Re: Has the speed of light emitted by a fast moving particle been measured ?


"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20051001053031.U47661@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Androcles wrote:
|
| > "Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > | On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, blackboab wrote:
| > |
| > | > if a particle going close to the speed of light - eg in a
particle
| > | > accelerator - emits a photon can its speed be measured ?
| > | >
| > | > if so how ?
| > |
| > | Sure, it can be measured. How? Time how long it takes to go from
point
| > A
| > | to point B.
| > Guess what, Nieminen?
| > A and B are comoving. In empty space, to boot. (Unless the Earth
stopped
| > orbiting the sun, that is).
|
| Does that stop you from measuring, for example, your average speed
when
| you travel from home to shopping?

I move through empty space along with everything else.

| Hasn't it been know since Galilei that it doesn't matter if "A and B
are comoving"? Before, Nikolaus Copernicus preceded Galileo Galilei.


Are you starting to grow into an anti-Galileo crackpot as well as an
anti-Einstein crackpot?
Are you trying to change the subject, idiot?

http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Comments in square brackets are mine.

"Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and
General Theory. 1920.
The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity.
THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according
to which light is propagated in empty space
[except the Principle of Relativity, a really simple law].

Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this
[Harry Potter]
propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity
c = 300,000 km./sec

[relative to the source, but cosmic muons can win that race by a mile,
literally. Einstein seems to have forgotten he said "we shall, however,
find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the
part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity"].

At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity
is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case
[prisms would split white light into different colours and we
never see that, and ]

the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously
for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark
neighbour

[except that Algol has no dark neighbour, John Goodricke, 18 years
old with a toy telescope in 1782 forgot to include the velocity of
light into his calculations and an eclipse means no light at all,
not a reduction in magnitude, besides which calculations reveal
that such a system is unstable, the "dark neighbour" is at the Roche
limit and will break up]

By means of similar considerations based on observations of
double stars
[Sirius, 8 light years away with a period of 50 years,
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap001006.html
no other double has ever been seen]

the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the
velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity
of motion of the body emitting the light
[oh really? how? I see no significant velocity v from Sirius to add to
c].

The assumption that this velocity of propagation is dependent
on the direction "in space" is in itself improbable

[but factually true. Compare http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
(fig 3 with http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Real scientists don't deal in assumptions and probables or persuasion].

In short, let us assume
[No, I will not assume]
that the simple law
[because Einstein says it is a law]
of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably
believed by the child at school
[who also believes in Santa Claus, but not believed by thinking
rational adults].

Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously
thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?
[and solved them, not being a peanut brain like Einstein, it wasn't that
difficult]

Let us consider how these difficulties arise
[because Einstein can make up stories] ."

[Skip silly train story]

At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena.
(Einstein wants to be famous]
As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time
and space,
[insert here this 'analysis' in Einstein's own words]
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."
[end insert. Some great analysis, that was.]

it became evident that
[Einstein is lying through my teeth]
in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the
principle of relativity
[which he hasn't discussed at all]
and the law of propagation of light
[Because Einstein says so, it's a LAW, stomp foot]
and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a
logically [huh?] rigid theory could be arrived at
[such as the speed of light being infinitely great in his theory].
This theory has been called the special theory of relativity
[or the special theory of the excrement of the male bovine]
to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which
we shall deal later.

In the following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas
of the special theory of relativity
[but the conscientiously thoughtful physicist isn't taken in by it]."


| > Adding the speed of light to it's source has even more practical
uses.
| > Navigation, for example.
| >
http://www.photonics.com/spectra/research/XQ/ASP/preaid.227/QX/read.htm
| > Rings on a Chip Portend Tiny Laser Gyroscopes
| > "Researchers in New Mexico have designed and fabricated a pair of
| > semiconductor ring lasers on a single chip and have observed a beat
note
| > when the outputs of the two lasers are combined. "
|
| Ah yes, the Sagnac effect; one of the most conclusive disproofs of
| emission theories of light, and completely in accord with the special
| theory of relativity. You will, of course, recall that Sagnac
published
| his results as a proof of ether theories of light, not as a proof of
| emission theories of light.

