Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478496
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: One way speed of light |
| Date | 2018-11-29 23:38 +0000 |
| Organization | The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989 |
| Message-ID | <ptpt96$c5a$1@pcls7.std.com> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <g652qdFi448U1@mid.individual.net> <ptjs95$1e1r$2@gioia.aioe.org> <g67qrbF68otU1@mid.individual.net> <ptmipq$4pd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <g6atr4Fqqu8U1@mid.individual.net> |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> writes: >> And for the same reason, if you have a 2-way light speed measurement such >> as the MMX, then even if there were a luminiferous ether that the apparatus >> was moving through, so that upstream speed is c-v and downstream speed is >> c+v, the average speed for the round trip will not be c. >> >> Thus, though this was not technically available in 1887, it is now quite >> easily attainable to simply do a 2-way light traverse over, say, a couple >> hundred meters and TIME the flight of a light pulse and see if the time is >> different than c. Because if there were an ether that the apparatus was >> moving through with speed v, you’d expect to measure an average speed of c’ >> = c(1-(v/c)^2). For v/c = 1/20, then c’ would differ from c by 1/4%, which >> for a total distance of, say, 400 m, corresponds to a time resolution of >> 3ns, which is VERY doable. No one does it today of course, because the >> matter is already settled. But YOU could do it with a pulsed laser in a >> long darkened pipe with a couple mirrors, a photodiode, and an >> oscilloscope. >Light moves round the Earth 7.5 times per second and Earth rotates once >per day. >The ratio is WAY smaller than 1/20. >E.g: we have 86400 s per day to travel 40,000 km (for one rotation along >the equator - for instance). That is 2,16 km/s. >2,16/300,000= 0,0000072 >The error between a river at rest and a river flowing slowly (or in this >case Earth rotating or not) is similar to a VERY narrow triangle, which >is not exactly symmetric, but slightly lopsided. >The difference is obviously dependent on the geometry of such a triangle >or in this case on the ration between speed of light and rotational >velocity of the Earth. >I would say, the difference (in two way speed of light) is beyond what >we could measure even today. So you admit you have no support for your claim that light would move at c+v one way and c-v the other way. So why make something like that up? Regardless, M-M and later tests were looking for light speed differences as the earth orbited the sun, which is much faster than the surface rotational speed. It's more like .0001c, which would produce a difference from a round trip speed of c that was enough to produce an interference fringe shift. Michelson and Morley could detect a fringe shift even from the slower rotation of the earth, which is why they attempted their experiment in the first place. >Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second >independent from the rotation of the Earth. "Try"? They already did that over 50 years ago! They use the transition of a cesium atom, which is much more stable than earth's rotation. >We actually base our measurements and their units on our usual >environment and that is obviously rotating with the Earth. Scientific experiments certainly don't. For many, the earth's rotation just isn't stable enough, and it is slowing slightly. Every once in a 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. They even measured the tiny rotation change rate caused by the change in the moment of inertia of the earth caused by the 2004 earthquake/tsunami. >So there is a conceptual difficulty to define space and time without >reference to our home planet. Why should we define such things in reference to some big rock in space? Science has been trying to change fundamental units to fundamental constants. Just recently they redefined the kilogram so that it is no longer defined as the mass of a chunk of platinum in Paris. >So: if rotation is not good enough, then what is? The period of radiation from a cesium atom, for one. That's how the second has been defined for over 50 years. All Cs-133 atoms are identical and don't change, more stable than the earth.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web