Aardwolf wrote: Not sure why it's too close but anyway the speed of Saturn or Jupiters moons compared to Earth would be maximum of 18 km/s. Still far too small considering light is slowed by the atmosphere. We have no way of knowing what the measured speed would have been prior to entering the atmosphere.
There's not enough of a change in the distance between the Earth and our moon because it's in orbit around us. The moons of Saturn and Jupiter move towards and away from us as they orbit, and of course the difference in their velocity relative to us isn't to small. Think about how far the light is travelling to reach us and the difference the relative velocity between us and the moon would make if it made a difference.
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote: Also it wouldn't cause the velocity of light reflecting off of a moon to be unaffected by the velocity of that moon relative to us. The only thing that alters the duration for light to reach us is the distance it has to travel to get here, not the velocity of the source relative to us.
We're not interested in the velocity of the source. The question surrounds the velocity of the observer relative to the light.
Same thing! The velocity of the receiver relative to the velocity of the source IS the velocity of the source relative to the receiver. Velocity relative to the light? That always going to be the speed of light.
And there's the assumption again. We're trying to establish an experiment that supports that assumption. Stating it doesn't make it proof. Your moon experiment can't prove it because we already ascertained light is slower by 88 km/s in air, how can we know the velocity of Earth doesn't affect the observers measurement of light speed?
You're not listening. The light has to move through the atmosphere whether the moon is moving away from us or towards us. It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that the atmosphere could slow the light by a different amount depending on whether the moon is moving away from us or towards us to make the time the light takes to reach us the same either way. Also the atmosphere is miniscule compared to the distance the light travels before it reaches the atmosphere, so the difference in the time the light takes to reach the detector is negligible. The speed of the Earth relative to the source is the whole point of the experiment. We know the relative velocity between the Earth and the moon doesn't change the velocity of light relative to us because that's what the test proves.
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Link to the experiment please.
Search for the speed of light, moon and Jupiter. If that doesn't work try Saturn.
Why do I have to find your proof? I can only assume you're just making it up.
Because you're the one who wants to know about it! You really think I'm making this test up?
Aardwolf
Re: Relativity
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Not sure why it's too close but anyway the speed of Saturn or Jupiters moons compared to Earth would be maximum of 18 km/s. Still far too small considering light is slowed by the atmosphere. We have no way of knowing what the measured speed would have been prior to entering the atmosphere.
There's not enough of a change in the distance between the Earth and our moon because it's in orbit around us. The moons of Saturn and Jupiter move towards and away from us as they orbit, and of course the difference in their velocity relative to us isn't to small. Think about how far the light is travelling to reach us and the difference the relative velocity between us and the moon would make if it made a difference.
I know. I already worked it out at max 18 km/s. About 1/5 the size of the atmosperic affect. How can we tell if the light from Saturn/Jupiter isn't c + or - 18 km/s to check the theory if the light when it hits the atmosphere is slowed to c - 80km/s? If you linked the paper/experiment we could check how they did it but for some reason you don't want to.
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote: Also it wouldn't cause the velocity of light reflecting off of a moon to be unaffected by the velocity of that moon relative to us. The only thing that alters the duration for light to reach us is the distance it has to travel to get here, not the velocity of the source relative to us.
We're not interested in the velocity of the source. The question surrounds the velocity of the observer relative to the light.
Same thing! The velocity of the receiver relative to the velocity of the source IS the velocity of the source relative to the receiver. Velocity relative to the light? That always going to be the speed of light.
And there's the assumption again. We're trying to establish an experiment that supports that assumption. Stating it doesn't make it proof. Your moon experiment can't prove it because we already ascertained light is slower by 88 km/s in air, how can we know the velocity of Earth doesn't affect the observers measurement of light speed?
You're not listening. The light has to move through the atmosphere whether the moon is moving away from us or towards us. It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that the atmosphere could slow the light by a different amount depending on whether the moon is moving away from us or towards us to make the time the light takes to reach us the same either way. Also the atmosphere is miniscule compared to the distance the light travels before it reaches the atmosphere, so the difference in the time the light takes to reach the detector is negligible. The speed of the Earth relative to the source is the whole point of the experiment. We know the relative velocity between the Earth and the moon doesn't change the velocity of light relative to us because that's what the test proves.
