Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed

r9ns_at_verizon.net
Date: 02/15/05 

Date: 15 Feb 2005 12:12:07 -0800

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> In message <1108395742.762508.204770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> r9ns@verizon.net writes
> >
> >Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>
> >> I'm not certain that you need to specify waves, but _something_ is
> >> moving with a speed which depends on the medium.
> >
> > Not true. The point of what I just said was than there need be
> >nothing moving. That the effect is the difference in response time
of
> >the receiver to secondary sources in the medium between receiver
and
> >transmitter and to the source transmission. This is obvious. The
cause
> >may not be the wave motion of light but something inside the
receiver
> >atoms.
> > That is the speed of light through water or glass is wrongly
> >inferred
> > from the alternating bands of intense and faint light at the
receiver
> >to be ascribable to the differences in delay times from the light
> >source and
> > from the secondary scatterers in the intervening glass or water. An
> > intense band occurs when the delay times from two different sources
> > are different by the time of one or two or any integral multiple
of
> > the period of the oscillation of charge that produces the light.
> > Because of this delay phenomena, we can artificially define
the
> >velocity of light in glass or water relative to the velocity of
light
> >in air as the sine of the angle of refraction in the glass or water
> >divided into the sine of the angle of incidence in the air on the
> >glass or water surface.
> > But this definition does not prove that light is something
moving.
>
> Isn't it more accurate to say that the sin i / sin r relationship is
a
> natural consequence of the changing speed of light, rather than vice
> versa?
     It is not a question of accuracy since the same formula applies
whatever the interpretation.

Again, that's something you can show in a ripple tank. And the
> change in the speed of light has been measured. It's _your_ idea that

> has to explain the relationship, because it becomes artificial.

   Again, water waves are analagous to but not identical to
hypothesized light waves. The change in light speed has not been
measured independently of these diffraction effects. But these
diffraction effects as explained above are due to differences in the
delay times between emissions of light from the source emitter and
secondary reflectors in the medium as they reach a region on the
receiver surface. If the delays are in phase then you see light and if
out of phase you dont. This gives the same diffraction effects as your
hypothetical waves.

> But while you're throwing out the wave nature of light together with
all
> the rest of modern physics, you need to explain interference and its
> successful application to interferometry in all its forms. The latest

> triumph of Very Long Baseline Interferometry is measuring the winds
on
> Titan <http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2005/titanwinds/> and the position of
> Huygens to within a kilometer.
>
> >
     The explanation is above.

> >> > No Doppler shifts involved (look at the wavelength figures on
those
> >
> >> spectra). And this is not the same as the "superluminal" motion of
> >> relativistic gas jets. The clouds aren't moving, but being
> >illuminated
> >> by light moving out from the star.
> >> So, once again, how do you explain that?
> >
> > There is a delay in the reception of light proportional to
distance
> >that all sorts of
evidence(http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.pdf)
> >suggest does not exceed one second ie over distances less than
> >2.998(10^5)km.
> > But the distances involved here are probably greater
>
> Probably :-) The nebula is about six light years across.
>
> > so that if we
> >observe from earth a moving light dot in some distant region of
outer
> >space that is moving at the speed of light over distances greater
> >10^5km limit, I would explain it not as irradiation of dust but as
the
> >movement of some object which is the source of the radiation. This
of
> >course contradicts Einstein's claim that the mass of any object
> >accelerated to the speed of light increases to infinity and so no
> >object can be accelerated to this speed.
> > I dont know what Einstein would have said about the existence of
> >tachyons in outer space but as you can see from various
interpretations
> >of the Kaufmann experiment on mass increase of beta electrons near
the
> >speed of light, evidence suggests charged masses inside electrons
and
> >inside nuclei moving in tight orbits at superluminal speeds.
>
> But we don't need to invoke any new physics. You're completely
ignoring
> what I said - and what George Dishman said independently. The
spectrum
> of the nebula shows no sign of motion, and in particular no sign of
> Cerenkov radiation.

    I thought light appeared to move at least outward from the
exploding star and that this movement was supposed to be of light
reflecting off clouds of dust and illuminating the dust and that these
illuminations were moving at the speed of light.
   Again I think that what we are seeing is the movement of objects
that are self illuminating and that they appear to moving at the speed
of light.
   Of course at such distances, the motions of such spots of light are
what is left after accounting for the earth's .5km/sec spin and
20km/sec orbit around the sun and 250km orbital around sun and 250
km/sec orbit around the galactic center and perhaps if these light
sources are not moving at the same speed with us, another motion at
even greater speed toward the great attractor at 1000km/sec.

> Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.

I agree with you. No need to posit waves when delays are produced
without them.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Swift grb satelitte
    ... That's what we see, we are moving ... you get a given time delay. ... the speeds were equal, but the time between ... to get that you have to delay each peak ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity
    ... source charge or its field. ... depending on whether the charge is at rest and the sensor moving, ... An oscillation can occur in a void, whereas a wave requires ... But those two speeds cannot be equal ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Exactly Happens to TIME in GPS Orbit?
    ... which according to B is moving at a constant velocity c relative to B's ... Light entering pockets of space above that, ... If you want to know why variable stars vary run my Vbasic simulation programs. ... speeds wrt local matter it is something you might ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed
    ... >> moving with a speed which depends on the medium. ... > from the secondary scatterers in the intervening glass or water. ... >suggest does not exceed one second ie over distances less than ... >inside nuclei moving in tight orbits at superluminal speeds. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Cosmic expansion means > c ?
    ... the speed of galaxies flying away from each other ... > They can't locally be moving apart faster than c in an inertial frame. ... garner that speeds greater than c are arrived at by using a concocted ... using OUR reckoned distances and OUR reckoned times. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)