Measuring The Relative Velocity Of Light

[Grounded]

Anyone attempting to argue the Special Theory of Relativity needs to understand the basics of how light travels, and how we perceive it.

 

 

Einstein wrote that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the object emitting the light. To prove this, Einstein referred to De Sitter’s observation of the binary stars, which are two stars that are orbiting each other. De Sitter concluded that if the speed of light were dependant on the speed of the star, then the light emitted from the star as it is traveling towards us would eventually catch up to the light that was emitted from the same star when it was traveling away from us.

 

That logic is incorrect since relative to the binary stars, they are not moving and we are orbiting the binary stars. By viewing the stars as motionless, it becomes clear that while we orbit the binary stars, we are running into the light of one star as we are running away from the light from the other star. Relative to the binary stars, their light is not approaching us at different speeds; we are approaching the light at different speeds. This proves that the speed of light can be based off the speed of the star without disturbing our perceptual view of the orbits.

 

Maxwell stated that all types of light would have a frequency that is inversely proportionate to its wavelength. Einstein believed that an increase in frequency caused by traveling towards the light source would cause an inversely proportionate change in the wavelength. What Maxwell meant was that since all types of light travel from the source at the same speed, than while at rest relative to the source, any light with a high frequency will have a short wavelength, and any light with a low frequency will have a long wavelength since multiplying them together must equal the speed of light. He did not mean that a perceptual change in frequency caused by the observer’s speed would change the wavelength.

 

The wavelength of light is not a relative measurement; it is the distance that the light has to travel away from the source in order to complete one wave. That distance is not determined by the observer’s speed, it is the same for all observers traveling at any speed or direction. The frequency of light is a relative measurement; it is the number of wavelengths the observer passes in one second. This number is determined by the speed of the observation and will be different between observers traveling at different speeds relative to the source. The wavelength of light is unaffected by the observers speed, any measured change in wavelength is an error that is caused by not including the distance the observer has traveled relative to the source. When calculating the wavelength, the distance that the light travels from the source in one second must be added to the distance the observer has traveled relative to the source in one second, and then divided by the measured frequency. If the distance the observer has traveled is not included, then the relative speed will never change since the total distance traveled would only include the distance the light has traveled.

 

In order to accurately measure the relative speed between two objects, the distance traveled by both objects in the same amount of time must be included. Interferometers and oscilloscopes only account for the distance that the light has traveled, both need to be adjusted to include the distance traveled by the observer relative to the source. An observer using an interferometer moves a mirror a specific amount of distance while counting the number of changes in the pattern of interference fringes. When used to measure wavelengths while in motion relative to the light source, the scale used to measure the distance that the mirror has moved must be adjusted to include the distance the observer has traveled relative to the source. If the observer is traveling towards the source, the same amount of movement of the mirror will represent a larger distance since it now includes the distance the observer has traveled. If the observer’s distance is not included, any increase in frequency caused by the observer’s speed will appear to decrease the wavelength causing the speed to remain unchanged.

 

Traveling towards the source will increase the number of waves displayed on the screen of an oscilloscope. Displaying more waves in the same amount of space means the length of each wave displayed on the screen will be reduced. This does not mean that traveling towards the source will reduce the actual length of the waves. The oscilloscope shows the waves closer together because the total distance that the screen represents has been increased to include the distance the observer has traveled relative to the source. Traveling towards the source causes the oscilloscope to use a smaller amount of the screen to represent the same amount of distance. If the distance is not included, any increase in frequency caused by the observer’s speed will appear to decrease the wavelength causing the speed to remain unchanged. While at rest relative to the source, a one second screen of an oscilloscope will represent 186,000 miles. If the oscilloscope is traveling 1,000 miles per second towards the source, then the screen of the oscilloscope must represent 187,000 miles.

 

Traveling towards the light does not change the distance that the light has to travel to complete one wave, just as traveling towards an oncoming train does not reduce the length of the boxcars. Traveling towards the train will increase the number of boxcars that are passed and it will increase the relative speed between the observer and the train, but it will not change the length of the boxcars. If the observer plotted the number of boxcars that passed in one minute on a four-inch line, and then did the same thing after increasing speed towards the train, the second experiment would have more marks on the four-inch line and they would be closer together. This does not mean the length of the boxcars have gotten shorter, it means that the four-inch line represents a greater distance while traveling towards the source than it does when not moving relative to the source.

 

The increase in measured frequency caused by the observer’s speed is equal to the distance the observer has traveled (in one-second) towards the source, divided by the known wavelength. When calculating the wavelength using the measured frequency, it must be divided into the sum of “the distance light has traveled away from the source in one second” plus “the distance the observer has traveled towards the source in one second”. When measuring the wavelength, the scale of the tool used to measure the length must account for the distance the observer has traveled relative to the source. While in motion relative to the source, the wavelength or frequency will always be divided into a number that is greater than or less than 186,000 miles, but never equal to 186,000 miles. The frequency multiplied by the wavelength must equal the sum of “the distance that the observer has traveled relative to the source in one second” plus “the distance the light has traveled relative to the source in one second”.

 

The speed of light is not constant to all observers, and it is not the universal speed limit. Traveling at relativistic speeds will not alter time, lengths, or mass. The Doppler effect is not a stretching or compressing of the wavelengths; it is an increase or decrease in frequency and relative speed. The only way the speed of light can be measured constant between observers traveling at different speeds is to measure a change in the length of the wave. The only way to measure a change in wavelength caused by the observer’s speed is by not including the distance the observer has traveled relative to the source. If the distance the observer has traveled is not included when measuring the speed of the train, then the speed of the train will never change. If the distance the observer has traveled is not included when measuring the speed of the light, then the speed of the light will never change. The Special Theory of Relativity is interesting, but incorrect.

 

In my opinion, Einstein created the Special Theory of Relativity because he misunderstood the following facts. Frequency and wavelength are only inversely proportionate when measured at rest relative to the source. When measuring the relative speed of light, the distance the observer has traveled relative to the source must be included with the distance that the light has traveled away from the source in the same amount of time. Light travels at about 186,000 miles per second relative to the source. Relative to the orbiting binary stars, we are circling them and are running into the light at different speeds (actually different distances), which explains why we don’t see multiple images of the same star. The wavelength, or the distance light travels away from the source in order to complete one cycle, is not a relative measurement and it cannot be altered by changing speed or direction. Traveling past a wavelength at a faster rate does not mean the light has traveled a shorter distance from the source to complete one cycle. Changing speed relative to the source can only change the number of wavelengths passed and the relative speed of light, not the distance the light has traveled relative to the source. It is not the speed of light that remains constant it’s the wavelength.

[bh_doc]

blah blah blah

 

WTF have you been smoking? Pass me some.

 

I was gonna write a long-winded rebuttal, but I can't be stuffed.

[admiral_ju00]

WTF have you been smoking? Pass me some.

 

I was gonna write a long-winded rebuttal' date=' but I can't be stuffed.[/quote']

 

ROFL

[swansont]

The speed of light is not constant to all observers, and it is not the universal speed limit. Traveling at relativistic speeds will not alter time, lengths, or mass.

 

The internet is littered with people who think that relativity is wrong. They, almost universally, don't understand relativity.

 

Time dilation experiments have been done. And are done, on a continual basis, with GPS satellites. Relativity has been confirmed many times over again. If you want to discard it, you have to come up with something that explains all that relativity does.

[geistkiesel]

The internet is littered with people who think that relativity is wrong. They' date=' almost universally, don't understand relativity.

 

Time dilation experiments have been done. And are done, on a continual basis, with GPS satellites. Relativity has been confirmed many times over again. If you want to discard it, you have to come up with something that explains all that relativity does.[/quote']

 

I think that Grounded does just that. When measuring the speed of light we measure only the wavelength of the light and do not add our velocity (interpreted as distance) on top of the measured wave length. Grounded gives a rational explanation for the constancy of the mesured speed of light without time dilation and shrinking, which are postulates you know? Wavelength plus our moving distance divided by frequency . . .Your response, is I must say, the tired repetitious echoes of a rote schooled mainline prevailing view. This doesn't mean you are a bad person, mind you.

 

You clealry haven't read his post. here is just a sample.

 

The wavelength of light is not a relative measurement; it is the distance that the light has to travel away from the source in order to complete one wave. That distance is not determined by the observer’s speed, it is the same for all observers traveling at any speed or direction. The frequency of light is a relative measurement; it is the number of wavelengths the observer passes in one second. This number is determined by the speed of the observation and will be different between observers traveling at different speeds relative to the source. The wavelength of light is unaffected by the observers speed, any measured change in wavelength is an error that is caused by not including the distance the observer has traveled relative to the source. When calculating the wavelength, the distance that the light travels from the source in one second must be added to the distance the observer has traveled relative to the source in one second, and then divided by the measured frequency.

[geistkiesel]

Post 1

 

I like it: A rational altenative to SR insanity!

[Grounded]

Qeistkiesel: Thank You...

 

 

 

bh doc:

Swansont:

admiral ju00:

 

Is it that you don’t believe the number of cycle on the screen of an oscilloscope will increase as you increase speed towards the source?

 

Or is it that you don’t believe the distance the observer has traveled has to be included when making relative measurements?