What test? You mean the one you are refusing to find to back up your claims? And I have no idea why you are refering to "the time the light takes to reach us". How do you know what time it was when it left Saturn/Jupiter? Timed tests are 2-way light speed test which cannot prove or disprove whether light is isotropic. Of course this could be cleared up if you linked the test.
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Link to the experiment please.
Search for the speed of light, moon and Jupiter. If that doesn't work try Saturn.
Why do I have to find your proof? I can only assume you're just making it up.
Because you're the one who wants to know about it! You really think I'm making this test up?
You must be making it up (or more likely don't understand what they tested for). Prove me wrong. However if you don't want to support your ascertations then don't. It only weakens your already weak argument.
A-wal
Re: Relativity
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Not sure why it's too close but anyway the speed of Saturn or Jupiters moons compared to Earth would be maximum of 18 km/s. Still far too small considering light is slowed by the atmosphere. We have no way of knowing what the measured speed would have been prior to entering the atmosphere.
There's not enough of a change in the distance between the Earth and our moon because it's in orbit around us. The moons of Saturn and Jupiter move towards and away from us as they orbit, and of course the difference in their velocity relative to us isn't to small. Think about how far the light is travelling to reach us and the difference the relative velocity between us and the moon would make if it made a difference.
I know. I already worked it out at max 18 km/s. About 1/5 the size of the atmosperic affect. How can we tell if the light from Saturn/Jupiter isn't c + or - 18 km/s to check the theory if the light when it hits the atmosphere is slowed to c - 80km/s? If you linked the paper/experiment we could check how they did it but for some reason you don't want to.
You find the sodding paper! You're the one who wants to refute it. At the distance the moons are away from us 18 km/s would make a big difference in the amount of time the light would take to reach us, way bigger than any affect of the short trip through our atmosphere.
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote: Also it wouldn't cause the velocity of light reflecting off of a moon to be unaffected by the velocity of that moon relative to us. The only thing that alters the duration for light to reach us is the distance it has to travel to get here, not the velocity of the source relative to us.
We're not interested in the velocity of the source. The question surrounds the velocity of the observer relative to the light.
Same thing! The velocity of the receiver relative to the velocity of the source IS the velocity of the source relative to the receiver. Velocity relative to the light? That always going to be the speed of light.
And there's the assumption again. We're trying to establish an experiment that supports that assumption. Stating it doesn't make it proof. Your moon experiment can't prove it because we already ascertained light is slower by 88 km/s in air, how can we know the velocity of Earth doesn't affect the observers measurement of light speed?
You're not listening. The light has to move through the atmosphere whether the moon is moving away from us or towards us. It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that the atmosphere could slow the light by a different amount depending on whether the moon is moving away from us or towards us to make the time the light takes to reach us the same either way. Also the atmosphere is miniscule compared to the distance the light travels before it reaches the atmosphere, so the difference in the time the light takes to reach the detector is negligible. The speed of the Earth relative to the source is the whole point of the experiment. We know the relative velocity between the Earth and the moon doesn't change the velocity of light relative to us because that's what the test proves.
What test? You mean the one you are refusing to find to back up your claims? And I have no idea why you are refering to "the time the light takes to reach us". How do you know what time it was when it left Saturn/Jupiter? Timed tests are 2-way light speed test which cannot prove or disprove whether light is isotropic. Of course this could be cleared up if you linked the test.
Of course you can show that light relative velocity isn't affected by the velocity of the source and the observer relative to each other, by measuring it when the moons moving away from us and towards us and then comparing the results. If the velocity of the light was affected by the velocity between the source and the observer the orbit of the moon would appear to spedd up when it's moving towards us and slow down as it's moving away from us. That's not what happens.
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Link to the experiment please.
Search for the speed of light, moon and Jupiter. If that doesn't work try Saturn.
Why do I have to find your proof? I can only assume you're just making it up.
Because you're the one who wants to know about it! You really think I'm making this test up?
