- Thank you received: 0
Invariance of Light
21 years 4 months ago #6168
by Jim
Reply from was created by Jim
Hi Jan, Here again I'm confused-this time it the term transversal-speed. I looked it up in the dictionary and the best I could find is it means to traval through some sort of space. I don't think that is the meaning you have in mind so could you simplify? Do you have a photon hitting the mirror at an angle or is the mirror perpenticular to the motion of the photon?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 4 months ago #6423
by Jan
Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jim]: Hi Jan, Here again I'm confused-this time it the term transversal-speed.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
My understanding of the article goes as far as this: It is argued that light goes through various stages before we measure the "actual" SOL (Speed of Light). The article says that whenever we try to measure the SOL that has originated from the Sun and arrives at Earth for example, we are modulating the light radiation. As a consequence, we are rendering the SOL invariant and cannot detect any difference, if any, of the SOL when the Sun approaches or moves away from the Earth. To answer your question, and I may certainly be wrong, the transversal speed is referred to as the speed between emisson and absorbtion-emission.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jim]: Do you have a photon hitting the mirror at an angle or is the mirror perpenticular to the motion of the photon?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Does this relate to the article? If your question refers to another post of mine, then the mirror is at an 45 deg angle when the photon hits the mirror.
The article re-assesses the Invariance of Light as posited by SR. It is argued that whenever your paradigm leads to insurmountable complexities, confusion, obscurities and all sorts of mental gymnastics, then one should re-assess the paradigm. To put this in practice, consider the SR paradigm:
Let object A be a laser cannon moving away from object B with a velocity of "0.5c" in space. Sensors mounted at the laser exit record "c" when the puls begins its traversal through empty space. SR predicts that object B feels the pulse hitting it with "c".
SR relies on geometry and geometry alone. Is there anyone on this forum that truly thinks SR is a perfectly logical and intuitive theory and should not be re-assessed?
[Jim]: Hi Jan, Here again I'm confused-this time it the term transversal-speed.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
My understanding of the article goes as far as this: It is argued that light goes through various stages before we measure the "actual" SOL (Speed of Light). The article says that whenever we try to measure the SOL that has originated from the Sun and arrives at Earth for example, we are modulating the light radiation. As a consequence, we are rendering the SOL invariant and cannot detect any difference, if any, of the SOL when the Sun approaches or moves away from the Earth. To answer your question, and I may certainly be wrong, the transversal speed is referred to as the speed between emisson and absorbtion-emission.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jim]: Do you have a photon hitting the mirror at an angle or is the mirror perpenticular to the motion of the photon?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Does this relate to the article? If your question refers to another post of mine, then the mirror is at an 45 deg angle when the photon hits the mirror.
The article re-assesses the Invariance of Light as posited by SR. It is argued that whenever your paradigm leads to insurmountable complexities, confusion, obscurities and all sorts of mental gymnastics, then one should re-assess the paradigm. To put this in practice, consider the SR paradigm:
Let object A be a laser cannon moving away from object B with a velocity of "0.5c" in space. Sensors mounted at the laser exit record "c" when the puls begins its traversal through empty space. SR predicts that object B feels the pulse hitting it with "c".
SR relies on geometry and geometry alone. Is there anyone on this forum that truly thinks SR is a perfectly logical and intuitive theory and should not be re-assessed?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 4 months ago #6424
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
There are quite a few more new items in your latest post that I did not notice before-kind of like a big ol salad of stuff:) The model of a photon and a moving target interests me the most because of the redshift that would result. The two photon emission idea is very exciting in that the redshift here is very strange(or so it seems to me). I don't get the mirror idea at all.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 4 months ago #6051
by Jan
Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jim]: I don't get the mirror idea at all.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I just want to know whether or not there are any measurements of the velocity of light after being deflected by a mirror: When light hits a mirror, does it "copy" certain velocity components of the mirror as initial conditions for its own motion. Thus, if a laser puls originated from a particular "fixed" frame of reference and it hits a moving mirror (in that frame) at 45 deg, does light get a velocity component in the direction of the moving mirror with respect to the fixed frame? [TVF] confirmed this in an earlier post, but there may exist articles that discuss this perhaps. Sorry, but I don't know how to explain it differently without resorting to a drawing.
[Jim]: I don't get the mirror idea at all.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I just want to know whether or not there are any measurements of the velocity of light after being deflected by a mirror: When light hits a mirror, does it "copy" certain velocity components of the mirror as initial conditions for its own motion. Thus, if a laser puls originated from a particular "fixed" frame of reference and it hits a moving mirror (in that frame) at 45 deg, does light get a velocity component in the direction of the moving mirror with respect to the fixed frame? [TVF] confirmed this in an earlier post, but there may exist articles that discuss this perhaps. Sorry, but I don't know how to explain it differently without resorting to a drawing.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 4 months ago #6052
by Jan
Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink
Are there experiments that confirm the invariance of "c" for all observers?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 4 months ago #6053
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jan]: Are there experiments that confirm the invariance of "c" for all observers?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
No such experiment is possible. The invariance of c for observers is a postulate, not a hypothesis that can be tested. It can always be made true by setting the clocks involved in time and rate so that the measurements will yield c even in the direction of motion. -|Tom|-
No such experiment is possible. The invariance of c for observers is a postulate, not a hypothesis that can be tested. It can always be made true by setting the clocks involved in time and rate so that the measurements will yield c even in the direction of motion. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.258 seconds