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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408167 > unrolled thread

The constancy of light

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

Contents

  The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 17:11 -0800
    Cretin Peter Riedt at it again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 17:16 -0800
      Re: Cretin Peter Riedt at it again, was re: constancy of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 12:38 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 12:25 +1100
      Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:26 -0800
        Peter Riedt eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 20:36 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 06:56 +0100
        Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 19:31 +1100
          Re: The constancy of light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 00:39 -0800
          Re: The constancy of light benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:07 -0500
        Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:22 -0600
          Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 16:02 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:11 -0800
              Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 18:16 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:31 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:33 -0600
                  Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 06:53 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:32 -0600
      Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 10:36 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-08 05:07 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 05:25 -0800
          Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-08 05:59 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 06:14 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:15 +0100
              Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 03:44 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 13:36 +0100
                  Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 04:51 -0800
                    Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 05:36 -0800
                    Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 15:12 +0100
                    Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-09 08:52 -0600
                      Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 10:20 -0800
                        Imbecile Jay Mosley back with a vengeance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 10:44 -0800
                        Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 10:16 -0600
                          Re: The constancy of light Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 18:32 +0000
                          Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 11:01 -0800
                      Re: The constancy of light alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-10 12:49 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-10 14:47 +0100
                  Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-10 07:48 -0800
                    Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 10:34 -0600
                      Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 10:34 -0800
                        Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 14:16 -0600
                          Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 14:31 -0800
                            Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 09:33 -0600
                              Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-14 08:18 -0800
                                Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 12:24 -0600
                                  Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-14 10:40 -0800
                    Re: The constancy of light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-13 21:16 +0100
        Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:00 +0100
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 14:59 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 15:51 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:06 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:09 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 12:53 +1100
          Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:19 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 14:08 +1100
          Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:24 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 14:11 +1100
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 11:24 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 12:10 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 12:45 +1100
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 10:36 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 12:57 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 14:56 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-11 14:42 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:09 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:23 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:27 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:23 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 14:56 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:44 -0800

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#409106

On 2/13/17 2/13/17 - 12:34 PM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> Tom Robertswrote:
>> Apparently you don't understand how waves actually behave. In particular,
>> objects that are significantly smaller than the wavelength of a wave cannot
>> couple to it very efficiently, if at all.
>
>> So you need to think about how an atom or molecule with diameter less than a
>> nanometer can efficiently absorb and emit "waves" that are millions of times
>> larger in wavelength. Specifically consider the 1.2 cm output of an NH3 maser.
>
> This is a ridiculous argument.

It is not "ridiculous". But clearly you have never had an education in physics, 
and don't understand the importance of scale analysis, or how to make 
order-of-magnitude estimates.

> I can create waves much larger than the emitting
> object by moving the object back and forth by a distance greater than the objects
> diameter.

So take a 1 cm marble, move it up-and-down at the surface of an ocean, and try 
to generate a water wave with wavelength 10,000 meters long. Move it however and 
as much as you like -- you will fail. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE.

> Furthermore any accurate measurement of an atoms diameter that
> you refer to is suspect and theoretical only.

NONSENSE. The diameters of atoms and nuclei are well known and solidly 
established EXPERIMENTALLY.

> I only see data that shows an atom is indistinct and theses scales. There is no
> edge to an atom.

Yes, the edge is fuzzy, but still well defined. Besides, my argument only needs 
an order of magnitude for the radius to show how silly your claims are.

Your attempts at objections are just based on your personal ignorance. They are 
irrelevant and useless.

Tom Roberts

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

#409128

Tom Roberts
>> I can create waves much larger than the emitting 
>> object by moving the object back and forth by a distance greater than the objects 
>> diameter. 

>So take a 1 cm marble, move it up-and-down at the surface of an ocean, and try 
>to generate a water wave with wavelength 10,000 meters long. Move it however and 
>as much as you like -- you will fail. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE. 

Take a 1 cm magnet and rotate it at 500 revolutions per second.
What is the wavelength of the em radiation it emits? Any clue?