[swansont]

What I believe is that any post that long that contains no math is philosophy, not science. I believe that quoting the entire post to make a one sentence comment is a rude waste of bandwidth (not that bandwidth matters like it once did)

 

I think that saying that we are orbiting binary stars is demonstrably wrong. Any conclusion drawn from an invalid premise is itself invalid. Not that any of that matters - tell me how you can say for sure we are moving and something else is at rest, or vice-versa.

 

Relativity works. It makes testable predictions that have held true. It is falsifiable. "Grounded doesn't like it" is insufficient reason for me to discard it. Go show where it's actually wrong.

[Grounded]

SWANSONT:

 

 

Do you believe the number of cycle on the screen of an oscilloscope will increase as you increase speed towards the source?

 

Do you believe the distance the observer has traveled has to be included when making relative measurements?

[bh_doc]

Feel free to come up with a mathematical interpretation of your assertions that we might be able to better understand than several pages of prose. If you're right, it should be able to predict stuff better than current relativity theory.

 

Until that happens, I reserve the right to call you a nutter.

[Grounded]

BH DOC

 

 

Change in frequency:

 

The amount of change in the measured frequency caused by the observer’s speed relative to the source will be equal to the distance the observer has traveled relative to the source in one second (“positive when traveling towards the source” “negative when traveling away from the source”), divided by the known wavelength.

 

 

Observer’s speed:

 

The speed of the observer (relative to the source) will equal the measured frequency multiplied by the known wavelength, minus the speed of light.

 

Measured frequency:

 

The measured frequency will equal the speed of light added to the speed of the observer relative to the source (“positive when traveling towards the source” “negative when traveling away from the source”), divided by the known wavelength.

 

 

True wavelength:

 

The wavelength (relative to everyone) will equal the speed of the observer relative to the source (“positive when traveling towards the source” “negative when traveling away from the source”) added to the speed of light, divided by the measured frequency.

[swansont]

SWANSONT:

 

 

Do you believe the number of cycle on the screen of an oscilloscope will increase as you increase speed towards the source?

 

Do you believe the distance the observer has traveled has to be included when making relative measurements?

 

Your first question makes no sense to me. Your second - no. The observer in an inertial frame can always consider himself to be at rest. There is no difference, however, if you assume the object to be at rest. You get the same answer. If you don't, then you have made an error.

[swansont]

BH DOC

Observer’s speed:

 

The speed of the observer (relative to the source) will equal the measured frequency multiplied by the known wavelength' date=' minus the speed of light.

[/quote']

 

frequency*wavelength = c, so the "equation" above reduces to v=0.

 

Your "equations" don't appear to reduce to the correct ones (correct in that they've been shown to work).

 

 

So you're going to need some data to support the idea that they work.

[Grounded]

Your first question makes no sense to me. Your second - no. The observer in an inertial frame can always consider himself to be at rest. There is no difference, however, if you assume the object to be at rest. You get the same answer. If you don't, then you have made an error.

 

Increasing speed towards the source will increase the measured frequency. Agree?

 

The observer can consider the source of the light to be traveling towards him, or see it as the observer traveling towards the source. It makes no difference, but since the space between them is decreasing, one of them is defiantly moving. Since we know the speed of light is always the same relative to the source, it is easiest to assume the observer is traveling towards the light source.

 

The amount of change in the length of the wavelength predicted by relativity is equal to the distance the observer has traveled relative to the source in one second, divided by the measured frequency. The reason we measure a changing wavelength is because we don’t include the observer’s speed relative to the source.

 

Measuring the relative speed between two objects requires the distance traveled by both objects, yet we only include the distance light has traveled and ignore the distance the observer has traveled. Why would you only include one?

[geistkiesel]

frequency*wavelength = c' date=' so the "equation" above reduces to v=0.

 

Your "equations" don't appear to reduce to the correct ones (correct in that they've been shown to work).

 

 

So you're going to need some data to support the idea that they work.

 

The equaion Grounded gave to you was not the one you used. Use the measured frequency, the frequency you see when your eye measures wave llengths of light. Your relativistic priestly bias is shining through. Why do you dogmatists react so violently to examing a suggested theory? What are you afraid of? Your scientific mentality says 'crush what is new', otherwise if you are proved wrong, you are proved a scientific robot, aren't you? You haven't a clue what grounded is saying. You keep it out of your mind don't you? You don't have a need to understand Grounded do you? save your SR litany I've heard it all. I know you have nothing original to add, you don't understand original. You've never tried original in your life.

 

Have you ever tried to help someone who is trying to tell you something? This was meant as a joke, OK?

