<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
AAF

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

February 14 2010, 2:08 PM 








Because measurements can only be made by the measuring observer;

and because the speed of the reference frame of the measuring observer can have any value;

the measured values of the speed of light must vary with the state of motion of the observer.



 
 
Don Nelson

Speed of light is constant in all reference

February 15 2010, 11:30 PM 

If you measure the speed of light in one reference frame and moved to another reference frame you would the speed of light would be the same. Both would appear to be the rest frame. The apparatus that you used would have diference velocities, but on each reference frame the apparatus would be at rest with the observer so the oberver would measure the same value, approximately 186,000 mile per second assuming that the meaurement were done in a vacumm.

 
 
Anonymous

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

February 16 2010, 2:44 AM 

Measurements of light speed are done in an indirect manner. A direct method would be to measure a very powerful, short pulse if light over a measured course. A moving source sends a coherent, collimated short pulse through two detectors which are spaced appropriately, and connected by equal length signal cables to a device that can compare the time between the two detections.

 
 
AAF

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

February 17 2010, 12:05 AM 







If, for example, you measure the value of the speed of light first relative to a frame of reference in air
and then relative to a second frame of reference in water,
the two measured values of the speed of light would be necessarily different.







 
 
Anonymous

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

February 17 2010, 7:23 AM 

Yes, the medium matters, and is involved in the frame of reference. Light traveling thru several mediums has its speed chance accordingly along the way. But my point is that any measurement involving standing waves and/or mirrors is an indirect method.

The requirements of my suggested experiment are chosen because the intensity must be great enough to rise above the background, the pulse length must be very short so as to not have the measurement of the duration of the pulse be a factor in the detection at two different detectors. Monochromatic light is chosen because the Doppler shift is part of the measurement too. as Pencho has pointed out many times, the interpretation of exactly what the Doppler shift changes also determines the speed.

 
 
AAF

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

February 18 2010, 12:00 AM 







The Doppler shift is part of the evidence that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer's frame of reference:
Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation









 
 
Anonymous

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

February 18 2010, 3:00 AM 

That's what I was trying to say.

 
 
AAF

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

February 24 2010, 12:00 AM 






Exactly!

But the point is that the above recent article
on the 'Doppler effect & speed of light'
is really good and right on target.

 
 
bob s

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

February 24 2010, 1:03 AM 

You seem to have a propensity for posting at 12:00am AAFie, is that intentional?

 
 
AAF

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

February 24 2010, 1:21 AM 





It's the start of a new day, Bob.

I don't like very much the departing tail of the past!






 
 
Anonymous

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

February 24 2010, 5:16 AM 

Don't send the tail away. Its the best part of the day.

 
 
AAF

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

February 24 2010, 6:08 PM 






It is not up to me, Anon! [linked image]


It is up to the relentless march of Newton's absolute time.









 
 
First Grader

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

March 10 2010, 7:36 AM 


Rebis said: "Sorry but it seems you, as everybody else on this forum and elsewhere, are also deeply confused with the Big Confusion - c is not speed at all, light is not "in motion". Try to think dynamically, resonance is in question.

N. Tesla was fully aware of it."

First Grader: I am trying to understand [light is not "in motion"]. You say [light is not "in motion"] and then you say: "Try to think dynamically!" Well; "Dynamic" means motion.

So. . . you are saying that something about light does move. What about light, from your point of view, is moving, which way is it moving, and what else about light doesn't move?

 
 
Rebis

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

March 10 2010, 3:35 PM 

F. G.: "Dynamic" means motion...
*****************

Problem is what kind of motion we are talking about. If you mean light is "something" which travels/propagate in sense of c = x/t well, you are wrong. That is of course a prerequisite habit of modern education.

Dynamics mostly assumes oscillations, ergo "resonances". Mere ropes, treads of sort... Twisted strands... Physics is way wrong; alchemists, ancient thinkers, there is truth which is hidden since the era of proclaimed Enlightening.