>> Furthermore any accurate measurement of an atoms diameter that 
>> you refer to is suspect and theoretical only. 

>NONSENSE. The diameters of atoms and nuclei are well known and solidly 
>established EXPERIMENTALLY. 

Not actually measured but assumed. Nonetheless there is nothing
to stop a hydrogen atom from creating a wavelength much larger than
it's assumed radius. Not just by oscillating at a low frequency but
even just by vibrating it physically through heating. You deliberately
ignore the facts to back up some imaginary scenario.

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

#409201

On 2/13/17 2/13/17 - 4:31 PM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts
>>> I can create waves much larger than the emitting
>>> object by moving the object back and forth by a distance greater than the objects
>>> diameter.
>
>> So take a 1 cm marble, move it up-and-down at the surface of an ocean, and try
>> to generate a water wave with wavelength 10,000 meters long. Move it however and
>> as much as you like -- you will fail. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE.
>
> Take a 1 cm magnet and rotate it at 500 revolutions per second.
> What is the wavelength of the em radiation it emits? Any clue?

UN-measurable by MANY orders of magnitude.

>>> Furthermore any accurate measurement of an atoms diameter that
>>> you refer to is suspect and theoretical only.
>
>> NONSENSE. The diameters of atoms and nuclei are well known and solidly
>> established EXPERIMENTALLY.
>
> Not actually measured but assumed.

Nope. Measured.

> Nonetheless there is nothing
> to stop a hydrogen atom from creating a wavelength much larger than
> it's assumed radius. Not just by oscillating at a low frequency but
> even just by vibrating it physically through heating.

But the atom cannot couple significantly to a wavelength that is MILLIONS of 
times larger than itself. This is well known, except among people like yourself 
who lack the necessary education and experience.

Tom Roberts

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

#409209

Tom Roberts
>But the atom cannot couple significantly to a wavelength that is MILLIONS of 
>times larger than itself. This is well known, except among people like yourself 
>who lack the necessary education and experience. 

Presumably you are still referring to the hydrogen maser example. If it is well known
that this isn't possible then you are being less than truthful. Because it seems
to be well known that it occurs in a hydrogen maser.

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

#409236

On 2/14/17 2/14/17 - 10:18 AM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts
>> But the atom cannot couple significantly to a wavelength that is MILLIONS of
>> times larger than itself. This is well known, except among people like yourself
>> who lack the necessary education and experience.
>
> Presumably you are still referring to the hydrogen maser example. If it is well known
> that this isn't possible then you are being less than truthful. Because it seems
> to be well known that it occurs in a hydrogen maser.

You don't get my point at all:

A "wave theory" cannot significantly couple a molecule to an EM wave with 
wavelength millions of times larger. But QED can and does. QED, of course, is 
not a "wave theory", and emission occurs regardless of the wavelength of the 
light (which in a H2 maser consists of myriad photons emitted by myriad molecules).

That is, the difficulty of coupling a source to a wave with wavelength millions 
of times larger than the source DOES NOT APPLY, because light is NOT a wave.

Tom Roberts

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

#409237

And you don't get my point. It doesn't matter what the size of
the atom is as it is the frequency of the atoms oscillating magnetic field 
that generates or absorbs the input frequency. As my previous example
shows, which you failed to refute.
Rotate a 1cm magnet at 500 cycles per second. And you produce
em radiation with a wavelength many times its size.
Because em waves are not displacement waves like sound or water.
They are oscillations of magnetic fields which do not rely on the size
of the source for a cycle to be produced.