Phuckwit.
Only a stupid *** like you would snip the rational explanation and
ignore the questions.
Let's put it ALL back:

"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20051001035608.K47661@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, blackboab wrote:
|
| > if a particle going close to the speed of light - eg in a particle
| > accelerator - emits a photon can its speed be measured ?
| >
| > if so how ?
|
|
| Sure, it can be measured. How? Time how long it takes to go from point
A
| to point B.
Guess what, Nieminen?
A and B are comoving. In empty space, to boot. (Unless the Earth stopped
orbiting the sun, that is).
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
So... HOW?
You are a phuckwit, Nieminen.
You are stooopid, Nieminen.


[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein can "prove" (ha ha) nothing can go faster than a turtle.

Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.



That might not be easy. You already been pointed at Alvaeger
| et al (I'll mention that you were being misinformed when told that the
| beryllium block was the source. Of course, the beryllium block is not
a
| vacuum, but that's another matter. In any case, the gamma rays in
question
| don't interact significantly with it.)

Nah... of course not. It's a "proof", right, phuckwit?

|
| However, there are some interesting and accurate, though indirect,
ways to
| find the speed of photons from a moving particle beam source. Such
| radiation has real practical uses - read up on why synchrotron
radiation
| is good for many applications.

Adding the speed of light to it's source has even more practical uses.
Navigation, for example.
http://www.photonics.com/spectra/research/XQ/ASP/preaid.227/QX/read.htm
Rings on a Chip Portend Tiny Laser Gyroscopes
"Researchers in New Mexico have designed and fabricated a pair of
semiconductor ring lasers on a single chip and have observed a beat note
when the outputs of the two lasers are combined. "



The spectrum and angular distribution of
| such sources is measured, and the applications often involve a
wavelength
| measurement (diffraction by crystals). Frequency and wavelength tell
you
| the speed. AFAIK,

But you don't know, you are a phuckwit teacher, not an engineer
or physicist.


| the spectrum is measured in terms of energy, since it's
| rather difficult to directly measure frequencies in the X-ray range.
|
| And since your question is about the constant-speed-of-light 2nd
| postulate of SR, there are the Michelson-Morley type interferometer
| experiments using light from moving sources (sun and stars). There's
also
| radar mapping of other planets which, since they rotate, constitute a
| source for the reflected signal with different parts in motion at
| different velocities. And GPS.
|
| And, there's even more! Essentially the reason Einstein proposed the
2nd
| postulate. The Maxwell equations appear to work very well. The
| permittivity and permeability of free space appear to be constant
(this
| part really only applies to the other side of the 2nd postulate, that
the
| speed of light is independent of the speed of the "observer" (ie
| coordinate system in which the speed is measured), while the apparent
| correctness of the Maxwell equations suffices for speed of light being
| independent of the speed of the source.) Basically, if the propagation
of
| electromagnetic radiation from a moving source is correctly described
by
| the Maxwell equations, then we know the speed of light emitted by
moving
| sources, and it's equal to c in free space. Quantum considerations
don't
| affect this, since the same equations - the Maxwell equations - are
the
| foundation of the quantised version of electromagnetic field theory.
|
| If the speed of light depends on the speed of the source, then the
Maxwell
| equations are broken.

How about that!
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion."
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
You are a useless phuckwit, Nieminen.


This provides the possibility of a definitive test
| of theories where the speed of light does depend on the speed of the
| source (mostly "emission" theories or sometimes "ballistic" theories).

Yeah, Sagnac. The customary view is the wrong view.
The observable phenomena here depends only on the relative motion of the
turntable and the observer. Run around the outside. Stand still and your
watch will slow down.
You are an incompetent idiot, Nieminen.

I
| think this is an interesting topic, but alas! - although there are 3
| frequent posters to sci.physics who rather loudly support such
theories,
| none of them seem to be willing to discuss such things :(

You ran away from me, you stooopid ***.