Light IS optical illusion happy.gif happy.gif


Blessings

 
 
GogoJF

Optical illusions

March 10 2010, 8:23 PM 


Rebis said:

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!
March 10 2010, 3:35 PM

F. G.: "Dynamic" means motion...
*****************

Problem is what kind of motion we are talking about. If you mean light is "something" which travels/propagate in sense of c = x/t well, you are wrong. That is of course a prerequisite habit of modern education.

Dynamics mostly assumes oscillations, ergo "resonances". Mere ropes, treads of sort... Twisted strands... Physics is way wrong; alchemists, ancient thinkers, there is truth which is hidden since the era of proclaimed Enlightening.

Light IS optical illusion happy.gif happy.gif

Blessings

Gogo says: Light is optical. And optics creates images which are illusions, good or bad, clear or blurry. Rebis, since you believe like I do about light not traveling; what did you think about, what I said about the 2 to 3%, being responsible for "seeing" light?

GogoJF

2 to 3% vs. 97 to 98 % of light
March 7 2010, 8:19 PM



On Dec, 27, 2009, 11:24 pm.
Aaron says: 97-98% of a mirror is reflective. That means 2-3% of the silver is absorbing photons and not reflecting them. This shows that even reflective polished silver absorbs some photons.

This has to do with the shape and texture of the silver atoms. This problem also occurs with glass. Some of the photons are absorbed. They are absorbed with a change in the information on counter. This change is very different then the counter at the emission of the photon. So all time is local to the receiving electron.

So this also shows that light is not instantaneous. In that photons reflect. This means they hit and were not absorbed and continued their counter spin.

Gogo says: This is precisely what my instantaneous theory says- that all of light is restricted, locally (maximal visual acuity), to the 2 to 3%, the percentage of light which does not continue to move onwards, and is instead, absorbed and adsorbed, meaning produces a thin layer of light on the reflecting surface. This means that this 2 to 3% does not move, especially with respect to the 97 to 98% which continues to move forward.
The 97 to 98% which continues onward is invisible and travels at great speeds at or near c, and is considered an EMR wave, not a light wave.

 
 
Rebis

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

March 11 2010, 6:00 PM 

JF Gogo: ...2 to 3%, being responsible for "seeing" light?
***********

Riding a bull searching for a bull happy.gif

Seriously, on what is based the idea that even those 98% of EMR spectrum is traveling/propagating at all? That is only an interpretation of DELAYS in using clocks upon radiation/light phenomena. "Light year" - that is a pure astrophysical ideology... and so Light-Matrix is well constructed, isn't it? STR is only a tip of an ideological iceberg.

And what IS the light, finally!? Beam of particles; waves; both or neither...!? What a buddhist tetralemma!


God bless you

 
 
nakayama

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

July 9 2017, 3:25 AM 

Two point light sources (the same frequency) are shining in a vacuum. Let's make it a two-dimensional problem. One is at a stand still, the other moves in a uniform linear motion. How do the two circular waves overlap ? What reasoning is possible about light speed ?

May be, I wrote a post on spherical waves before. This is a rehash.

 
 
nakayama

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

July 10 2017, 9:36 PM 

I wrote a post like below before. Circular waves are rehash of spherical waves.

Imagine spherical waves of light (light sphere) that are sent from two point sources moving in relative motion. Except the emission theory, what explanation is possible ?

 
 
nakayama

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

July 16 2017, 7:33 PM 

Two light waves are coming from opposite directions. How about relative speed ? Is it meaningless question ? If so, by what reason ?

 
 
nakayama

Re: Lightspeed is not Constant (to observer) !!

July 17 2017, 8:59 PM 

A question occurs. Allow me to post it.

In aberration (a few kinds are), there seems to be a hidden forbidden value. It is light speed relative to the earth. However, to calculate it from measured values seems to be possible easily.

 
 
 
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement