Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478177 > unrolled thread

One way speed of light

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-26 16:01 +0100
    Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-26 15:50 +0000
    Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-26 21:48 +0100
      Re: One way speed of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-27 07:07 -0800
        Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-29 02:09 +0100
    Re: One way speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 13:04 -0800
      Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 21:29 +0000
        Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-27 15:31 +0100
          Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-27 15:59 +0100
            Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-27 16:26 +0100
              Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-27 16:47 +0000
              Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 16:54 +0000
              Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-27 18:01 +0100
            Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 00:55 +0000
              Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-28 05:14 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 15:13 +0000
          Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 16:44 +0000
            Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-28 16:34 +0100
              Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 15:40 +0000
              Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 17:20 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-29 20:43 +0100
                  Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 20:53 +0000
                  Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-29 22:21 +0100
                    Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-30 21:15 +0100
                      Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-30 22:46 +0000
                        Re: One way speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-30 17:23 -0600
                      Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 00:34 +0100
                        Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:40 +0000
                          Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-01 16:17 +0100
                            Re: One way speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-01 07:32 -0800
                              Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-02 13:50 +0100
                                Re: One way speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-02 05:11 -0800
                                  Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-03 12:23 +0100
                                    Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 18:53 +0000
                                      Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 11:25 -0800
                                      Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-04 13:04 +0100
                                    Re: One way speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 11:57 -0800
                                      Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-03 13:28 -0800
                                        Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 13:56 -0800
                                          Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-03 14:13 -0800
                                Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 14:44 +0100
                                Re: One way speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-02 07:13 -0800
                                Re: One way speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 10:28 -0600
                                  Re: One way speed of light Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-02 18:42 +0000
                                  Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-02 11:08 -0800
                                Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 18:49 +0000
                                  Re: One way speed of light Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-02 18:57 +0000
                                    Re: One way speed of light Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-02 18:58 +0000
                                Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 21:23 +0000
                            Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 18:20 +0100
                  Re: One way speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-29 16:03 -0600
                    Re: One way speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-29 15:03 -0800
                    Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-30 21:18 +0100
                      Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:43 +0000
                      Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 14:58 +0100
                  Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-29 23:38 +0000
                    Re: One way speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-29 16:40 -0800
                      Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 03:22 +0000
                        Re: One way speed of light benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 22:41 -0500
                          Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 12:13 +0000
                        Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-30 21:21 +0100
                          Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-30 22:10 +0100
                            Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-01 16:26 +0100
                          Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-30 23:01 +0000
                          Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:03 +0000
                          Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 00:43 +0100
              Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-29 02:01 +0100
              Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-29 02:04 +0100
    Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-26 15:51 -0800
      Re: One way speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-26 18:53 -0800
        Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-27 09:49 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 15:11 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 14:19 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 14:36 -0800
      Re: One way speed of light benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 22:28 -0500
      Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 20:08 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 15:10 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-30 12:48 -0800
      Alex Sorokin, persistent imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-01 07:34 -0800

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#478614

Am 30.11.2018 um 04:22 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>> while they add (or subtract; hasn't happened yet) a leap second to keep
>>> the slightly wobbly time of earth's rotation in line with more accurate
>>> cesium clocks.
>>
>> :) And can you explain why they bother to
>> adjust precise clocks to this wobbly time
>> of Earth's rotation?
> 
> They don’t. They adjust the length of the day, or the length of a year.
> They don’t change the second.
> 
>>

This is quite a strange statement, since we expect (without further 
mentioning) a fixed number of seconds in a minute, hour, day or year.

So: if they adjust the length of the day, they also adjust the length of 
the second.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478619

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:

> 
> This is quite a strange statement, since we expect (without further 
> mentioning) a fixed number of seconds in a minute, hour, day or year.

We do not. You do.

Average day lasts slightly more than 86400 seconds, 
as Earth rotation measurably slows down.

It is addressed by an insertion of a leap second,
that is periodically added about once a year.
So for some days, the interval between 23:59:59 and 00:00:00
lasts 2 seconds instead of 1.
> 
> So: if they adjust the length of the day, they also adjust the length of 
> the second.
> 
Of course they do not, 
as the second is not defined  as 1/86400 of the day.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478682

Am 30.11.2018 um 22:10 schrieb Libor Striz:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:
> 
>>
>> This is quite a strange statement, since we expect (without further
>> mentioning) a fixed number of seconds in a minute, hour, day or year.
> 
> We do not. You do.
> 
> Average day lasts slightly more than 86400 seconds,
> as Earth rotation measurably slows down.
> 
> It is addressed by an insertion of a leap second,
> that is periodically added about once a year.
> So for some days, the interval between 23:59:59 and 00:00:00
> lasts 2 seconds instead of 1.
>>

Well, ok.

This was certainly my error.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478629

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> writes:

>Am 30.11.2018 um 04:22 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>>> while they add (or subtract; hasn't happened yet) a leap second to keep
>>>> the slightly wobbly time of earth's rotation in line with more accurate
>>>> cesium clocks.
>>>
>>> :) And can you explain why they bother to
>>> adjust precise clocks to this wobbly time
>>> of Earth's rotation?
>> 
>> They don’t. They adjust the length of the day, or the length of a year.
>> They don’t change the second.

>This is quite a strange statement, since we expect (without further 
>mentioning) a fixed number of seconds in a minute, hour, day or year.

It's not strange once you realize the second is NOT defined as 1/60 minute
or as 1/86400 day, and hasn't been for a half century.

Doesn't mean it doesn't cause problems, however.

>So: if they adjust the length of the day, they also adjust the length of 
>the second.

Nope. It's like leap years. We adjust the length of the year, and of
February. By doing so, we aren't adjusting the length of the day just
because February is supposed to have 28 days and the year is supposed to
have 365 days. Leap seconds create a "minute" with 61 seconds and a day
with 86,401 seconds, just like leap years create a February with an extra
day and a year with 366 days.

(I have watched a leap second aware clock last time there was a leap
second. It displayed 23:59:58, 23:59:59, 23:59:60, 00:00:00, 00:00:01...)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478632

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 30.11.2018 um 04:22 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> 
>>>> while they add (or subtract; hasn't happened yet) a leap second to keep
>>>> the slightly wobbly time of earth's rotation in line with more accurate
>>>> cesium clocks.
>>> 
>>> :) And can you explain why they bother to
>>> adjust precise clocks to this wobbly time
>>> of Earth's rotation?
>> 
>> They don’t. They adjust the length of the day, or the length of a year.
>> They don’t change the second.
>> 
>>> 
> 
> This is quite a strange statement, since we expect (without further 
> mentioning) a fixed number of seconds in a minute, hour, day or year.

That is CLEARLY incorrect. Every four years the number of seconds in a year
goes up by over 86,000 of them. Doesn’t seem fixed to me. 

> 
> So: if they adjust the length of the day, they also adjust the length of 
> the second.
> 
> TH
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478641

Thomas Heger wrote:
> This is quite a strange statement, since we expect (without further 
> mentioning) a fixed number of seconds in a minute, hour, day or year.

Bullshit!  Shut up and study!

A leap year has one day, or 86400 seconds, more than a non-leap year.

A month in which the switch from standard time (ST) to daylight saving time
(DST) occurs has 3600 seconds less than other months in which no switch
occurs; and a moneth in which t he switch from DST to ST occurs has 3600
seconds more than other months in which no switch occurs.

A day in which the UTC leap second is inserted has one second more in UTC
than other days.

The solar day has different lengths depending on the season (distance from Sol).

And so on.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478343

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 27.11.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 26.11.2018 um 22:29 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>> To wit:
>>>> Jimmy can swim at 3 miles per hour with respect to the water. Jimmy decides
>>>> to swim in a river that has a current of 1 mile per hour. He swims upstream
>>>> a quarter mile relative to the shore, and then he turns around and swims
>>>> downstream a quarter mile to his starting point at the shore, a total of a
>>>> half mile swum. What is his average speed relative to the shore for the
>>>> trip?
>>> The swimmer swims faster downstream and slower upstream, because we had
>>> to add the velocity of the water in one case and subtract it in the other.
>>>
>>> The time is an eighth of an hour up and a sixteenth downstream and that
>>> is 675 seconds for a half mile. The result is roughly 1.19 m/s
>> And is his average speed 3 miles per hour? Yes or no?
> 
> How could you STILL use miles?

