Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 So speed of light isn't the maximum velocity? Paradox, does this mean that we could in principle create faster than speed of light travel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 So speed of light isn't the maximum velocity? Paradox, does this mean that we could in principle create faster than speed of light travel? You are highlighting the confusion of ideas that are evident in relativity. If you shine a light on the surface of the earth, the beam of light is very obviously travelling at the speed of light plus whatever is the speed of the earth in respect in the axis in which the light is travelling. And you can take that second value to be what find it to be in reference to whatever you like. But in A-to-O's view, you should in fact perform a 'relativistic summing of velocities', which is A-to-O-speak for completely forgetting any notion of summing velocities. PS apologies for the typo 'outstounding' earlier on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 If you shine a light on the surface of the earth, the beam of light is very obviously travelling at the speed of light plus whatever is the speed of the earth in respect in the axis in which the light is travelling. And you can take that second value to be what find it to be in reference to whatever you like. Speaking of typos, I should rewrite this as If you shine a light on the surface of the earth, the beam of light is very obviously travelling at the speed of light plus whatever is the speed of the earth in respect to the axis in which the light is travelling. And you can take that second value to be whatever you find it to be in reference to whatever you like. So, is A-to-O an ex-relativist yet, as well as an ex-Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 You are highlighting the confusion of ideas that are evident in relativity. If you shine a light on the surface of the earth, the beam of light is very obviously travelling at the speed of light plus whatever is the speed of the earth in respect in the axis in which the light is travelling. And you can take that second value to be what find it to be in reference to whatever you like. Can you expand on that a little? I'm not certain I understood you right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 If you shine a light on the surface of the earth, the beam of light is very obviously travelling at the speed of light plus whatever is the speed of the earth in respect to the axis in which the light is travelling. And you can take that second value to be whatever you find it to be in reference to whatever you like. I see. Earth is traveling through space at a certain speed (rotating around the sun, and the solar system moving at high speed, etc). Light hits us from all sides, and still all photons travel at the speed of light. If Newton's law were accurate, the photons should travel faster on one side and slower on the other side of the planet. How is this explained? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 You are highlighting the confusion of ideas that are evident in relativity. If you shine a light on the surface of the earth, the beam of light is very obviously travelling at the speed of light plus whatever is the speed of the earth in respect in the axis in which the light is travelling. And you can take that second value to be what find it to be in reference to whatever you like. Can you expand on that a little? I'm not certain I understood you right. Light is just emitted and received like any other source of particles. You add the speed of the source to the speed of transmission between any two co-moving bodies (i.e. c ). There is no magical mathematical operation you should perform on light, as AlphaToOmega would have you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Light is just emitted and received like any other source of particles. You add the speed of the source to the speed of transmission between any two co-moving bodies (i.e. c ). There is no magical mathematical operation you should perform on light, as AlphaToOmega would have you believe. So what you're saying is what I thought. You're saying that c is not constant or the max velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 If you shine a light on the surface of the earth, the beam of light is very obviously travelling at the speed of light plus whatever is the speed of the earth in respect to the axis in which the light is travelling. And you can take that second value to be whatever you find it to be in reference to whatever you like. I see. Earth is traveling through space at a certain speed (rotating around the sun, and the solar system moving at high speed, etc). Light hits us from all sides, and still all photons travel at the speed of light. If Newton's law were accurate, the photons should travel faster on one side and slower on the other side of the planet. How is this explained? They do, as was implictly shown by Roemer's measurement of the speed of light nearly 350 years ago, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Light is just emitted and received like any other source of particles. You add the speed of the source to the speed of transmission between any two co-moving bodies (i.e. c ). There is no magical mathematical operation you should perform on light, as AlphaToOmega would have you believe. So what you're saying is what I thought. You're saying that c is not constant or the max velocity. Choose your conditions and thereby choose the sense in which it is constant and insurmountable (which is in itself making a bit of an assumption). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 They do, as was implictly shown by Roemer's measurement of the speed of light nearly 350 years ago, I don't see how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Light is just emitted and received like any other source of particles. You add the speed of the source to the speed of transmission between any two co-moving bodies (i.e. c ). There is no magical mathematical operation you should perform on light, as AlphaToOmega would have you believe. So what you're saying is what I thought. You're saying that c is not constant or the max velocity. Choose your conditions and thereby choose the sense in which it is constant and insurmountable (which is in itself making a bit of an assumption). If c is not a constant, but changes velocity, then how does this Sagnac effect work? I thought that is strongly connected to constant speed of light, but change of frequency (and wavelength accordingly). Did I misunderstand this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Light is just emitted and received like any other source of particles. You add the speed of the source to the speed of transmission between any two co-moving bodies (i.e. c ). There is no magical mathematical operation you should perform on light, as AlphaToOmega would have you believe. So what you're saying is what I thought. You're saying that c is not constant or the max velocity. Choose your conditions and thereby choose the sense in which it is constant and insurmountable (which is in itself making a bit of an assumption). If c is not a constant, but changes velocity, then how does this Sagnac effect work? I thought that is strongly connected to constant speed of light, but change of frequency (and wavelength accordingly). Did I misunderstand this? The Sagnac effect is very easily misinterpreted, and there are a lot of Heath-Robinson-style explanations involving relativity. The speed of light is constant with respect to the emitter and receptor. What happens is that when the device shifts (or, if it's a rotating device, rotates), the optical path length changes -- more for one of the counter-directed light beams than the other. It is purely a matter of geometry, nothing else. There is no change in wavelength or frequency --- only a fringe shift -- i.e. interference. The interference occurs specifically *during the action of change* in the location of physical components. The optical path changes length because of a difference in angle of reflection off the reflective surface that directs the light beam around the loop. In a fibre-optic device, this will be the inner wall of the fibre. The light uses the width of the fibre in such a way as to take a shorter path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 The Sagnac effect is very easily misinterpreted, and there are a lot of Heath-Robinson-style explanations involving relativity. The speed of light is constant with respect to the emitter and receptor. What happens is that when the device shifts (or, if it's a rotating device, rotates), the optical path length changes -- more for one of the counter-directed light beams than the other. It is purely a matter of geometry, nothing else. There is no change in wavelength or frequency --- only a fringe shift -- i.e. interference. The interference occurs specifically *during the action of change* in the location of physical components. The optical path changes length because of a difference in angle of reflection off the reflective surface that directs the light beam around the loop. In a fibre-optic device, this will be the inner wall of the fibre. The light uses the width of the fibre in such a way as to take a shorter path. Ah. I see. So back to the speed of light. If it's not constant or max velocity, we should be able to measure the speed of the light from the stars hitting one side of Earth, and measure the speed of the light from the stars hitting the other side of Earth, and we should get different speeds. Correct? This would prove that c is not constant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 The Sagnac effect is very easily misinterpreted, and there are a lot of Heath-Robinson-style explanations involving relativity. The speed of light is constant with respect to the emitter and receptor. What happens is that when the device shifts (or, if it's a rotating device, rotates), the optical path length changes -- more for one of the counter-directed light beams than the other. It is purely a matter of geometry, nothing else. There is no change in wavelength or frequency --- only a fringe shift -- i.e. interference. The interference occurs specifically *during the action of change* in the location of physical components. The optical path changes length because of a difference in angle of reflection off the reflective surface that directs the light beam around the loop. In a fibre-optic device, this will be the inner wall of the fibre. The light uses the width of the fibre in such a way as to take a shorter path. Ah. I see. So back to the speed of light. If it's not constant or max velocity, we should be able to measure the speed of the light from the stars hitting one side of Earth, and measure the speed of the light from the stars hitting the other side of Earth, and we should get different speeds. Correct? This would prove that c is not constant. You should always qualify what the constancy is relative to. It would prove that it is not constant relative to the receptor (in the form of earth). If you go to the paragraph in the Brown paper about one-way determination of the speed of light, http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html near the bottom of the page (and it has the diagram), you can see how he actually *used* the fact that the light has a shorter distance-time ratio, reaching the earth, on one side from what it does on the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 You should always qualify what the constancy is relative to. To the observer in both cases. It would prove that it is not constant relative to the receptor (in the form of earth). It's not? You mean because of the refraction? What if we had a satellite, moving away from a star, measuring the speed of light at the "receptor" (point of impact of photon from distant star in a device on the satellite), and then doing the same measurement while moving towards the star. The speed should change if it's not constant. Wouldn't it? If you go to the paragraph in the Brown paper about one-way determination of the speed of light, Sounds to me that he talks about an experiment in principle to prove it, but not an actual experiment. Römer's different numbers can potentially be explained by many other things than changed speed of light. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html near the bottom of the page (and it has the diagram), you can see how he actually *used* the fact that the light has a shorter distance-time ratio, reaching the earth, on one side from what it does on the other. Römer? A couple of hundred years ago using cogwheels and hand polished lenses? We're supposed to consider the speed of light variable because of some sub-par technology and science from 17th century? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 I must admit that I am sometimes guilty of not reading things properly before replying (to my great discredit, and I do mean that) but I think, Ouroboros, you have been guilty of it on multiple occasions in your reply. You should always qualify what the constancy is relative to. To the observer in both cases. It would prove that it is not constant relative to the receptor (in the form of earth). It's not? You mean because of the refraction? What if we had a satellite, moving away from a star, measuring the speed of light at the "receptor" (point of impact of photon from distant star in a device on the satellite), and then doing the same measurement while moving towards the star. The speed should change if it's not constant. Wouldn't it? I think you have misconstrued things here. We are talking about the Einsteinian idea of the constancy of the speed of light *with respect to the observer*. That is to say, the idea that no matter what light source you are getting your light from, you always apply the same distance-time equation to find out how long, in your time frame, it took to reach you. I am being counter-relativitistic and saying that this Einsteinian notion is mistaken. And it sounds like you are, too. If you go to the paragraph in the Brown paper about one-way determination of the speed of light, Sounds to me that he talks about an experiment in principle to prove it, but not an actual experiment. Römer's different numbers can potentially be explained by many other things than changed speed of light. No, it clearly explains that he undertook the experiment and determined the one-way speed of light in the 17th Century, getting a value that closely matches that found by modern experiments. http://homepage.ntlw...relativity.html near the bottom of the page (and it has the diagram), you can see how he actually *used* the fact that the light has a shorter distance-time ratio, reaching the earth, on one side from what it does on the other. Römer? A couple of hundred years ago using cogwheels and hand polished lenses? We're supposed to consider the speed of light variable because of some sub-par technology and science from 17th century? More like over 300 years ago. He didn't use cog wheels, that is just Guy Burniston Brown's rendition of the experiment -- a 'thought experiment', if you like, used to explain the principle behind the real experiment. Actually Roemer was using precisely calculated (by 17th Century standards) co-ordinates and corresponding locations on the earth, at which the requisite measurements were to be taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 I think I got my answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 The Sagnac effect is very easily misinterpreted, and there are a lot of Heath-Robinson-style explanations involving relativity. The speed of light is constant with respect to the emitter and receptor. What happens is that when the device shifts (or, if it's a rotating device, rotates), the optical path length changes -- more for one of the counter-directed light beams than the other. It is purely a matter of geometry, nothing else. There is no change in wavelength or frequency --- only a fringe shift -- i.e. interference. The interference occurs specifically *during the action of change* in the location of physical components. The optical path changes length because of a difference in angle of reflection off the reflective surface that directs the light beam around the loop. In a fibre-optic device, this will be the inner wall of the fibre. The light uses the width of the fibre in such a way as to take a shorter path. Again, you refer to the original mirror interferometer. As I have said the first time, the original interferometer can be explained by both. Now explain the optical fibre one. The fibre is a fixed length and it is the medium that light also travels though. So rotating it left or right won't change its the length. The length is made deliberately long to enhance sensitivity and many km of fibre are wrapped in a small diameter loop. Light from a laser is split and injected into both ends. So it once it is in the fibre the light according to you will move with the coil. So where exactly do these fringes come from according to classical theory? Like I said, you can explain it with the original mirror version because the medium does not move. With this however, the light is in the moving medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 The Sagnac effect is very easily misinterpreted, and there are a lot of Heath-Robinson-style explanations involving relativity. The speed of light is constant with respect to the emitter and receptor. What happens is that when the device shifts (or, if it's a rotating device, rotates), the optical path length changes -- more for one of the counter-directed light beams than the other. It is purely a matter of geometry, nothing else. There is no change in wavelength or frequency --- only a fringe shift -- i.e. interference. The interference occurs specifically *during the action of change* in the location of physical components. The optical path changes length because of a difference in angle of reflection off the reflective surface that directs the light beam around the loop. In a fibre-optic device, this will be the inner wall of the fibre. The light uses the width of the fibre in such a way as to take a shorter path. Again, you refer to the original mirror interferometer. As I have said the first time, the original interferometer can be explained by both. Now explain the optical