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

#409105

On 10.02.2017 16:48, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> Paul B Andersen wrote
>> When we use light, the interference pattern will usually appear
>> almost immediately after the light is switch on. That is because
>> the number of photons is so vast that the interference pattern
>> will appear to be continuous. But if the light is emitted photon
>> by photon, then points will first appear seemingly at random
>> positions on the detector (CCD). But after a while the
>> interference pattern will build up. So it is quite obvious that
>> the inference pattern must show the probability for where the
>> photons will hit.
>> We know that this pattern is as predicted by Maxwell's theory,
>
> The same can be done with waves where the atom quantises the
> input radiation.
> Assuming all atoms in the detector absorb a steady input of wave
> radiation over time and release it at set quantised amounts
> equivalent to one 'photon' to the circuit. And all atoms start at
> different filled amounts, then where there is even intensity
> incident light but no pattern on the detector plane all atoms will
> fill and release at different times in random dots to the screen.
>
> Where an interference pattern of light is incident on the detector
> plane this will always give more incident radiation to the brighter
> stripes of the pattern areas of the detector. Hence although the
> overall fill and release of dots on the whole screen will still be
> random. Over time more dots will appear in the brighter stripe areas.
>
> One can even do this with a simple number experiment. Divide
> a square into 100 squares 10x10 equally. And set each square at a
> random value between 0-9. Have each square fill to 10 units and
> then release a 'dot'. (photon=10)Now have a sequence of
> events where you simulate wave light incident on the square.
> Each 'event' has one unit added to each square.
> Over time you get a random dot appearing somewhere on the
> screen. Reduce the amount each square gets each event,
> and the random dots will appear less frequently. Apply a pattern
> to the squares where every second column gets twice the amount.
> ( to simulate the interference stripes)
> Then a striped pattern to the random dots will emerge over time.

I have a hard time believing that you are serious.
But having read your other postings, I manage. Just! :-D

BTW, how do you explain that the double slit experiment
with electrons form interference patterns?
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033018/pdf

Is it because electrons really are waves and not particles?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#408431

Dne 08/02/2017 v 14:07 matt.rush200@outlook.com napsal(a):
> Sylvia Else
>>> On 7/02/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: 
>>> According to Michelson the speed of light depends on the motion of 
>>> the target. If light is sent in the direction of motion the speed is 
>>> c-v (diminished c), if against the direction of motion it is c+v 
>>> (enhanced c) and if perpendicular to the motion it is c 
>>> (perpendicular c). The value of c is also subject to the angle the 
>>> source is facing wrt to the direction of the motion of the earth 
>>> (oblique c
> 
>> This is what had been supposed prior to MM, but the experimental results 
>> were inconsistent with that. No such effect could be detected.
> 
> Is Peter talking about ballistic theory maybe? That wasn't refuted by MMX.
> 
But by other ones.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#408297

The velocity of light has not been measured. Roemer (1676) did not measure or calculate the velocity of light (Roemer, p. 276-279). Huygens (1690) measured the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter and a 22 minute time delay based on Roemer's observation of the period of Io but the period of Io has been measured at 42.45930686 hours which proves Roemer's time delay of Io's period does not occur and cannot be used to calculate the velocity of light.

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

#408307

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:59:41 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> The velocity of light has not been measured. Roemer (1676) did not measure or calculate the velocity of light (Roemer, p. 276-279). Huygens (1690) measured the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter and a 22 minute time delay based on Roemer's observation of the period of Io but the period of Io has been measured at 42.45930686 hours which proves Roemer's time delay of Io's period does not occur and cannot be used to calculate the velocity of light.

Could you restate this in a more clear and concise way?

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

#408316

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:59:41 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> The velocity of light has not been measured. Roemer (1676) did not measure or calculate the velocity of light (Roemer, p. 276-279). Huygens (1690) measured the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter and a 22 minute time delay based on Roemer's observation of the period of Io but the period of Io has been measured at 42.45930686 hours which proves Roemer's time delay of Io's period does not occur and cannot be used to calculate the velocity of light.

The 22 minute delay is the variable occultation as Io emerges from behind Jupiter as seen from the far/near point from Earth, at roughly 6 month intervals. How does this relate with Io's period of 42.45930686 hours?