[swansont]

Your relativistic priestly bias is shining through. Why do you dogmatists react so violently to examing a suggested theory? What are you afraid of? Your scientific mentality says 'crush what is new'' date=' otherwise if you are proved wrong, you are proved a scientific robot, aren't you? You haven't a clue what grounded is saying. You keep it out of your mind don't you? You don't have a need to understand Grounded do you? save your SR litany I've heard it all. I know you have nothing original to add, you don't understand original. You've never tried original in your life.

 

Have you ever tried to help someone who is trying to tell you something? This was meant as a joke, OK?[/quote']

 

Insulting someone and then trying to shield yourself by saying it was just a joke is a bunch of crap.

 

You have demonstrated no clue about science or me as a scientist. You want to howl at the moon and relativity, go ahead. But how about discussing the actual science and leaving the ad hominems out of it? That's bush league.

[YT2095]

it sounds a bit like confusion about Doppler effect (red shift) and light speed here?

 

moving away or towards a light source, will indeed change it Color (frequency) to the moving observer, but the photons are still traveling at C, no mater what direction your moving with respect to the source.

[geistkiesel]

Insulting someone and then trying to shield yourself by saying it was just a joke is a bunch of crap.

 

You have demonstrated no clue about science or me as a scientist. You want to howl at the moon and relativity' date=' go ahead. But how about discussing the actual science and leaving the ad hominems out of it? That's bush league.[/quote']

 

That was the joke yoyo, saying it was a joke! Duh!! You didn't get it did you? Talk about over the head swissshhhh duncity.

 

How can I demonstrate you as a scientist, being clueless in that regard?

You have objections about howling at the moon? On what grounds do you offer this as something objectionable? I don't howl at relativity, I always used hushed toned respect and steely eyed sincerity.

 

I don't shield myself from robots who claim superior access to science. Why don't you just prove what you have to offer in these threads, and leave your rote learning at home, with your ad hominems where they belong?

 

I knew it, someone would discover that I'm from the minor leagues, (we don't refer to ourselves as "bush leaguers" any more, not in the current political climate that is), pretending equality with major league players! Drat!

[geistkiesel]

it sounds a bit like confusion about Doppler effect (red shift) and light speed here?

 

moving away or towards a light source' date=' will indeed change it Color (frequency) to the moving observer, but the photons are still traveling at C, no mater what direction your moving with respect to the source.[/quote']

 

No confusion here, blue and red shifts occur as observed. The difference is seen in what has been historically ignored. The unexpressed or even considered assumption has been that when moving against the stream of photons that the change in frequency is a result of the compressed wave length of the on coming photon.

 

No one is saying the speed of light changes, but if you consider the distance you, the observer has moved wrt source of the photons and add this to the wave length the relative measured constancy of the speed of light becomes mythical, the actual speed of light remains invariant.

 

Consider that the wavelength is invariant and what is measured as frequency is the count of full wave length units passing through your eye per second. Hence the train analogy: Counting box cars when stationary and counting box cars when moving where counting box cars CB as a frequency is CB/sec you get diffeent numbers, correct?. You move against the train of box cars and the CB/sec increases, but the box cars don't shrink.

 

If you haven't read Grounded's post on this subject you should take a look. It isn't as heretical as one might consider.

 

This is serious scientific immorality I am suggesting, I know, understanding heresy.

[YT2095]

regarding post #18;

this is NOT a competition! NOR will I allow it to become one!!!

 

now then, calm down, leave the thinly veiled insults at the login cookie and let`s discuss this in a mature manor as adults.

 

Back ON TOPIC!

[[Tycho?]]

Neat, I've only been here about a month and already like 5 people have disproved relativity! Must be a pretty smart crowd here.

[geistkiesel]

regarding post #18;

this is NOT a competition! NOR will I allow it to become one!!!

 

now then' date=' calm down, leave the thinly veiled insults at the login cookie and let`s discuss this in a mature manor as adults.

 

Back ON TOPIC![/quote']

OK OK, but do you think my insults were "thinly veiled", sorry about that. I agee. Kindness and humility, not my trump suit, but one plays with the cards he is dealt, or he doesn't play.

[Dave]

Unless someone is prepared to offer some tangiable evidence to support your theories and the mathematics behind this, I'm prepared to either close the thread or move it elsewhere. As it stands this thread has just devolved into insult throwing, and this is not the sort of thing we want on here.

[Skoteinos]

The basis of disproving relativity is that the relative motion of the observer is not included?

 

As i heard swansont say, and i repeat:

 

the motion of the photons of light moving relative to the observer are based on the fact that the observer is the stationary object. If light is moving relative to the observer, why is the observer moving at all, relative to what?

 

The observer is stationary because the relative motion between 2 objects is based of just that, the relation between two objects, there is no absolute space geometry against which both observer and observed are moving relative to.

 

I'm probably missing something here which your all going to educate me with very soon, but just my 2 cents