You must be making it up (or more likely don't understand what they tested for). Prove me wrong. However if you don't want to support your ascertations then don't. It only weakens your already weak argument.
My already weak argument? I think you must be delusional.
CharlesChandler
Re: Relativity
A-wal wrote: You find the sodding paper! You're the one who wants to refute it.
Aardwolf
Re: Relativity
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Not sure why it's too close but anyway the speed of Saturn or Jupiters moons compared to Earth would be maximum of 18 km/s. Still far too small considering light is slowed by the atmosphere. We have no way of knowing what the measured speed would have been prior to entering the atmosphere.
There's not enough of a change in the distance between the Earth and our moon because it's in orbit around us. The moons of Saturn and Jupiter move towards and away from us as they orbit, and of course the difference in their velocity relative to us isn't to small. Think about how far the light is travelling to reach us and the difference the relative velocity between us and the moon would make if it made a difference.
I know. I already worked it out at max 18 km/s. About 1/5 the size of the atmosperic affect. How can we tell if the light from Saturn/Jupiter isn't c + or - 18 km/s to check the theory if the light when it hits the atmosphere is slowed to c - 80km/s? If you linked the paper/experiment we could check how they did it but for some reason you don't want to.
You find the sodding paper!
So you mention a paper that as far as anyone is able to tell, doesn't exist yet I have to find this non-existent paper.
A-wal wrote: You're the one who wants to refute it.
I'd love to refute it. Unfortunately I have no way of finding it. I tried all your search terms.
A-wal wrote: At the distance the moons are away from us 18 km/s would make a big difference in the amount of time the light would take to reach us, way bigger than any affect of the short trip through our atmosphere.
There's the time reference again. Maybe I would be able to find the paper if you could drop a hint as to which organisation placed the clock(s) required on said moon(s) to determine the time the signal left. Unless you can propose another way of determining how long a signal can take to travel from A to B with a clock placed at B only.
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote: Also it wouldn't cause the velocity of light reflecting off of a moon to be unaffected by the velocity of that moon relative to us. The only thing that alters the duration for light to reach us is the distance it has to travel to get here, not the velocity of the source relative to us.
We're not interested in the velocity of the source. The question surrounds the velocity of the observer relative to the light.
Same thing! The velocity of the receiver relative to the velocity of the source IS the velocity of the source relative to the receiver. Velocity relative to the light? That always going to be the speed of light.
And there's the assumption again. We're trying to establish an experiment that supports that assumption. Stating it doesn't make it proof. Your moon experiment can't prove it because we already ascertained light is slower by 88 km/s in air, how can we know the velocity of Earth doesn't affect the observers measurement of light speed?
You're not listening. The light has to move through the atmosphere whether the moon is moving away from us or towards us. It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that the atmosphere could slow the light by a different amount depending on whether the moon is moving away from us or towards us to make the time the light takes to reach us the same either way. Also the atmosphere is miniscule compared to the distance the light travels before it reaches the atmosphere, so the difference in the time the light takes to reach the detector is negligible. The speed of the Earth relative to the source is the whole point of the experiment. We know the relative velocity between the Earth and the moon doesn't change the velocity of light relative to us because that's what the test proves.
What test? You mean the one you are refusing to find to back up your claims? And I have no idea why you are refering to "the time the light takes to reach us". How do you know what time it was when it left Saturn/Jupiter? Timed tests are 2-way light speed test which cannot prove or disprove whether light is isotropic. Of course this could be cleared up if you linked the test.
Of course you can show that light relative velocity isn't affected by the velocity of the source and the observer relative to each other, by measuring it when the moons moving away from us and towards us and then comparing the results. If the velocity of the light was affected by the velocity between the source and the observer the orbit of the moon would appear to spedd up when it's moving towards us and slow down as it's moving away from us. That's not what happens.
Do have a link to a paper that shows that this is "not what happens"? Is it even possible to determine? Io orbits at 17 km/s which is about 0.0057% of the speed of light so the moon would appear to be sped up by about 17*0.0057% = 1 m/s. Over half an orbit this equates to roughly 70km (half of this really because 17km/s would be the max with the min at 0 but lets leave that for now). The diameter of Io is 3,630 km so we're looking for a difference in a half orbit position of 1.9%. I would be interested to know how they determined the position of the moon during the experiment to this degree. It may be possible, I'm not sure, but a link to the paper would be beneficial.
