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 146 — 20 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. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-21 19:52 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-21 05:29 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-22 05:40 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-21 13:16 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-21 22:26 +0200
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 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| 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]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 18:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fp2esa57k9hnk1ht330s907d3gah00og5m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #359977 |
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 03:01:35 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >Am 07.08.2015 22:55, schrieb Henry Wilson DSc.: >> There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the >> technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they >> are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the >> terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. >> >> The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an >> assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. If that >> were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the >> existence of that medium. >> > >It is actually possible to measure the one way speed of light directly. > >You need a long axis with two disks at both ends. The disks contain an >extremely fine grid along the rim. The axis could be spun with very high >pace and controlled in angular velocity very precisely. > >Now a laser is sent along the axis and mirrored down to the rim, than it >is reflect by the rim and modulated by the pattern there. > >Then the beam is sent to the other end of that axis and mirrored down to >that wheel there and gets modulated by a similar pattern. > >Now the axis is spun with higher pace, until the reflected beam (from >'land') is reflected to 'pits' on the other wheel. > > From this the one way speed of light can be calculated, since the time >light takes from one wheel to the other is the time it takes for the >wheel to turn from land to pit (in the above mentioned case). And the >latter is the inverse to the turns per second of the axis times the >number of pits along the rim. > >And even if the required rotations per second and the number of pits are >quite high, this could actually be built. Its only a little difficult >and certainly expensive. That type of experiment is doomed to fail because of mechanical stress and the inability to resolve any anticipated departures from c. There is no need to actually MEASURE OWLS from two differently moving sources. It is far easier and much cheaper to COMPARE the speed of light from two differetly moving sources. That requires no clocks....just a fast optical gate, a scintillator and an oscilloscope. Of course it should be done in a vacuum. v<===== | O ===== | G Two lasers are set up adjacent to each other. One is fired away froma gate at very high speed. The gate is opened for a nanosecond or less. The detector output is viewed on an oscilloscope. If it sees two blips, Einstein is dead... Of course this experiment will never be carried out because too many heads would roll when the results came out. >TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 07:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a674202c-d662-4fa6-bfe1-9628a0ca3cba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360074 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:23:17 AM UTC-4, HG Wilson wrote: G > Two lasers are set up adjacent to each other. One is fired away froma gate at > very high speed. The gate is opened for a nanosecond or less. > The detector output is viewed on an oscilloscope. If it sees two blips, > Einstein is dead... > > Of course this experiment will never be carried out You are very uninformed. That exp is carried out on a regular basis and vindicates SR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 08:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <q6kfsa5uff7v9bg9ev9hg2tp5alaf9dm32@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360111 |
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 07:59:51 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:23:17 AM UTC-4, HG Wilson wrote: > G >> Two lasers are set up adjacent to each other. One is fired away froma gate at >> very high speed. The gate is opened for a nanosecond or less. >> The detector output is viewed on an oscilloscope. If it sees two blips, >> Einstein is dead... >> >> Of course this experiment will never be carried out > >You are very uninformed. That exp is carried out on a regular basis and vindicates SR. HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA! The indoctrinated one speaks...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 18:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14aa632b-0979-4ee8-a916-f2c734529ea9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360155 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:15:24 PM UTC-4, HG Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 07:59:51 -0700 (PDT), rotchm wrote: > >> Of course this experiment will never be carried out > > > >You are very uninformed. That exp is carried out on a regular > >basis and vindicates SR. > > HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA! The indoctrinated one speaks... Remain a reality denier. See where that has gotten you!? How many Porsches you have? How many houses and condos you acquired? Etc...?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 22:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <M6OdnXJsbIG6i1XInZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #360111 |
On 8/9/15 8/9/15 9:59 AM, rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:23:17 AM UTC-4, HG Wilson wrote: >> Two lasers are set up adjacent to each other. One is fired away froma gate at >> very high speed. The gate is opened for a nanosecond or less. >> The detector output is viewed on an oscilloscope. If it sees two blips, >> Einstein is dead... >> >> Of course this experiment will never be carried out > > You are very uninformed. That exp is carried out on a regular basis and vindicates SR. How? Where? References please. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 20:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d001d273-0ea9-4cca-9814-c8d7de18b5de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360177 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 11:10:33 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > How? Where? References please. > > Tom Roberts These exp's are part of what I indicated to you in the past. They are not exp's done as is, but are results that are in the data of satellites/probes; e.g. when a sat "sees" a SN say, its time of reception is logged and the info is sent to earth, and time of reception of this data is also logged. Moreover, ground based telescopes also log the time of reception of the SN. The SN (most likely) has a great speed wrt earth and the sat much less. Yet we receive (after a few calculations) that the incoming speed of the light from the SN and from the sat are the same (to within accuracies of course). All this is equivalent to Wilsons gedanken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 20:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <gcugsalsosvlld3djk1ffsbq4ega8nue0j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360178 |
