observer alone and make his clock 'universal' (for himself). This is apparently how the universe works and we have in fact such 'universes', each equipped with its own time. > On the other hand, measurement of *anisotropies* in the one way speed > of light represents a far easier measure, and there have been various > experiments purporting to have placed limits on OWLS-anisotropy. 'Anisotropie' means something like 'not always the same'. Yes, that's actually possible. But it takes a device to measure such an anisotropy (of one ways speed of light), hence a measurement of OWLS is required. The apparatus I have suggested is in principle capable to perform such measurements (of anisotropy) , since it could be mounted on a train, plane or rocket. It could also be moved, tilted, accelerated or filled with different gases. That's all possible, hence I would like to see such a device being built. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 06:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8aece6aa-e78c-4b2a-9c3f-ebddc1ccb102@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360568 |
On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 4:16:48 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > The apparatus I have suggested is in principle capable to perform such > measurements (of anisotropy) , since it could be mounted on a train, > plane or rocket. It could also be moved, tilted, accelerated or filled > with different gases. > > That's all possible, hence I would like to see such a device being built. Even as far back as the mid-1800s, diffraction effects were known to to be an issue when performing two-way measurements using the Fizeau tooth-wheel apparatus. You cannot make your teeth or whatever too small or the light intensity differences between the bright and occluded states become degraded. http://jubilotheque.upmc.fr/ead.html?id=PC_000295_001 The only way I can see such a device being built with large enough teeth to avoid the diffraction issue is in space, with a kilometers- long axle. You will never get funding for such an absurd, expensive, and totally unnecessary experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 21:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d3492rFflfuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360585 |
Am 13.08.2015 15:05, schrieb Ignorant Raving Crackpot: > On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 4:16:48 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> The apparatus I have suggested is in principle capable to perform such >> measurements (of anisotropy) , since it could be mounted on a train, >> plane or rocket. It could also be moved, tilted, accelerated or filled >> with different gases. >> >> That's all possible, hence I would like to see such a device being built. > > Even as far back as the mid-1800s, diffraction effects were known to > to be an issue when performing two-way measurements using the Fizeau > tooth-wheel apparatus. You cannot make your teeth or whatever too small > or the light intensity differences between the bright and occluded > states become degraded. > http://jubilotheque.upmc.fr/ead.html?id=PC_000295_001 > > The only way I can see such a device being built with large enough > teeth to avoid the diffraction issue is in space, with a kilometers- > long axle. > > You will never get funding for such an absurd, expensive, and totally > unnecessary experiment. > Diffraction is not an issue, since the beam may split into pieces. Only: it does not matter. Why? Well, the only direction of beam of relevance in this experiment is 'forward', since the only measurement is at the end of the usual path (with the detector). The beam would be widened, but not because of the rotation of the wheels, but because of the fine grid. This wouldn't influence the measurement, since this is about the rotation and its influence. If a large part of the beam gets lost through diffraction, that is not important, as long it does not change with frequency of rotation. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 06:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d3fq81FcktmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #360585 |
Am 13.08.2015 15:05, schrieb Ignorant Raving Crackpot: > On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 4:16:48 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> The apparatus I have suggested is in principle capable to perform such >> measurements (of anisotropy) , since it could be mounted on a train, >> plane or rocket. It could also be moved, tilted, accelerated or filled >> with different gases. >> >> That's all possible, hence I would like to see such a device being built. > > Even as far back as the mid-1800s, diffraction effects were known to > to be an issue when performing two-way measurements using the Fizeau > tooth-wheel apparatus. You cannot make your teeth or whatever too small > or the light intensity differences between the bright and occluded > states become degraded. > http://jubilotheque.upmc.fr/ead.html?id=PC_000295_001 > > The only way I can see such a device being built with large enough > teeth to avoid the diffraction issue is in space, with a kilometers- > long axle. The machine which I have suggested has no teeth or holes, but a reflective rim along the surface of two wheels. Into the surfaces there are very fine stripes etched (or burned in by a laser or printed). The grid is 'read' by a laser, that operates somehow similar to the pick-up of a blue-ray or DVD disk reader. The laser is focused to a dot of sufficiently small size (in the range of microns). This setup is significantly different to those experiments you have mentioned and therefore does not suffer from the problems you had in mind. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2318ac48-ed12-4a59-8b35-2f7fac311f7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361152 |
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 12:22:29 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > The machine which I have suggested has no teeth or holes, but a > reflective rim along the surface of two wheels. > > Into the surfaces there are very fine stripes etched (or burned in by a > laser or printed). The grid is 'read' by a laser, that operates somehow > similar to the pick-up of a blue-ray or DVD disk reader. The laser is > focused to a dot of sufficiently small size (in the range of microns). Btw, Im still interested in a jpg schematic of the setup... Start a new thread an include the link therein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 19:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d3h9teFoeq9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #361190 |