Substitute miles with kilometres.  Swimmer and river are then a little bit
slower each (1 mi ≈ 1.609344 km), but the math is exactly the same.

To see this, calculate algebraically.  Let us assume that the river flows in
the direction from point A to point B, then:

   v = ∆s/∆t
  ∆t = ∆s/v

  ∆t = ∆t_AB + ∆t_BA = ∆s∕(v_S + v_R) + ∆s∕(v_S − v_R)

  ∆s  – distance swum
  v_S – swimming speed
  v_R – flowing speed of the river

What you are saying is that the result would be equivalent to 2 ∆t_AB, i.e.
as if there would be no flowing river.

Is it?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478344

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Since you gain less at higher speed  (say: double velocity) than what 
> you loose on lower speed, the average is influenced by the velocity.
> 
> example:
> 
> you need one minute with a for 1 km at 1km/min.
> But if you travel with 2km/min you save 30 seconds.
> 
> If you travel with 0.5 km/min you need 2 min for one km at 0.5 km/min, 
> hence need 60 seconds more.
> 
> but 60 minus 30 is not zero.
> 
> So THIS average is wrong, in connection to speed of light,

It is *your* average, and it *is* wrong indeed.

> since c is so much faster than the possible speed of movement through the 'ether'.
> 
> TH
> 
> so you need 30 seconds more, if you swim upstream an them downstream.

I dare you do to the actual calculation.

What is the common denominator of the expressions for the travel time in
each direction?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478222

W dniu poniedziałek, 26 listopada 2018 16:01:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Hi NG
> 
> in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, they have tried to find out, 
> whether or not the speed of light is influenced by an assumed 'ether wind'.
> 
> Problematic was the used methods to measure such variations of the speed 
> of light, since those included mirrors and therefore a two-way speed of 
> light measurement.
> 
> This two way measurement could easily cancel out any effect (with or 
> without an ether) because acceleration of one trip would be balanced by 
> deceleration on the way back.
> 
> To measure one-way speed of light I would suggest this experiment:
> 
> a axis of 2 meter length has two rotors - one at each end.
> 
> Each wheel has a diameter of 1 m.
> 
> In the middle the axis has a turbine, which could spin the rotor to any 
> desired velocity (required is more than 1250 per second).
> 
> The wheels have a fine grid etched into the polished rim.
> It should be 60.000 stripes along the rim.
> 
> (actually other combinations of dimensions of the device are possible, 
> like finer grid, longer axle and lower velocity.)
> 
> A laser beam is focused at the rotating grid and reflected to the other 
> wheel.
> 
> Now the laser gets modulated with a certain frequency, that is 
> determined by the number of lines on the grid and the speed of the rotation.
> 
> The length is known between the wheels.
> 
> If the rotor is spun at very high speed and then left unaccelerated, the 
> rotor gets slower through friction.
> 
> The modulation of the laser and the spin velocity is continuously 
> measured (at the second wheel).
> 
> The wheel would produce a modulation of the beam and that would generate 
> a wave with 4m wavelength at a certain rotation rate.
> 
> Then the reflected beam would hit a pit at the other wheel and the twice 
> reflected beam has its lowest intensity.
> 
> Since all the measurements could be made at one side (modulation and 
> frequency of the rotating grid), the speed of light could be figured out 
> for a one way trip.
> 
> TH

The one-way speed is very well known: c' = c - v.

But in the case of a moving observer there are some
'deformations', which leads to measured speed:

c_measured(f) = c/(1 - v/c cosf)

and this is just of the Lorentz fantastic discovery - long time ago.
x' = ...
t' = ... etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478235

On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 4:51:18 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> The one-way speed is very well known: c' = c - v.

Wrong!  You're a century out of date.

> But in the case of a moving observer there are some
> 'deformations', which leads to measured speed:
> 
> c_measured(f) = c/(1 - v/c cosf)

VERY Wrong!

> and this is just of the Lorentz fantastic discovery - long time ago.
> x' = ...
> t' = ... etc.

In your fantasies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478269

W dniu wtorek, 27 listopada 2018 03:53:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 4:51:18 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >
> > The one-way speed is very well known: c' = c - v.
> 
> Wrong!  You're a century out of date.

There are here plenty of ancient peoples living around,
because the standard algebra and geometry is still a magics for them. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478338

"If we adopt either Fresnel's or Maccullagh's form of the undulatory theory, half of this energy is in the form of potential energy, due to the distortion of elementary portions of the medium, and half in the form of kinetic energy, due to the motion of the medium. We must therefore regard the aether as possessing elasticity similar to that of a solid body, and also as having a finite density." (Maxwell, Part XCVII, p. 767). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478463

On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 7:01:34 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
> 
> in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, they have tried to find out, 
> whether or not the speed of light is influenced by an assumed 'ether wind'.
> 
> Problematic was the used methods to measure such variations of the speed 
> of light, since those included mirrors and therefore a two-way speed of 
> light measurement.
> 
> This two way measurement could easily cancel out any effect (with or 
> without an ether) because acceleration of one trip would be balanced by 
> deceleration on the way back.
> 
> To measure one-way speed of light I would suggest this experiment:
> 
> a axis of 2 meter length has two rotors - one at each end.
> 
> Each wheel has a diameter of 1 m.
> 
> In the middle the axis has a turbine, which could spin the rotor to any 
> desired velocity (required is more than 1250 per second).
> 
> The wheels have a fine grid etched into the polished rim.
> It should be 60.000 stripes along the rim.
> 
> (actually other combinations of dimensions of the device are possible, 
> like finer grid, longer axle and lower velocity.)
> 
> A laser beam is focused at the rotating grid and reflected to the other 
> wheel.
> 
> Now the laser gets modulated with a certain frequency, that is 
> determined by the number of lines on the grid and the speed of the rotation.
> 
> The length is known between the wheels.
> 
> If the rotor is spun at very high speed and then left unaccelerated, the 
> rotor gets slower through friction.
> 
> The modulation of the laser and the spin velocity is continuously 
> measured (at the second wheel).
> 
> The wheel would produce a modulation of the beam and that would generate 
> a wave with 4m wavelength at a certain rotation rate.
> 
> Then the reflected beam would hit a pit at the other wheel and the twice 
> reflected beam has its lowest intensity.
> 
> Since all the measurements could be made at one side (modulation and 
> frequency of the rotating grid), the speed of light could be figured out 
> for a one way trip.
> 
> TH

Light moves three dimensionally. There are six directions
up down right left front back; two for each dimension.
It always moves in the 3 direction vector.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478470

vacuum proves the ether does not exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478509

On 11/29/2018 5:36 PM, carleto4157990662@gmail.com wrote:
> vacuum proves the ether does not exist.
> 
Vacuum proves aether does exist. LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478513

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 2:36:20 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> vacuum proves the ether does not exist.

prove where the pure vacuum exists.
Gravity is pure immaterial aether...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478490

This paper will analyze the wave theory of light.  Huygens describes the propagation of light using spherical waves formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter, yet light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter.  Fresnel derived a diffraction intensity equation using interfering spherical waves based on "Huygens' principle" but Huygens' spherical waves do not interfere. Maxwell introduces an electromagnetic theory of light based on Faraday's induction effect since induction forms in vacuum but Faraday's induction effect is not luminous. Michelson tests for the existence of Fresnel's ether using an interferometer but the result was negative.  Hertz's radio waves are used to justify Maxwell's theory but radio waves do not alter the fact that Maxwell's theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous. Lorentz uses a transformation to reverse the negative result of Michelson's experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's ether but light propagates in vacuum which proves the ether does not exist. Lenard proves light is composed of particles which conflicts with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field. In special relativity (1905), Einstein alters the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations to justify Maxwell's theory but manipulating the coordinate system does not change the fact that Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous. Einstein (1910) describes an electromagnetic ether which conflicts with Huygens-Fresnel ether that remains stationary after the light wave propagates through the ether.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478616