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 20:27:36 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 11:10:33 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >> How? Where? References please. >> >> Tom Roberts > >These exp's are part of what I indicated to you in the past. They are not exp's done as is,..... Enough said! Even Tom knows you are an embarrasment to his cause. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 12:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Deeper |
| Message-ID | <72492b55-5704-4021-a0df-935bef4fb9fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360178 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 8:27:38 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 11:10:33 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > > How? Where? References please. > > > > Tom Roberts > > These exp's are part of what I indicated to you in the past. They are not exp's done as is, but are results that are in the data of satellites/probes; e.g. when a sat "sees" a SN say, its time of reception is logged and the info is sent to earth, and time of reception of this data is also logged. Moreover, ground based telescopes also log the time of reception of the SN. The SN (most likely) has a great speed wrt earth and the sat much less. Yet we receive (after a few calculations) that the incoming speed of the light from the SN and from the sat are the same (to within accuracies of course). All this is equivalent to Wilsons gedanken. Stephane, You are a fake. Live with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 19:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <967b5e23-fecc-47c6-a84e-7ea42356e347@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359958 |
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 3:55:20 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the > technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they > are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the > terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. > > The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an > assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. If that > were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the > existence of that medium. > > Accordingly, interferometry experiments such as the Sagnac Effect and this > one: > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light > > which claim to refute the ballistic theory of light are completely > misinterpreted and do not do that at all. Even in the original MMX, the actual > mechanism that gives a wavelike impression is completely unknown. > In pure light, as distinct from a generated radio wave, something appears to > be 'waving'. What actually is it? > > __ > > Henry Wilson DSc. If it is a one-way measuring machine- then- I agree it cannot measure the speed of light because the speed of light is a two-way measure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 19:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33d2128e-0e2b-4cb5-a9d9-3d6cc24ce702@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359958 |
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-4, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the > technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they > are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the > terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. > > The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an > assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. If that > were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the > existence of that medium. > > Accordingly, interferometry experiments such as the Sagnac Effect and this > one: > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light > > which claim to refute the ballistic theory of light are completely > misinterpreted and do not do that at all. Even in the original MMX, the actual > mechanism that gives a wavelike impression is completely unknown. > In pure light, as distinct from a generated radio wave, something appears to > be 'waving'. What actually is it? > > __ > > Henry Wilson DSc. In pure light, as distinct from a generated radio wave, something appears to be 'waving'. What actually is it? Exelent question. There is a long and a short answer. I am in a mood to write so it will be the long answer. Apologies in advance. A radio wave is like a wave however gamma radiation is more like a particle as you can hear it in a geiger counter going , tick tick tick. An easy way to think of this is in terms of frequency. Low frequencies , radio waves , act like waves. High frequencies , gamma radiation , acts like a particle. Planck and Einstein provide the reason why with E=hv. E energy , h 6.626e-34 joules , v frequency. 440 THz is red light. If you could build a 100 watt radio antenna at 440 THz it would glow bright red just like a light bulb. According to E=hv the energy of the individual photons coming off our antenna have a tiny energy of only 2.8378e-19 joules. We will need a lot of these tiny photons to make up the 100 watts coming off our antenna. 100 / 2.8378e-19 per second to be exact. This comes to 352.4e+18 photons per second. This is so many photons in such a small place that they have to overlap each other into a soup that averages out into what appears to us as a wave. However if you go to the moon and look at our red 100 watt antenna with a photo multiplier tube you will hear the tick tick tick of individual red photons just like a geiger counter for gamma radiation as the energy per cubic meter , number of photons using E=hv , at this point is low enough that the individual photons are no longer overlapping each other allowing them to express themselves as individual photons. In short thousands of overlapping photons will average out to what we think is a wave however if you get far enough away the greater reality of the individual photons can be seen. Is it a wave or is it a particle. It is subjective at the end of the day as it really depends on energy density and E=hv. Surprising that Dr Einstein would know this in 1905 when people for the most part were riding horses and working by candle light. He had an uncanny ability to put his finger on the truth years before it would be known.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 13:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mq4nkj$mh8$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #359958 |