Am 18.08.2015 16:06, schrieb rotchm: >> The machine which I have suggested has no teeth or holes, but a >> reflective rim along the surface of two wheels. >> >> Into the surfaces there are very fine stripes etched (or burned in by a >> laser or printed). The grid is 'read' by a laser, that operates somehow >> similar to the pick-up of a blue-ray or DVD disk reader. The laser is >> focused to a dot of sufficiently small size (in the range of microns). > > > Btw, Im still interested in a jpg schematic of the setup... Start a new thread an include the link therein. I could do this, but only after I have made the drawing. For now I'm not really doing anything in this realm (like sketching something with 3d-software). But actually you are right and I should produce some sort of sketch.... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 16:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef772ca6-207a-4d7d-8e1a-ddd31be0e4ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361152 |
On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 11:22:29 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 13.08.2015 15:05, schrieb Ignorant Raving Crackpot: > > On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 4:16:48 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >> The apparatus I have suggested is in principle capable to perform such > >> measurements (of anisotropy) , since it could be mounted on a train, > >> plane or rocket. It could also be moved, tilted, accelerated or filled > >> with different gases. > >> > >> That's all possible, hence I would like to see such a device being built. > > > > Even as far back as the mid-1800s, diffraction effects were known to > > to be an issue when performing two-way measurements using the Fizeau > > tooth-wheel apparatus. You cannot make your teeth or whatever too small > > or the light intensity differences between the bright and occluded > > states become degraded. > > http://jubilotheque.upmc.fr/ead.html?id=PC_000295_001 > > > > The only way I can see such a device being built with large enough > > teeth to avoid the diffraction issue is in space, with a kilometers- > > long axle. > > The machine which I have suggested has no teeth or holes, but a > reflective rim along the surface of two wheels. > > Into the surfaces there are very fine stripes etched (or burned in by a > laser or printed). The grid is 'read' by a laser, that operates somehow > similar to the pick-up of a blue-ray or DVD disk reader. The laser is > focused to a dot of sufficiently small size (in the range of microns). > > This setup is significantly different to those experiments you have > mentioned and therefore does not suffer from the problems you had in mind. > > TH I agree. This perceived instrumentment might yield measures much more precise and accurate than the original toothed-wheel apparatus'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 06:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d3nmk0Fc247U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #361238 |
Am 19.08.2015 01:25, schrieb John Gogo: >>> Even as far back as the mid-1800s, diffraction effects were known to >>> to be an issue when performing two-way measurements using the Fizeau >>> tooth-wheel apparatus. You cannot make your teeth or whatever too small >>> or the light intensity differences between the bright and occluded >>> states become degraded. >>> http://jubilotheque.upmc.fr/ead.html?id=PC_000295_001 >>> >>> The only way I can see such a device being built with large enough >>> teeth to avoid the diffraction issue is in space, with a kilometers- >>> long axle. >> >> The machine which I have suggested has no teeth or holes, but a >> reflective rim along the surface of two wheels. >> >> Into the surfaces there are very fine stripes etched (or burned in by a >> laser or printed). The grid is 'read' by a laser, that operates somehow >> similar to the pick-up of a blue-ray or DVD disk reader. The laser is >> focused to a dot of sufficiently small size (in the range of microns). >> >> This setup is significantly different to those experiments you have >> mentioned and therefore does not suffer from the problems you had in mind. >> >> TH > > I agree. This perceived instrumentment might yield measures much more precise and accurate than the original toothed-wheel apparatus'. Yes. The toothed-wheel could only generate a certain frequency. This would require a very large size and a very long beam. For such a beam diffraction would be an issue. But the main difference is the 'folding' of the beam with a mirror. So the experiment had to measure two-way speed of light. It was generally assumed, this is a requirement in principle. Now I wanted to demonstrate, that it's not fundamental restriction, but a question of the frequency of the beam-modulation, since if this is high enough, you could measure one-way speed of light. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b86a56c2-68fd-4e52-8fd5-07132b443088@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360113 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 10:19:22 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > 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... Hi Rotchm, it seems like you have caught onto my idea of demanding the categorization, or the identification of whether a certain experiment is one-way or two-way. I agree with this line of reasoning!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 12:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1def54ba-2bf6-4c9f-8d90-5e1850048915@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360138 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 2:18:49 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 10:19:22 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > 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... > > Hi Rotchm, it seems like you have caught onto my idea of demanding the categorization, or the identification of whether a certain experiment is one-way or two-way. I agree with this line of reasoning! If we do not demand this process of identification, then the terms unidirectional, bidirectional, and multidirectional will contain no distinction. In science, don't you think this is important to know?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web