W dniu poniedziałek, 26 listopada 2018 16:01:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Hi NG
> 
> in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, they have tried to find out, 
> whether or not the speed of light is influenced by an assumed 'ether wind'.
> 
> Problematic was the used methods to measure such variations of the speed 
> of light, since those included mirrors and therefore a two-way speed of 
> light measurement.
> 
> This two way measurement could easily cancel out any effect (with or 
> without an ether) because acceleration of one trip would be balanced by 
> deceleration on the way back.
> 
> To measure one-way speed of light I would suggest this experiment:
> 
> a axis of 2 meter length has two rotors - one at each end.
> 
> Each wheel has a diameter of 1 m.
> 
> In the middle the axis has a turbine, which could spin the rotor to any 
> desired velocity (required is more than 1250 per second).
> 
> The wheels have a fine grid etched into the polished rim.
> It should be 60.000 stripes along the rim.
> 
> (actually other combinations of dimensions of the device are possible, 
> like finer grid, longer axle and lower velocity.)
> 
> A laser beam is focused at the rotating grid and reflected to the other 
> wheel.
> 
> Now the laser gets modulated with a certain frequency, that is 
> determined by the number of lines on the grid and the speed of the rotation.
> 
> The length is known between the wheels.
> 
> If the rotor is spun at very high speed and then left unaccelerated, the 
> rotor gets slower through friction.
> 
> The modulation of the laser and the spin velocity is continuously 
> measured (at the second wheel).
> 
> The wheel would produce a modulation of the beam and that would generate 
> a wave with 4m wavelength at a certain rotation rate.
> 
> Then the reflected beam would hit a pit at the other wheel and the twice 
> reflected beam has its lowest intensity.
> 
> Since all the measurements could be made at one side (modulation and 
> frequency of the rotating grid), the speed of light could be figured out 
> for a one way trip.
> 
> TH

I repeat:
the one-way speed is simply: c - v, always.

thus it's measured as: c/(1-v/c cosf).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478684 — Alex Sorokin, persistent imbecile

On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:49:01 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 26 listopada 2018 16:01:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> > Hi NG
> > 
> > in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, they have tried to find out, 
> > whether or not the speed of light is influenced by an assumed 'ether wind'.
> > 
> > Problematic was the used methods to measure such variations of the speed 
> > of light, since those included mirrors and therefore a two-way speed of 
> > light measurement.
> > 
> > This two way measurement could easily cancel out any effect (with or 
> > without an ether) because acceleration of one trip would be balanced by 
> > deceleration on the way back.
> > 
> > To measure one-way speed of light I would suggest this experiment:
> > 
> > a axis of 2 meter length has two rotors - one at each end.
> > 
> > Each wheel has a diameter of 1 m.
> > 
> > In the middle the axis has a turbine, which could spin the rotor to any 
> > desired velocity (required is more than 1250 per second).
> > 
> > The wheels have a fine grid etched into the polished rim.
> > It should be 60.000 stripes along the rim.
> > 
> > (actually other combinations of dimensions of the device are possible, 
> > like finer grid, longer axle and lower velocity.)
> > 
> > A laser beam is focused at the rotating grid and reflected to the other 
> > wheel.
> > 
> > Now the laser gets modulated with a certain frequency, that is 
> > determined by the number of lines on the grid and the speed of the rotation.
> > 
> > The length is known between the wheels.
> > 
> > If the rotor is spun at very high speed and then left unaccelerated, the 
> > rotor gets slower through friction.
> > 
> > The modulation of the laser and the spin velocity is continuously 
> > measured (at the second wheel).
> > 
> > The wheel would produce a modulation of the beam and that would generate 
> > a wave with 4m wavelength at a certain rotation rate.
> > 
> > Then the reflected beam would hit a pit at the other wheel and the twice 
> > reflected beam has its lowest intensity.
> > 
> > Since all the measurements could be made at one side (modulation and 
> > frequency of the rotating grid), the speed of light could be figured out 
> > for a one way trip.
> > 
> > TH
> 
> I repeat:
> the one-way speed is simply: c - v, always.
> 
> thus it's measured as: c/(1-v/c cosf).

Idiot. Incurable

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web