On 07.08.2015 22:55, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the > technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they > are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the > terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. And "nobody" is a new synonym for Ralph Malcom Rabbidge? :-D The rest of the world doesn't share your ignorance, Ralph. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 18:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <0u3esad3ubhoienrgkm7mk4a6gf34c3or7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360000 |
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:02:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
wrote:
a typically silly message
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 14:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mq7h95$ug0$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #360075 |
On 09.08.2015 10:37, HG Wilson wrote: > On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:02:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >> On 07.08.2015 22:55, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >>> There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the >>> technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they >>> are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the >>> terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. > > a typically silly message > -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a839268-cb07-4deb-9992-9cb2abd79da3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359958 |
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-4, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the > technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. True; that is a derived operational procedure. But the SoL can/is directly measured by timing the passage of light from along a given distance. Stronger, since the redefinition of the meter in 1984, the SoL is no longer measured (it is defined). A realization of the meter (or distance measurement) serves as a calibrating exercise that must yield a value of 299792458 (m/s) [wiki]. > What they are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows > precisely what the terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean > in the case of light. A lie. The terms 'wavelength' and 'frequency' are well defined and their definition is applicable to light. Just open a (scientific) dictionary. Consult the BIMP/NIST/... > The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an > assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. No; Some people misexpress it that way. Light has many properties and one of its properties (defined via an operational procedure of frequency) is modeled via the abstract math equation "sine" (or wave eqs). No need of introducing a medium nor causes. > If that were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some > evidence of the existence of that medium. No, since such evidence wont change the "sine", wont change the fact that 1+1=2. The search for "causes" or "medium" becomes irrelevant. > Even in the original MMX, the actual > mechanism that gives a wavelike impression is completely unknown. Perhaps, and is irrelevant. The "unknown" woth change the light's properties and wont change the "sine" model; wont change that 1+1=2. > In pure light, as distinct from a generated radio wave, something appears to > be 'waving'. What actually is it? ? So according to you, an EM of freq ~ 3MHz doesnt appear to "wave" but an EM of freq ~300THz does? You seem very confused about the concept of "frequency".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 18:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <682esa5vq5fu3ssv7pj865cd44lh6c30nk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360013 |
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 07:33:45 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: >On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-4, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the >> technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. > >True; that is a derived operational procedure. But the SoL can/is directly measured by timing the passage of light from along a given distance. Stronger, since the redefinition of the meter in 1984, the SoL is no longer measured (it is defined). A realization of the meter (or distance measurement) serves as a >calibrating exercise that must yield a value of 299792458 (m/s) [wiki]. Length can be accurately measured with a TW setup. Standard lengths are calibrated using interferometry, not a one way system using two synched clocks. How would the pair be accurately synched. Accordng to BaTh, in a TW experiment in which mirrror and source/clock are MAR, OWLS = TWLS = c (in pure vacuum) > >> What they are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows >> precisely what the terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean >> in the case of light. > >A lie. The terms 'wavelength' and 'frequency' are well defined and their definition is >applicable to light. Just open a (scientific) dictionary. Consult the BIMP/NIST/... f = c/lambda. That merely defines the 'wave arrival rate'. Nobody has directly measured a frequency associated with visible light. They have measured a spatially period feature that is called a wavelength. Nobody has even directly shown that that wave phenomena is sinusoidal in nature although diffraction patterns suggest it is. >> The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an >> assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. > >No; Some people misexpress it that way. Light has many properties and one of its properties (defined via an operational procedure of frequency) is modeled via the abstract math equation "sine" (or wave eqs). No need of introducing a >medium nor causes. We're talking about the physics of light not the maths. >> If that were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some >> evidence of the existence of that medium. > >No, since such evidence wont change the "sine", wont change the fact that 1+1=2. >The search for "causes" or "medium" becomes irrelevant. To a dingleberry, I suppose it would be, since their whole theory is based on faith alone. >> Even in the original MMX, the actual >> mechanism that gives a wavelike impression is completely unknown. > >Perhaps, and is irrelevant. The "unknown" woth change the light's properties and wont >change the "sine" model; wont change that 1+1=2. > >> In pure light, as distinct from a generated radio wave, something appears to >> be 'waving'. What actually is it? > >? So according to you, an EM of freq ~ 3MHz doesnt appear to "wave" but an EM of >freq ~300THz does? You seem very confused about the concept of "frequency". I am not confused. My theory is quite clear. You on the other hand simply don't see the problem. The frequency associated with radio waves is a result of density variation in a great number of photons emitted by charges accelerating in the antenna. Whenever the 'acceleration' of those charges equals zero, no photons are emitted. An alternative way to look at that is to simply say that the antenna emits an oscillating electric/magnetic field. In that case, what role is played by individual photons in a way that is similar to those in a visible light beam?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web