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Link to the experiment please.
Search for the speed of light, moon and Jupiter. If that doesn't work try Saturn.
Why do I have to find your proof? I can only assume you're just making it up.
Because you're the one who wants to know about it! You really think I'm making this test up?
You must be making it up (or more likely don't understand what they tested for). Prove me wrong. However if you don't want to support your ascertations then don't. It only weakens your already weak argument.
My already weak argument? I think you must be delusional.
The "proof" of your argument only appears to exist in your head and I would hope most members here would agree that makes a pretty weak argument.
A-wal
Re: Relativity
A-wal wrote: Of course you can show that light relative velocity isn't affected by the velocity of the source and the observer relative to each other, by measuring it when the moons moving away from us and towards us and then comparing the results. If the velocity of the light was affected by the velocity between the source and the observer the orbit of the moon would appear to spedd up when it's moving towards us and slow down as it's moving away from us. That's not what happens.
Actually that's misleading. The orbit of the moon does, er spedd, speed up when it's moving towards us and slow down when it's moving away from us because of Doppler shift, but that's only because the distance the light has to travel is decreasing or increasing. If the speed of light wasn't constant then it would appear to speed up sooner and slow down progressively later.
Aardwolf wrote: So you mention a paper that as far as anyone is able to tell, doesn't exist yet I have to find this non-existent paper.
There's quite a good online search engine you might want to try, gaggle, guggle, or something. Search for it.
Aardwolf wrote: I'd love to refute it. Unfortunately I have no way of finding it. I tried all your search terms.
I just searched for 'speed of light moon Jupiter' and there's tons of stuff. You lie!
Aardwolf wrote: There's the time reference again. Maybe I would be able to find the paper if you could drop a hint as to which organisation placed the clock(s) required on said moon(s) to determine the time the signal left. Unless you can propose another way of determining how long a signal can take to travel from A to B with a clock placed at B only.
You don't need to measure it both ways to show the consistency of the speed of light. If the relative velocity between the earth and the moon being observed made a difference then you would expect to see the moon at an earlier point in its orbit when it's heading towards us and a later point when it's moving away from us.
Aardwolf wrote: Do have a link to a paper that shows that this is "not what happens"? Is it even possible to determine? Io orbits at 17 km/s which is about 0.0057% of the speed of light so the moon would appear to be sped up by about 17*0.0057% = 1 m/s. Over half an orbit this equates to roughly 70km (half of this really because 17km/s would be the max with the min at 0 but lets leave that for now). The diameter of Io is 3,630 km so we're looking for a difference in a half orbit position of 1.9%. I would be interested to know how they determined the position of the moon during the experiment to this degree. It may be possible, I'm not sure, but a link to the paper would be beneficial.
Why are you using Io? Titan's bigger and I think it has a bigger orbit.
Aardwolf wrote: The "proof" of your argument only appears to exist in your head and I would hope most members here would agree that makes a pretty weak argument.
Do you really think that the only proof of the constant velocity of the speed of light exists in my head?
Aardwolf
Re: Relativity
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: So you mention a paper that as far as anyone is able to tell, doesn't exist yet I have to find this non-existent paper.
There's quite a good online search engine you might want to try, gaggle, guggle, or something. Search for it.
I did. Nothing covering your ascertion.
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: I'd love to refute it. Unfortunately I have no way of finding it. I tried all your search terms.
I just searched for 'speed of light moon Jupiter' and there's tons of stuff. You lie!
This is what you're trying to prove;
A-wal wrote: The speed of the observer of the light has no affect on the velocity of the light relative to that observer.
We're trying to ascertain the experiment that shows there is no addition/subtraction to the speed of light affected by the velocity of Earth. If you are talking about Römer's experiment (I hope you're not) these type of experiments are nowhere near accurate enough to determine the tiny effect of Earths velocity. If you're talking about something else then why not just add the link. Aparrently you already did the searching.
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: There's the time reference again. Maybe I would be able to find the paper if you could drop a hint as to which organisation placed the clock(s) required on said moon(s) to determine the time the signal left. Unless you can propose another way of determining how long a signal can take to travel from A to B with a clock placed at B only.
You don't need to measure it both ways to show the consistency of the speed of light. If the relative velocity between the earth and the moon being observed made a difference then you would expect to see the moon at an earlier point in its orbit when it's heading towards us and a later point when it's moving away from us.
Accuracy is the problem as I demonstrated.
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Do have a link to a paper that shows that this is "not what happens"? Is it even possible to determine? Io orbits at 17 km/s which is about 0.0057% of the speed of light so the moon would appear to be sped up by about 17*0.0057% = 1 m/s. Over half an orbit this equates to roughly 70km (half of this really because 17km/s would be the max with the min at 0 but lets leave that for now). The diameter of Io is 3,630 km so we're looking for a difference in a half orbit position of 1.9%. I would be interested to know how they determined the position of the moon during the experiment to this degree. It may be possible, I'm not sure, but a link to the paper would be beneficial.
Why are you using Io? Titan's bigger and I think it has a bigger orbit.
Yes. Unfortunately it moves at a third of the speed of Io and is nearly twice the distance from Earth so even more difficult to detect an accurate enough position. Of course, if you linked the paper we wouldn't have to guess which moon they used.
A-wal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: The "proof" of your argument only appears to exist in your head and I would hope most members here would agree that makes a pretty weak argument.
Do you really think that the only proof of the constant velocity of the speed of light exists in my head?
Based on the lack of any evidence provided, yes.
pirogronian
Re: Relativity
In fact, both Relativity and QM is (most likely) consequence of pure classical mechanics. Specifically, it's mechanics of elastic (and nonlinear) medium. Have you ever heard about this, this or this?
A-wal
Re: Relativity
Oops. Using Io was how they found out that light has a finite speed, it's not how they found out that it's speed is constant. I got them mixed up. Look for the Michelson–Morley experiment instead.
chrimony
Re: Relativity
A-wal wrote: Oops. Using Io was how they found out that light has a finite speed, it's not how they found out that it's speed is constant. I got them mixed up. Look for the Michelson–Morley experiment instead.
This is an example of why when somebody asks you for a reference or otherwise substantiate your claims, it's up to you to do so.
A-wal
Re: Relativity
chrimony wrote:
A-wal wrote: Oops. Using Io was how they found out that light has a finite speed, it's not how they found out that it's speed is constant. I got them mixed up. Look for the Michelson–Morley experiment instead.
This is an example of why when somebody asks you for a reference or otherwise substantiate your claims, it's up to you to do so.
Aardwolf
Re: Relativity
A-wal wrote: Oops. Using Io was how they found out that light has a finite speed, it's not how they found out that it's speed is constant. I got them mixed up. Look for the Michelson–Morley experiment instead.
Unfortunately their (not quite) null result can be explained by the fact it was performed in air. To get a true measure that this experiment results in a null effect, it needs to be performed in a genuine vacuum.
Zyxzevn
Re: Relativity
pirogronian wrote: In fact, both Relativity and QM is (most likely) consequence of pure classical mechanics. Specifically, it's mechanics of elastic (and nonlinear) medium. Have you ever heard about this, this or this?
A vortex has 2 streams, one inward and one outward. Because a particle is in 3 dimensional space, the inward and outward streams might be from 3 different dimensional spaces. This is the simplest way to see forces. There is no force, just spaces interacting with each other. The vortex itself might have different forms, explaining different kinds of particles. And different particles, may interact on different planes of 3 dimensional spaces. This forms a complicated structure, but might as well be that what we see in atomic structures.
Quantum mechanics automatically combines with this vortex model. The quantum-wave function simply describes the condition of the spaces around the vortices.
Some consequences of relativity might be combined, but not all. Just like a particle can not go faster than the speed of light, a vortex is limited by the speed of the waves in the spaces and its form will change. I just wonder if there are measurable effects of relativity that can not be explained by some space-space interaction.
You really think I'm making this test up?
