Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target

On Aug 7, 1:09 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Aug 7, 11:15 am, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Aug 7, 10:34 am, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
On Aug 7, 12:42 pm, "Spaceman"
<space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
(c+v+c-v)/2=c

The speed of light c is considered to be a constant since at
least Maxwell. However, Michelson and Morley, in the mathematics
underlying their interferometer experiment (MMX) to find
evidence of the ether, used expressions like c+v and c-v. Their
idea was that the formula (c+v +c-v)/2=c applied overall and
that the components of this formula should be applied
separately to the upwind and downwind paths.

The expressions c-v and c+v are not well received or understood
in this NG. This is because it could lead to the idea that the
speed of light is subject to the speed of the source and this is
anathema to relativity supporters. However, the two expressions
have a real validity. They are mathematical devices to account
for the target moving away or towards the source. While the
speed of light is always c, the distance between source and
target will vary with the motion of objects through space. To
compensate for these variations, c-v and c+v are used. MMX is a
good example to explain it. The interferometer used in MMX is
attached to the earth. The earth moves through space. A light
beam is sent from a source through the beam splitter of the
interferometer to the mirror at the other end of the parallel
arm of the equipment. The distance between beam splitter and
mirror is 11m as measured in the lab but the earth does not
stand still. It and the mirror move away from the location
where the beam splitter was at the time the light beam passed
through it. By the time the light has caught up with the
mirror, it has moved on to a new location, widening the lab
distance of 11m to a distance through space of 11m+. To allow
for this extra distance, the speed of light has to be adjusted
to c-v or 300000km/sec-30km/sec giving an effective
299970km/sec. Likewise, on the return trip, the speed of light
has to be adjusted to c+v or 300000km/sec+30km/sec giving an
effective 300030km/sec to account for the fact that the beam
splitter is moving towards the light beam reflected from the
mirror. In short, the EFFECTIVE speed of light is subject to
the motion of the target (30km/sec around the sun) but the
ACTUAL speed of light up and down the parallel arm of the
interferometer is always (c+v+c-v)/2 = c. If you understand
this there is no need to worry that the speed of light is not
c.

Very good summary Peter,
But the truth at the end is light is observer dependant in speed.
It is constant from source, but not for the observer.
There is no way any speed (no matter if it is constant from the
source) can be the same speed to all observers.
This is a big part of relativity that many relativists refuse to
admit and simply must ignore since they can not handle a non
constant speed of light.
But, it is constant from the source even if the source is moving,
but is not constant to the reflection point if moving because
waves do not do such and that is why we get doppler shifts
in light and sound and water waves.
The observers speed measurement of the waves is relative
to the lightwaves.
Simple as that.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Spaceman,
I agree but I am stuck trying to explain the origin of c+v and
c-v. Androcles thinks there is something odd about c+v and c-v.
He is collecting opinions about it which does reveal the depth of
ignorance and parrotlike adherence to dogma of some posters.

Peter,
The distance traveled differences is what they are ignoring.
The distance traveled from "outside the box" is what most
relativists will not accept so they can't understand that the
forward trip will be a longer trip than the return if both objects
are moving at rest with each other but at a speed wrt an outside
observer.
The outside observer is trying to measure the "actual" distance
traveled. instead of the "at rest"(inertial frame) distance that
never changes.

No... most so called "relatavists" think they need a
particle model of light moving under the influence of
inertia to dispel notions of Newton's ether

Your stated views are the same so you subscribe to
the same absurdities.

No,
actually I can also use a sound wave or water wave
as my point of view.

You can't present a sound wave point of view until
you can stop a moving car by switching on the
headlamps.

That only takes a bit of wiring.
But you would not think of that approach.
And sadly that has nothing to do with wave
speed measurements by the observer.

I see you don't get that the simple "particle" method only
makes things easier to follow by laymen like me.

I know the feeling. I too am a simple layperson
with no formal training in finance or accounting.
I can't get my bank to follow my simple bookeeping
techniques when my figures disagree with theirs. :o)

So
You admit you can't do basic math then?
:)

If you wish I can present a sounds wave point of view
also where no actual particle is traveling the entire distance.

Please do, but use two overlaid waves.
One wave only moves protons(+). The other wave
only moves electrons(-).

So you wish me to use apples and oranges


If I meant apples and oranges I would not
have specified electrons and protons.

Do you understand how electrons and protons differ ?

Sue...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html


motion when I
am trying to talk about the motion itself and not the objects
being moved?
That is silly.
No wonder you can't figure out your bank account,
You must be trying to count the money by protons and electrons.
:)

I will use sound waves or water waves if you wish,
We are only talking about one wave measurement use
such as the use of lightwaves in the MMX.
Would you like water waves or sound waves?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
    ... the distance between source and target will ... The interferometer used in MMX is attached to the ... source through the beam splitter of the interferometer to the ... But the truth at the end is light is observer dependant in speed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why no faster than light electrons or protons yet?
    ... leave at c and an observer measure a relative speed higher than c. ... you seem to think relative speeds have the limit I talked ... It shines a beam of light toward the ... As a boat makes the waves, the waves do not leave the boat ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
    ... beam is sent from a source through the beam splitter of the ... The distance between beam splitter and ... But the truth at the end is light is observer dependant in speed. ... in light and sound and water waves. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about SR and GR and the propagation of light
    ... Imagine there are two objects in space above the Earth. ... light seconds apart from each other and an approximately equal distance ... away from an observer on Earth. ... 1/3 second and is directed in a beam toward object B. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Highwaycode and pedals question
    ... If you take a beam from a headlight and measure the intensity at a ... apparent distance p. ... square law, but from a virtual point light source, rather than the ... direction of the observer, thus a 100W isotropic light source and a ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)