Androcles.




| > The spectrum and angular distribution of
| > | such sources is measured, and the applications often involve a
| > wavelength
| > | measurement (diffraction by crystals). Frequency and wavelength
tell
| > you
| > | the speed. AFAIK,
| >
| > But you don't know, you are a [cut Androcles' potty-mouth spewing]
| > teacher, not an engineer or physicist.
|
| Ding! Actually, I'm a physicist.

No you are not, scraps of sheep's clothing don't make a scientist.
You are a phuckwit.


You really didn't know that a lot of
| physicists teach as well as do research? Oh my!

You can't teach, you ignore the questions. You only pontificate.



And after you even read
| and quoted from and commented specifically on my occupation from my
| (admittedly, at the time, it hadn't been updated for about 2 years)
| webpage.

Yeah, you are a pompous egotistical phuckwit.

|
| And since I'm already cutting your potty-mouth language, I might as
well
| comment now that if you can't display the cilivity of at least a 3
year
| old,

cilivity?

| I'll put my effort into discussing physics with 3 year olds, and not
| you.

That's where you belong.


You keep replying to my postings, so it appears you want to converse.

Not really, I was discussing relativity with blackboab an since you
stuck your
fucking oar in, I thought he might read our exchange and see what a
phuckwit you really are.



| If so, then do so in an appropriate manner.

I don't want to converse with you, I want to show what a *** you are,
so as far as I'm concerned this IS the appropriate manner.

|
| At least you have the decency to post anonymously, to save your family
| from the embarrassment of being relating to such a fount of bad
language.
|
| And since you raised the point, are you claiming that:
|
| > | the spectrum is measured in terms of energy, since it's
| > | rather difficult to directly measure frequencies in the X-ray
range.
|
| isn't the case?

E = hf = h(c+v)/lambda.

No c+v, no shift.


|
| > | If the speed of light depends on the speed of the source, then the
| > Maxwell
| > | equations are broken.
| >
| > How about that!
| > "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood
at
| > the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to
asymmetries
| > which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for
example,
| > the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor.
The
| > observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of
the
| > conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
| > distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the
other
| > of these bodies is in motion."
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| And this relates to whether or not the Maxwell equations are broken in
| what way?

Oh, you want to learn from me now?
I didn't raise Maxwell's fuckup, you did.
Einstein didn't fix it either.
c = 1/sqrt(epsilon * mu), mu = epsilon = 0, c is undefined in vacuum,
constant wrt source.
Maxwell used aether.
c_aether = 1/sqrt(epsilon0 * mu0), the permittivity and permeability of
free aether.



| If all you can post is irrelevancies and bad language, what possible
| interest can there be in reading your babbling?

I don't want you reading me, you are a hopeless case.
I'm writing for the lurkers.



| [cut potty-mouth spewings]

Didn't mention you cut the Sagnac explantion as well, did you, you
***?
|
| > I
| > | think this is an interesting topic, but alas! - although there are
3
| > | frequent posters to sci.physics who rather loudly support such
| > theories,
| > | none of them seem to be willing to discuss such things :(
| >
| > You ran away from me,
|
| [cut potty-mouth spewings]
|
| No, you ran from the discussion by (1) not discussing any physics
anyway,
| and (2) being unable to take part in a civil discussion.

Arsehole... sooner or later you'll realise I do it deliberately to
extract
your emotional responses to my heresy of your faith. I'm farting
in your church. Deliberately.

|
| If you're really interested in a genuine experimental test of your pet
| theory, why not discuss it?

I'm a physicist and astronomer. What I have to say is way over your
head,
you snip and ignore. I was discussing it with blackboab, you butted
in.
Still, I'll try.
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif


|
| If you're not interested in your theory, or physics, then go ahead,
just
| fart out another blast of infantile invective.
Shut the *** up and piss off, you egotistical sarcastic infantile
moron.
Androcles
|
| --
| Timo

.