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

#408317

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 7:06:33 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:59:41 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The velocity of light has not been measured. Roemer (1676) did not measure or calculate the velocity of light (Roemer, p. 276-279). Huygens (1690) measured the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter and a 22 minute time delay based on Roemer's observation of the period of Io but the period of Io has been measured at 42.45930686 hours which proves Roemer's time delay of Io's period does not occur and cannot be used to calculate the velocity of light.
> 
> The 22 minute delay is the variable occultation as Io emerges from behind Jupiter as seen from the far/near point from Earth, at roughly 6 month intervals. How does this relate with Io's period of 42.45930686 hours?

Actually, the measure of 22 minutes involves more than just the moon of Io. It involves the occultation of more than one moon.

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

#408330

On 8/02/2017 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:59:41 PM UTC-6,
> numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The velocity of light has not been measured. Roemer (1676) did not
>> measure or calculate the velocity of light (Roemer, p. 276-279).
>> Huygens (1690) measured the velocity of light using the earth's
>> orbital diameter and a 22 minute time delay based on Roemer's
>> observation of the period of Io but the period of Io has been
>> measured at 42.45930686 hours which proves Roemer's time delay of
>> Io's period does not occur and cannot be used to calculate the
>> velocity of light.
>
> The 22 minute delay is the variable occultation as Io emerges from
> behind Jupiter as seen from the far/near point from Earth, at roughly
> 6 month intervals. How does this relate with Io's period of
> 42.45930686 hours?
>

John, you appear to have found some sanity pills that actually work. 
Good on ya'.

Sylvia.

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

#408337

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 7:53:30 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 8/02/2017 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:59:41 PM UTC-6,
> > numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> The velocity of light has not been measured. Roemer (1676) did not
> >> measure or calculate the velocity of light (Roemer, p. 276-279).
> >> Huygens (1690) measured the velocity of light using the earth's
> >> orbital diameter and a 22 minute time delay based on Roemer's
> >> observation of the period of Io but the period of Io has been
> >> measured at 42.45930686 hours which proves Roemer's time delay of
> >> Io's period does not occur and cannot be used to calculate the
> >> velocity of light.
> >
> > The 22 minute delay is the variable occultation as Io emerges from
> > behind Jupiter as seen from the far/near point from Earth, at roughly
> > 6 month intervals. How does this relate with Io's period of
> > 42.45930686 hours?
> >
> 
> John, you appear to have found some sanity pills that actually work. 
> Good on ya'.
> 
> Sylvia.

I'm still curious how numbernu relates the 22 minutes with the period of 42.45... hours. I feel like you are not curious enough or are criticizing without explaining the error in numernu's logic.

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

#408343

On 8/02/2017 1:19 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 7:53:30 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 8/02/2017 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:59:41 PM UTC-6,
>>> numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> The velocity of light has not been measured. Roemer (1676) did
>>>> not measure or calculate the velocity of light (Roemer, p.
>>>> 276-279). Huygens (1690) measured the velocity of light using
>>>> the earth's orbital diameter and a 22 minute time delay based
>>>> on Roemer's observation of the period of Io but the period of
>>>> Io has been measured at 42.45930686 hours which proves Roemer's
>>>> time delay of Io's period does not occur and cannot be used to
>>>> calculate the velocity of light.
>>>
>>> The 22 minute delay is the variable occultation as Io emerges
>>> from behind Jupiter as seen from the far/near point from Earth,
>>> at roughly 6 month intervals. How does this relate with Io's
>>> period of 42.45930686 hours?
>>>
>>
>> John, you appear to have found some sanity pills that actually
>> work. Good on ya'.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> I'm still curious how numbernu relates the 22 minutes with the period
> of 42.45... hours. I feel like you are not curious enough or are
> criticizing without explaining the error in numernu's logic.
>

I'm not criticising, and certainly not criticising you. On the contrary, 
I'm applauding your comment, which seems, by any measure, a completely 
rational critique of the previous poster's comment.

Sylvia.

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

#408339

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 7:53:30 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 8/02/2017 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:59:41 PM UTC-6,
> > numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> The velocity of light has not been measured. Roemer (1676) did not
> >> measure or calculate the velocity of light (Roemer, p. 276-279).
> >> Huygens (1690) measured the velocity of light using the earth's
> >> orbital diameter and a 22 minute time delay based on Roemer's
> >> observation of the period of Io but the period of Io has been
> >> measured at 42.45930686 hours which proves Roemer's time delay of
> >> Io's period does not occur and cannot be used to calculate the
> >> velocity of light.
> >
> > The 22 minute delay is the variable occultation as Io emerges from
> > behind Jupiter as seen from the far/near point from Earth, at roughly
> > 6 month intervals. How does this relate with Io's period of
> > 42.45930686 hours?
> >
> 
> John, you appear to have found some sanity pills that actually work. 
> Good on ya'.
> 
> Sylvia.

In what way? Please extrapolate.

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

#408344

On 8/02/2017 1:24 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 7:53:30 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 8/02/2017 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:59:41 PM UTC-6,
>>> numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> The velocity of light has not been measured. Roemer (1676) did not
>>>> measure or calculate the velocity of light (Roemer, p. 276-279).
>>>> Huygens (1690) measured the velocity of light using the earth's
>>>> orbital diameter and a 22 minute time delay based on Roemer's
>>>> observation of the period of Io but the period of Io has been
>>>> measured at 42.45930686 hours which proves Roemer's time delay of
>>>> Io's period does not occur and cannot be used to calculate the
>>>> velocity of light.
>>>
>>> The 22 minute delay is the variable occultation as Io emerges from
>>> behind Jupiter as seen from the far/near point from Earth, at roughly
>>> 6 month intervals. How does this relate with Io's period of
>>> 42.45930686 hours?
>>>
>>
>> John, you appear to have found some sanity pills that actually work.
>> Good on ya'.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> In what way? Please extrapolate.
>
Usually your postings are confusing or completely incompressible. Yet 
you seem to have clearly identified the specific defect in Numbernu's 
argument. Since I would not expect that from you, I have to suspect that 
something's happened to give you a better ability to think clearly. 
Hence the sanity pills comment.

Sylvia.

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

#408427

Fizeau (1849) uses a rotating cogwheel to form a series of light pulses to measure the velocity of light but to measure the velocity of light requires the time a single light pulse propagates a specific distance but a single pulse cannot be produced by Fizeau cogwheel. Also, about the last statement regarding Huygens velocity of light------think about it and it should be diametrically obvious.

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

#408433

numbernu...@gmail.com
Fizeau (1849) uses a rotating cogwheel to form a series of light pulses to measure the velocity of light but to measure the velocity of light requires the time a single light pulse propagates a specific distance but a single pulse cannot be produced by Fizeau cogwheel. Also, about the last statement regarding Huygens velocity of light------think about it and it should be diametrically obvious. 

Space time as a Heterodyne of c & G solves Fizeau vs Huygens , Young's Double slit Wave particle duality, & gravity as increasing Entropy and ligo's gravitational waves and the Aether debate 

https://goo.gl/photos/8qNMXvWBRsCa36hu6

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

#408496

On 9/02/2017 6:24 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Fizeau (1849) uses a rotating cogwheel to form a series of light
> pulses to measure the velocity of light but to measure the velocity
> of light requires the time a single light pulse propagates a specific
> distance but a single pulse cannot be produced by Fizeau cogwheel.
> Also, about the last statement regarding Huygens velocity of
> light------think about it and it should be diametrically obvious.
>

Fizeau had no way of measuring the transit time of single pulses of 
light, so he devised an ingenious experiment such that he wouldn't need to.

Does it never occur to you that if you see what appears to be a 
fundamental problem with a historical experiment, it's more than likely 
because you don't understand it, not because the problem really existed?

Sylvia.

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web