fibre one. The fibre is a fixed length and it is the medium that light also travels though. So rotating it left or right won't change its the length. The length is made deliberately long to enhance sensitivity and many km of fibre are wrapped in a small diameter loop. Light from a laser is split and injected into both ends. So it once it is in the fibre the light according to you will move with the coil. So where exactly do these fringes come from according to classical theory? Like I said, you can explain it with the original mirror version because the medium does not move. With this however, the light is in the moving medium. This is very, very deceptive from a conceptional point of view and it is a deception over which, for precisely the reasons you articulate above, I have made errors over myself (though never from a relativistic point of view, I hasten to add!). As I said in a previous post, it is down to the width and the number of windings of the fibre optic cable. If it wasn't wound around so many times, the width would count for very little. But what happens is that every time the light strikes the wall of the cable, it is reflected off it; and when the Sagnac effect is applicable, it is reflected at a *slightly* different angle from what it is when everything is stationary. The fact that it is coiled round so many times makes this sum difference in reflection significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Light is just emitted and received like any other source of particles. You add the speed of the source to the speed of transmission between any two co-moving bodies (i.e. c ). There is no magical mathematical operation you should perform on light, as AlphaToOmega would have you believe. So if you have a transmitter traveling at .5c towards a receiver, what would be the doppler shift from the perspective of the receiver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 I think I got my answer. Hope you liked it. Would you like some salt and pepper with the serving of nonsense you've been given? It may spice things up a bit. I'd offer you some Trinidad Scorpion Chilli but that was only developed recently so it really isn't spicy at all. Its only theoretically spicy. It really is tasteless and all the people gasping their throats in pain are merely imagining it. Tasting is not a real test of spiciness. Its only spicy if its pepper from a peppercorn tree. There is no such thing as a chilli pepper. Is a spice hot if you don't put it in your mouth? Here, look at this monkey I have in my hand. There I have formally rebutted the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 This is very, very deceptive from a conceptional point of view and it is a deception over which, for precisely the reasons you articulate above, I have made errors over myself (though never from a relativistic point of view, I hasten to add!). As I said in a previous post, it is down to the width and the number of windings of the fibre optic cable. If it wasn't wound around so many times, the width would count for very little. But what happens is that every time the light strikes the wall of the cable, it is reflected off it; and when the Sagnac effect is applicable, it is reflected at a *slightly* different angle from what it is when everything is stationary. The fact that it is coiled round so many times makes this sum difference in reflection significant. How exactly is a uniform loop reflecting light differently if its moving or not when its reflected from the inside of the moving uniform surface? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 This looks outstoundingly defensive. Please explain, (soberly and clearly, so that nothing is disguised in such a way as to suit you and your claims of superior knowledge): what, exactly, it the problem? LOL I'm accused of claims of superior knowledge while you claimed to be able to "cut ever relativist to pieces". I'll drop the sarcasm if you drop your arrogance. You'll notice I never started till you raised the issue of your "infallibility paradox". The problem is that he is using Eddington's calculations with total ignorance and trying to prove that Eddington had less than basic understanding. Eddington DID calculate the deflection of light around the Sun and he DID use M=1.47km. What you author fails to grasp is that M does not mean m. The authors of your beloved paper simply did not understand the simple and basic principle on how those calculations were done. It was not for humour as you so quickly assumed. Which I'll add is a common theme with you. You claim to understand something yet you misunderstand so claim the concept is wrong. Then when its pointed out that you were mistaken, you revise and come up with a new concept of why its still wrong. You really are an absolutist. You absolutely believe you are 100% right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Light is just emitted and received like any other source of particles. You add the speed of the source to the speed of transmission between any two co-moving bodies (i.e. c ). There is no magical mathematical operation you should perform on light, as AlphaToOmega would have you believe. So if you have a transmitter traveling at .5c towards a receiver, what would be the doppler shift from the perspective of the receiver? Have you ever seen that Derek Jarman film entitled 'Blue'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 I think I got my answer. Hope you liked it. Would you like some salt and pepper with the serving of nonsense you've been given? It may spice things up a bit. I'd offer you some Trinidad Scorpion Chilli but that was only developed recently so it really isn't spicy at all. Its only theoretically spicy. It really is tasteless and all the people gasping their throats in pain are merely imagining it. Tasting is not a real test of spiciness. Its only spicy if its pepper from a peppercorn tree. There is no such thing as a chilli pepper. Is a spice hot if you don't put it in your mouth? Here, look at this monkey I have in my hand. There I have formally rebutted the paper. Gawd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts