Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
From: Pax (pax1_at_whitesweb.com)
Date: 10/01/04
- Next message: Tom Roberts: "Re: SR and GR without math"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "Re: is the speed of light really constant (answer to Bob Kolber)"
- Maybe in reply to: Androcles: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Next in thread: Mich: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Reply: Mich: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:28:31 GMT
"Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
news:10lmoj0fefkki83@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Androcles <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:0yH6d.848$tm4.410@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
> > news:10lltclkkm2tube@corp.supernews.com...
> > |
> > | Pax <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
> > | news:bVf6d.14313$yp2.4530@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > If you paint the inside of sphere with a uniform coat, using a unit can
of
> > paint, then you'll need 4 cans of paint for a sphere of radius 2, 9 cans
> of
> > paint for a sphere of radius 3, and r^2 cans of paint for a sphere of
> radius
> > r.
> > If you have only one can of paint, the coating will be thinner on a
larger
> > sphere than a smaller one.
> > Stars "paint" their spheres with energy, and you are standing at the
> surface
> > of the sphere being painted. Get too close to the star, and you'll be
> > roasted.
> > Stand well back. The further away you are, the fainter the star will
> appear,
> > but you'll still see it if you can gather enough energy. To do that, use
a
> > large
> > parabolic mirror that collects the energy over a wider area and focuses
> the
> > energy to a point, and then put your eye at the point. This we call a
> > telescope.
> > Max Planck wrote an equation that links energy with frequency,
> > E = hf, where h is Planck's constant.
> > The lower the energy the lower the frequency.
> > This alone should tell you to expect a lengthening of wavelength of
light
> > from a distant star.
> > No matter how large you make the mirror, this longer wavelength will
still
> > be apparent.
> > Thus the red-shift isn't Doppler-shift at all, it only appears that way.
> It
> > is Planck-shift.
> > The star is NOT moving away.
> > To turn that into Doppler shift once again, we suppose that the
frequency
> > of the light is actually unaltered.
> > Since by definition c = wf, w for wavelength, we can rewrite Planck's
> > equation
> > as
> > E = hc/w, and indeed as
> > c = Eh/w
> > Since E is constant (there is only one can of paint) and h is constant,
> > it follows that c is inversely proportional to the wavelength.
> > Thus the light is slowing down.
> > This isn't as strange as you'd first imagine. An expanding soap bubble
> > filled with a constant stream of air from your bubble pipe will not
> > have a constant rate of increase of its radius either.
> > If we now extend our telescope mirror over an ever widening area, we
will
> > reach a limit, that of a sphere with the star at centre, reflecting all
> the
> > light back to the star. It will speed up. This may seem like
gravitational
> > blue shift... it isn't. Light is massless.
> > Ignoring Planck's work and insisting c is constant will lead to the
> > concept of an expanding Universe with a Big Bang as its origin, and
> > general confusion.
> > The universe is not expanding evermore rapidly, the light we see it
> > by is slowing as a function of distance.
> > Androcles' constant is p (= Eh), and Androcles' equation is
> > p = cw, 'p' chosen in honour of Planck.
> >
> > Androcles.
> >
> While this is a bit off topic, I tend to agree with your reasoning,
> Androcles. Since the energy
> of light is found in the frequency, something that surprised Dr. Einstein,
> if I'm not mistaken, which
> brought him to put forward the photoelectric effect, it is very
reasonable,
> therefore, to claim the farther away one is from a light source(star), the
> less energy from the light it will receive, which ought to be viewed as a
> red shift.
It is the intensity (brightness) of light which lessens with distance, not
its wavelength. Wavelength is determined at the time the light is emitted
since, once a photon of whatever length is emitted, it is disattached from
its source. In order for light to Doppler, spacetime must be distorted by
velocity, since the Doppler Effect relates to a distortion of the medium of
transmission which then manifests as a distortion of that which is being
transmitted.
It is stated that the waves are what is being compressed or stretched, but
that's extremely vague and leaves one with the idea that it's what's being
transmitted that is being altered without regard to its medium of
transmission. Actual frequency as noted wrt the object itself must be
remembered. Whatever the Doppler Shift caused by velocity, the *actual*
sound/light being emitted is unaltered.
The best example is if you're riding in a large truck on the highway, you
hear a constant sound coming from the engine, but an observer in front of
you standing on the side of the road will hear a raise in pitch as you move
toward him and a lowering in pitch as you pass him and move away from him,
while you, sitting in the truck, know the actual sound the truck's engine
makes has not changed.
> Andre
Be well - Pax
.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~.
What are ten years in the history of humanity? Must
not all those forces that determine the life of a man
be regarded as constant compared with such a trifling
interval? - Albert Einstein - Out of My Later Years
- Next message: Tom Roberts: "Re: SR and GR without math"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "Re: is the speed of light really constant (answer to Bob Kolber)"
- Maybe in reply to: Androcles: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Next in thread: Mich: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Reply: Mich: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
