Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: origin of inertia"
- Previous message: PD: "Re: Baby talk and prejudices about absolute time and determinism"
- In reply to: kenseto: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Next in thread: kenseto: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Reply: kenseto: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Mar 2005 10:50:45 -0800
kenseto wrote:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
in
> message news:q887h2-gbu.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> > In sci.physics, kenseto
> > <kenseto@erinet.com>
> > wrote
> > on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:31:56 GMT
> > <w%V%d.6496$rL3.4855@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
> > >
> > > "robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3aamtkF6bbkreU2@individual.net...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> kenseto wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > That's becasue you failed to recognize that Doppler shift
> > >> > is due to varying speed of light.
> > >>
> > >> The speed of light in vacuo relative to any inertial frame is a
well
> > >> measured constant. It has been shown experimentally again and
again and
> > >> has yet to be falsified. The speed of light in vacuo is
independent of
> > >> th motion of the source or the observer.
> > >
> > > The speed of light is measured to be constant because we
arbitrarily
> assumed
> > > that the Doppler shift is due to wave length change. If wave
length is
> > > assumed to be contant then the speed of light is different from
> different
> > > sources.
> > >
> > > Ken Seto
> > >
> >
> > Assume two orbiting stars, far away, with barycenter
> > motionless with respect to Earth.
>
> This assumption is already wrong. There is no object in the universe
that is
> motionless wrt the Earth. The Earth itself is in a constant state of
> absolute motion.
The Earth itself is in a constant state of motion. You cannot state one
way or the other whether that motion is absolute. If it were, you would
be able to rank objects in the universe according to their absolute
motion, and you would be able to calculate or measure the absolute
velocity of the Earth.
PD
>
> >Assume they orbit with
> > speed of approximately 10^-4 c = 30 km/s (which is about
> > Earth's orbital speed), to make the math easy, and that
> > the nominal radiation is 588 nm (which happens to coincide,
> > or at least be close to, a sodium line).
> >
> > Emissive: delta-lambda = 58.8 pm
> >
> > SR: delta-lambda = 2.94 fm
>
> I think you are missing the point. What I said is that any observed
Doppler
> shift from a distant source moving wrt the observer is due to
different
> speed of light and not due to the changing of the wave length.
>
> Ken Seto
>
> >
> > I'd say that's darned obvious, assuming one can in
> > fact determine that the velocity is 10^-4 c (which is
> > a problem). This is admittedly a hypothetical example
> > but real-world examples abound -- the most cited one
> > around here appears to be PSR B1913+16, which has a nice
> > elliptical precessing orbit and goes 15 times faster at
> > periastron than Earth.
> >
> > --
> > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
> > It's still legal to go .sigless.
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: origin of inertia"
- Previous message: PD: "Re: Baby talk and prejudices about absolute time and determinism"
- In reply to: kenseto: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Next in thread: kenseto: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Reply: kenseto: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
